Swimming being exposed as joke in these Olympic games

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Track and Field has more events in the Olympics than Swimming.

Is this comment meant to be serious? In fact, it's correct, but what a nonsense comparison.

There are 34 swimming competitions in Rio.

There are 26 running competitions in Rio. (race walking is not running and also is not comparable to some special swimmimg events like breast stroke - it's just an unbelievable nonsense to do something slow ("walking") as fast as possible)

But to some extend you can also name the multi events (10k + 7k) where also running is involved heavily.

Then there are four - if i'm correct - events where both swimming and running is involved: triathlon and modern pentathlon)

To have more swimming competitions then running competitions is just curious and definitely should be changed. Also that 1 athlete could have 19(!) (still more to come) Gold medals is a sign that something is really strange here.

Swimming definitely is not "weak" as some posters want to suggest, But they really should re-think this table of events.

opinionated guy wrote:

Hey, speaking just for me, I am a fan of the human interest stories.......

"Mom had to rise at 6:00 am and drive the Escalade over an hour each direction so that Skippy could practice with the most exclusive club."

Yep that about sums up the talent pool in the sport. Economically challenged talented individuals will never compete in the sport. Plus how does one even get identified as a talent to begin with.

My statement is correct. Athletics has more events than swimming does. That's just a fact.

Why do you insist on eliminating entire categories of Athletics from the comparison?

Why do you think swimming should re-think their schedule of events?

People like swimming. People watch swimming (at least at the Olympics).

Since the whole thing is about creating television inventory, there really is no reason to change the event schedule.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

People like swimming. People watch swimming (at least at the Olympics).

Because white suburban Americans (and a handful of their foreign counterparts) still dominate this sport. If that pool were full of east Africans and middle easterners, they'd disappear as fast as the '80s road racing scene.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

This Adam Peaty covers the 100m way, way slower than the girls. He just does a stroke that deliberately retards progress. May as well do the 100m hopping race to let athletes that can't beat Bolt win Oly Gold.

Ah, yes, the ever-fresh hopping argument. Don't forget skipping and back-wards running as well.

Don't forget. Each race can be run outdoors AND indoors. Let's make them separate events, and keep track of separate records!!!

Oh, don't forget. Sometimes they can be run on the road.

Sorry, last great idea... Maybe we could invent an entirely new sport where we just run on golf courses and trails!

Too bad we can't have indoor cross country!!!

Yes, because 57.13 is way, way slower than 1:05...??? Can't figure out your logic there, maybe help me understand how that is slower

Only one competition has running and swimming together in the same race: triathlon. Triathon is NEVER won on the swim because basically anyone who is good enough to compete can be taught to swim at a high level. Not so much the run, though, where the participants do in fact show more range.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My statement is correct. Athletics has more events than swimming does. That's just a fact.

Why do you insist on eliminating entire categories of Athletics from the comparison?

Why do you think swimming should re-think their schedule of events?

People like swimming. People watch swimming (at least at the Olympics).

Since the whole thing is about creating television inventory, there really is no reason to change the event schedule.

Yeah, it's correct (as I have already said). But a totally nonsens comparison. These are the moments where I really would like know the age of the one wha is posting like that.

Historically, hammer throwing and marathon running firm under the name "track and field" (USA), "athletics" (britain), "Leichtathletik" (germany) and so on. But for sure they have much less in common than swimming/running or weigth lifting/hammer throwing. This is so obvious, that I really can't understand that someone is making a point of it.

There are more swimming competitions then running competitions at the Olympics. This is curious, since running is the Nr. 1 way for humans to move around.

IT Expert wrote:

Only one competition has running and swimming together in the same race: triathlon. Triathon is NEVER won on the swim because basically anyone who is good enough to compete can be taught to swim at a high level. Not so much the run, though, where the participants do in fact show more range.

Is this a serious post? Think about both event duration and event order and then come back and tell me why you are an idiot. Thank you.

said88 wrote:

There are more swimming competitions then running competitions at the Olympics. This is curious, since running is the Nr. 1 way for humans to move around.

Walking in the Nr. 1 way for humans to move around. But you already said walking competitions are stupid, so clearly that isn't a very good criteria.

I really wonder what is the age and logic of people making these sorts of arguments.

coach deez nuts wrote:

IT Expert wrote:

Only one competition has running and swimming together in the same race: triathlon. Triathon is NEVER won on the swim because basically anyone who is good enough to compete can be taught to swim at a high level. Not so much the run, though, where the participants do in fact show more range.

