I think I understand why swimmers can win at many strokes and many distances, but I don't understand how 15 year olds can be the best in the world at an event that has a significant aerobic requirement.
Info/Ideas from anyone?
I think I understand why swimmers can win at many strokes and many distances, but I don't understand how 15 year olds can be the best in the world at an event that has a significant aerobic requirement.
Info/Ideas from anyone?
Are you talking out of your ass or something? Get over yourself cretin. Runners in high school compete to secure a spot for university by picking fewer events to be the best in. There is no way webb can run 400m-10000m and break 2 world records. Doesn't happen in track. You have to be a freak of nature to do the same as that the female swimmer did. Take a look at the ncaa champions. Do you see any same person winning 5 events? No? Then stop talking out of your ass you USELESS UNGRATEFUL MAGGOT.
She's doing it again, and not in a low key meet, at Wch in Kazan
She has already won the 200, 400 & 1500 and is about to win the 800, in a WR time. Probably the best female freestyle swimmer of all time !
If there were a 3000 at worlds, couldn't Genzebe Dibaba presumably sweep 800-1500-3000-5000-10000? It sure as hell wouldn't be easy, but it's possible.
Shaking My Head wrote:
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.
So, Bolt would beat world record holders at 400, 800, and 1500??? Ledecky was facing that level of competition.
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.
This is 100% correct. Think about Bekele/Komen - they were discovered running around dirt fields and roads essentially. Those swimmer-equivalents have never even swam a day in their lives and are working in some factory or doing some regular profession and we'll never know about them.
Manchester wrote:
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.
mkxctf wrote:
If there were a 3000 at worlds, couldn't Genzebe Dibaba presumably sweep 800-1500-3000-5000-10000? It sure as hell wouldn't be easy, but it's possible.
+1 except that swimming doesn't have an equivalent of the track 10000m. (Although if it did, Ledecky would be a prohibitive favorite.)
One thing with Phelps is that he actually lost a fair number of World Championship races or similar over the years. Sometimes it was because he was experimenting with different events like the 400M free. And sometimes other swimmers were just better than he was on that day. Ryan Lochte took a couple of WC 200 IM titles from him; and for a couple glorious moments when he had his head together, Ian Crocker was a faster sprint butterflyer than Phelps- his 50.40 from Montreal in 2005 was only topped during the 'shiny suit' era and no one has beat that time since suits went back to textile.
Ledecky on the other hand, has this sort of inevitability only really last seen with Thorpe during his peak. She has never lost a race at the Olympics, World Championships, or Pan Pacs (her only senior international loss ever was at Duel in the Pool in, I think 2013 when she got sick on the plane to Scotland and lost the 400 free before coming back and literally hacking her way to a win in the 200 free.) Before Kazan, the European bookmakers were giving 1-50 odds on her winning the 800 free.
There will come a time when the young guns of the sport catch up with her, there always is, but her domination in the sport since age 15 really is unmatched by anyone in either gender in the modern era. Even Thorpe couldn't get past Hackett in the 1500M.
Gotta be thin to win wrote:
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.
This.
Only a small portion of the worlds population tries pole vaulting. Yet the chances of any of the millions of humans dedicated to distance running becoming a world class pole vaulter is zero. The pre-requisite to even attempting to become a pole vaulter is that you have to be a supreme human specimen.
If you think the pool is so shallow to becoming a great swimmer, by all means, give it a shot.
Alas the question is like dibaba .
is she a cheat .....
And maybe have more in common than
that ,like exact same peds invovled.
Starting to think that new endurance drug
of parr-delta variety out there.
beyond what epo offers, in dibaba's case
If 3000m w.r goes to dibaba then
absolutely no doubt ....
keep eye on mens 800m .
Man from Atlantis wrote:
Track/XC and Swimming are fringe sports and neither attract the best athletes anyway.
So where can we find "the best athletes".
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.[/quote]
This.
Only a small portion of the worlds population tries pole vaulting. Yet the chances of any of the millions of humans dedicated to distance running becoming a world class pole vaulter is zero. The pre-requisite to even attempting to become a pole vaulter is that you have to be a supreme human specimen.
If you think the pool is so shallow to becoming a great swimmer, by all means, give it a shot.[/quote]
No, that's not it. As others have pointed out, it's about how many folks are trying a sport. No, distance runners wouldn't make good vaulters, but other types would....and the vault would be deeper and higher.
In an ideal sporting world, the most admiration would go to those excelling in the deepest sports. Soccer is pretty good in this respect. Basketball too, maybe. After that, it's a mess. How many race car teams at your HS? Yet folks are sure that famous drivers are exceptional talents. Silly. Lots of mismatches between depth and coverage throughout sports. I know, it's primarily entertainment, and that doesn't require depth. But exalting the best should, and unfortunately, it doesn't.
Swimming is an inferior sport and it's dumb to even argue. The fact that people can do so many events is ridiculous. It doesn't take anything out of you and so you can compete in everything. The lack of depth in the world also makes it easier. And to the poster who said phelps is the greatest Olympic athlete. NO WAY IN HELL. The lack of diversity should explain why. How does phelps beat Ashton eaton or any other decathlete or heptathlete for that matter? Those events are all different and require a higher level of athleticism. The best I can relate it to would be to have bolt race the 100, then we have a few more races where everyone has their hands behind their backs or above their heads or in front of them and then call him the greatest because he won them all. It's just so stupid. Im not a swim hater but to call them the greatest athletes in the world is an insult to so many other people and sports that it should never be done. The number of events a swimmer wins will never impress me more than anything done on the track.
Yep, no diversity on the podium at all in the women's 100 free at NCAAs this year. None at all.
http://www.usaswimming.org/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?TabId=0&itemid=7769&mid=14491
beachmouse wrote:
Yep, no diversity on the podium at all in the women's 100 free at NCAAs this year. None at all.
http://www.usaswimming.org/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?TabId=0&itemid=7769&mid=14491
Try not to come across as racist when making what could be a valid point.
No, there is no diversity on the podium because the medallists are all African-Americans.
Good for them. Good for every girl taking part. I would celebrate a whole white podium, a whole latino podium, a totally mixed podium...
Just don't encourage more hatred, please.
Another monster swim, she destroys the WR in the 800m by nearly 4s, the 2nd in the race finished at 10s.
Amazing!!
Katie M-F Ledecky
Her 800 time puts her just outside the top 100 men this year. And she could go faster. This was her last event at a packed meet, after tons of events and multiple WR's.
IMO she is the best freestyle swimmer of all-time. Like I said on the other thread, just wait until she tries fly.
it's a sport the US does well in (unlike mid-distance and long distance running). That's why people post about it even on these message boards.
this thread is ridiculous. ledecky is an insane talent. no one in swimming history besides maybe shane gould could do what she's done, and she just missed getting 3 world records (400-800-1500) in the past week, the 1500 first without even trying.
this is the world champs. the us delegation was slim, but in events that wouldn't have affected ledecky's run. the rest of the world pretty much showed up -- this isn't a small circuit meet. it's not that the meet was small: it's that ledecky is off the charts.