# OT: Should basketball at the olympics give out more medals...?



## Da_O (Jul 30, 2008)

Phelps is getting so much praise for being the best athlete ever, but didn't Michael Jordan play in the Olympics.....is it his fault basketball doesn't give out medals like candy.....

Should basketball start having medals for a slamdunk contest, slamdunk medley, 3 point, 3 point medley, Horse, Team Horse, Half court shots, Free Throws....?

Edit: I know I should have put this in the off topic forum


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

No. Just no.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Olympic HORSE would be hilarious. I say why not; they already have handball and badminton.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Swimming should give out less medals. Unbelievable that they give out medals for different styles of doing the same thing. It's the special olympics, when it comes to swimming. Everyone is a winner, or at least they would be if the guy who takes the best drugs didn't hog all the medals. 

barfo


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

You really took the time to post this?


----------



## dreamcloud (Aug 8, 2008)

Yeah I've been thinking the same thing (about the swimming medals)


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

no....michael phelps is one of the greatest american athletes ever and he gets barely praise, i mean yeah he is right now. but the way he dominates he should be on a tiger woods and mj level of popularity..


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> No. Just no.


Co-signed.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

No. There's one way to play basketball and multiple ways to swim.

Also, handball and badminton are awesome.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

I'd like to see Olympic paintballing and bowling. Olympic video games and food eating would be... fun.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

You'll be saying the same thing about track and field coming up, which has even more events I think.
I don't have a problem with it, Phelps is a great athlete and should get the props he deserves.
Swimmers only really get recognized every four years anyway, and MJ got two decades worth of praise.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Some sports have different forms. Sure, it gives Phelps a big advantage in terms of the number of medals he can win, but it's also unbelievably hard to be as good as he is at all the strokes and distances he does. Phelps is one of the greatest athletes I've ever seen, so I have no problem with it.

Basketball players shouldn't get more medals, no.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Miksaid said:


> I'd like to see Olympic paintballing and bowling. Olympic video games and food eating would be... fun.


I wouldn't be surprised if those categories are added.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

How about an Olympic Slam Dunk Championship? You could have it for different weight classes, with judges flashing their number cards. I want to see the contest for those 5 foot 6 and under. Also, how about an Olympic 3-Point Shot Competition? How about an Olympic Oldtimers' basketball game? You could set an age, like over 45. Also, how about an Olympic Coed Basketball Tournament? You could have a minimum of 2 women on the floor out of 5 players.


----------



## Da_O (Jul 30, 2008)

LameR said:


> You really took the time to post this?


The events outside of the freestyle in swimming are arbitrary (backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, medley). Maybe Carl Lewis would have won some more medals if they had events in track and field where guys ran backwards and sideways.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

No.

Swimming medals is a little overrated. It's not how many he has, but how much he is dominating. Most of the challenges are repetitive.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I have no problem with Phelps getting lots of golds... but the medal count gets distorted when the basketball team gets a single medal.

It could be worse... distance cycling is a team event but ONLY the top three individuals get medals. That seems unfair to me... everyone should get a medal if the team's top finisher does.

Ed O.


----------



## Da_O (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm only saying this for the sake of argument. Phelps is a phenomenal athlete.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Da_O said:


> The events outside of the freestyle in swimming are arbitrary (backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, medley).


All sports are "arbitrary." There's no objective reason why basketball or soccer exist as sports. They exist because people enjoy playing and watching them. The same goes for the different strokes in swimming. They are all different skills, however.



> Maybe Carl Lewis would have won some more medals if they had events in track and field where guys ran backwards and sideways.


If people enjoyed running that way and watching people run that way, perhaps he would have. Assuming Lewis had skill/physical talent for those types of running.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Think of it this way, Phelps is the best swimmer in the world, but will he come even close to making the same kind of money as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant? Give the guy some credit. The medals are at least some reward for all the hard work he puts in.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> If people enjoyed running that way and watching people run that way, perhaps he would have. Assuming Lewis had skill/physical talent for those types of running.


I would enjoy that. In fact, I'd enjoy it much more than the current running events. 

So let's have a medal for running backwards in drag while smoking a cigar and singing Billy Idol songs.

In fact, let's have lots of medals, depending on what kind of cigar it might be.

barfo


----------



## Da_O (Jul 30, 2008)

NateBishop3 said:


> Think of it this way, Phelps is the best swimmer in the world, but will he come even close to making the same kind of money as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant? Give the guy some credit. The medals are at least some reward for all the hard work he puts in.



