1st ever off topic thread!!

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

I'd pick Lewis unde normal circumstances because he won gold medals in 4 successive Olympics and in 2 different disciplines (sprinting, and horizontal jumping), while Daley won gold in 2 successive Olympics in one discipline (multi-eventing). However, with the whole US cover up of his 1988 failed drugs tests, I'd have to put Daley ahead.

Surprised you included Pharmstrong in your list I must say.

No issue with you picking my favourite athlete ever over Daley. Carl was sublime. SS4 did a great 30 min documentary on him last night.

As for Lance. Lot of suspicion and clouds, as expected in cycling, but still the guy was the best of the best. And, you can bet his competitors too weren't all clean.

I am of the feeling that many great athletes may have doped. Some were caught, some weren't.

Greatest Olympian ever? I will go with Lewis and Phelps. With Scherbo close, after his performance in the '92 games in gymnastics. Nadia also close. Perfect scores in the most complex and difficult sport on earth.

I forgot to include the great Emile Zatopek in my list. What he achieved beggars belief!

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

No issue with you picking my favourite athlete ever over Daley. Carl was sublime. SS4 did a great 30 min documentary on him last night.

As for Lance. Lot of suspicion and clouds, as expected in cycling, but still the guy was the best of the best. And, you can bet his competitors too weren't all clean.

I am of the feeling that many great athletes may have doped. Some were caught, some weren't.

Greatest Olympian ever? I will go with Lewis and Phelps. With Scherbo close, after his performance in the '92 games in gymnastics. Nadia also close. Perfect scores in the most complex and difficult sport on earth.

I forgot to include the great Emile Zatopek in my list. What he achieved beggars belief!

I wouldn't had Phelps as number one. It is too easy to attempt multiple gold medals in Swimming relative to doing likewise in athletics, and rowing. Steve Redgrave's 5 consecutive gold medals in 5 different Olympics is a more impressive feat IMO to Phelp's medal haul.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

I wouldn't had Phelps as number one. It is too easy to attempt multiple gold medals in Swimming relative to doing likewise in athletics, and rowing. Steve Redgrave's 5 consecutive gold medals in 5 different Olympics is a more impressive feat IMO to Phelp's medal haul.

No. Redgrave is not individual. He was in a team. Heck of a competitor, but I tend to lend more weight to an individual great.

Phelps is an individual great. BTW, nothing in the olympics is easy (relative to other sports or not), poor choice of words. Phelps won 8 in one games. That is off the charts.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

No. Redgrave is not individual. He was in a team. Heck of a competitor, but I tend to lend more weight to an individual great.

Phelps is an individual great. BTW, nothing in the olympics is easy (relative to other sports or not), poor choice of words. Phelps won 8 in one games. That is off the charts.

If he wasn't from the 3rd most populous country in the world he would not have won 8. If he was from Switzerland he would have won 5. I really dont lend much weight to relay wins as it is determined by what country you are from. Recall Kirsty Coventry, one of the best swimmers of the last 10 years, and has won sack full of medals, but being Zimbabwean she is never going to win relay medals, significantly reducing her medal total, and thus dropping her down these hypothetical rankings.

No way could a track and field athlete win 8 in one games. You can't say the difficulty of winning 8 in swimming is the same as somebody winning 8 in athletics. Imagine somebody winning gold in 100, 200, 400, 800, 4x100, 4x400, LJ, and TJ. Wouldn't happen. Also Swimming has a lot of events that are pretty much the same. 4 different 100m events, 4 different 200m events, 2 different 400m events and so on and so forth. Heats and finals on the one day, gold medal won. Wake up the next day and start again. It's not easy, but it is doable. The scheduling in athletics wouldn't allow any of this.

I'd put somebody like Edwin Moses ahead of Phelps and Thorpe IMO.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

If he wasn't from the 3rd most populous country in the world he would not have won 8. If he was from Switzerland he would have won 5. I really dont lend much weight to relay wins as it is determined by what country you are from. Recall Kirsty Coventry, one of the best swimmers of the last 10 years, and has won sack full of medals, but being Zimbabwean she is never going to win relay medals, significantly reducing her medal total, and thus dropping her down these hypothetical rankings.

