Nobody has taken on the fact that ALL swimming records are only a few years old at MOST.
This is evidence that sport is simply not mature. I will not debate the merits of running vs swimming, but the fact that records are set nearly weekly suggests that either: the talent pool is very small, or technology still has far too great an impact on performance.
Both of these can be overlooked -- the sport is still very entertaining, but the prestige is somewhat diminished.
Yes, I understand thank you. I thought you were comparing Adam Peaty's 57.13 breast stroke to girls' breast stroke, not their freestyle.
said88 wrote:
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!
Why do you think that is a good criteria for the number of events at the Olympic games? I don't see any correspondance.
It is about creating television inventory. As long as people will watch, they should run as many events as they can.
Also, just because they have the most dominant athlete ever is not a reason to have less events.
Why should there be four different throwing events as part of athletics? What is the criteria for that?
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Metric Miler wrote: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.
Like I said, I fully appreciate the work that swimmers put in. I appreciate they many are great athletes and some are probably better all round athletes than runners (were you to pitch the two against each other in a range of sports).
What I have a problem with is people claiming a WR in swimming is the same as a WR in athletics today. Athletics is very much harder to break a world record, not because the athletes are 'lazy' or 'don't try' but because the records in athletes are very, very much tougher than the swimming records.
FACT.
Nordic skiing gets similar bashing every four years.
But can you imagine the likes of Bekele or Farah trying to keep up with Northug or Hellner over 50K on skis.
The duration of the swim is not relevant to the argument. This isn't about safety or someone drowning.
If you took the 100 best triathletes in the world and raced them over 1500 m swim, they would all finish quote close to each other. You can absolutely train a good athlete to be an excellent swimmer.
The same 100 triathletes run a 10k road race and you would have finishing times varying by a much wider percentage. Much harder to be a fast runner than a fast swimmer.
Metric Miler wrote:
What I have a problem with is people claiming a WR in swimming is the same as a WR in athletics today. Athletics is very much harder to break a world record, not because the athletes are 'lazy' or 'don't try' but because the records in athletes are very, very much tougher than the swimming records.
FACT.
Who has claimed that?
IT Expert wrote:
The duration of the swim is not relevant to the argument. This isn't about safety or someone drowning.
If you took the 100 best triathletes in the world and raced them over 1500 m swim, they would all finish quote close to each other. You can absolutely train a good athlete to be an excellent swimmer.
The same 100 triathletes run a 10k road race and you would have finishing times varying by a much wider percentage. Much harder to be a fast runner than a fast swimmer.
You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. If you reversed the order, than the run would only serve to eliminate all of those who were not sufficiently fast to keep up with the rest of the field. The swim would give the greatest possible result as everybody sufficiently competitive to be in the pack would be separated by the swim times and you would see more variance in that part of the competition.
coach deez nuts wrote:
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.
Yeah, it's athletics by a long way. Athletics is always the top watched sport in the Olympics by far.
As I've said on here before, the track and field fans don't come on letsrun. This site is for the cynics and naysayers. You all think nobody watches athletics because you don't watch the athletics because you think everyone is on drugs.
I was at the London Diamond league and there must have been 50,000 people in the stadium BOTH days. I wonder how many of those paying track fans visit letsrun.com?
I only come here to bust the balls of idiots. I enjoy it. Call me sadistic.
Metric Miler wrote:
Swimming IS a joke.
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. 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.
Swimmers can just switch to a slightly different event (100 freestyle to 100 breaststroke for example) and win there if they face competition in the other event.
Bull. S**t.
There should only be freestyle. Push all the talent together.
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.
(1.) They already have that hopping race you talked about: It's called hurdles. Imagine that...the same exact race, but we have them do something additional during: jump over stuff. Kind of like having them do different swimming strokes.
So if you think different swimming strokes are a joke, you eliminate the hurdle events, the steeplechase, and arguably the relays. With the relays, you could say, "Hey, we already have a 400m race, but why not let 4 guys do it instead of 1, and force them to pass a baton so that there are an additional layer of rules that increases the likelihood of DQ?" I happen to like the relays and hurdles, but your argument against swimming would be consistent with hating those races.
(2.) You're right, not everybody has access to a pool during their younger years, so the talent pool is weak relative to absolute, complete participation of the human race. However, if this is a reason why a sport should not exist or should be called a joke, then what about pole vault, or surfing, or equestrian, or shooting, or badminton, or perhaps even baseball? Not everyone around the planet can participate due to lack of access to implements or animals, geographic location, or, in some cases, low population density.
(3.) If you hate the way that technology is affecting the game, then you must hate baseball, basketball, track & field, soccer, tennis, golf, and pretty much every sport besides barefoot trail-running, since technology has provided different materials for footwear, gear, and implements than 100 years ago (or even 10 year ago, in som cases). I imagine you're a lot of fun to hang around with all that hate brewing.