Well of course not, but he isn't going hungry either.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

They should have a track event where all the contestents have to drink a 12 pack of Guiness as fast as possible and then run the 5,000 meter.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

I believe you're referring to the getting busted by the 5-O for drinking event. Yes, I concur.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> I would enjoy that. In fact, I'd enjoy it much more than the current running events.
> 
> So let's have a medal for running backwards in drag while smoking a cigar and singing Billy Idol songs.
> 
> In fact, let's have lots of medals, depending on what kind of cigar it might be.


Sure, start a petition!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

barfo said:


> I would enjoy that. In fact, I'd enjoy it much more than the current running events.
> 
> So let's have a medal for running backwards in drag while smoking a cigar and singing Billy Idol songs.
> 
> ...


Dennis Rodman, anyone?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I think it's a very fair point. Look at all the swimming finals and you'll see anywhere from 4 to 6 of the same names popping up in every race. Swimming is different from most sports in that it's largely non-load bearing, allowing for a much greater volume of training. Everything becomes endurance training, effectively, and a good athlete can do multiple events with no real fall-off.



alext42083 said:


> You'll be saying the same thing about track and field coming up, which has even more events I think.


More events, but much more event specialization. My very unscientific estimate is, 3-4 swimming medals are equivalent to one T&F medal. You simply cannot do as many events or as wide a range of events. The closest thing to swimming would be the decathlon, and you only get one medal for that, not 10...



Minstrel said:


> Some sports have different forms. Sure, it gives Phelps a big advantage in terms of the number of medals he can win, but it's also unbelievably hard to be as good as he is at all the strokes and distances he does. Phelps is one of the greatest athletes I've ever seen...


No question, he's the best [ever] at what he does, but his record setting medal haul is still inferior to Carl Lewis', for example, given how many medals a swimmer wins on average relative to a similarly elite T&F athlete.

Dan


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

dkap said:


> More events, but much more event specialization. My very unscientific estimate is, 3-4 swimming medals are equivalent to one T&F medal. You simply cannot do as many events or as wide a range of events. The closest thing to swimming would be the decathlon, and you only get one medal for that, not 10...


I think the closest thing to swimming in track and field, are the 100, 200 and 400 sprints, as well as the 4x100 and 4x400 relay teams.

Rarely you see one athlete compete in all those events, but the closest comparison to what Phelps has done is what Michael Johnson did in 1996 when he won gold in the 200 and 400, and got a world record.
So to go along with your estimate, I'd say 3-4 swimming medals equals 2 track and field medals.

It's still unbelievable what Phelps has done since it doesn't happen every Olympics.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I think they should have different court sizes for the basketball game and maybe different rim heights as well.

I bet the US will win the 12ft rim in a schoolbus length court competition.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> No question, he's the best [ever] at what he does, but his record setting medal haul is still inferior to Carl Lewis', for example, given how many medals a swimmer wins on average relative to a similarly elite T&F athlete.


I don't agree, but I also don't think medal counts can be compared across sports. Phelps isn't one of the greatest athletes ever due to his medal count. He's one of the greatest athletes ever, and comparable to Carl Lewis, due to his dominance of a sport that takes great athleticism and a lot of skill. His medal count is a result of that dominance and how the sport is structured.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Da_O said:


> The events outside of the freestyle in swimming are arbitrary (backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, medley). Maybe Carl Lewis would have won some more medals if they had events in track and field where guys ran backwards and sideways.


In swimming you have the 

100
200
400
800
1600

in all four forms I believe

Then you have the medleys and the relays 

In track you have the 

100
200
400
800
1600
marathon
Hurdles
steeple chase
relays


To me it looks like a pretty close list. It's not Phelps' fault that Lewis didn't run in more events.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

I like to see some horse that could get interesting.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

BlazerFan22 said:


> I like to see some horse that could get interesting.


Here you go. They are not that rare of an animal, city boy.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

alext42083 said:


> I think the closest thing to swimming in track and field, are the 100, 200 and 400 sprints, as well as the 4x100 and 4x400 relay teams.
> 
> Rarely you see one athlete compete in all those events, but the closest comparison to what Phelps has done is what Michael Johnson did in 1996 when he won gold in the 200 and 400, and got a world record.
> So to go along with your estimate, I'd say 3-4 swimming medals equals 2 track and field medals.


It's a rare track athlete that is competitive across the three sprints. It is unheard of for an athlete to be elite in all three.

Sticking with your example of Michael Johnson, he was the best ever in both the 200 and 400 but barely national class in the 100. They require very different energy systems, and to train for one is counter-productive to the other. That gets even more extreme as the event distances widen. With swimming, the same simply is not true. Someone who is good at one event will typically be nearly as good at another.



Minstrel said:


> I don't agree, but I also don't think medal counts can be compared across sports. Phelps isn't one of the greatest athletes ever due to his medal count. He's one of the greatest athletes ever, and comparable to Carl Lewis, due to his dominance of a sport that takes great athleticism and a lot of skill. His medal count is a result of that dominance and how the sport is structured.


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, then... The whole point is relative medal counts, and you're apparently agreeing that swimming's structure is beneficial in that respect. Seems like we're in agreement.

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, then... The whole point is relative medal counts, and you're apparently agreeing that swimming's structure is beneficial in that respect. Seems like we're in agreement.


I don't agree that his medal achievement is "inferior" to Lewis'.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

dkap said:


> It's a rare track athlete that is competitive across the three sprints. It is unheard of for an athlete to be elite in all three.
> 
> Sticking with your example of Michael Johnson, he was the best ever in both the 200 and 400 but barely national class in the 100. They require very different energy systems, and to train for one is counter-productive to the other. That gets even more extreme as the event distances widen. With swimming, the same simply is not true. Someone who is good at one event will typically be nearly as good at another.


I mentioned it was rare to see an athlete compete in all three of those track events -- the 100, 200 and 400. But still I think Johnson's performance is the most recent comparison in another sport in the Olympics to what Phelps has done rather than the decathlon that you mentioned.

But I think swimming is more specialized than you think. If someone was as good in one stroke than in another, then we'd be seeing more of what Phelps has done than just one other time since Spitz did it in 1968.

But yes, I agree with your point that earning multiple medals in swimming is probably easier than in any other sport.
However it doesn't dilute what Phelps has done this Olympics. To be the best in several strokes over the entire world -- some who specialize in their event -- is an amazing feat.
It's one of the dominating performances at the Olympics ever.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dkap said:


> It's a rare track athlete that is competitive across the three sprints. It is unheard of for an athlete to be elite in all three.
> 
> Sticking with your example of Michael Johnson, he was the best ever in both the 200 and 400 but barely national class in the 100. They require very different energy systems, and to train for one is counter-productive to the other. That gets even more extreme as the event distances widen. With swimming, the same simply is not true. Someone who is good at one event will typically be nearly as good at another.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying this to be a jerk Dan, but have you ever swam competitively?

I did in my much younger days, and I was pretty good at the 200 back stroke. I was able to race in some other events and instead of finishing top 3ish, I would find myself at the bottom of the standings. And God help me if I tried to swim the breast or butterfly. 

The exact same thing you argue for Johnson is the same for Phelps. Training for the 800 butterfly does not help when you are swimming the 100 freestyle


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

In the future there will be no medals.

Just a Certificate of Participation for each entrant.

That way nobody gets their feelings hurt.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> With swimming, the same simply is not true. Someone who is good at one event will typically be nearly as good at another.


Assuming you're only referring to different distances within a stroke, even that doesn't appear to be true. The freestyle sprint champions like Bernard and Sullivan are basically no factor for medals in the freestyle 200, 400 or 1500. The French were big favourites in the men's freestyle 4x100 relay, because they had three elite sprinters, but no one could even challenge the US in the men's 4x200 relay. Being great at the 800 meter event absolutely takes a different energy system than being great at the 100 meter event. Throw a sprinter into the 800 meter event and he/she would be crushed by enormous amounts. The same goes for forcing an 800 meter champion to participate in the 100 meter event. Just like in running, pure speed takes a different training than long-range endurance (with some speed). Training for one is counter-productive to the other. In fact, it may be even more so, as swimming is more of a full body event so the disparity between burning all of your energy in a quick burst as opposed to sustaining your energy burn over a long period may be greater.

Even Michael Phelps, who's considered the greatest swimmer ever, is untouchable in the events he's concentrated on but is beatable in events he hasn't, like the 100 meter freestyle. 

