The title of this post is a bit misleading. I don't really think swimming in general is silly. I actually think swimming is an important life skill that everyone should learn. However, as I watched the Olympics this month ( Full disclosure: Swimming is probably my favorite Olympic event to watch - I think I've watched Michael Phelps win all 23 of his gold medals over the last 12 years ), I had a revelation that Olympic swimming is actually a little bit silly. Why? Well consider the following ...
I think everyone can agree that Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time. He holds world records in both the 100 meter and 200 meter sprints ( his world record times are much faster than anyone else has ever run ), he's won both the 100 m and 200 m sprints in three straight Olympics and his victories in the 4x100m relays in those same three Olympics gives him an astounding 9 sprinting gold medals ( and he'd probably have 12 if the Olympics had a 4x200 meter relay ).
So, Bolt's the undisputed king of short-distance races, but let's imagine for a moment that we lived in a world where in additional to the types of sprints Bolt competes in, the sport of track also held sprint events that were run in non-conventional ways. Let's say there were races in which the competitors were required to run backwards ( "the backsprint" ), races in which competitors compromised their balance by keeping their hands on their chest the entire race ( "the breastsprint" ), and a really odd style of racing in which competitors were required to alternate clapping their hands in front of their bodies and behind their backs which each step ( This style of racing made it look like the racers were flapping their arms back and forth, so it was given the name "the butterfly". ).
Let's imagine that there were 100 meter and 200 meter Olympic races in all these odd styles, and there were also individual and relay "medley" races in which either an individual or different members of a relay team would race using each of the 4 styles of sprinting.
Let's also assume that Bolt had a teammate who had won gold medals in each Olympics from 2004 to 2016. We should give this hypothetical sprinter a name, so let's call him - I don't know - Pikul Melps.
In our hypothetical world, Melps had an outstanding track career. The 19-year old Melps won the 200 meter "freestyle" sprint in 2004 ( Before Bolt ( then 18 ) started to dominate the event in 2008 ). He also won 3 Olympic gold medals as Bolt's teammate in the 4x100 meter relay freestyle sprint and 3 more gold medals without Bolt's help as a member of the 4x400 meter freestyle relay team. All in all, Melps won 7 gold medals in "freestyle" sprinting. Not quite as impressive as Bolt's 9 gold medals ( especially because Bolt won 6 individual freestyle gold medals while Melps won only 1 ), but still mighty impressive. However, Melps wasn't just a freestyle sprinter; he was also the best butterfly sprinter of all time, and he was also good enough in the backsprint and the breastsprint to be the best individual medley sprinter in the world. His Olymipic heroics in the butterfly and medley events added 16 more Olympic gold medals to his total, making Melps by far the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time.
Yet, despite Melps 23 gold medals, nobody really thought of him as the best sprinter of all time. After all, Bolt could beat Melps in any freestyle sprint event Melps was the best of all time at the less efficient styles of sprinting, but when it came right down to it, everyone thought Bolt was the best because could get from point A to point B faster than Melps - even Melps admitted as much.
"Am I better than Bolt?", Melps replied incredulously to reporters. "Of course, not. Just look at that guy run. Every time I race him, all I ever see is the back of his shirt. To suggest that I'm better than Bolt is just silly."At this point, anyone reading this probably thinks I'm being silly. I know I'm being a bit over the top here, but seriously, swimming one of the few Olympics events in which you can win an Olympic medal by doing something in a less than optimal way. Could you win an Olympic medal throwing a javelin underhanded? Could you win an archery medal blindfolded? Could you win a diving medal by doing the best cannonball? Could you win the cycling race on a tricycle? Could you win a golf medal by using a putter for every stroke? Could you win a boxing medal by fighting with one hand tied behind your back? Could you win a track event by walking instead of running ( You can? Well, shit. I guess that kinda undermines my whole thesis here ( but not really because nobody really pays any attention to race walking.) )?
Look, I'm not trying to say Michael Phelps isn't an all time great athlete. It's remarkable that he made 5 straight Olympics swimming teams. It's remarkable that he was good enough to be on both the 4x100 and 4x200 relay teams for 4 straight Olympics ( and win 6 gold medals in those relays ). I loved watching him win those 23 gold medals over a 12 year span. He's definitely an all-time great athlete, but during his entire career he's only won 1 individual gold medal in a race in which all of of his competitors were swimming as fast as they could for the entire race. So, with that in mind, I don't think we should be putting Michael Phelps on a pedestal as the greatest Olympian ever. I'd take Usain Bolt instead. I'd take Carl Lewis ( 9 gold medals - 7 of which were individual medals ). I'd take Eric Heiden ( Competing in the days when financial restraints only allowed most Olympians to compete in one Olympics, and competing in a sport without any relays to pad medal totals, Heiden won 5 individual gold medals in the 1980 Olympics in distances ranging from 500 meters to 10,000 meters ( That would be like a runner winning the 400 m, 800 m, 1500 m, 5K, and 10K in the same Olympics ). ). I'd take Ashton Eaton ( The dude has won 2 straight Olympic Decathlons ). I'd take Katie Ledecky ( At 19 she already has 4 individual gold medal in freestyle swimming, and she'd almost certainly have 2 more if the 1500 m race was an Olympic swimming event for women. ). Heck I'd even take people you may not have even heard of like Bob Mathias ( won the Olympic Decathlon in 1952 at the age of 21 after winning it in 1948 at the age of 17 (!!!). ) and Al Oerter ( won the discus gold medal at 4 straight Olympics ).
Once again, Phelps is great. I get into just as much as a semi-jingoistic pro-USA fervor as the next guys when watching the Olympics. 23 gold medals is awesome. But can you be the best Olympian of all time when you win most of your medals using a swimming style that nobody would use if they wanted to swim somewhere quickly? Of course not - that's just silly.
Rich
P.S. To be fair, Olympic track and field isn't without some silliness of its own. Race Walking is an absolutely ridiculous sport ( Bob Costas once said that being the fastest walker is like being he loudest whisperer ), and I've always thought that 1500 meter was a silly distance for a race. Why? Well, consider the following:
1) Olymipics track and field has a 100 meter race, a 200 meter race, a 400 meter race, and an 800 meter race. What distance do you think should be next in that sequence?
2) OK, I could see why track and field might want races in round numbers of kilometers for races longer than 800 meters; that's why there is a 5K race and a 10K race in the Olympics, and a 3K race in non-Olympic track meets But really, if you are going to have a 1.5 K ( 1500 m ) race, why not just make it a 2K race? Why bother to run 1.5 K?
3) I'll tell you why - it's because the mile is a distance full of romance and tradition ( If you don't believe me, I have 2 words for you - "Roger Banister". The 4-minute-mile is the most hallowed milestone in all of track and field. You probably think sprinting is more glamorous than middle distance running, but do you have any idea who broke the 10-second 100 meter barrier or the 20-second 200 meter barrier? ), so when track started to use metric distances they wanted to have a "metric mile" race. I've often heard announcers refer to the 1500 m race as "the metric mile". There's one probablem with that however - a mile is about 1609 meters. So, if you really wanted to have a "metric mile" race, why not make it a 1600 meter race?
4) Here's the clincher: One lap of an Olympic track is exactly 400 meters, so a 1600 meter race would be exactly 4 laps. A 1500 meter race is 3.75 laps. Why the hell did anyone think it would make sense to run a race 3.75 laps long? Would it make sense if the Indy 500 was 199.75 laps long?
Yeah, I know I'm nit-picking, but every 4 years I get a little passionate about this stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment