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

This is the archetypal post written by someone who knows nothing... NOTHING about swimming. People need to accept that Phelps is a once-in-a-lifetime talent. People who know nothing about the history of swimming assume that people like Phelps come along all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth, he has no precedent. Even Spitz isn't comparable to Phelps as he competed in a narrower set of events during a much, much less competitive time. Mark my words: someone will break Bolt's records in the next 20 years but no one will come close to matching Phelps' record in that time. I'm not saying Phelps is "better" than Bolt, just that his achievements are even more remarkable to me.

Likewise Ledecky is an amazingly talented freestyle swimmer and likely to only improve. The fact that generational talents like Ledecky and Franklin are around the same time is simply incredible and shouldn't be taken lightly. Having stipulated all of that, Ledecky is no Phelps (at least not yet). What Ledecky is doing right now arguably hasn't been done since Janet Evans' heyday 30 years ago but it does have a precedent. Again, Phelps has simple no precedent. None.

Lastly, it's already been pointed out that this was essentially a high school level meet Ledecky was competing at while everyone else was at the Arena Grand Prix in Sanat Clara. Also, Ledecky's likely the greatest swimmer in the world right now and swimming at the top of her form. She's bringing a gun to a knife fight. Not really a reasonable comparison to the Diamond League or whatever.

Did you miss the part where she set *two world records* in the 800 and 1500?

Imagine a runner going uncontested, with no rabbits, in the 3000 and 5000 and breaking both records in the process. Ain't gonna happen.

Swimmers are racing the environment as much as they're racing their competitors, no matter what meet. Water is water, as long as it's in the right temperature range for competition. That means that she is in phenomenal, personal best, world best, all-time great condition --- because she's facing the same conditions that every swimmer (past and present) races in.

do u read, bro? wrote:

because she's facing the same conditions that every swimmer (past and present) races in.

This isn't really true either. Some pools are faster than others for various technical reasons such as depth, lane lands that dampen wave action, etc..

I swam competitively on a club team for a decade and can say I have never seen (or heard of) someone dominate like Phelps did in not just more than one distance but more than one stroke. Look at Ian Thorpe out of Australia - he was great at distance swimming but wasn't as strong in the shorter events. Dara Torres (USA) swam at the olympics into her 40s but only in the 50m freestyle. Ed Moses (USA) (for however brief his professional career was) set records at UVA in breastroke and went onto the olympics but couldn't maintain himself.

Phelps made it to the olympics at FIFTEEN YEARS OLD in the 200m butterfly and has been at that level 3 subsequent times.

Most swimmers lean toward a particular stroke or distance - not both. Show me a thrower who can also run a sub 4:30 mile, and then we can talk.

OP, "your [argument] is a joke, and you, sir, are a criminal."

So drafting off someone's shoulder on the track or venue altitude, temperature, humidity, etc. don't also affect the outcome of the race? Yes there are different kinds of lane "lines" but the pool distances don't change unless comparing olympic distance to short course. But does track not also have indoor and outdoor (short vs. long) track lengths? There are certain things you can and can't compare between track/xc and swimming. A hot pool, much like a hot day on the track, will inevitably produce slower times.

Honestly I'm not the biggest Phelps fan, but I can recognize greatness when it steps onto the block.

Not an expert but still wrote:

So drafting off someone's shoulder on the track or venue altitude, temperature, humidity, etc. don't also affect the outcome of the race? Yes there are different kinds of lane "lines" but the pool distances don't change unless comparing olympic distance to short course. But does track not also have indoor and outdoor (short vs. long) track lengths? There are certain things you can and can't compare between track/xc and swimming. A hot pool, much like a hot day on the track, will inevitably produce slower times.

Honestly I'm not the biggest Phelps fan, but I can recognize greatness when it steps onto the block.

I'm not arguing that Phelps isn't incredible. He is. He may be the greatest Olympian. He is certainly in the discussion. Just as I don't like runners disparaging swimmers by using false and often ridiculous arguments (it's like being able to win a medal in backwards skipping) I don't think it is good to support arguments by ignoring information. World records have advanced and continue to advance in swimming. Part of that advancement is due to technology in both suits and pools. That's all, it does not diminish the greatness of Phelps to acknowledge that.

i agree with what your saying and im not into swimming but ill assume womens swimming is just as much of a joke and/or waste of time as is womens track.

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.

respect all sports, they are all difficult to do well in

She won the SHORTEST distance in swimming to the LONGEST distance in the same meet. Even if it was a high school meet, it's unlikely Mo Farah could win 100m through 10k. Even if the competition were very poor, Farah could not even do it PHYSICALLY, which goes to show another difference between swimming and running in that swimming is much less physically taxing than running, effort aside. No impact, cooling effect of water, etc.

Les wrote:

She won the SHORTEST distance in swimming to the LONGEST distance in the same meet. Even if it was a high school meet, it's unlikely Mo Farah could win 100m through 10k. Even if the competition were very poor, Farah could not even do it PHYSICALLY, which goes to show another difference between swimming and running in that swimming is much less physically taxing than running, effort aside. No impact, cooling effect of water, etc.

The shortest event in swimming is the 50 free, and as far as I know, she didn't swim it at this meet.

Also, Farah is the wrong comparison - think instead Alan Webb. Suppose Webb's senior year of HS he had gone to some decent but not great HS invitational and won everything from the 400m - 5000m. It would have been impressive but it wouldn't have meant a whole lot in the grander scheme of things. [I do take the point that the impact of running would have made this more challenging in a compressed time period, but there could easily have been a decent meet where he would have had the fastest seed time at everything from 400m - 3200m and would have been favored in the 5000m based on his XC results.]

What is just jaw dropping about Ledecky's performance last weekend is that she set two very impressive WRs in this low-key meet for which she presumably didn't even taper.

It's also kind of stunning that she swam a respectable 400IM. I don't fully understand how or why she's working on her technique in fly, back and breast while presumably doing a high volume of free style. Come to think of it, that probably suggests a big emphasis on quality and speed over quantity and using the other strokes as a way to mix things up and keep creating new challenges.

do u read, bro? wrote:

Did you miss the part where she set *two world records* in the 800 and 1500?

Imagine a runner going uncontested, with no rabbits, in the 3000 and 5000 and breaking both records in the process. Ain't gonna happen.

Jesse Owens broke three world records and tied a fourth during a single day.

Paavo Nurmi won five gold medals during a single Olympics including 2 Olympic records and was ticked off because his country didn't let him run a sixth event.

You're cherry picking by not including the short sprints. Seed time is not the same as actually competing in multiple events. Webb (or anyone) could not even compete in five running events from short sprints to long distance at the same meet, much less win all five.

people without knowledge talk wrote:

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?

I thought this was obvious, but until you pointed it out, everyone missed it.

Citizen Runner wrote:

do u read, bro? wrote:

Did you miss the part where she set *two world records* in the 800 and 1500?

Imagine a runner going uncontested, with no rabbits, in the 3000 and 5000 and breaking both records in the process. Ain't gonna happen.

Jesse Owens broke three world records and tied a fourth during a single day.

Paavo Nurmi won five gold medals during a single Olympics including 2 Olympic records and was ticked off because his country didn't let him run a sixth event.

That was when there were more events (team races and cross country) and way fewer people in the world training. This could not happen today.

Basically, swimming now is similar to track and field in the 1930s.

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.

You are just adding more nails for yourself.

Why do you think it is funny to misspell Wiggins' name? I get the pun on "Brad" but why the need to show you are ignorant and spell the last name wrong? That part is not funny, nor does it serve any purpose.

Swimming is a great sport ... nobody on here should disparage it. If you don't like it that is fine, there is no reason to be a twat and tear it down.

Le Foot wrote:

That was when there were more events (team races and cross country) and way fewer people in the world training. This could not happen today.

Basically, swimming now is similar to track and field in the 1930s.

Carl Lewis, four gold medals, one world record in the 1984 Olympics and widely panned for passing on making an attempt at Beamon's LJ record.

Laura Roesler won the 100 4x, the 200 5x, the 400 6x, and the 800 5x at her high school state meets.

Les wrote:

You're cherry picking by not including the short sprints. Seed time is not the same as actually competing in multiple events. Webb (or anyone) could not even compete in five running events from short sprints to long distance at the same meet, much less win all five.

I'm not cherry picking at all - the freestyle events Ledecky won at this meet are very much comparable to the running events from 400m - 5000m [free style swimming events typically take roughly 4x the time of running events so 100m freestyle is roughly equal to 400m running and so on.]

And even with the impact issue in running, I think Webb as a Sr in HS could have taken a shot at running strong times over three days at 400, 800, 1500, 3k, 5k, which is what people on this message board are talking about with Ledecky.

What people on these boards don't seem to be talking about [but people on swimming boards do seem to be talking about] is that Ledecky set flippin' WRs at 2 of those events + swam a bunch of other off events [in very impressive times] and relays. That goes into the "words fail me" category.

Bottom line: Ledecky just put in one of the great swim meet performances of all time for no particularly good reason other than like, you know, she could. [not great for a junior swimmer, great for anyone ever.]

newname wrote:

Why do you think it is funny to misspell Wiggins' name? I get the pun on "Brad" but why the need to show you are ignorant and spell the last name wrong? That part is not funny, nor does it serve any purpose.

oh wait. I get it now. I guess I'm stupid.