There's definitely no truth to your statement if you meant events across different strokes. Being great at freestyle doesn't even remotely suggest being world class at backstroke, breast stroke or butterfly. Kosuke Kitajima is the world's greatest breast stroke swimmer, but isn't a factor in any other race, for example. Only the few most talented swimmers in the world can compete effectively across strokes and Phelps is about the only one who can expect to win medals.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> The exact same thing you argue for Johnson is the same for Phelps. Training for the 800 butterfly does not help when you are swimming the 100 freestyle


How can you explain, then, that there have been two dominant swimmers across such allegedly diverse sports in the past 40 years when there have not, to my knowledge, been any in the sprints?

Has swimming been blessed with such singular athletes that they are able to transcend across so many competitions? Or are they more similar than you're allowing for?

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How can you explain, then, that there have been two dominant swimmers across such allegedly diverse sports in the past 40 years when there have not, to my knowledge, been any in the sprints?


How was Spitz dominant across swimming's diversity? He stuck entirely to 100m and 200m. That's extremely comparable to Michael Johnson (who stuck to 200/400, as I recall).

As for Phelps, he's considered even greater than Spitz, but he's also not doing any long-distance event, and almost no sprints. He's mostly doing 200/400 events. The only individual 100 meter event he's doing is the 100 meter butterfly, since butterfly is his best stroke. Phelps is quite singular, but track and field has also produced a singular athlete in Carl Lewis. He also was uniquely diverse, being great at 100 meter, 200 meter distances in running as well as long jump.

I don't see that Phelps and Spitz have no analogues in track and field, to support the idea that swimming is much more redundant.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> How can you explain, then, that there have been two dominant swimmers across such allegedly diverse sports in the past 40 years when there have not, to my knowledge, been any in the sprints?
> 
> Has swimming been blessed with such singular athletes that they are able to transcend across so many competitions? Or are they more similar than you're allowing for?
> 
> Ed O.



If you look at Phelps' record, most of his events are doing either the fly or freestyle. In his medleys he always falls behind durring the back and breast strokes.

He also doesn't swim a lot of sprints, except for the fly because he is soooo dominant in that. 


They say he is the best swimmer in the world, but he isn't even in the top 10 or so of either the back or breast stroke.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't agree that his medal achievement is "inferior" to Lewis'.


Well, it's either inferior, comparable, superior, or no comparison should be made. If it's comparable or superior, then we have something to discuss, i.e. relative merit. If no comparison should be made, as you seem to be suggesting, then you have no opinion relative to this thread...



alext42083 said:


> I mentioned it was rare to see an athlete compete in all three of those track events -- the 100, 200 and 400. But still I think Johnson's performance is the most recent comparison in another sport in the Olympics to what Phelps has done rather than the decathlon that you mentioned.


The decathlon is more similar in terms of competence across a wide range of events. The fact that few decathletes are good across all of the events indicates how much "easier" swimmers have it.



> But I think swimming is more specialized than you think. If someone was as good in one stroke than in another, then we'd be seeing more of what Phelps has done than just one other time since Spitz did it in 1968.


No, that would only be true if there was only one level of good. The Spitz's and Phelps' of the world are extremely good, just as Carl Lewis is in T&F. The key difference is that there are multiple swimmers every year that win more medals than the very best (ever) T&F athletes. That should be enough to tell you that the medal counts are not at all comparable.



> However it doesn't dilute what Phelps has done this Olympics.


I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying that the presentation of him being the greatest Olympic athlete ever based on medal counts is nowhere near as clear cut as some would have us believe.

(Also, the fact that he has set a world record in each win is rather meaningless. The nature of swimming these days is that if you don't set a WR, you don't win!)



mediocre man said:


> I'm not saying this to be a jerk Dan, but have you ever swam competitively?


Nope. I suck at swimming. But I've spent enough time around triathletes and competitive swimmers and coaches to know a thing or two about the training.



> I did in my much younger days, and I was pretty good at the 200 back stroke. I was able to race in some other events and instead of finishing top 3ish, I would find myself at the bottom of the standings. And God help me if I tried to swim the breast or butterfly.


All that proves is that you were not good enough (no offense intended) to be a world class athlete relevant to the discussion... Like I said, Phelps is not the only swimmer excelling at multiple events. It's the norm, not the exception.



