Incredible, but reason #1 why swimming is inferior to running: Katie Ledecky wins 1500, 800, 400, 200, & 100 at one meet

I agree with your point though.

Only a small % of the world have access to pools and yet the talent is spread thin between tons of events. The depth is terrible. Just look at the number of swimmers on this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_Olympic_gold_medalists_at_a_single_Games

I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding what it takes to compete in swimming.

It is so vastly different from running due to the nature of water's density. It requires athletes that have the utmost muscular control. Without that, they will create drag that is unfavorable and not enough that IS favorable (for propulsion).

And so, the standard of excellence is so high at the top only a few can really make it, but those few can do everything.

Gotta be thin to win wrote:

I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding what it takes to compete in swimming.

It is so vastly different from running due to the nature of water's density. It requires athletes that have the utmost muscular control. Without that, they will create drag that is unfavorable and not enough that IS favorable (for propulsion).

And so, the standard of excellence is so high at the top only a few can really make it, but those few can do everything.

No. It has nothing to do with that.

"Making it" in a sport is completely relative to your competition. To "make it" you have to be top 3 in your country, and how hard this is depends 100% on how many people there are competing for it.

Since very few people in the world are able to compete in swimming, the competition is much less deep.

I've never understood the need on here to bash swimmers. It is a different sport than running, with different requirements. Because of those different requirements it is certainly more common for swimmers to be able to compete in a larger variety of events than runners typically can. That doesn't make it better or worse.

I find it comical that a track fan would be envious of how well swimming does on TV. Really?

bolt fan wrote:

How bad would the meet have to be in running for a runner to win all of those events?

http://www.3wiresports.com/2014/06/23/katie-ledecky-version-2014/

Nonetheless, the article is really cool. I'm not trying to totally bash swimming. I'm trying to get people to read the article but also admit this would never happen in running.

One reason why swimming does well on tv is you have someone like Ledecky or Phelps who basically can do everyhing. It would be be like Bolt doing the 100, 200, 400, 4 x 100, 4 x 400, lj and tj.

Note one thing. The VERY first sentence in the article states that this was a "Low Key Meet" and the next several sentences go on to describe how the majority of top US swimmers are competing in a much higher-level meet in California at the time.

If you dump Usain Bolt in a meet that has very little competition, it's quite likely that he could easily win the 100, 200, 400, and some relays. The long jump and triple jump are a different matter, mostly because of timing issues that would likely arise with the running events, as well as the fact that Bolt doesn't exactly train for them.

As far as distance races go, the same could probably be said for someone like Farah, or even Webb when he was running really well. Toss Farah into a low key meet that's happening at the same time the World Championships are going on and he could easily win the 10000m, 5000m, 3000m, 1500m, and 800m.

swimming is for aquatic creatures like fish and sea horses that are tasty to eat. It is not for people.

People who need to cross water use boats if they have any sense.

And yes, I can swim.

Given an equal level of competition at Ledecky's meet, Bolt could indeed have won in the 100, 200, 400, 4 x 100, 4 x 400, lj and tj, plus the 800 and 1500m...and perhaps the shot.Know your facts before posting drivel.

bolt fan wrote:

How bad would the meet have to be in running for a runner to win all of those events?

http://www.3wiresports.com/2014/06/23/katie-ledecky-version-2014/

Nonetheless, the article is really cool. I'm not trying to totally bash swimming. I'm trying to get people to read the article but also admit this would never happen in running.

One reason why swimming does well on tv is you have someone like Ledecky or Phelps who basically can do everyhing. It would be be like Bolt doing the 100, 200, 400, 4 x 100, 4 x 400, lj and tj.

Running is for animals who don't have the intelligence to create more efficient modes of transportation like cycling, driving, or flying.

Bad Wigins wrote:

swimming is for aquatic creatures like fish and sea horses that are tasty to eat. It is not for people.

People who need to cross water use boats if they have any sense.

And yes, I can swim.

In distance it doesn't matter how much access you have to running compared to swimming, if you are not East African, you are irrelevant.

the real bad wigins wrote:

Running is for animals who don't have the intelligence to create more efficient modes of transportation like cycling, driving, or flying.

Bad Wigins wrote:

swimming is for aquatic creatures like fish and sea horses that are tasty to eat. It is not for people.

People who need to cross water use boats if they have any sense.

And yes, I can swim.

Yes, that is why flies don't run. Birds either. Except ostriches, who are too stupid to flap their wings.

Ledecky > Cain

NJ high school runner Olivia Baker could probably do this on the track given her pbs of 11.64, 23.95, 52.71, 2:06, 5:05 and 11:34. Of course she'd basically never stop running but given a weak enough field (REALLY weak) it could be done. There must be a few professionals with the same amount of range that could clean up low key meets too.

The difference between running and swimming is how a race will affect the person. In running typically the shortest rest periods we will take is a minute with some workouts being given five min of rest maybe. In swimming you rest for thirty seconds between reps with some even just doing fifteen seconds. The physical toll of a track race is much different from a swimming race which allows swimmers like Ledecky to clean up at meets.

I remember going to many elite kid track meets and tons of those kids compete in several events. Some do the 100, 200 long jump triple jump and compete in a relay or a throw. Lots of kids are talented enough to do that. At the high school level,if you have small team many athletes compete in the max events that they can. It is only the distance runners who tend to not step up and compete in other things.

Swimmers are different athletes.......different sport.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I've never understood the need on here to bash swimmers. It is a different sport than running, with different requirements. Because of those different requirements it is certainly more common for swimmers to be able to compete in a larger variety of events than runners typically can. That doesn't make it better or worse.

I find it comical that a track fan would be envious of how well swimming does on TV. Really?

Swimming only does well on TV during the Olympics then it practically dies as a spectator sport.

I think people bash swimmers is out of frustration.

To call Phelps the "Greatest Olympian" is insulting to other athletes.

Let's see, imagine of Usain Bolt could win medals for:

100 regular running

100 backward running

100 with his arms flailing all around

200- same disciplines

Relays of 4x100 and 4x200 in the same three disciplines

and then he could run his own personal "relay" by swimming each stroke for 100 meter and 200 meter segments.

That's 10 medals right there.

Then add that in running it is basically impossible for one person to win events ranging from 100 to 1500 at the world class level or even at the D3 college level.

Just about all of this is incredibly insulting to swimmers, though. I honestly don't see why runners should be frustrated because another sport has different requirements. I certainly think Phelps is in the conversation for greatest Olympian. Such arguments are fun over a beer but ultimately don't mean much so I don't get why anyone would get bent out of shape over it.

I think you are making huge assumptions that Bolt could beat other sprinters at running 100m or 200m backwards, or that he could do it with arms flailing around. You have no proof of this. Phelps is the greatest Olympian ever. Consider how many heats he swims in, how many events, and how close the top 1-8 positions are in his events with regard to time.

Track/XC and Swimming are fringe sports and neither attract the best athletes anyway.

bolt fan wrote:

It would be be like Bolt doing the 100, 200, 400, 4 x 100, 4 x 400, lj and tj.

Totally ignorant statement.

Even most 100 meters swims a decent female swimmer is going be just over or just under a minute. The 100 in swimming is nothing like the 100 in track. The 200 in swimming is like an 800 - a controlled sprint for the best. 400 on up are endurance events. The men's WR for 1500 freestyle isn't much under 15:00.

You don't think that Rupp could have taken the 400, 800, 1500, 3000, 5000 at some crappy meets in his time?

didnt laura roesler do that at a high school state meet?