In short, sure, swimming is a joke...if and only if almost every other sport is a "joke."
Who cares.
laughing wrote:
(1.) They already have that hopping race you talked about: It's called hurdles. Imagine that...the same exact race, but we have them do something additional during: jump over stuff. Kind of like having them do different swimming strokes.
That's not a good analogy. Hurdlers are still allowed to travel as fast as they can -- they just have obstacles to avoid (as any living creature might be forced to deal with in nature).
The swimming equivalent of hurdles would actually be quite exciting, and certainly a better test of natural athleticism than a backwards-upside down restriction.
Metric Miler wrote:
What I have a problem with is people claiming a WR in swimming is the same as a WR in athletics today. Athletics is very much harder to break a world record, not because the athletes are 'lazy' or 'don't try' but because the records in athletes are very, very much tougher than the swimming records
Yep...because humans have been actively training to their fullest with the finest materials of the time for a longer period of time in athletics than swimming. Should Roger Bannister not have been celebrated for his sub-4:00 mile? It was coming down anyway, some said. Many did it easily thereafter, was also said. Years later, it's 'easy' to break for a world-class athlete. But it does NOT mean it lacks excellence. Same thing with swimming world records.
Stop with the athletics-versus-swimming-d**k-measuring-contest that insists on athletics being superior. Just celebrate two very fun sports and enjoy your day.
laughing wrote:
Metric Miler wrote:What I have a problem with is people claiming a WR in swimming is the same as a WR in athletics today. Athletics is very much harder to break a world record, not because the athletes are 'lazy' or 'don't try' but because the records in athletes are very, very much tougher than the swimming records
Yep...because humans have been actively training to their fullest with the finest materials of the time for a longer period of time in athletics than swimming. Should Roger Bannister not have been celebrated for his sub-4:00 mile? It was coming down anyway, some said. Many did it easily thereafter, was also said. Years later, it's 'easy' to break for a world-class athlete. But it does NOT mean it lacks excellence. Same thing with swimming world records.
Stop with the athletics-versus-swimming-d**k-measuring-contest that insists on athletics being superior. Just celebrate two very fun sports and enjoy your day.
It doesn't matter. He is refuting a claim that nobody has made. Something about tilting at windmills, but I don't think that event has much depth either.
Metric Miler, I need data that shows total athletics viewership over the course of the games is higher than swimming. The "passion" in which you have responded to posts on this threads makes me doubt how partial you are and the truthfulness of your claims.
It is comparing Apples and Grapes for crying out loud. Who gives a crap. The swimmers work their asses off to do what they do....so do track athletes. How about just giving them respect for what they do and leave it alone.
As for Usain Bolts quote about comparing himself to Michael Phillips...it is pretty ridiculous. Phillips is a great swimmer...among all disciplines....while Usain is a great sprinter (up through 200m).....but to say that "Phillips is a swimmer and I am an athlete" is crap. HE IS A SPRINTER. Let's be serious, the best ATHLETE in these games is Ashton Eaton...who runs, jumps and throws. Until someone beats him across all those disciplines, including Bolt, it is a ridiculous argument that no one can win.
coach deez nuts wrote:
Metric Miler, I need data that shows total athletics viewership over the course of the games is higher than swimming. The "passion" in which you have responded to posts on this threads makes me doubt how partial you are and the truthfulness of your claims.
I don't have any data, but I've always heard that athletics comes after swimming because it brings the higher ratings. They don't want the men's 100 to fall on the third day of the Olympics and then have people lose interest generally in the games. But that could be wrong -- just remember reading that somewhere.
laughing wrote:
Metric Miler wrote:Swimming IS a joke.
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. 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.
Swimmers can just switch to a slightly different event (100 freestyle to 100 breaststroke for example) and win there if they face competition in the other event.
Bull. S**t.
There should only be freestyle. Push all the talent together.
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.
(1.) They already have that hopping race you talked about: It's called hurdles. Imagine that...the same exact race, but we have them do something additional during: jump over stuff. Kind of like having them do different swimming strokes.
So if you think different swimming strokes are a joke, you eliminate the hurdle events, the steeplechase, and arguably the relays. With the relays, you could say, "Hey, we already have a 400m race, but why not let 4 guys do it instead of 1, and force them to pass a baton so that there are an additional layer of rules that increases the likelihood of DQ?" I happen to like the relays and hurdles, but your argument against swimming would be consistent with hating those races.
(2.) You're right, not everybody has access to a pool during their younger years, so the talent pool is weak relative to absolute, complete participation of the human race. However, if this is a reason why a sport should not exist or should be called a joke, then what about pole vault, or surfing, or equestrian, or shooting, or badminton, or perhaps even baseball? Not everyone around the planet can participate due to lack of access to implements or animals, geographic location, or, in some cases, low population density.
