That’s an interestingly cherry-picked list, as of course there are runners who win multiple events, just not the exact permutations you listed. For example Bolt won the 100, 200 and 4x100m relay events 2 olympics in a row, and the 100m and 200m in the olympics before that.
The events were picked for concision, not selectivity
Doing the 100m/200m double is exceptional but not rare because the 200m is actually faster than running 2 100m because the 2nd is flying.
So the same athletes regularly do both events.
Extend the race distance and as the winning attribute transitions from speed to endurance the morphology of the athletes changes.
It is as rare as the other examples to win the 200m and 400m. Or the 400m and 800m. Or the 800m and the 1500m. Or the 1500m and the 5000m. Less so with the 5000m and 10000m.
Sure, but how does this help your point?
Either events being similar, and athletes winning both, is a problem, or it isn’t.
Why are we handwaving it when it’s running events?
If it’s just a question of how many golds have been won by one athlete in one year, then I am not sure I’d agree that two exceptional athletes demonstrates a problem with the sport itself. The swimming medals seem much more split this year, and there are other events that have been dominated by amazing athletes (e.g. gymnastics, skiing), are you suggesting that these are problematic too?
Don’t get me wrong, I actually don’t enjoy watching swimming personally, and I already mentioned I’d be fine with the notion of bringing the number of events down. But regardless, an uncromulent argument is uncromulent.
It would be my contention that every separate event should be a measure of proficiency of a different skill set.
If there were seperate gold medals awarded for the putting a 16lb and 14lb shot then my hackles would be raised.
If there was a track and field competition where every individual event was won by a different individual then the only question in the general media would be about the 100m champion who “failed” to win the double.
In a swim meet, doubles and triples in individual events are common. My Google fu may be lacking but I think one individual has won three individual medals or more at every modern Olympics.
I have to start by saying I love the Olympics. I’ve been watching them regularly since Munich 1972. I have an entire collection of books about the Games.
But I’m having a real hard time getting into these Games. The lack of spectators is a real downer.
Also, and this may be my personal issue, I recently “cut the cord” so I no longer have cable. I’m relying entirely on streaming and so far I can’t find a streaming service that has decent coverage of the events. Just clips.
I paid for Sling for one month and have full access to every event of every sport. It’s the best Olympic viewing experience I’ve ever had. I’ve seen more than any other.
I want to see obstacle swimming.
One thing that’s actually making the olympics more interesting for me is olympic tiktok. Instead of the NBC packages which are edited to show how overcame extreme hardship to learn to excel in their sport while maudlin music plays in the background, it’s shorter (and usually sillier), and often the athletes just talking for 60 seconds. It’s fun and makes me want to watch their sports.
NBCOlympics.com. And if you have a Roku, you can watch replays of every event on your television set.
Ok. Neither won any 1500m golds. If the point is a single athlete can conceivably win every swimming event, this doesn’t really prove it.
And Shane Gould never won more than 3 golds at a single Olympics, though she did win 5 medals once.
Seems like this is more than a bit cherry picked.
There aren’t any 100m sprinters who also run the mile well, much less the marathon. So I’m not seeing what the point is.
That is, other than “I don’t like the swimming events”. Duly noted. I don’t care much for them either, but that’s different from claiming there’s anything remotely objective about that stance.
Surely you can see that people occasionally running two different distances is not really the same thing as people regularly swimming many different distances and in multiple strokes.
Thanks I just signed up, looks good. Thanks!
Oh, I hear ya. I just decided to take the dogs out in the desert than watch the rest of that. That was brutal.
Me too. My Ennui is thicker than the smoke from the wildfires burning all around me. I wanna care, but I just don’t.
Most swimmers don’t compete in multiple strokes. The breaststrokers don’t race butterfly or backstroke. Sometimes butterfly swimmers also swim freestyle. Sprinters rarely swim long distances. Yes, there are two medley races but that is more equivalent to the decathlon. I would be interested to see a list of how many swimmers actually compete in more than one stroke or in more than 2 distances. It seems that there is a small cadre of highly talented swimmers who compete i multiple race who get a lot of publicitiy.
OK, but it seems pretty arbitrary to me that running 100m but being passed a metal baton first is obviously “different”, but a different swimming stroke, that may involve being oriented a different way in the water (backstroke) is the “same”.
I ran my first relay race with no special training required. I cannot yet do the butterfly stroke.
Three.
And the consistent position would be to say that this *is* a problem for sprinting, but a worse problem for swimming (and also a problem for gymnastics, skiing, some athletics etc).
Otherwise this is just, as Great_Antibob says, an attempt to rationalize a dislike of swimming.
My stated objective is that each Olympic event requires a different skillset. And if proposing some rationalisation to an existing structure then patently some pinkies get trodden on.
Sure there are those infuriatingly talented individuals with world class skills in multiple events. Would be an absolute ball-tearer to see a shot putter compete in the high jump or in kayaking. But winning in the pool a 4x100m relay with the teams 400m specialist swimming the 2nd leg would pass without comment.
Don’t know about stateside but here it is a standard training technique for all in the squad to train in multiple strokes, and distances. Just that a reasonable proportion of the squad only qualify in one event. But in the trials and prelims they are competing in multiple events to maximise their chances of making the team.
I enjoy rhythmic gymnastics. An event that requires music and make-up is bit twee but the skills, co-ordination and performance are simply mesmerising.
Say the swimming programme was conducted on the same basis as rhythmic gymnastics.
There’d be 100m freestyle, 100m butterfly, 100m backstroke, 100m breaststroke and an all-round medal to the swimmer with the best result over all four disciplines. Add a few team/relay events and Robert is your Mothers brother.
But if rhythmic gymnastics was run on the same basis as swimming, there’d be a medal for using the red ball, another for the blue ball, there’d be a medal for using the long ribbon, another for the short ribbon, a medal for the heavy ring, a medal for the light ring, a medal for using one club, and other for using two.
One thing you might be able to clue me in to. Swimming has lots of relays. Lots of permutations. I enjoy them too. But why isn’t there a 4x100m butterfly and 4x100m backstroke and 4x100m breaststroke?
I’m mainly interested in this debate about individual events but in your example the comparison should be between the 4x100m on the track and the 4x100m in the pool.
Compared to running/swimming a straight 100m would you accept that there are different skills involved? In an athletics 4x100m relay with the baton and it’s changes, and that the team members with deliberate calculation don’t all run 100m. While in the pool the only difference is when the next swimmer starts.
Mind you a 4x100m in the pool when they needed to carry a baton or rubber duckie would be interesting.
Yes that should be the comparison, if we’re trying to deflect from the point. However I asked first.
There are many events at the olympics that are similar enough to other events that the same person can win both. When it’s sprinting you seem to find some special pleading reason why that’s ok (and you still haven’t even addressed other examples I’ve given, like gymnastics). Only with swimming does it suddenly become a problem.
Barely. If this is a different skill then butterfly vs freestyle is radically different.
Anyway, I’m sure a mod will suggest we drop this tangent soon.
I would have had no issue with someone saying they dislike swimming, and one swimming event is enough (as I say, I’m not much of a fan of swimming either).
I just find it hard to ignore when someone claims to be using a rational argument, but the argument is inconsistent and/or incoherent.
Win two, yeah some. And in not very many disciplines.
Do we need so many bodyweight classes in the weight lifting? But naught but the most elite can perform outside their class despite that having a lower bodyweight is the tiebreaker.
Swimming stands alone in that so many can/do win multiple events.
You see there is a definitive empirical way to demonstrate this. It’s called a stopwatch.
Look at the athletes who swim 50m and those who run 200m. Both events are strenuous, power events that take around 20s. Then look at their physiques. Within the bounds of humanity they are very similar.
Then go to the 400m swimmers who are in action for 4 minutes and the closest athletics race being the 1,500m. Stamina events. Physically the swimmers involved have barely changed. The runners radically.
Swimming is fine. Just far too many equivalent events.
100m, 200m, and 100m are two distinct differences.
And yeah, there are probably too many sprints too. I’d be totally fine with dropping the 200m due to the significant overlap with the 100m.