would his performance be more dominant then Michael Phelps? I think so. Discuss.
would his performance be more dominant then Michael Phelps? I think so. Discuss.
Well there are a lot more chances for gold in the sport of swimming. I might be mistaken but I don't believe Phelps swam over 200m in these Olympics, the only way for Bolt to win gold would be for him to enter the marathon and 1500m races as well and have one of the greatest relay teams in history.
But I can't egt over just how dominant Bolt was. I love the sprints, they are the highlight of the Olympics for me. For Bolt to get the second worst reaction time out of the blocks, then have it be a wash at the 50m mark is beyond ridiculous. They were saying he could have been in the 9.5's if he didn't start pounding his chest at 70m, yet even when he pounded his chest he still set the world record and by a lot. 9.69. Put that in the perspective of earlier this year, the day Bolt ran 9.72 in the Jamaica qualifiers, Tyson Gay ran the fastest 100m time in history with a 9.68 which barely qualified as wind aided. He went full stop to try to make a statement and he did. Put him right back up there as the favorite in the race, he could have ran that time, the fastest in history, and Bolt would have been forced to run 75 instead of 70. It's stuff that is so mind boggling it's to hard to wrap your head around. And (barring steroids) there is no controversy about the technology in running which there is in swimming which makes you take those world records with a grain of salt. Not to mention, Phelps, as epic as his Olympics have been, hasn't been untouchable as he's had a few fairly close finishes. Bolt on the other hand just doesn't seem human, he has been running the 100 for less then a year. I think he had less then 10 comps under his belt when he set the WR at the qualifiers, I don't know what he is at now.
Not to mention he is competing in a sport in which every able bodied person on this planet has an opportunity to compete in regardless of where they come from or what type of money they have.
**edit - Phelps did the 400 IM but that was his only event over 200m.
Phelps has won the 400 meters individual medley, 4 x 100 freestyle relay, 200 m freestyle, 200 m butterfly, 4x 200 freestyle relay, 200 m individual medley, 100 m butterfly and 4x100 medley relay.
I think swimming freestyle and butterfly are two totally different strokes and must be similar to a runner running 100 meters and 110 meter hurdles.
I guess for Bolt to match Phelps he would need the following.
100 meters
200 meters
110 hurdles
200 hurdles
400 metres
4x100 meters
4x200 meters
Then he'd be better imo.
I think not. Math says no. Bilbo offers a good explanation as to why. Plus consider how many times the world record for 100 and 200m has been broken, and likely how much more it will be broken. How soon until someone breaks Phelps precedent setting performance? Can't see it happening any time soon. Plus he will be back in 4 years most likely also.
Just watched Bolt run the 200m. I too am a fan of his and sprinting. He jogged about 1/2 of it.
There is no way Bolt is going to be even close to as decorated as Phelps I'm not arguing that, and I don't buy the freestyle/butterfly stroke either because how many swimmers compete in both? Nearly all of them. How manny runners compete in both sprints and hurdles? I can't recall any and I imagine you would have to go back a bit to find someone who medaled in both. That can't be a valid comparision.
And none of Phelps margin of victories were as completely unprecedented as Bolt's who could have won by more 5 lengths if he chose to.
Well Carl Lewis won Olympic golds in both the 100 meters, 200 meters and Long Jump and then became the only man in history to defend both his 100 meters and Long Jump titles.
I don't really see any difference at all between 100 and 200 meters to be honest, the best sprinter in the world would naturally be world class over both events.
Phelps has won both 100 and 400 meter medals in this tournament plus there's much more of a difference between swimming an extra hundred meters and running it.
Besides am I alone in thinking that running is mostly a matter of genetics, I mean how much skill can there really be in running in a straight line?
At least swimming involves relatively difficult and unnatural techniques to learn, man not being adapted to the water after all.
I don't see any reason why a track and field athlete should find it any tougher to dominate multiple events than a swimmer really.
IF Carl Lewis can win both the 100 meter and 200 meter events plus the Long Jump then why not Bolt?
He hasn't done as much as Phelps, not even close imo, it just happens that the 100 meters is perhaps the most glamourous event and so gets more publicity.
swimming is dumb, there should be one 200m, one 400 etc
all this brest stroke, butterfly etc
its like have the 100m sprint, then the 100m side step.
and what are you talking about hurdles, i didn;t see phelps having anything to jump over.
Track and field is the bread and butter of all athletics, always has been, always will be realy.
Swimming different strokes takes skill, I don't see why it would be any easier to become world class in front crawl and butterfly than it would to master both running and jumping. I mean really how hard can it be to leap into a sandpit? They already have the speed and the leg power its only a case of learning another technique?
And before you say it's totally different, Carl Lewis was the world record holder in both 100 meters 200 meters and long jump.
The only swimmers who have really dominated the medals in their sports are Phelps and Spitz, and now Bolt is getting close to emulating Lewis and doing it on the track.
But I really don't buy this idea that a track athlete should only be expected to be good in one particular sprint.
They are elite athletes for God's sake they should be able to master the art of both running and jumping.
Look at this I went hard at this man I raped Bilbo this thread for all intensive purposes Bilbo you were wrong. Maybe rape is the wrong word that might stimulate something in your sick convoluted mind.
But yeah good for Bolt.
I heard they don't really have any independent Caribbean, anti-doping federation. Which raises concern to me im not saying he does take steroids. But i think most of the runners do take steroids.
I hope he isn't though because he is good for the sport, he is young and i don't remember ever seeing a sprinter of that size. And Michael Johnson used to be one of my idols growing up, so its good too see the torch pass on, but he is very suspect IMO.
YEah I see there have been some suspicions directed at Jamaica. What makes Bolt suspect, his dominance? If he is suspect, then they're all suspect. I don't know the ins and outs of how drug testing goes, but at an international level I'm sure he is subject to the same testing as everyone else, and at the Olympics you can be sure he is being tested as well as it is humanly possible to test someone.
Another top sprinter who's records still hold is Florence Griffith Joyner. (FloJo). If ever there was someone who is suspect, it's her. Johnson, I'm not sure abut, He never really struck me like that, but who knows. But Flojo sure did.
And then there was lynford christie, didn't he get dinged once?
Of course we all know about Ben Johnson.![]()
You still had Donovan Bailey he was one of my favorites. I watched him when i was 6 breaking the record at Atlanta in 1996, with one of the worst starts i can ever remember.
I heard he had a bad injury the last time i see him was when he got like 12 seconds, which was sad he could have been alot greater IMO. I heard him and Michael Johnson got the highest maxium speed recorded like 27.2 mph or something, not sure if that still stands though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks