"Mike" <metorrey@comcast.net> wrote in message news:z-SdnQPsLI1cmMPfRVn-uw@comcast.com...> I agree it is not possible to compare past and present performances. How
you compare>
John Naber and Aaron Peirsol, John Hencken and Brendan Hanson, or Gary
hall> Sr. and>
Michael Phelps? They did not even swim the same strokes due to rule> changes.
Naber's backstroke was faster than the flyer's and he had to do touch-turns (not even suicide ones - he stayed on his back).
Other things to consider are how long someone held a record and the fact> that women's>
swimming was tarnished for 20 years by drug-enhanced performances.>
If you're going to bring that up then Shirley Babashoff is a name to consider...
<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message news:1113461700.416339.14430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Phelps' claim to "greatest swimmer of all time" sobriquet would not be> based on number of WR, but rather on breadth and depth of excellence.>
Mark Spitz was great at free and fly (similar events, actually). Phelps> is the greatest IMer ("decathlon of swimming") of all time, and world> class excellent at free, fly, back individually. If he can eventually> achieve the same level of excellence in 100, 200, 400, 800 free as> achieved by Ian Thorpe PLUS have the greatness in 200/400 IM PLUS> 100/200 fly PLUS 200 back, then I'd like to know who else has ever been> able to do come close. Not Thorpe, not Spitz, not Gould, and not> Weismueller, certainly.
Weissmuller didn't have the option of an IM.
Given that he held WR's in two of the strokes, and the speed in the not-then-extant fourth has a high correlation with one of them, it's reasonable to suggest he well could have held WR's in such an event, had it been available.
It should also be a factor that for anyone to approach his status their WR's should show the same degree of longevity.
Phelps looks good now - so what. 22 years after his last Olympic appearance as a swimmer, Weissmuller was "overwhelmingly" voted the greatest swimmer of the 1900-1950 period.
Sorry Larry, I realise I sent this to you first by mistake.
Shane Gould is the only swimmer to have ever held all the 'available' freestyle world records at the same time plus she held the 200IM at that time too, proving she too was versatile. Considering she was only aged 16/17 at the time then retired it is difficult to match her level of "greatness" against modern day swimmers. And impossible for ANYONE to say that Phelps is a "greater" swimmer than she was at her best. It's like trying to compare Michael Schumacher to Juan Fangio or Ronaldinio to Pele. That's even if Phelps himself is saying let alone you Larry
<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message news:1113625451.677731.175040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> >>And impossible for ANYONE to say> that Phelps is a "greater" swimmer than she was at her best. <<>
I think that Shane Gould was a very fine swimmer, but Janet Evans, less> than a dozen years later, swam times that were competitive with the> best MEN who swam at the time Gould swam, and which would have utterly> destroyed Gould's WR times, which were:
True, but irrelevant to determining if one was a better swimmer. Comparison of absolute times done at dates so far apart is a flawed basis for such a judgement.
100 Freestyle London 30 April 1971 eq. world record 58.9> 200 Freestyle London 1 May 1971, 2.06.5> 400 Freestyle Santa Clara California 9 July 9 1971, 4.21.2> 200 Freestyle Drummoyne Sydney 26 November 1971, 2.05.8> 800 Freestyle Drummoyne Sydney 3 December 1971, 8.58.1> 1500 Freestyle Birrong Sydney 12 December 1971, 17.00.6>
Gould's time wouldn't have even won a fast age group meet 14 years> later.
Repeating a point does not make it any more relevant.
Evan's WRs haven't been challenged in 17 years.
A valid point for _some_ of them; in that (single) respect she is now equal to Weissmuller.
So Gould wasn't even as great a swimmer as Janet Evans, who, according> to coaches like Coach Smith, did nearly everything wrong technically,> including lifting her entire head out of the water with each stroke.> Evans also swam against MUCH harder competition than Gould, namely the> doped up East Germans, who defeated all other swimmers, save for Evans.> Astrid Strauss kept her head down in the water, swam with a beautiful,> perfect "TI style stroke, was a good 9 inches taller than Evans, and> was doped up with male hormones, and still didn't beat a girl who did> everything wrong, technically.>
Smith claims that Evans was, in his words, a "genetic freak." In what> way? Her VO2 max was in the 50s, which is hardly freakish. She wasn't> all that strong, according to her coach, Bud McAllister, and never did> formal weight training. She didn't have unusual flexibility. She> didn't have a long torso or big feet or big hands. And she, according> to Coach Smith, didn't swim with good technique. Coach Smith claims> that Evans would have swum even faster had she used "good technique."> So how, exactly, was Evans a "genetic freak?"
Swimming is so complex that no single - or even small group - of characetristics can determine speed. The sum of all Evans' characteristics is what was freakish - and in that respect, only for the long events. Gould could sprint as well as swim the distance events, and she also held (which you omit) an IM WR. What more can one ask?
Shane Gould wasn't even close to being the greatest swimmer of all> time; of that I am quite certain.
False premises will often lead to false conclusions.
And Ian Smith doesn't have a clear understanding of what constitutes> "good technique;" nor do most of his colleagues. Their concept of> "good technique" is based upon erroneous assumptions and erroneous> deductions and erroneous extrapolations.
