Regarding the `relative´value of an Olympic Gold Medal

[Frustrated_Wonderer]

It´s been mentioned many, many times. Michael Phelps is the greatest olympian to ever live. He has won more gold medals than any other Olympian in history, including Spitz.

However, there are a few issues regarding olympic gold, and this record in particular that are a bit unfair, for lack of a better word. For one, and I´m not trying to belittle the achievement of Michael Phelps, there are simply too many races in swimming, something which allows a great athlete to pile up the amount of medals for the same event, over and over again.

In swimming, for example, besides the 100m races, if an athlete appears that is dominant in races like the 400m, odds are likley that the same athlete will win in the 200m, or other 200 plus meter races of different swimming strokes.

You then have sports like Basketball, Tennis or Football in which one gold medal is all there is for that sport. In my opinion winning an olympic medal for such events have a much higher value than winning multiple gold medals in swimming or gymnastics or in some cases running as well.

An athlete that plays in sports that will only allow them a maximum of three Olympic Gold medals in his career should be no less praised than Phelps, or others who have won many medals in other sports due to the fact that there is more competition, and there is only one event for that specific sport.

If Football had, say, a gold medal for dribbling skills, or a gold medal for for the best penalty kicker, we could well have a single athlete have many gold medals as well, but this is not the case. And it could well be argued that getting a Gold for winning the team competition in football to be a much greater achievement than winning a gold medal for being the best penalty kicker (if this event were to be real)

Any thoughts on this issue?

[kathmandu]

I agree with you. While Phelps is arguably (and probably) the greatest competitive swimmer that ever was, I don’t agree that he is the greatest Olympian for the reasons you have stated.

[glee]

I agree that swimming is far too generous in offering Olympic categories.

Firstly the distances seem to be too close, since the same swimmers enter several categories…

Freestyle: 50 metres, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500

Then there are too many strokes (why have anything but the fastest? For the same reason I dislike Olympic walking events)…

Freestyle + Butterfly, Backstroke, Breaststroke

Then there are the relays and individual medleys…

The closest equivalent in athletics is someone who could compete in the 100 metres, the 200, the long jump and the 4x100 relay. But most competitors are going for one or two Golds.

[Lightray]

I’ve lost track of the number of threads this topic has been thrashed out in this last week.

Swimming has that many different events because they require different skills to compete. It may seem as if the 50m and 100m are similar events, but they most certainly are not. The strategy and training needed to win one does not apply to another (particularly in longcourse). Go from 50m to 200m, and the differences are even more striking.

As with track & field events, swimming is a sport dominated by specialists. That there are a few swimmers able to master several specialties is a testament to their own skill, not an indictment of the sport’s events.

However. I’m strongly against comparing the significance of one medal over another. Along that path lies such madness as deciding that a gold medal for tennis doubles or synchronized diving is worth half of one from solo tennis or solo diving, 'cause it took two people to get that. Or that the slew of medals awarded to the winning softball team are of less value because they all stemmed from one athletic achievement. Crazy.

Phelps is a great Olympian because he dominated his sport, not so much because he has lots of new jewelry. Tiger Woods did the same thing in golf, and if that ever became an Olympic sport (another popular thread topic), he’d only get one gold medal out of it. Wouldn’t make him any less of an amazing athlete than Phelps.

[robby]

@glee

I agree that swimming is far too generous in offering Olympic categories.

Firstly the distances seem to be too close, since the same swimmers enter several categories…

Freestyle: 50 metres, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500

Then there are too many strokes (why have anything but the fastest? For the same reason I dislike Olympic walking events)…

Freestyle + Butterfly, Backstroke, Breaststroke

Then there are the relays and individual medleys…

The closest equivalent in athletics is someone who could compete in the 100 metres, the 200, the long jump and the 4x100 relay. But most competitors are going for one or two Golds.

I was a freestyle swimmer in high school. I was competitive in the 50 Free and 100 Free. My third event was on the 4 x 100 Free Relay.

I was not competitive at all in any of the longer freestyle races, nor any of the other strokes.

Conversely, most of the longer distance swimmers on my team were not competitive in the sprint races.

Heck, look at Phelps himself. He blew everyone out of the water in the 200 meter events, but came within a handlength of losing in the 100 meter races.

