Is MIchael Phelps Medal Haul Really That Great?

[Guest fountainhall]

I see Michael Phelps is now being lauded not only as the winner of most Olympic medals in history but as the "Greatest Olympian Ever". The guy is obviously an amazing swimmer and athlete, and his feat in Beijing with 8 golds was quite amazing.

 

But I feel for a swimmer to be lauded as the "greatest" just for winning so many medals actually takes away from other achievements in other sports. The fact is that in no other sport can any athlete hope to compete in anything like 8 events. If you are a sprinter, you have the possibility of a maximum of 4 golds in any one Games (unless you are almost unique like a Carl Lewis). If you are a discuss thrower or a soccer or tennis player, just one. I don’t see there is all that much difference between the four different swimming strokes. Heck, I can even do a couple of spluttering laps of the butterfly stroke in our little pool here.

 

So why a swimmer who has won 18 golds over 3 Games gets more attention than Steven Redgrave who won 5 in just two disciplines in 5 consecutive Games rather beats me.

[kokopelli]

To answer the question is Michael Phelps that great here is a quote by a previous Olympic swimmer Mark Spitz:

 

"Epic. It goes to show you that not only is this guy the greatest swimmer of all time and the greatest Olympian of all time, he's maybe the greatest athlete of all time. He's the greatest racer who ever walked the planet. —Mark Spitz (on Phelps winning his 7th gold medal)^[128]"

 

This was after Phelps won his 7th gold medal. I think it is a matter of credit where credit is due.

[Bob]

I agree with Koko and Mark Spitz. The difficulty in maintaining his level of proficiency over the span of 3 Olympic games is, to me, astounding.

 

And, at least to me (winner of a swimming merit badge back in the dark ages), there is a huge difference in the different swimming strokes (and why you don't often see, for example, an expert in the breaststroke also be an expert in the butterfly).

[Guest fountainhall]

The point I was trying to make takes nothing away from Phelps' achievement. It is that a swimmer like Phelps, Spitz, Ian Thorpe and others can, if they choose and have the required ability, enter a greater number of events than can almost all others attending Olympic Games. A swimmer therefore has at least the opportunity to win more medals. To apply the title "greatest" merely on the basis of medal count, seems disingenuous. Phelps is certainly the most decorated? He may well also be the best for all I know. But does one necessarily follow the other?

 

We have discussed gymnasts in recent days. Their individual disciplines require skills just as different as those in swimming, but the women only have six events in which they can participate. Most athletes have at most one or two. Phelps and Co. have eight. So all-round swimmers at least have the potential to win many more medals. There is surely more to the title "greatest" than medal count. In my view, Carl Lewis has at least as good a claim as Phelps to the title "greatest".

[Rogie]

I'm with Fountainhall on this one.

 

I do not attach much weight to the 'fulsome' praise Mark Spitz bestows on his compatriot Phelps. It is surely human nature to be rooting for (1) an athlete from the same country as yourself, and (2) somebody competing in the same event(s) that you did. It is hardly likely Spitz is going to pour cold water on Phelps's achievement, is it?

 

Most medals undisputably . . . and greatest swimmer ever . . .? I'm not going to dispute that either. But greatest Olympian? Let's come down to earth for a bit, as FH says swimmers have a greater choice of events in which to compete. I do agree however, that swimming well in one stroke does not automatically mean you can 'do them all', although it might well appear to be easy when you see them swimming the individual medley. The different styles are poles apart, so for example I am not aware of any swimmer winning gold medals in both breaststroke and butterfly, or backstroke and freestyle (front crawl).

 

By no means a perfect analogy but imagine if there were four different styles in the high jump - the Fosbury Flop, the Boston Roll, and two others. Competitors could sign up for just one or they could try and enter for all four. It would be unlikely but certainly possible to imagine a high jumper of such excellence that he won the high jump in all four styles, and not only that he won in the individual medly where competitors are allowed one jump in each of the four styles, with the average height cleared being his 'score'. That would still only be five medals. But of course the high jumper, the long jumper, the discuss, javelin and hammer throwers can only realistically win one medal per games.