No way could a track and field athlete win 8 in one games. You can't say the difficulty of winning 8 in swimming is the same as somebody winning 8 in athletics. Imagine somebody winning gold in 100, 200, 400, 800, 4x100, 4x400, LJ, and TJ. Wouldn't happen. Also Swimming has a lot of events that are pretty much the same. 4 different 100m events, 4 different 200m events, 2 different 400m events and so on and so forth. Heats and finals on the one day, gold medal won. Wake up the next day and start again. It's not easy, but it is doable. The scheduling in athletics wouldn't allow any of this.

I'd put somebody like Edwin Moses ahead of Phelps and Thorpe IMO.

I agree with all you say, but even at 5 medals, that's massive. You seem very pro athletics, and that is fine, I love the sport, but I am also very open to other sports too. Of course swimming is "doable." But, so is a 200/400 double. I am not comparing the sports. I am saying that the best in each are the best, and both deserve a possible GOAT ranking. Phelps is the GOAT in swimming. Carl is comparable in his sport. Now, nobody can definitively rate one ahead of the other as the greatest. They are both the GOAT in that sense.

I remember Gerry Kieran during the 2008 games dissing swimming and saying it lacked competition compared to Athletics. Crap!. Head up his ass about track and field. Make no mistake, there are many many thousands of men and women all over the world in swimmming pools breaking their balls to win and to achieve, and he comes out with that.

Michael Johnson too. He seemed a wee bit jealous that Phelps was getting such attention when he won his medals. Then Bolt came along and he was like, "Michael who?" That's two examples of the arrogance in the sport. Not at all saying Athletics is an arrogant sport. Arrogance and bias is across all sports.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I agree with all you say, but even at 5 medals, that's massive. You seem very pro athletics, and that is fine, I love the sport, but I am also very open to other sports too. Of course swimming is "doable." But, so is a 200/400 double. I am not comparing the sports. I am saying that the best in each are the best, and both deserve a possible GOAT ranking. Phelps is the GOAT in swimming. Carl is comparable in his sport. Now, nobody can definitively rate one ahead of the other as the greatest. They are both the GOAT in that sense.

I remember Gerry Kieran during the 2008 games dissing swimming and saying it lacked competition compared to Athletics. Crap!. Head up his ass about track and field. Make no mistake, there are many many thousands of men and women all over the world in swimmming pools breaking their balls to win and to achieve, and he comes out with that.

Michael Johnson too. He seemed a wee bit jealous that Phelps was getting such attention when he won his medals. Then Bolt came along and he was like, "Michael who?" That's two examples of the arrogance in the sport. Not at all saying Athletics is an arrogant sport. Arrogance and bias is across all sports.

To be fair, the depth in athletics is much greater than swimming. Swimming is a richer man's game. You'll struggle to find many swimming pools in most of Africa, and much of Latin America. Running on the otherhand, you just need a pair of runners (if even) and off you go, at least you are now involved, hence why more people do it across the world, making the competition more difficult. I would agree that Swimming has a disproportionate amount of gold medals available to the amount competing in the sport.

For the record, I love swimming. I am a massive sports fan in general, otherwise I wouldn't even bother with this discussion.

mushykeogh

04072511 wrote: »

Also Swimming has a lot of events that are pretty much the same. 4 different 100m events, 4 different 200m events, 2 different 400m events and so on and so forth. Heats and finals on the one day, gold medal won.

So the 100m free is pretty much the same as the 100 backstroke, which is pretty much the same as 1oom breaststroke, which is pretty much the same as 100m butterfly? riiiiiight. Any idea how technically different these events are? miles apart.

how come the top ranked time in 2012 in each event is held by a different athlete? 100 free: Magnussen, 100 breast: Kitajiima, 100 fly:Wright, 100 back:Lacourt.

A bit like saying light heavyweight and heavyweight are pretty much the same!