The events are completely different. Take my word on this. It’s a testament to Phelps that he did so well at so many different events.

[Gorsnak]

@robby

I was a freestyle swimmer in high school. I was competitive in the 50 Free and 100 Free. My third event was on the 4 x 100 Free Relay.

I was not competitive at all in any of the longer freestyle races, nor any of the other strokes.

Conversely, most of the longer distance swimmers on my team were not competitive in the sprint races.

Heck, look at Phelps himself. He blew everyone out of the water in the 200 meter events, but came within a handlength of losing in the 100 meter races.

The events are completely different. Take my word on this. It’s a testament to Phelps that he did so well at so many different events.

And yet, every single Olympics there’s some swimmer who is competitive in a half dozen or more races. There are after all 4-5 races at each distance except for the longest, plus relays. Obviously 8 golds is an outlier, but it’s not uncommon for there to be swimmers with four or more medals of some colour or other. Find a track athlete with more than 3, though, and you have a true freak of nature. Even more than two is extremely uncommon. The only track & field athletes who compete in as many “completely different” events as Phelps are the decathletes, who would be utterly destroyed by the field in every single event if the entered them individually.

That’s not to say there’s any reason to change how the Olympic swim meet is held, but there’s no harm in noticing that there are more multiple medalists in swimming than most other categories of competition.

[Yeticus_Rex]

Track is very similar in number of events to swimming as well…distance variations, relays, hurdles and sprints. The second week will have track picking up where swimming left off.

I was on a swim team as kid (9-12 y.o.), and the four different strokes are unique because they used different muscle groups, which meant some kids could excel at while other kids were just average, but yet when another stroke used in a race, the opposite usually happened. Very seldom there are kids that could excel at all four strokes. If I recalled, Phelps was heavily dependent upon his butterfly (the most difficult stroke) and freestyle (one of the easiest) in all 8 races he won on. He could have possibly competed in 17 events but I seriously doubt anyone could realistically train for each race and excel in all (let alone most). Michael just went to his strongest strokes and won his medals individually with the exception of the Individual Medleys (which incorporates all four strokes), probably the best yardstick (and equalizer) used to measure the swimmer’s all-round ranking amongst other competitors. Michael won both the 200m and 400m there, so his breaststroke and backstroke wasn’t detrimental to his overall performance.

Overall, Michael had set and accomplished his goal of competing and winning in 8 of 17 events, making him the best swimmer ever in Olympic history. It still leaves lots of room for some phenom in the future to go for 9 or more gold medals…but I might not see it in my lifetime. Michael Phelps is all that, and a bag of chips.

As for comparing him to other great sportsmen in history, IMHO…he’s right up there with them just by virtue that the human body was made for land, not water. To excel at something that is not as natural as other body movements, like lifting, throwing, swinging, pulling, pushing, running, jumping, etc., this goes beyond typical human function. It was great to see that Kobe and LeBraun appreciated that when they watched Michael compete…this was something special.

[lobotomyboy63]

It would be interesting to compare the lineups for each of the races. E.g. there may be one competitor who “specializes” in the 50m—say, he’s aces at great starts and can lead for 50m, but he couldn’t really hope for a medal in the 100m. Maybe his teammate isn’t very good at the start and needs that first 50m to get the rhythm, but then makes up time in the rest of the 100m and 200m. And has been posted, then there are those who are good at some strokes but not so at others.

Phelps beat the best of the entire, extended pack each time.

[mhendo]

@Yeticus Rex

As for comparing him to other great sportsmen in history, IMHO…he’s right up there with them just by virtue that the human body was made for land, not water. To excel at something that is not as natural as other body movements, like lifting, throwing, swinging, pulling, pushing, running, jumping, etc., this goes beyond typical human function. It was great to see that Kobe and LeBraun appreciated that when they watched Michael compete…this was something special.

I won’t argue that Phelps (is he a personal friend of yours or something?) isn’t a great athlete, but this paragraph is just silly.

People have been swimming for thousands of years. While the water might not be our natural element, we’ve demonstrated pretty well that we can overcome the evolutionary obstacles to staying afloat and moving forward. It’s certainly no less “natural” than turning triple somersaults, or using a pole to propel yourself over a bar, or throwing a round ball through a hoop, for that matter.

If Phelps had been racing against seals or dolphins, you might have a point, but everyone else in the field suffered the same handicap that he did. Sure, he was better than all of them, but arguing that he’s even better still because swimming somehow isn’t “natural” is ridiculous.

[Gorsnak]

@Yeticus Rex

Track is very similar in number of events to swimming as well…distance variations, relays, hurdles and sprints. The second week will have track picking up where swimming left off.

This is just silly as well. Which 8 events might a single track athlete enter? 100, 4x100, 200, 400, 4x400, 110 hurdles, long jump, and triple jump? That’s the most closely related 8, and yet they require a far greater range of athleticism than the range demanded of Phelps. I submit that for a single athlete to win all those would be a vastly more remarkable feat than Phelps’. That isn’t to take anything away from Phelps - what he did was incredible. But it’s no more incredible than for Carl Lewis to win gold in each of the 100, 200, 4x100, and long jump (which he did in boycotted LA Games).

[Cisco]

@TheFury

Any thoughts on this issue?

Yeah, stop hatin’.

[glee]

@Lightray

I’ve lost track of the number of threads this topic has been thrashed out in this last week.

Swimming has that many different events because they require different skills to compete. It may seem as if the 50m and 100m are similar events, but they most certainly are not. The strategy and training needed to win one does not apply to another (particularly in longcourse). Go from 50m to 200m, and the differences are even more striking.

As with track & field events, swimming is a sport dominated by specialists. That there are a few swimmers able to master several specialties is a testament to their own skill, not an indictment of the sport’s events.

Yet first Spitz won 7 and now Phelps wins 8 gold medals at a single Olympics.
This is simply not possible in any other Olympic discipline.

@robby

The events are completely different. Take my word on this. It’s a testament to Phelps that he did so well at so many different events.

Rebecca Romero has won two golds - one in rowing and one in cycling. Now that’s somebody who has **completely different ** skills. Far more than any differences in swimming.

Michael Johnston won both the 200 and 400 - is Phelps ‘4 times’ better than him?
Steve Redgrave won 5 Olympic rowing golds in 20 years. Yet swimmers can win almost twice as many in a single Olympics.

[Lightray]

@glee

Yet first Spitz won 7 and now Phelps wins 8 gold medals at a single Olympics.
This is simply not possible in any other Olympic discipline.

So what?

People keep posting stuff like this as though they’ve made some profound insight. It is meaningless. Any other Olympic discipline is not swimming. Swimming has the number of medals that are appropriate to swimming. Badminton has the number of medals that are appropriate to badminton.

That is the way things work. There is not some maximum number of gold medals, and swimming is hogging more than its fair share. The only people holding forth that gold medals in some sports are more meaningful than gold medals in other sports are the people making these goofy assertations in the first place.

Phelps isn’t a great Olympian because of the number of trinkets he won. He is a great Olympian because he dominated his sport this Olympiad. Comparing him as an athlete to athletes in different sports, based on the number of gold medals they won, is a fool’s game.

[Yookeroo]

@Gorsnak

This is just silly as well. Which 8 events might a single track athlete enter? 100, 4x100, 200, 400, 4x400, 110 hurdles, long jump, and triple jump? That’s the most closely related 8, and yet they require a far greater range of athleticism than the range demanded of Phelps. I submit that for a single athlete to win all those would be a vastly more remarkable feat than Phelps’. That isn’t to take anything away from Phelps - what he did was incredible. But it’s no more incredible than for Carl Lewis to win gold in each of the 100, 200, 4x100, and long jump (which he did in boycotted LA Games).

I think Eric Heiden has them all beat.

[Gorsnak]

@Yookeroo

I think Eric Heiden has them all beat.

I could go with that. Heiden’s performance is roughly akin to if Usain Bolt won, on top of the 100 and 200, the 400, 800, and 1500 as well. Which of course won’t ever happen.

[Lobelia_Overhill]

@glee

Rebecca Romero has won two golds - one in rowing and one in cycling. Now that’s somebody who has **completely different ** skills. Far more than any differences in swimming.

