Quote Originally Posted by amat View Post
I'm not diminishing what Phelps did at all. It was 7 world records btw. I'm not saying swimming isn't difficult or anything like that, all I'm saying is that Bolt's triumphs have been more eye opening then Phelps 8 golds. Granted, 8 golds is something that will never be accomplished or topped for a long time if ever. But how many other sports can you compete in and get 8 medals? 0. It's swimming and that's it so to use the numerical argument is a bit silly imo.

Every record Phelps broke had been broken in the past year. The 200m was a record most thought would stand our entire lives, that no human being would ever be able to top that. Bolt did and he made one of the most hallowed records in sports, the 100m time an absolute wash. I made this post after that. I wasn't even sure he could get the 200m record, knew he was capable but the glow around that record is really tough to beat and he did it.

I'm not simplifying Phelps' effort as just going down to his suit, but the suit does have a lot to do with the world records. It is a revolutionary suit that creates 0 friction in the water. Swimmers not using the suit were at such a disadvantage in the qualifiers and trials that before the Olympics Nike allowed all it's swimmers to not sport Nike in the Olympics but instead Speedo. Now obviously it's a level playing field since nearly every swimmer was using it and Phelps still won, but the suit has a lot to do with the world records that fell. I forget the exact number but almost every single gold medalist in the swimming events this year got the world record as well.

I'm not diminishing either, in fact the argument is fairly trivial because one is on land and one is on water. But at the very least they have to be acknowledged as equally dominant and to say Bolt has only accomplished 2/8 of what Phelps did is pretty absurd. Michael Johnson is every bit the Olympics legend as Mark Spitz and both guys got pretty much surpassed in Beijing though Spitz won the 100 freestyle which apparently is supposed to determine the world's fastest swimmer and Johnson still has the 400 record.

Scott Ostler wrote a very good article in the SF Chronicle today about the Phelps vs Bolt argument. I really recommend reading it.

Phelps now has company as the Games' poster guy
I still don't see why it's easier to win more medals in swimming than on the track. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they have virtually the same events in both disciplines.

For example the 4x100 meters, couldn't Bolt be part of that winning team?

Plus why can't he run the 400 meters? Phelps swam it, why is too much a test of stamina for a sprint athlete but not a sprint swimmer?

I can't see how winning 100, 200 and 400 meter races is any easier in a pool than on land. Actually you'd think it might be harder as swimming the same distance is far harder than running it, I mean it takes Bolt less than 10 seconds to run 100 meters but Phelps 50 seconds to swim it.

Surely therefore stamina would be more of an issue in swimming where it take around 5 mins to swim 400 m rather than 40 odd seconds to run it?

I read today that the 100 and 200 meter double had been achieved 8 times before him so hardly an unknown event, although he was the first to set two world records in both.

I think both have been outstanding but Bolt doesn't eclipse Phelps for me. Carl Lewis won 4 gold medals in 1984 which is a better achievement than Bolt so Bolt isn't ready to be called the greatest just yet.