Swimming being exposed as joke in these Olympic games

Running requires no skill. It is running. If all the events were virtually the same in swimming the same people would be winning all the events, and that is not true.

SmellyDumbBoomerScum wrote:

Yes, but there is a huge range of body types and athletic skill sets between the marathon and 100m. In swimming it's just 4x100m fly, 100m fly, 4x400 breat breastroke, etc. All sprints, all basically the same skill set.

I think athletics is a great sport. I enjoy watching all the athletes and the different disciplines (well, most, I also think race-walking is sort of silly).

I also think swimming is a great sport. I enjoy watching all the swimmers and the different disciplines.

I am not much on gymnastics, though I appreciate the skill it takes. I don't go around making up silly arguments or criteria about how natural it is or not or how many people do it worldwide or not or how many different disciplines it has or doesn't or calling it a joke. I simply don't watch it.

If you do or don't like swimming, either way that is fine. It is not a joke just because you don't like it.

This is so true. What kind of bubble does one have to be in to think swimming audiences rival athletics? Other than the Diamond League and similar meets, big city marathons are some of the biggest mass participation/spectator events in sport today. Marathon days bring whole cities to a standstill.

I'm actually really enjoying the swimming. It's refreshing to see athletes race hard & fight for every inch, while runners slow to a jog, frightened to lead.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

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.

Nobody is claiming this about swimming except you..

congratulations on knocking down your own strawman, though.

Apart from many people in all the many threads on this topic.

All I keep reading is: swimmers get WRs because they go for it whilst track athletes jog about (someone even said the jog about BECAUSE of Farah aha).

To the other guy questioning whether Athletics is the most watched event, ever wondered why the athletics stadium is the location of the opening ceremony and the such? Anyway here's an example of the figures.

You can do more reading yourself if you like, nowhere touts any sport above athletics.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If you do or don't like swimming, either way that is fine. It is not a joke just because you don't like it.

I like swimming, where have I given to you the idea that I could not?

And I don't think the records are "weak", they are definitely not. But - for whatever reason - they are broken much more often than the running records. Thinner talent pool could be one of them, but not the main reason I think.

It's much more technical than running, that's more important I think. The most "easy" event at the Olympics probably is the Long Jump. This event practically has not improved (or just marginally) since the 1960s.

But still - 19 Gold medals for 1 athlete is a clear indication for me that a restruction of the events in swimming is eminently necessary.

Metric Miler wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Nobody is claiming this about swimming except you..

congratulations on knocking down your own strawman, though.

Apart from many people in all the many threads on this topic.

All I keep reading is: swimmers get WRs because they go for it whilst track athletes jog about (someone even said the jog about BECAUSE of Farah aha).

I'm sure you can quote some of the many people in this thread who are claiming this....

said88 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If you do or don't like swimming, either way that is fine. It is not a joke just because you don't like it.

I like swimming, where have I given to you the idea that I could not?

And I don't think the records are "weak", they are definitely not. But - for whatever reason - they are broken much more often than the running records. Thinner talent pool could be one of them, but not the main reason I think.

It's much more technical than running, that's more important I think. The most "easy" event at the Olympics probably is the Long Jump. This event practically has not improved (or just marginally) since the 1960s.

But still - 19 Gold medals for 1 athlete is a clear indication for me that a restruction of the events in swimming is eminently necessary.

Yes, records are broken much more often in swimming than in running. That isn't necessarily better or worse. They are different and have different requirements. I think you are right that the technical aspects are probably the most important.

I fail to see why one person winning a lot of events is a reason to restructure?? That just seems like a completely arbitrary standard to me. Should gymnastics restructure because people have won 6 gold medals at a single games?

The swimming program in the Olympics has been remarkably stable over the years, so I see no reason to change it now.

Raysism wrote:

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.

I am not doubting the 100m is the marquee event of the Olympic games and gets some of the highest ratings of ANY sporting event in the world. It makes sense to have that towards the end of the games. That does not answer the question on what sport has higher ratings overall.

coach deez nuts wrote:

Raysism wrote:

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.