> The exact same thing you argue for Johnson is the same for Phelps. Training for the 800 butterfly does not help when you are swimming the 100 freestyle


The 100 is at the extreme end, I would say, just like the marathon. It's in the middle -- the 200/400 combo, plus the different styles of each -- where the training builds on itself. The same is not true for track.



> Minstrel said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming you're only referring to different distances within a stroke, even that doesn't appear to be true. The freestyle sprint champions like Bernard and Sullivan are basically no factor for medals in the freestyle 200, 400 or 1500.
> ...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I could care less. The olympics are just a huge marketing ploy to take in money over meaningless medals. If you haven't figure it out, it's all about the Benjamins. Not about sports.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I could care less. The olympics are just a huge marketing ploy to take in money over meaningless medals. If you haven't figure it out, it's all about the Benjamins. Not about sports.


Tell that to the athletes who spend a lifetime trying to get their training cycle right with a once-every-four-years opportunity...

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> Well, it's either inferior, comparable, superior, or no comparison should be made. If it's comparable or superior, then we have something to discuss, i.e. relative merit. If no comparison should be made, as you seem to be suggesting, then you have no opinion relative to this thread...


If no comparison can be made, that necessarily means that my opinion is that Phelps' medal totals are not inferior to Lewis'. "Inferior" and "superior" are meaningless if no comparison can be made. So, yes, I do have an "opinion relative to this thread."




> The 100 is at the extreme end, I would say, just like the marathon. It's in the middle -- the 200/400 combo, plus the different styles of each -- where the training builds on itself. The same is not true for track.
> ...
> I figured someone would bring that up... See the above point about the 100 being the exception. The people that excel at that are the true specialists in swimming, from what I can tell.


200/400 training are both in the middle of the "speed vs. endurance" trade-off spectrum. In both track and swimming, it is possible to excel in both.

The different strokes don't build on each other. They work different muscles and, at world class levels, are extremely demanding skills. Being world class technically and physically at all four strokes is beyond anyone. Phelps is the greatest swimmer ever, but doesn't participate in any individual backstroke or breast stroke events.



> Go back to my first post... The non-load bearing aspect of swimming allows a MUCH greater volume of training, which is why the greats are great at so many styles.


The greats aren't great at so many styles. Spitz was purely a front crawl and butterfly swimmer. Phelps is world class at front crawl and butterfly and just good enough at the other two strokes to hang in, in medleys, and be able to win on front crawl and butterfly. He loses ground to the field in the backstroke and breast stroke. Ian Thorpe was purely a front crawl swimmer.

And those are the three greatest swimmers ever.



> And Spitz got more than twice as many medals to show for it... Haven't you just proven my point?


I was never arguing that swimmers don't win more medals due to the structure of the sport. Michael Johnson won more gold medals in the 1996 Olympics than Michael Jordan did in the 1990 Olympics. Structure of the sport matters.

I was arguing your contention that the different distances are easier to train for than in track & field and that if you're great at swimming one event, you're great at swimming them all (implying extreme redundnacy between all the events). I don't think that's true and I don't think the evidence bears it out. Outside of Spitz and Phelps, there's extreme specialization and even Spitz and Phelps were largely limited to two strokes.


----------



## osman (Jul 29, 2003)

They should add a 3 on 3 street ball competition. Like volleyball has and indoor competition in the gym with a full team, on a court, and then beach volleyball with teams of two. It would be similar to that.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Swimming ISN'T even a sport! If there is no defense, it isn't a sport!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Swimming ISN'T even a sport! If there is no defense, it isn't a sport!


So basketball wasn't a sport in the 1980s, eh?


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

dkap said:


> It's a rare track athlete that is competitive across the three sprints. It is unheard of for an athlete to be elite in all three.
> 
> They require very different energy systems, and to train for one is counter-productive to the other. That gets even more extreme as the event distances widen. With swimming, the same simply is not true. Someone who is good at one event will typically be nearly as good at another.
> 
> ...


I swam competitively for 16 years, and in the Pac-10, so I feel qualified to say that that what you wrote above just isn't true. 

The training is completely different for a 50 or 100 free compared to a 1500 free... Different in many ways including in the pool training, weightlifting and dryland training. Some events are much more anaerobic than others, just like different track events. 

Most swimmers have a huge fall-off between their best event and their average events, especially when you consider multiple strokes. Phelps is winning middle distance freestyle events, sprint freestyle events, butteryfly events, and sprint and middle distance IMs. 

What Phelps is doing is absolutely amazing, and his domination of the sport is incredible.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

wasnt worth a topic


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> The training is completely different for a 50 or 100 free compared to a 1500 free...


Why the extreme event range? Maybe because the stuff in the middle is contrary to your point?



> Most swimmers have a huge fall-off between their best event and their average events, especially when you consider multiple strokes.


We're talking about the best of the best, not _most_ people...

Again, look through the start lists of the various swimming finals and you'll see the same names popping up repeatedly. Say all you want about the demands of the sport, the evidence very clearly indicates that there is a lot of redundancy, and that directly relates to the relative medal hauls.

Dan


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Da_O said:


> Phelps is getting so much praise for being the best athlete ever, but didn't Michael Jordan play in the Olympics.....is it his fault basketball doesn't give out medals like candy.....
> 
> Should basketball start having medals for a slamdunk contest, slamdunk medley, 3 point, 3 point medley, Horse, Team Horse, Half court shots, Free Throws....


Brilliant. This made me laugh.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

dkap said:


> Why the extreme event range? Maybe because the stuff in the middle is contrary to your point?


Nope. It was an example. 

My training, in and out of the pool, for the 200 and 500 free was much, much different than the training for the sprinters. 



dkap said:


> We're talking about the best of the best, not _most_ people...


I'm talking about world-class swimmers, not most people in general. Phelps is incredible because he is dominating across events, against world-class swimmers. 



dkap said:


> Again, look through the start lists of the various swimming finals and you'll see the same names popping up repeatedly. Say all you want about the demands of the sport, the evidence very clearly indicates that there is a lot of redundancy, and that directly relates to the relative medal hauls.
> 
> Dan


You are just flat-out wrong. 

The reason you think the above is true is only because of Phelps. He is one of the very few EVER to be able to do this, which is precisely why he is so incredible. 

Let's see a few examples that are very typical of world-class swimmers:
Aaron Piersol - Best backstroker in the world. He ONLY swam backstroke at the Olympics.
Brendan Hanson - 2nd best breastroker in the world. He ONLY swam breastroke at the Olympics.
Jason Lesak- Fastest 100m freestyle split ever. ONLY swam the 100 freestyle at the Olympics.

People like Coughlin and Lachte are swimming across events and doing well, but they are considered the best (other than Phelps) in the world (if it weren't for Phelps they would be far and away the best).

They are the exception, NOT the norm.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> My training, in and out of the pool, for the 200 and 500 free was much, much different than the training for the sprinters.


I already said the sprinters are the exception.



> I'm talking about world-class swimmers, not most people in general. Phelps is incredible because he is dominating across events, against world-class swimmers.


So are the swimmers a notch below Phelps... Take Phelps out of the equation and you still have a handful of swimmers dominating across a wide range of events.



> People like Coughlin and Lachte are swimming across events and doing well, but they are considered the best (other than Phelps) in the world (if it weren't for Phelps they would be far and away the best).


I think you'll find several others if you dig a bit deeper beyond the US list... And even if there were only three such examples (which is true every year in swimming, so '08 is nothing unusual), that takes it well out of the realm of "exceptions to the rule" in world class athletics.

Dan


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> So basketball wasn't a sport in the 1980s, eh?


That my brother, is a GREAT comeback!


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

dkap said:


> I already said the sprinters are the exception.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to swimming, but just an FYI...

Sprinters are not the exception. 

Sprint freestylers' training differs from middle distance freestylers' training, which differs from long distance freestylers' training, which differs from IMer's and single-stroke performers' training. 

But go ahead, by all means, keep arguing about something you know nothing about.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Basketball...basketball,basketball,basketball,basketball!!!


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> Sprint freestylers' training differs from middle distance freestylers' training, which differs from long distance freestylers' training, which differs from IMer's and single-stroke performers' training.


When did I ever say they train the same?

Rather than throwing around insults, try reading a bit closer...

What I said is that the nature of swimming allows a much greater volume of training -- without nearly the injury or fatigue factors -- affording much more time to master the various technical aspects. That's why elite swimmers can be good across many more events than comparable athletes in other sports, and why they can amass so many more medals.

(Along with the benefit of similar distances, strokes, IM's, and relays, of course. As an example, how many Track athletes can you name that have competed, let alone medaled, in both the 4x100 and 4x400? Swimmers can amass quite a few relay medals, while T&F athletes rarely get more than one.)