Is this a serious post? Think about both event duration and event order and then come back and tell me why you are an idiot. Thank you.

I know what you're saying, but the order doesn't matter in the end. If they reversed the order, you'd have a bunch of fast runners get out to their bikes, and the swim specialists would never see them again.

Raysism wrote:

coach deez nuts wrote:

Is this a serious post? Think about both event duration and event order and then come back and tell me why you are an idiot. Thank you.

I know what you're saying, but the order doesn't matter in the end. If they reversed the order, you'd have a bunch of fast runners get out to their bikes, and the swim specialists would never see them again.

The one's who were the fastest swimmers would win. The ones who were not competitive in the run would not even make the field. See??

Haha ahaha.

No. Here is a tip, don't just say things, when you don't actually know. Cheers.

One of the most watched TV events of all time was Bolt's 100m final, reaching an estimated 1 billion.

At every Olympics Athletics tops as the most watched event.

The diamond league actually has pretty huge viewing figures, despite Letsrun thinking they are the sole audience, and I don't know of any worldwide reoccurring swimming leagues that are widely televised.

Just no.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The one's who were the fastest swimmers would win.

No.

Raysism wrote:

coach deez nuts wrote:

Is this a serious post? Think about both event duration and event order and then come back and tell me why you are an idiot. Thank you.

I know what you're saying, but the order doesn't matter in the end. If they reversed the order, you'd have a bunch of fast runners get out to their bikes, and the swim specialists would never see them again.

You skipped the bigger of the two points that I made. DURATION

The swim is a joke in triathlon, the % time contribution to overall is very small when compared to bicycling and running. Some of that is because of the order, the event gets much more dangerous either having people swim very tired or having them do a really long swim and then get on a bike or run.

Metric Miler wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

These are typically posted by folks who know nothing about being a competitive swimmer (I was both a swimmer and runner). Please see my post on Wejo's (or was it Rojo's) thread.

I know enough.

Read:

I appreciate swimmers work hard and are great athletes, I don't deny that, but the sport itself is a joke.

Incredibly weak stance on dopers. Very small talent pool (participation). Weak records. Sport is heavily influenced by pool technology (all the swimmers are way faster than 10 years ago) and too many events to spread the thin talent across.

Add in technique refinements make a huge difference to some events every few years, like finding the Fosbury flop.

All the above is true. The only 'butthurt' ones are the swimmers that are upset that I (nor the world) appreciates 200m breaststroke (lol).

Actually I don't much think that the swimmers care. And particularly in sports that are as much technique as training focused, i'd expect that advancements would progress the sport. Think gymnastics also. In the US, the participation is huge, most notably in the YMCA and USA Swimming club scene. Much more so in the industrialized country's to be sure, wheres there's access to pools.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Walking in the Nr. 1 way for humans to move around. But you already said walking competitions are stupid, so clearly that isn't a very good criteria.

Oh my god. Call it walking if you want. If you want to do this as fast as possible, it's called running (for 99% of humans).

Moving around without technical help while not beeing in the water is more "popular" then doing the same while in the water, Therefore I think there should be more events for the first at the Olympics.

19 olympic Gold medals for 1 athlete!

57.13 vs 52 for the girls. Freestyle is the fastest way to travel through the water. Freestyle sets the bar for what is possible over the distance of 100m.

Girls CAN EASILY swim 100m in under 57 seconds. That means that Adams swimming technique just artificially retards him. By changing that technique slightly to be a bit less inefficient (which they do all the time and the governing body then refines the rules) he can smash WRs which are in fact pedestrian, even by swimming's standards.

Comprende?

Metric Miler wrote:

Haha ahaha.

No. Here is a tip, don't just say things, when you don't actually know. Cheers.

One of the most watched TV events of all time was Bolt's 100m final, reaching an estimated 1 billion.

At every Olympics Athletics tops as the most watched event.

The diamond league actually has pretty huge viewing figures, despite Letsrun thinking they are the sole audience, and I don't know of any worldwide reoccurring swimming leagues that are widely televised.

Just no.

Just comparing the top most watched event between sports is not enough. Need to understand how many people watched the sport of swimming over the multiple days it was on versus how many watched athletics over the duration of its competition. I don't have that data but you seem like a go-getter and you already have other viewership data, maybe you can look that up.