[kokopelli]

I know nothing about Olympic rules or sports, but is there anything prohibiting someone from competing in a variety of events? For example, couldn't a runner compete in various competitions? I believe there are 10 running events so why not compete in all ten and win ten gold medals? Isn't that what Phelps did, compete in a variety of swimming events rather than just specialize in one?

[Bob]

There is surely more to the title "greatest" than medal count. In my view, Carl Lewis has at least as good a claim as Phelps to the title "greatest".

 

We certainly could reasonably debate who would qualify as some of the world's best atheletes. Carl Lewis was certainly one of the greatest track and field guys of all time but I wouldn't rank him as the greatest Olympian based solely on the records (that, of course, doesn't detract from his huge talent). Phelps arguably can be claimed to be the greatest swimmer of all time (well, at least so far) and, in my view, ranks right up there with the greatest of all Olympians. Both Lewis, Phelps, and many others are great atheletes.

 

I agree that the number of Olympic medals isn't an absolute indicator in itself but 15 gold, 2 silver, and 2 bronze medals won over a significant span of time (especially for an athelete) is huge in my view.

[Guest]

I'm in agreement with Fountainhall on this one. Due to the proliferation of events, a successful swimmer has opportunities to win more medals than athletes in other disciplines.

[Guest fountainhall]


I believe there are 10 running events so why not compete in all ten and win ten gold medals?



I defy anyone to name any track and field athlete who has ever entered more than a handful of events. The only ones are the male decathletes who do indeed have to master ten events. Spread over two days, it is by far the most gruelling of all the track and field events; yet, the athletes only complete in that discipline and so can only win one gold medal!

 

As regards runners, sprinting requires a totally different technique from middle-distance and long-distance running. How many 100 meter/200 meter sprinters also take part in the 400, 800 and 1,500 meter races - to say nothing of the 5,000 and 10,000 meter races? Hardly any, I believe. Yet, in comparison, the number of swimmers who take part in 100 meter and 400 meter races is far higher.



 

But to return to who deserves the title of the "greatest". The Head of the London Games, Lord Coe, himself a 2-time gold medallist, feels Jesse Owens deserves the title. The IOC itself named Carl Lewis the finest Olympian of the 20^th century. 

Carl Lewis himself made an excellent point on TV this morning. He feels that it’s almost impossible to define the "greatest" of all time. He suggests it is far better to nominate who defines "greatness" in each generation of athletes.

 

Anyone watch the men's individual all-round gymnastics last night? That requires six very different disciplines and the gymnasts can not afford even an average performance on any one. Kohei Uchimura won! He had amazing performances, including a quite stunning vault, but almost slipped up in his final floor exercise. Having looked quite serious all evening, he could not stop smiling when the results were announced. Having won an unprecedented 3 consecutive world titles, the 23-year old is now regarded as one of the greatest gymnasts in history.

[kokopelli]

Here is an editorial in the New York Times entitled "Don't Rain On Our Parade". Well, that is not really the title, it is The Greatest Olympian.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/michael-phelps-goat.html?ref=todayspaper

[Guest fountainhall]

Whatever the headline writer came up with, that's not what the text of the editorial actually says.

 

From age 15 to 27, Phelps has been one of the best — or the best — in the world in a sport that takes astounding amounts of time and effort.

 

I suspect he is the best the sport of swimming has ever seen. Does that make him the best athlete of all time in all sports? Perhaps, but I think George Gershwin said it best in Porgy and Bess: "It ain't necessarily so."

[kokopelli]

Uh oh, another gold medal.

[Bob]

Uh oh, another gold medal.

 

Doesn't mean much to some....but nice to see Khun FH acknowledge that Phelps likely is the best the sport of swimming has ever seen. And, for what it's worth, he's won more Olympic medals than anybody ever.

 

And who really deserves a medal are the parents of all the gifted Olympians/atheletes as they, like their sons and daughters, have sacrificed for years (since many of these atheletes were 7 or 8 years old) to allow their kids to pursue near physical perfection.

[kokopelli]

Not again?

[Guest fountainhall]

Yup!

 

But did you know that the US Federal and State governments tax Phelps and his fellow American medal winners not only on their prize money ($25,000 in the case of Gold) but also on the value of the medals themselves?

 

Apparently, the Olympics Committee provides no cash prizes. It's each country's National Olympic Association. And most countries do not tax such prize money. Stingy USA!

 

Mind you, British medal winners get no prize money at all. They do it only for the glory - and their lookalike on a stamp issued by the post-office!

 

On which subject, the countries which offer Gold Medal winners the highest prizes are -

 

Singapore - $800,000 (£515,000)

Kazakhstan - $250,000 (£160,000)

Kyrgyzstan - $200,000 (£130,000)

Uzbekistan - $150,000 (£95,000)

Russia - $135,000 (£90,000)

Tajikistan - $63,000 (£40,000)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-19101429

 

No doubt Singapore can afford that sort of ridiculous bonus. After all, it has never, ever won an Olympic Gold Medal

[kokopelli]

I understand that North Korean also offers prizes to the winners such as refrigs, apartments and other amenities. The loser may well end up in prison. Saw this in NYTimes but don't have link at the minute.

[Guest]

North & South Korea figure quite highly in the medals tables, considering their relatively modest populations.

[Rogie]

Team GB doing well. The country's really getting behind the Team now. The atmosphere at some of the events is quite fantastic. Today was 'Super Saturday' with some great results. 2 gold medals in rowing, one in cycling and three in athletics. They now have 14 golds and are currently 'top' when you take the country's population into account.

 

I don't think any Brits are going to be sent to prison.

[kokopelli]

I have now lost track of Phelps's medals. I think it is 18 gold and no more events.

Here is a good article in NY times which does discuss the best Olympian.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/as-most-decorated-olympian-michael-phelps-changed-swimming.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[Guest fountainhall]

As the article says, Phelps will not be forgotten. He is unquestionably the greatest Olympics swimmer of all times, and one of the greatest ever Olympians.

 

I am still not convinced by the arguments put forward in the article for his being “the greatest of all time”, though. For example, it says to gain the medals he had to swim 46 times over 3 Olympics. So? Other sports have to do the same. I think I am right in saying badminton players can take part in only fthree disciplines - best individual male (or female), best doubles, best mixed doubles. Each match generally lasts between 30 and 60 minutes - a lot longer than any swimming event. And to get to the final of each competition, athletes have to go through qualifying rounds, quarter and semi finals. So over 3 Olympics, it is possible for a badminton player to play as many games as the number of times Phelps actually was in the water. Yet they'd have had only 9 medals in total available.

 

Same with the gymnasts. In the men's events, there is a qualifying day covering six disciplines. The team event then covers the same six, as does the men's individual all-round event. So total 18 competitions. Add to that the six separate medals to sort out the best in each of the six disciplines. In theory therefore, a supreme male gymnast like Uchimura will go through a minimum of 18 competitions, plus whatever he qualifies for in each discipline. After only two Olympics, therefore, Uchimura is well on the way to over 40 events. And I defy anyone to say that the techniques required for the vault, rings and the floor routine are, in their own way, less difficult than the various swimming disciplines!

 

Yet, for all those 18 events that comprise just the gymnastics qualifying, team and individual all-round competitions, only 2 gold medals are awarded. A comparison to swimming is that 12 medals would be awarded. Point made, I think.

 

One other issue that I think has to come into any "greatest" equation is cash! Yes, there must be raw talent, but equally there must be great coaching and great coaching facilities. We saw this for decades in the old Soviet satellite countries, and to a certain extent we are seeing that now in China. This, I believe, is one reason why Britain now more or less owns the rowing and cycling competitions. In the last dozen or so years, a lot of cash from the National Lottery profits have been ploughed into sport, and over the last two Olympics we are seeing the result.

 

No doubt the debate will rage on for some time. Each generation produces its own greatness. Phelps thoroughly deserves the golds and the title "greatest" for today's generation. But there have been others before him and others will certainly follow.