Dan


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

dkap said:


> When did I ever say they train the same?


Dude, seriously... maybe it was when you said this:



dkap said:


> Everything becomes endurance training, effectively, and a good athlete can do multiple events with no real fall-off.


The above statement just isn't true. Try to spin it however you want, but you made up something you thought sounded good, and you are wrong.



dkap said:


> Rather than throwing around insults, try reading a bit closer...


It isn't an insult. It is just a fact that you don't know very much about the sport of swimming. I read and understood what you said. You are just wrong. Although, it is entertaining to watch somebody argue about something they know nothing about.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

To me, in the end, comparing what Phelps has done to allowing basketball players to fight over a gold medal in a game of HORSE is kind of insulting to what he's accomplished.
It's not easy to do what he's done, and to downplay it is dumb.

I don't see the "Redeem Teamers" complaining about it, or downplaying it or believing they deserve more medals so the Olympics should create HORSE or free-throw shooting as an event. Rather, they're in AWE over what Phelps is doing right now. It's not something you're going to see everyday with one man dominating a sport over the entire world like he has done.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> "Everything becomes endurance training, effectively, and a good athlete can do multiple events with no real fall-off."
> 
> The above statement just isn't true. Try to spin it however you want, but you made up something you thought sounded good, and you are wrong.


I'd say you misunderstood... Swimming allows you to put in a lot more training time than running, weight lifting, or just about any other sport that has significant impact on the joints and muscles. When you can build a volume of speed, you are able to cheat the speed vs. endurance equation that typically requires you to choose one or the other.

Why do athletes and non-athletes alike typically use the pool for rehab activities? Because it is therapeutic. Much less strain on the body and much shorter recovery times. Just like steroids allow you to do more work (not build muscle as is commonly thought), swimming allows you to train more than most sports.

Going off-topic a bit further ... how often do you hear about a swimmer being injured? And compare what we've seen already in these Olympics with swimmers and runners when it comes to food poisoning. Why can a swimmer work through the discomfort with minimal drop-off while a runner can barely perform? Are the best runners in the world that much less tough than their swimming counterparts?



alext42083 said:


> To me, in the end, comparing what Phelps has done to allowing basketball players to fight over a gold medal in a game of HORSE is kind of insulting to what he's accomplished.
> It's not easy to do what he's done, and to downplay it is dumb.


Has anyone downplayed it? What he has done has been spectacular, but no more so than what several athletes have done previously in other sports. When he doubles up the medal count of Lewis and Nurmi, then we're getting somewhere. Attempting to put things in perspective is not necessarily an insult.

On the other hand, adding in HORSE and a 3-pt shoot-out would be rather akin to having individual aparatus medals in addition to the all-around and team competitions in gymnastics, wouldn't it?

Dan


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

dkap said:


> Has anyone downplayed it? What he has done has been spectacular, but no more so than what several athletes have done previously in other sports. When he doubles up the medal count of Lewis and Nurmi, then we're getting somewhere. Attempting to put things in perspective is not necessarily an insult.
> 
> On the other hand, adding in HORSE and a 3-pt shoot-out would be rather akin to having individual aparatus medals in addition to the all-around and team competitions in gymnastics, wouldn't it?
> 
> Dan


I don't think you necessarily have downplayed it, as you've argued your points in an intelligent manner. But just the original post of the thread, and trying to compare it to basketball and making a HORSE or free-throw competition to make it fair to basketball players to earn more medals is not a good argument. Especially when you hear basketball players not complaining about it.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

dkap said:


> I'd say you misunderstood...


You can say that, but the truth is you are just wrong. All swimming training does NOT "effectively become endurance training". Maybe you and I have different ideas of what endurance training is, but I don't condsider heavy squats, and low rep bench press to be "endurance" training. 

Like I said, it is entertaining watching you argue about something you know nothing about. Carry on.


----------



## Da_O (Jul 30, 2008)

alext42083 said:


> I don't think you necessarily have downplayed it, as you've argued your points in an intelligent manner. But just the original post of the thread, and trying to compare it to basketball and making a HORSE or free-throw competition to make it fair to basketball players to earn more medals is not a good argument. Especially when you hear basketball players not complaining about it.



I was being facetious when I mentioned Horse or free-throw competition. I was just trying to get a point across.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

3on3 or 1on1 Basketball would be sweet.


----------