(3.) If you hate the way that technology is affecting the game, then you must hate baseball, basketball, track & field, soccer, tennis, golf, and pretty much every sport besides barefoot trail-running, since technology has provided different materials for footwear, gear, and implements than 100 years ago (or even 10 year ago, in som cases). I imagine you're a lot of fun to hang around with all that hate brewing.
In short, sure, swimming is a joke...if and only if almost every other sport is a "joke."
No, that is a simplification.
1) Women's 100m hurdles and the 400m hurdles are the only events that share a distance with the standard events. The hurdles are also high enough to add an extra, real, physical challenge into the event. You cannot complete the 400h without jumping the physical barriers in your way. The hurdles in the 110m hurdles are actually so high a normal person could not hope to jump one.
The swimming strokes are artificially retarding progress through the water. The athlete just chooses to swim strangely so as to make themselves slower. They are not overcoming anything. There is no physically added difficulty modifier that can be controlled by the judges. They just ask the swimmers to do that stroke and hope they do it to a standard that falls inside the current rules.
The 3k steeple is a completely separate event to the other distance events. I'd have less of a problem if swimming chose to do for example the 100m freestyle, 200m backstroke, 400m breaststroke or something like that. It is just a horrendous idea to do each distance multiple times with different strokes and top that off with an individual medley.
I have no problems with relays, the team element is interesting. This is more interesting in athletics again however as the baton adds difficulty.
2) Swimming pools stand with cycling in terms of difficulty of finding facilities to train in. Running by far needs the least equipment, of course. Other sports are worse I agree such as rowing and equestrian and some others you mentioned perhaps diving also but nobody is claiming the competition in those sports is a deep as in running.
Anyone with a brain realises the competition in shooting and baseball is weaker than a sport participated in extensively worldwide.
So as you said, naturally swimming has a much smaller talent pool than running. Therefore the WRs are weaker as less people are trying to break them.
3) Not true. Technology does interfere with many sports, I am aware of better tracks being developed in athletics. But swimming, and again cycling, has HUGE measurable leaps in improvements down to technology alone.
Water resistance is huge, and when materials are developed to reduce drag (LZR best example) or then WRs tumble. Also pool technology has been improved vastly to reduce turbulence, the lane dividers stop the wake of one swimmer interfering with another much better than before and these both reduce drag and help swimmers propel themselves further with each stroke in the water.
Improvements such as these have made a massive change in swimming. You cannot begin to compare swimming now to swimming in the 80/90s, something which we do in athletics all the time.
Anyway I'll leave the swimming fans alone now.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
IT Expert wrote:The duration of the swim is not relevant to the argument. This isn't about safety or someone drowning.
If you took the 100 best triathletes in the world and raced them over 1500 m swim, they would all finish quote close to each other. You can absolutely train a good athlete to be an excellent swimmer.
The same 100 triathletes run a 10k road race and you would have finishing times varying by a much wider percentage. Much harder to be a fast runner than a fast swimmer.
You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. If you reversed the order, than the run would only serve to eliminate all of those who were not sufficiently fast to keep up with the rest of the field. The swim would give the greatest possible result as everybody sufficiently competitive to be in the pack would be separated by the swim times and you would see more variance in that part of the competition.
The drafting on the bike stages ruins all this. There is no point in being way out front in discipline 1 if the next stage has all the next few people working together to pull you back on the bike.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Why do you think that is a good criteria for the number of events at the Olympic games? I don't see any correspondance.
It is about creating television inventory. As long as people will watch, they should run as many events as they can.
Also, just because they have the most dominant athlete ever is not a reason to have less events.
Why should there be four different throwing events as part of athletics? What is the criteria for that?
Moving arounf while using your feet is the most "natural" thing for humans. If this is not a criteria for you - well, then it is like that and we should stop debate it.
As long as people will watch? For me that's not very important, but for sure I have to accept that for the IOC it is.
But I think that those over 300 events finaly will kill the Olympics. Different weight classes in rowing - for example - what a choke. Or team events in fencing!
I'm not the greatest relay fan, but at least they are combined in some way (in 4x100, not so much in 4x400).
Most dominant athlete ever? Impossible to judge, but is he really so much "better" then - say - Michael Johnson, who has 3 Golds? Or the legends Zatopek (4), Viren (4), Lewis (9)?
Why 4 throwing events? I don't know, I never had a problem with it, but for sure it is debatable. But what is the connection to the point here?
I really don't see why "moving fast in water without technical help" should have more events at the Olympics then "moving fast on earth without technical help". You can differ for sure, but please don't change always the subject (number of throwing events).