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

To be fair, the depth in athletics is much greater than swimming. Swimming is a richer man's game. You'll struggle to find many swimming pools in most of Africa, and much of Latin America. Running on the otherhand, you just need a pair of runners (if even) and off you go, hence why more people do it across the world, making the competition more difficult. I would agree that Swimming has a disproportionate amount of gold medals available to the amount competing in the sport.

For the record, I love swimming. I am a massive sports fan in general, otherwise I wouldn't even bother with this discussion.

Anthony Nesty would disagree.

Again, I can't really disagree there. Thing is, with Kiernan and Johnson, it wasn't enought to politely/diplomatically point this out. Kiernan had that arrogant and brash way of putting it. Johnson too. Like I said, all over the globe there are many thousands of swimmers breaking their balls for success.

Swimming is ridiculously competitive. That's good enough for me.

Pisco Sour

mushykeogh wrote: »

So the 100m free is pretty much the same as the 100 backstroke, which is pretty much the same as 1oom breaststroke, which is pretty much the same as 100m butterfly? riiiiiight. Any idea how technically different these events are? miles apart.

how come the top ranked time in 2012 in each event is held by a different athlete? 100 free: Magnussen, 100 breast: Kitajiima, 100 fly:Wright, 100 back:Lacourt.

A bit like saying light heavyweight and heavyweight are pretty much the same!

I swam for years, I'm fully aware of the differences in each stroke. But there is a huge similarity between the events, much more so than a 100m and an 800m in athletics for example. Phelps won the Olympic gold at 200m Butterfly and 200m Free in Beijing. Had he trained for and tried the 200m Backstroke and 200m Breaststroke, I'm sure he would have been competitive. Nothing, on the otherhand, would make Usain Bolt competitive over 800m and 400m Hurdles. That's my point.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

I swam for years, I'm fully aware of the differences in each stroke. But there is a huge similarity between the events, much more so than a 100m and an 800m in athletics for example. Phelps won the Olympic gold at 200m Butterfly and 200m Free in Beijing. Had he trained for and tried the 200m Backstroke and 200m Breaststroke, I'm sure he would have been competitive. Nothing, on the otherhand, would make Usain Bolt competitive over 800m and 400m Hurdles. That's my point.

Yet Phelps never won the blue riband event. Bolt could be competitive over 100-400.

I don't see the need to compare the two sports. One swims, the other runs. Both are straight forward in that sense. But, of the both, swimming is more diverse than the act of running. There are 4 strokes. Butterfly and breast are very difficult strokes.

Seeing as you do a lot of comparing, what if I said that swimming is a more complex sport in terms of body mechanics than running?

Now, running and jumping, as in the 110 Hurdles, that is a hell of diffcult discipline. But, general running to me is not as difficult or complex as swimming.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Yet Phelps never won the blue riband event. Bolt could be competitive over 100-400.

I don't see the need to compare the two sports. One swims, the other runs. Both are straight forward in that sense. But, of the both, swimming is more diverse than the act of running. There are 4 strokes. Butterfly and breast are very difficult strokes.

Seeing as you do a lot of comparing, what if I said that swimming is a more complex sport in terms of body mechanics than running?

Now, running and jumping, as in the 110 Hurdles, that is a hell of diffcult discipline. But, general running to me is not as difficult or complex as swimming.

Obviously there's more technique to swimming (though you will never truly understand the technique behind sprinting unless you actually do the sport yourself). What I am saying is there is not a massive difference between events in swimming. The distances are all very similar. Phelps excels in every stroke to a degree, and because nearly every distance is between 100 and 400, he therefore wins a lot of medals.

In athletics, if we had say, 100m, 150m, 200m, 250m, 300m, 200m Hurdles, 250m Hurdles etc, then you'd see the likes of Bolt or Sally Pearson winning the amount of medals Phelps is .

Pisco Sour

I'd like to congratulate the both of us for the most spectacular of all thread hijacks. And somebody has taken a bunch of our posts out of this thread and lumped them in a different thread, so now there isn't even any context to our discussion for the casual readers, and it will just look like the 2 of us are engaging in virtual pub talk spouting on about sh1te for no real reason.

walshb

That is why the boxing forum is the best on boards. Not too serious, fairly easy going, and very good mods. They even take time to create a new thread for us ramblers.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

That is why the boxing forum is the best on boards. Not too serious, fairly easy going, and very good mods. They even take time to create a new thread for us ramblers.

I always feel us minority sports get along and share a lot in common. Usually the fans of athletics, boxing, swimming etc are educated sports followers, who have an decent basic knowledge of sports in general, therefore good, interesting debate can take place. If you went onto the Soccer or GAA forum you wouldn't get this as many fans of those sports are "one sport wonders" and have a serious lack of knowledge, and in many cases, respect, towards other sports.

So kudos sir. Good hurling.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

I always feel us minority sports get along and share a lot in common. Usually the fans of athletics, boxing, swimming etc are educated sports followers, who have an decent basic knowledge of sports in general, therefore good, interesting debate can take place. If you went onto the Soccer or GAA forum you wouldn't get this as many fans of those sports are "one sport wonders" and have a serious lack of knowledge, and in many cases, respect, towards other sports.

So kudos sir. Good hurling.

I tend to agree. I know many people who claim to be sports fans because they incessantly follow a soap opera called the Premiership. It is sport, but it's also a following, a soap, a pastime. Very frustrating when you watch and hear something spectacular like Bolt's displays in the games or worlds, and you mention it to some folks and you get a blank stare? I wanna' shake those people.

BTW, I follow GAA from time to time, but god it's incessant and OTT. Rugby too is going this way. The specialness of a Munster-Leinster clash is gone. They meet every week it seems.

I wish track and field could have many more meets and clashes on the global scale. I guess money is just not driving it.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I tend to agree. I know many people who claim to be sports fans because they incessantly follow a soap opera called the Premiership. It is sport, but it's also a following, a soap, a pastime. Very frustrating when you watch and hear something spectacular like Bolt's displays in the games or worlds, and you mention it to some folks and you get a blank stare? I wanna' shake those people.

BTW, I follow GAA from time to time, but god it's incessant and OTT. Rugby too is going this way. The specialness of a Munster-Leinster clash is gone. They meet every week it seems.

I wish track and field could have many more meets and clashes on the global scale. I guess money is just not driving it.

Agree with all of that.

With regards T&F, there will be lots of great Diamond League coming up. Eurosport should sort you out with that, or if you have the "red button" you can catch it on BBC. It's a shame it isn't easier to find, but if you want to watch the races, you'll get them, as long sa you go look for them.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Agree with all of that.

With regards T&F, there will be lots of great Diamond League coming up. Eurosport should sort you out with that, or if you have the "red button" you can catch it on BBC. It's a shame it isn't easier to find, but if you want to watch the races, you'll get them, as long sa you go look for them.

Yes, the absolute probelm is that it can be difficult to find. Although, compared to swimming it is on all the time. Swimming gets shown at the olympics and worlds, and maybe a euro championship.

And I can understand this. There needs to be a market. If not, why should they show it? TV stations are there to make money, end of!

I remember having a discussion with some here as to why RTE chose to show the Royal Wedding ahead of some boxing/sports event. Eh, simple, many many many more will tune in to watch a royal wedding. And who can blame RTE for that? You can bet that many more would have tuned in to the wedding even if the All Ireland Football final clashed with it. Not everyone likes GAA, and many don't like sport in general.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Golf scores 2.5 for nerve. WTF! Billiards 1.63? :eek: I'm sure Jimmy White would argue otherwise, with that shakey missed black in the final frame of the 1994 Crucible Final.

I reckon neve is more death defying and balls and real bravery as opposed to extreme concentration under pressure. Really, that is what I see it as.

Example: F1 drivers at top speed in Monaco; downhill skiers, ski jumeprs etc. That daredevil aspect.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I reckon neve is more death defying and balls and real bravery as opposed to extreme concentration under pressure. Really, that is what I see it as.

Example: F1 drivers at top speed in Monaco; downhill skiers, ski jumeprs etc. That daredevil aspect.

Ha, you're very quick on the keyboards. I posted this here by mistake, and quickly deleted it, but not quick enough I guess.