Michael Johnston won both the 200 and 400 - is Phelps ‘4 times’ better than him?
Steve Redgrave won 5 Olympic rowing golds in 20 years. Yet swimmers can win almost twice as many in a single Olympics.

I was going to say that! I’d consider them to be “greater” Olympians than Phelps, although he is incredible.

And what about Ian Millar, rode for Canada at Seoul in '88? Won a [team] silver medal yesterday/day before (the time difference is confusing me, but it wasn’t tomorrow!) at the age of 61!

[Edward_The_Head]

There are the same basic number of events for both swimming and track. Why don’t we see someone dominate the 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 4x100, 4x400, 110 hurdles and 400 hurdles? That’s 9 events, almost all of which are shorter time wise then Phelps, and only relies on two team events instead of three. Plus they would only have to run and do hurdles, unlike having to be able to do four different strokes.

I think that this is where you can see how people don’t understand swimming. So very few people can do more then one stroke, fewer still do three. Phelps is world class in everything but breast stroke, and he’s really worked on that. He’s also very good at backstroke, and I believe he did think about the 200 back, but the schedule didn’t really allow it. He might just go for it in 2012 as he’s talking about dropping the 400 IM.

[Dangerosa]

There are sports with one “medal opportunity” - take the gold home in basketball and you are 1 for 1 - 100% - every four years, a team of guys goes 1 for 1 and takes home the gold.

There are sports with multiple medal opportunities - going 8 for 8 is sort of amazing and isn’t done very often. Winning 3 for 3 speedskating events you compete in or 4 of 4 track events. The more medal opportunities you have, the less frequently you are going to take them all. Swimming is one with a lot of them.

I happen to agree that its more amazing to me to take medals in two unrelated sports than two different events in the same sport. I’m also more impressed by medaling in a sport repeatedly over a series of Olympics than peaking for one year - but there are sports more condusive to that and sports where timing you peak for an Olympic year is the difference between medaling and not even going.

[Lightray]

@Edward The Head

I think that this is where you can see how people don’t understand swimming. So very few people can do more then one stroke, fewer still do three. Phelps is world class in everything but breast stroke, and he’s really worked on that. He’s also very good at backstroke, and I believe he did think about the 200 back, but the schedule didn’t really allow it. He might just go for it in 2012 as he’s talking about dropping the 400 IM.

He’s actually thinking about dropping all his distance events and taking up sprint events, to keep himself interested. Which is a mind-boggling switchover, to those who know anything about swimming. But there are some who seem to think he could do it (other swimmers and swimming fans will understand why that article made me laugh out loud).

[Yeticus_Rex]

@mhendo

I won’t argue that Phelps (is he a personal friend of yours or something?) isn’t a great athlete, but this paragraph is just silly.

No, he’s not a personal friend, but I do understand what was accomplished here because I had participated in competitive swimming when I was a kid and know how difficult it is to master just one stroke (let alone 3 or 4), so I believe I have better insight than most of the posters here. Operating in a different medium (water, not air) makes one change their way of thinking…how to push and pull at the same time and most importantly, how to breathe so you don’t suck in water.

People have been swimming for thousands of years. While the water might not be our natural element, we’ve demonstrated pretty well that we can overcome the evolutionary obstacles to staying afloat and moving forward. It’s certainly no less “natural” than turning triple somersaults, or using a pole to propel yourself over a bar, or throwing a round ball through a hoop, for that matter.

Sure, people have been swimming for thousands of years…to search for food, but not for speed and distance. Competitive swimming history can be traced back to England in the 1800s. Track and field has been around much longer than that…back to the original Olympics in Greece.

It is probably right to say though that it’s foolish to compare swimming greatness among other greats in other sports, but by no means should the accomplishment of what Phelps did should be diminished by those who really didn’t understand what it took to go 8 for 8. He went up against other swimmers who excel in one particular stroke and nothing else. Some of them held records as well.

Maybe Phelps should take up water polo, just to shake things up a bit.

If Phelps had been racing against seals or dolphins, you might have a point, but everyone else in the field suffered the same handicap that he did. Sure, he was better than all of them, but arguing that he’s even better still because swimming somehow isn’t “natural” is ridiculous.

I said he was right up there with the greats in other sports, not better.