CommentatorJerry wrote:
In my opinion, the medal count is irrelevant. If you look at the variety of swim events, Phelps has a core competency that enables him to succeed at multiple swim events concentrated around sprint distances. He's a good freestyle sprinter and butterfly sprinter. Since there are 50, 100, 200, and three relays spanning those distances, someone good (like Phelps) and on a good team (like USA) would inevitably have more medal opportunities than someone who is just a freestyle swimmer or just a butterfly sprinter. His talent is multiple skills over multiple distances.
I agree with the general idea here. I wouldn't go as far as to say that medal count is irrelevant, but it is just one of a number of factors. I'd definitely suggest that relay medals should count for less (and of course swimming has more relays) as your ability to win one very much depends on where you were born. If Bolt had been from Grenada like Kirani James he'd probably have three fewer gold medals, with no difference in his own personal ability.
As others have suggested what we're looking at here is probably the ability to succeed at very different events - Blankers-Koen seems like a really good example. Even Nurmi's range (medals at 1500m, 3000m steeple, 5000m, 10,000m and cross country) doesn't seem as diverse as someone who can be a top performer at the sprints, hurdles and both jumps. When was the last time someone was top-level competitive at both the high jump and long jump, let alone the sprints and hurdles as well?
I suppose you could argue that women's sport wasn't as competitive at that time, so the few women who did compete were able to succeed at multiple events. Case in point - 1952 Olympic LJ gold medalist Yvette Williams won the LJ, shot and discus at the 1954 Empire Games (at a time when British Empire / Commonwealth countries were near the top of world athletics, and when the Empire Games was taken very seriously by the top athletes - that's the famous Bannister-Landy clash for example).