I am not doubting the 100m is the marquee event of the Olympic games and gets some of the highest ratings of ANY sporting event in the world. It makes sense to have that towards the end of the games. That does not answer the question on what sport has higher ratings overall.

Probably beach volleyball, amirite.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

Everybody has forgotten Bolt's epic quote when asked how he compares himself to Phelps. Bolt said you can't compare the two because "he [Phelps] is a swimmer and I'm [Bolt] an athlete."

You have to respect Phelps for dominating the sport (even though he is probably doped to the gills...) for so long. But Bolt is correct, swimmers are just swimmers.

I am pretty sure you are misinterpreting that quote. He is saying athlete in the British English sense. One who competes in the sport of Athletics (what British English calls track and field). Not that he is an athlete and Phelps is not in the American sense.

First, as people have noted, if one man can win 19 gold medals, the events are way too similar in their physiological demands. There's no way around this.

But it's the ridiculously small talent pool that irritates me. Only a very small segment of the world's population ever has the opportunity / wherewithall / desire to compete in swimming. Swimming is just not part of most humans' cultural world in the way that running is.

Imagine if, because of economic and cultural factors, track and field had next to zero participation from Africans and people of African descent. Nobody from an Arab culture. Very few South Americans. If the participating population were reduced like this in track, the 5000m performance list for 2016 would be:

13:11.8 Illias FIFA

13:12.7 Ben TRUE

13:12.7 Antonio ABADÍA

13:13.3 Andrew BUTCHART

13:15.6 Ryan HILL

13:19.3 Brett ROBINSON

13:19.4 David TORRENCE

13:20.7 Galen RUPP

13:20.7 Sam MCENTEE

13:20.9 Patrick TIERNAN

13:23.1 Garrett HEATH

13:23.7 Florian ORTH

13:23.9 David MCNEILL

13:23.9 Jonathan DAVIES

13:24.1 Lucas BRUCHET

13:24.3 Sean MCGORTY

13:24.3 Eric JENKINS

13:26.2 Andrew VERNON

13:26.8 Cameron LEVINS

13:27.3 William KINCAID

13:27.6 Thomas CURTIN

13:27.8 Tom FARRELL

13:28.9 Takanori ICHIKAWA

13:29.1 Brian SHRADER

Now imagine that this subset of the world population was reduced further to ONLY those individuals who had access to a pool and money for instruction prior to age 10. Maybe 80-90% of the above list goes away. 13:25 may make you a medal contender.

Beautifully put.

I agree with the above to a point.

1) I was on swim team as a kid for a couple years. When you first start it is very cheap, and excluding the third world, pretty much every town has a public pool. If one shows great promise then the coaching kind of comes to the athlete.

2) Given how swimming tends to filter on a body type, tall good, short bad, big hands and feet good, small hands feet bad, I'm not at all convinced the populations that thrive with distance running would be any good at swimming.

3) I do agree that running is kind of a universal thing, you need shoes (or not) and off you go.

I like both track and field and swimming and from a spectator stand point swimming is more interesting faster paced etc. They are also much more inclusive in the US for nationals and such.

Ex Jock Strap wrote:

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.

Good point. You don\'t get identified. Lots of kids suck or are mediocre (on an international level) for years then suddenly have a breakthrough to make it to superstardom. A lot is dependent on coaching and resources...and no surprise, the best clubs usually have the richest families and are often in the richest neighborhoods. Basically the same thing with soccer in America.

Ex Jock Strap wrote:

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.

Good point. You don't get identified. Lots of kids suck or are mediocre (on an international level) for years then suddenly have a breakthrough to make it to superstardom. A lot is dependent on coaching and resources...and no surprise, the best clubs usually have the richest families and are often in the richest neighborhoods. Basically the same thing with soccer in America.

I got news for most of the Summer Olympic sports are this. Shoot if you here the stories of the competitors many have advanced degrees. If you look at the polar opposite of these country club sports boxing has blue collar individuals who have working class jobs and many tragic stories about their childhood.

Raysism wrote:

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.

This is so true. It's very much a middle-class sport. Generally, the more money your community has, the better the swimmers it produces.

+1