Who is the most dominant athlete?

Ron

08-18-2008, 04:43 AM

On Aug 17, 11:40 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:58 am, "dwjones45" <dwjone...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > kalim2008 wrote:
> > > > On Aug 16, 11:24 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer,
> > > >> Tiger Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> > > > Lighting Bolt from jamaica. No one was even CLOSE to home in the 100
> > > > m, unlike Phelps, who dores not seem to actually dominate the games
> > > > he's in. The Bolt guy is in his first olympics and TOTALLY dominated
> > > > everyone without even trying.
>
> > > if phelps did not dominate as you say then how come he broke 7 world's
> > > records in his 8 gold medal races?
>
> > The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
> > records in these Games.
>
> Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> two Olympics combined.
>
> > If Phelps was truly dominant, he would have
> > destroyed his competition in every race, not winning by .01 in any
> > races.
>
> Well, remember that Phelps swam many different events. If you do that
> and win everything, that's a pretty good sign of dominance. If you do
> only one thing, then I agree you have to do it much better than
> everyone else to be dominant.
>
> Joe Ramirez

And all 4 strokes, not just 2 like Spitz.

Joe Ramirez

08-18-2008, 04:49 AM

On Aug 17, 11:43 pm, Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:40 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 10:58 am, "dwjones45" <dwjone...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > kalim2008 wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 16, 11:24 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer,
> > > > >> Tiger Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> > > > > Lighting Bolt from jamaica. No one was even CLOSE to home in the 100
> > > > > m, unlike Phelps, who dores not seem to actually dominate the games
> > > > > he's in. The Bolt guy is in his first olympics and TOTALLY dominated
> > > > > everyone without even trying.
>
> > > > if phelps did not dominate as you say then how come he broke 7 world's
> > > > records in his 8 gold medal races?
>
> > > The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
> > > records in these Games.
>
> > Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> > times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> > two Olympics combined.
>
> > > If Phelps was truly dominant, he would have
> > > destroyed his competition in every race, not winning by .01 in any
> > > races.
>
> > Well, remember that Phelps swam many different events. If you do that
> > and win everything, that's a pretty good sign of dominance. If you do
> > only one thing, then I agree you have to do it much better than
> > everyone else to be dominant.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> And all 4 strokes, not just 2 like Spitz.

But the breast stroke and backstroke only in medleys, not individual
events. Still, I agree that Phelps is impressively versatile, more so
than Spitz. However, one thing in Spitz's favor is that he swam and
won "the" speed event of the time, the 100-meter freestyle (there was
no 50-meter free in 1972). Thus, he earned the informal title of
fastest swimmer in the world, whereas Phelps can't claim that because
he didn't swim the 100- or 50-meter free.

Joe Ramirez

jingus

08-18-2008, 05:15 AM

Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
>>records in these Games.
>
>
> Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> two Olympics combined.
>

i get the part about how the high-tech suits have helped times, but i
don't get the part about constructing a "fast pool". i mean, was the
pool unusually deep? what is it about the construction that changed
the characteristics of the water in which the swimmers were swimming?

> Well, remember that Phelps swam many different events. If you do that
> and win everything, that's a pretty good sign of dominance. If you do
> only one thing, then I agree you have to do it much better than
> everyone else to be dominant.
>

i don't see how anyone could argue that phelps was *the* dominant
athlete in swimming events. however, comparing swimming events to
track and field is a bit of a stretch. the competition in track and
field is much stiffer. for example, in the current sport of track and
field, the degree of specialization is so great that a sprinter has no
chance in a hurdle event.

carl lewis won 4 track and field gold medals in the 1984 olympics.
while that is half the number of gold medals that phelps won, one would
be hard pressed to establish that phelps achievement is more impressive
than lewis'.

08-18-2008, 05:20 AM

Phelps was dominant in these games as far as winning all the events he
entered. But he wasn't truly dominant in terms of destroying his
opponents. Let's face it, he won a couple races by luck. If Bernard
didn't choke, and if Cavic didn't raise his head near the end, Phelps
wouldn't have won 8 golds. In order to be truly dominant, you should
destroy all of your opponents.

And to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you should
excel at all phases of the game. As noted by Joe, Phelps did not even
compete in the ultimate sprint event, the 50m freestyle, nor did he
compete in any endurance races such as the 800m or 1500m. It's like
how people say that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are really good,
but neither one even won the French Open.

I suppose this means Woods is the greatest athlete, as he has done it
all in his sport. He has even won while injured, which I don't
believe Sampras, Federer, Phelps, or anyone else can say.

Joe Ramirez

08-18-2008, 05:22 AM

On Aug 18, 12:15 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
> >>records in these Games.
>
> > Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> > times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> > two Olympics combined.
>
> i get the part about how the high-tech suits have helped times, but i
> don't get the part about constructing a "fast pool". i mean, was the
> pool unusually deep? what is it about the construction that changed
> the characteristics of the water in which the swimmers were swimming?

1. A typical Olympic-size pool is two meters deep. The one in Beijing
is three meters deep, according to the TV coverage. A deeper pool
means less turbulence bouncing back to the swimmers and adding to
drag.
2. The lane dividers are specially designed to absorb ripples and
waves, reducing interference caused by neighboring swimmers.
3. The sides of the pool are designed to let waves roll over them and
dissipate their energy, reducing backwash into the pool, which also
causes drag.

Joe Ramirez

08-18-2008, 05:28 AM

On Aug 18, 12:15 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
> >>records in these Games.
>
> > Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> > times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> > two Olympics combined.
>
> i get the part about how the high-tech suits have helped times, but i
> don't get the part about constructing a "fast pool". i mean, was the
> pool unusually deep? what is it about the construction that changed
> the characteristics of the water in which the swimmers were swimming?

Yeah 3 meters deep instead of 2. 10 lanes instead of 8, with an empty
one on each side. Vents along the sides that prevent water from
bouncing back. Turbulence reducing lane dividers. And other things.

Duncan Heenan

08-18-2008, 07:39 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11c28621-9e2e-4c37-a9d7-c3d8a71699a0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
>> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>>
>> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just
>> stupid.
>> Troll on.
>> --
>> Duncan Heenan
>
> Duncan, each respondant is meant to supply his argument for why his
> chosen athlete is the most dominant in his prime. The argument will
> include the criteria for comparison. You have to know how to form an
> argument, instead of just proclaiming someone else's argument to be
> rot.

It is the question I have rejected, not an argument as there was none. Do
try to keep up Smiffy.
Picking on me doesn't make you look any better you know.
lol
DH

MW Smith

08-18-2008, 08:44 AM

On Aug 18, 8:39 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11c28621-9e2e-4c37-a9d7-c3d8a71699a0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
> >> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> >> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just
> >> stupid.
> >> Troll on.
> >> --
> >> Duncan Heenan
>
> > Duncan, each respondant is meant to supply his argument for why his
> > chosen athlete is the most dominant in his prime. The argument will
> > include the criteria for comparison. You have to know how to form an
> > argument, instead of just proclaiming someone else's argument to be
> > rot.
>
> It is the question I have rejected, not an argument as there was none. Do
> try to keep up Smiffy.
> Picking on me doesn't make you look any better you know.

Apparently you are the only one who rejected the question. Everyone
else seemed to understand they were meant to explain their criteria
for their choice of most dominant athlete. You keep taking yourself
out of the game and then blaming your departure on someone else. Just
like you did with the CSA.

Duncan Heenan

08-18-2008, 10:26 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c709769-d0b7-41b0-a3f7-24a9888c93c5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:39 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:11c28621-9e2e-4c37-a9d7-c3d8a71699a0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 17, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer,
>> >> > Tiger
>> >> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>>
>> >> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just
>> >> stupid.
>> >> Troll on.
>> >> --
>> >> Duncan Heenan
>>
>> > Duncan, each respondant is meant to supply his argument for why his
>> > chosen athlete is the most dominant in his prime. The argument will
>> > include the criteria for comparison. You have to know how to form an
>> > argument, instead of just proclaiming someone else's argument to be
>> > rot.
>>
>> It is the question I have rejected, not an argument as there was none. Do
>> try to keep up Smiffy.
>> Picking on me doesn't make you look any better you know.
>
> Apparently you are the only one who rejected the question. Everyone
> else seemed to understand they were meant to explain their criteria
> for their choice of most dominant athlete. You keep taking yourself
> out of the game and then blaming your departure on someone else. Just
> like you did with the CSA.

I am not the only one, just the only one to state the obvious. You forget
the many people who read such meaningless trash and just move on without
comment.
As for the CSA, what has that to do with this. When were you ever a member,
Smiffy? What do you know about it? Come on enlighten us.
In fact it would be interesting to learn why anyone should be interested in
your views at all. Tell us, what are your credentials?
No, I thought not.
--
Duncan Heenan

Dave Hazelwood

08-18-2008, 10:49 AM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:

>On Aug 18, 12:15 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> > On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
>> >>records in these Games.
>>
>> > Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
>> > times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
>> > two Olympics combined.
>>
>> i get the part about how the high-tech suits have helped times, but i
>> don't get the part about constructing a "fast pool". i mean, was the
>> pool unusually deep? what is it about the construction that changed
>> the characteristics of the water in which the swimmers were swimming?
>
>1. A typical Olympic-size pool is two meters deep. The one in Beijing
>is three meters deep, according to the TV coverage. A deeper pool
>means less turbulence bouncing back to the swimmers and adding to
>drag.
>2. The lane dividers are specially designed to absorb ripples and
>waves, reducing interference caused by neighboring swimmers.
>3. The sides of the pool are designed to let waves roll over them and
>dissipate their energy, reducing backwash into the pool, which also
>causes drag.
>
>Joe Ramirez

I also heard the chinese messed up and the pool is ~3 cm shorter than
it should be as well. Anybody else heard this ?

MBDunc

08-18-2008, 11:50 AM

On 18 elo, 12:49, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 18, 12:15 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >> > On Aug 17, 11:27 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>The pool was constructed to be a fast pool. Many swimmers broke world
> >> >>records in these Games.
>
> >> > Yes, that's true. The new high-tech suits also helped enable faster
> >> > times. More swimming world records fell in 2008 than in the previous
> >> > two Olympics combined.
>
> >> i get the part about how the high-tech suits have helped times, but i
> >> don't get the part about constructing a "fast pool". i mean, was the
> >> pool unusually deep? what is it about the construction that changed
> >> the characteristics of the water in which the swimmers were swimming?
>
> >1. A typical Olympic-size pool is two meters deep. The one in Beijing
> >is three meters deep, according to the TV coverage. A deeper pool
> >means less turbulence bouncing back to the swimmers and adding to
> >drag.
> >2. The lane dividers are specially designed to absorb ripples and
> >waves, reducing interference caused by neighboring swimmers.
> >3. The sides of the pool are designed to let waves roll over them and
> >dissipate their energy, reducing backwash into the pool, which also
> >causes drag.
>
> >Joe Ramirez
>
> I also heard the chinese messed up and the pool is ~3 cm shorter than
> it should be as well. Anybody else heard this ?

3cm sounds quite big error but not the first time similar things have
happened.

1956 Melbourne Olympic pool was a friction too short (but records were
approved).
1991 Athletics WC venue at Tokyo was illegal (too bouncy) for record
purposes (but records were still approved for example Powell's 895cm
at long jump).

.mikko

MW Smith

08-18-2008, 12:11 PM

On Aug 18, 11:26 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c709769-d0b7-41b0-a3f7-24a9888c93c5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 8:39 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:11c28621-9e2e-4c37-a9d7-c3d8a71699a0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 17, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer,
> >> >> > Tiger
> >> >> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> >> >> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just
> >> >> stupid.
> >> >> Troll on.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Duncan Heenan
>
> >> > Duncan, each respondant is meant to supply his argument for why his
> >> > chosen athlete is the most dominant in his prime. The argument will
> >> > include the criteria for comparison. You have to know how to form an
> >> > argument, instead of just proclaiming someone else's argument to be
> >> > rot.
>
> >> It is the question I have rejected, not an argument as there was none. Do
> >> try to keep up Smiffy.
> >> Picking on me doesn't make you look any better you know.
>
> > Apparently you are the only one who rejected the question. Everyone
> > else seemed to understand they were meant to explain their criteria
> > for their choice of most dominant athlete. You keep taking yourself
> > out of the game and then blaming your departure on someone else. Just
> > like you did with the CSA.
>
> I am not the only one, just the only one to state the obvious. You forget
> the many people who read such meaningless trash and just move on without
> comment.
> As for the CSA, what has that to do with this. When were you ever a member,
> Smiffy? What do you know about it? Come on enlighten us.
> In fact it would be interesting to learn why anyone should be interested in
> your views at all. Tell us, what are your credentials?
> No, I thought not.
> --
> Duncan Heenan

No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it was
obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was with
your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You couldn't
accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
credentials.

Howard Brazee

08-18-2008, 01:02 PM

I think Eric Heiden's Olympic feet was more remarkable (for one
Olympics) than Phelp's. Being able to win the longer distance races
as well as the sprints requires very different strengths.

jingus

08-18-2008, 02:28 PM

Howard Brazee wrote:
> I think Eric Heiden's Olympic feet was more remarkable (for one
> Olympics) than Phelp's. Being able to win the longer distance races
> as well as the sprints requires very different strengths.
>

heiden's accomplishments were in the winter olympics, in which there is
generally less competition. think about it, if you live in florida,
you're probably not going to be doing much speed skating. in general,
only in certain parts of the world would people even consider competing
in winter olympic sports (jamaican bobsled teams notwithstanding).

Ron

08-18-2008, 07:34 PM

On Aug 18, 9:28 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > I think Eric Heiden's Olympic feet was more remarkable (for one
> > Olympics) than Phelp's. Being able to win the longer distance races
> > as well as the sprints requires very different strengths.
>
> >
>
> heiden's accomplishments were in the winter olympics, in which there is
> generally less competition. think about it, if you live in florida,
> you're probably not going to be doing much speed skating. in general,
> only in certain parts of the world would people even consider competing
> in winter olympic sports (jamaican bobsled teams notwithstanding).

But, if people, or I should say, if parents want their kids to peruse
a career in a certain sport, they will usually move to a state where
they can best train.

The Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy in Florida is a perfect example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bollettieri_Tennis_Academy

Robert W. McAdams

08-18-2008, 08:34 PM

jingus wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> i don't see how anyone could argue that phelps was *the* dominant
> athlete in swimming events. however, comparing swimming events to
> track and field is a bit of a stretch. the competition in track and
> field is much stiffer. for example, in the current sport of track and
> field, the degree of specialization is so great that a sprinter has no
> chance in a hurdle event.

Well, there's also a lot of specialization in swimming! That's why
people think of Aaron Piersol as a backstroker or Brendan Hansen as a
breaststroker. The reason no swimmer has medaled in 8 events before is
because the skills required to excel in each event are different enough
that no swimmer has ever before been able to do it in that many.

Bob

Ron

08-18-2008, 09:36 PM

On Aug 18, 12:20 am, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phelps was dominant in these games as far as winning all the events he
> entered. But he wasn't truly dominant in terms of destroying his
> opponents. Let's face it, he won a couple races by luck. If Bernard
> didn't choke, and if Cavic didn't raise his head near the end, Phelps
> wouldn't have won 8 golds. In order to be truly dominant, you should
> destroy all of your opponents.

That's like saying that Mike Tyson wasn't THE dominant force in HW
boxing before his loss to Buster Douglas (and prison sentence) because
2 of his fights were decisions.

> And to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you should
> excel at all phases of the game. As noted by Joe, Phelps did not even
> compete in the ultimate sprint event, the 50m freestyle, nor did he
> compete in any endurance races such as the 800m or 1500m. It's like
> how people say that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are really good,
> but neither one even won the French Open.

So what is Phelps supposed to do, compete in *every* event? And now
you are including Sampras with Federer? As I've already pointed out,
if you are gonna include a tennis player in this argument, it should
be Martina Navratilova.

>
> I suppose this means Woods is the greatest athlete, as he has done it
> all in his sport. He has even won while injured, which I don't
> believe Sampras, Federer, Phelps, or anyone else can say.

Golfers are only athletes by definition, IMO. I mean, if John Daly
can play while drunk, overweight, and smoking cigs between
holes.............

umo

08-19-2008, 06:44 AM

If the stories are true and Wilt Chamberlain actually did boink 20,000
women during his lifetime; he is without doubt the greatest, most
dominant athlete in the history of mankind.

Duncan Heenan

08-19-2008, 06:46 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:196f981f-88f6-430a-8bdf-7ccbcb21ebb8@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 11:26 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c709769-d0b7-41b0-a3f7-24a9888c93c5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 18, 8:39 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:11c28621-9e2e-4c37-a9d7-c3d8a71699a0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Aug 17, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer,
>> >> >> > Tiger
>> >> >> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>>
>> >> >> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just
>> >> >> stupid.
>> >> >> Troll on.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Duncan Heenan
>>
>> >> > Duncan, each respondant is meant to supply his argument for why his
>> >> > chosen athlete is the most dominant in his prime. The argument will
>> >> > include the criteria for comparison. You have to know how to form an
>> >> > argument, instead of just proclaiming someone else's argument to be
>> >> > rot.
>>
>> >> It is the question I have rejected, not an argument as there was none.
>> >> Do
>> >> try to keep up Smiffy.
>> >> Picking on me doesn't make you look any better you know.
>>
>> > Apparently you are the only one who rejected the question. Everyone
>> > else seemed to understand they were meant to explain their criteria
>> > for their choice of most dominant athlete. You keep taking yourself
>> > out of the game and then blaming your departure on someone else. Just
>> > like you did with the CSA.
>>
>> I am not the only one, just the only one to state the obvious. You forget
>> the many people who read such meaningless trash and just move on without
>> comment.
>> As for the CSA, what has that to do with this. When were you ever a
>> member,
>> Smiffy? What do you know about it? Come on enlighten us.
>> In fact it would be interesting to learn why anyone should be interested
>> in
>> your views at all. Tell us, what are your credentials?
>> No, I thought not.
>> --
>> Duncan Heenan
>
> No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it was
> obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
> criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was with
> your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You couldn't
> accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
> credentials.

Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
anything. What criteria do you refer to?
--
Duncan Heenan

Duncan Heenan

08-19-2008, 06:48 AM

"Ron" <BigELilE05@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44c2e27a-eb1c-4c24-96c8-6274c4c42626@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 12:20 am, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip <

>That's like saying that Mike Tyson wasn't THE dominant force in HW
>boxing before his loss to Buster Douglas (and prison sentence) because
>2 of his fights were decisions.

He wasn't. Muhammed Ali was. Pity the two never met in the ring.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 09:16 AM

On Aug 19, 7:46 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it was
> > obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
> > criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was with
> > your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You couldn't
> > accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
> > credentials.
>
> Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
> anything. What criteria do you refer to?

You couldn't accept changing the criteria for a valid channel swim, ie
changing the rules. Here is your explanation:

"Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
becomes
one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at
all? If
you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all?
Why
bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan

Your assumption is that rules have an inherent correctness that exists
before the rules are written, that rules emerge out of what is correct
and, in your explanation, moral. Rules to you (and the criteria for a
recognizing a channel swim) _are_ a moral code. Most people would say
that abiding by a set of rules for swimming is moral, but they
wouldn't say the rules themselves are moral. But you are saying that
the rules themselves are moral, because you say that "Allowing drug
taking is simply to allow cheating." In other words, you are saying
that even if the rules were changed to allow EPO, using EPO would
still be cheating. Then allowing dolphin kicks underwater is cheating,
and allowing turns without touching the wall with your hand is
cheating, and allowing LZR suits is cheating, because these changes
also make the competition "one of who can cheat most effectively."

The CSA isn't even about running a competition, but to you, allowing a
swimmer to be recognized for swimming the channel in a wetsuit is to
allow cheating, because the original rules say no wetsuits allowed.
Nevermind that the original swimmer probably didn't use a wetsuit
because neoprene hadn't been invented. Sheep fat is allowed, but it's
only allowed, not required. Did the first channel swimmer use sheep
fat or not? If he didn't, why don't you consider using sheep fat
cheating? If he did, why don't you consider _not_ using sheep fat
cheating?

You make it clear you can't tolerate change. Since you equate changing
the rules to allowing cheating, you conclude there if you allow
changing the rules, then not only is there no point in bothering with
rules at all, but you ask "Why bother with anything?" So you really
have a problem, Duncan, because the first channel swimmer either used
sheep fat or he didn't. Therefore, the _moral_ code requires that the
channel swimming rules be so written and _never_ changed. Sheep fat
must either be required or prohibited. To allow a choice is to allow
cheating.

And now when your dentist asks why your teeth got so ground down,
you'll know what to tell him.

Duncan Heenan

08-19-2008, 11:04 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38be96ce-5f8a-47ce-bdd6-5c69fa3bf19a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 7:46 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it was
>> > obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
>> > criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was with
>> > your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You couldn't
>> > accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
>> > credentials.
>>
>> Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
>> anything. What criteria do you refer to?
>
> You couldn't accept changing the criteria for a valid channel swim, ie
> changing the rules. Here is your explanation:
>
> "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
> becomes
> one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at
> all? If
> you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all?
> Why
> bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>
> Your assumption is that rules have an inherent correctness that exists
> before the rules are written, that rules emerge out of what is correct
> and, in your explanation, moral. Rules to you (and the criteria for a
> recognizing a channel swim) _are_ a moral code. Most people would say
> that abiding by a set of rules for swimming is moral, but they
> wouldn't say the rules themselves are moral. But you are saying that
> the rules themselves are moral, because you say that "Allowing drug
> taking is simply to allow cheating." In other words, you are saying
> that even if the rules were changed to allow EPO, using EPO would
> still be cheating. Then allowing dolphin kicks underwater is cheating,
> and allowing turns without touching the wall with your hand is
> cheating, and allowing LZR suits is cheating, because these changes
> also make the competition "one of who can cheat most effectively."
>
> The CSA isn't even about running a competition, but to you, allowing a
> swimmer to be recognized for swimming the channel in a wetsuit is to
> allow cheating, because the original rules say no wetsuits allowed.
> Nevermind that the original swimmer probably didn't use a wetsuit
> because neoprene hadn't been invented. Sheep fat is allowed, but it's
> only allowed, not required. Did the first channel swimmer use sheep
> fat or not? If he didn't, why don't you consider using sheep fat
> cheating? If he did, why don't you consider _not_ using sheep fat
> cheating?
>
> You make it clear you can't tolerate change. Since you equate changing
> the rules to allowing cheating, you conclude there if you allow
> changing the rules, then not only is there no point in bothering with
> rules at all, but you ask "Why bother with anything?" So you really
> have a problem, Duncan, because the first channel swimmer either used
> sheep fat or he didn't. Therefore, the _moral_ code requires that the
> channel swimming rules be so written and _never_ changed. Sheep fat
> must either be required or prohibited. To allow a choice is to allow
> cheating.
>
> And now when your dentist asks why your teeth got so ground down,
> you'll know what to tell him.

My my Smiffy, you do make a lot of assumptions on my behalf- most of them
wrong.
I believe that rules, once agreed, should be obeyed, as they create the
criteria for performance measurement. If people don't agree with those
rules, then they should either not participate or participate making it
clear that they are not operating under the same rules as others. I am not
averse to changing rules, so long as those changes are properly made and
considered. Breaking rules is not the same thing, it is cheating.
In relation to the CSA, it was the sneaky and dishonest way in which the CSA
(and notably its secretary Duncan Taylor and his 'CCA') sought to circumvent
the agreed rules of the CSA without ever consulting the members which I
objected to. Duncan Taylor's motives were purely mercenary, and when he was
exposed he lied to cover up what he had done, and Mike Read the then
Chairman supported him. Whilst still being paid secretary of the CSA Taylor
used CSA facilities etc to set up a private rival organisation - the CCA,
which is what much of the argument was over. If you'd been involved at all
you might know that, but as your interest in Channel Swimming starts and
ends with trying to make yourself look cleverer than you are, you wouldn't
would you ?
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 12:04 PM

On Aug 19, 12:04 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:38be96ce-5f8a-47ce-bdd6-5c69fa3bf19a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 7:46 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it was
> >> > obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
> >> > criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was with
> >> > your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You couldn't
> >> > accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
> >> > credentials.
>
> >> Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
> >> anything. What criteria do you refer to?
>
> > You couldn't accept changing the criteria for a valid channel swim, ie
> > changing the rules. Here is your explanation:
>
> > "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
> > becomes
> > one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at
> > all? If
> > you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all?
> > Why
> > bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>
> > Your assumption is that rules have an inherent correctness that exists
> > before the rules are written, that rules emerge out of what is correct
> > and, in your explanation, moral. Rules to you (and the criteria for a
> > recognizing a channel swim) _are_ a moral code. Most people would say
> > that abiding by a set of rules for swimming is moral, but they
> > wouldn't say the rules themselves are moral. But you are saying that
> > the rules themselves are moral, because you say that "Allowing drug
> > taking is simply to allow cheating." In other words, you are saying
> > that even if the rules were changed to allow EPO, using EPO would
> > still be cheating. Then allowing dolphin kicks underwater is cheating,
> > and allowing turns without touching the wall with your hand is
> > cheating, and allowing LZR suits is cheating, because these changes
> > also make the competition "one of who can cheat most effectively."
>
> > The CSA isn't even about running a competition, but to you, allowing a
> > swimmer to be recognized for swimming the channel in a wetsuit is to
> > allow cheating, because the original rules say no wetsuits allowed.
> > Nevermind that the original swimmer probably didn't use a wetsuit
> > because neoprene hadn't been invented. Sheep fat is allowed, but it's
> > only allowed, not required. Did the first channel swimmer use sheep
> > fat or not? If he didn't, why don't you consider using sheep fat
> > cheating? If he did, why don't you consider _not_ using sheep fat
> > cheating?
>
> > You make it clear you can't tolerate change. Since you equate changing
> > the rules to allowing cheating, you conclude there if you allow
> > changing the rules, then not only is there no point in bothering with
> > rules at all, but you ask "Why bother with anything?" So you really
> > have a problem, Duncan, because the first channel swimmer either used
> > sheep fat or he didn't. Therefore, the _moral_ code requires that the
> > channel swimming rules be so written and _never_ changed. Sheep fat
> > must either be required or prohibited. To allow a choice is to allow
> > cheating.
>
> > And now when your dentist asks why your teeth got so ground down,
> > you'll know what to tell him.
>
> My my Smiffy, you do make a lot of assumptions on my behalf- most of them
> wrong.
> I believe that rules, once agreed, should be obeyed, as they create the
> criteria for performance measurement. If people don't agree with those
> rules, then they should either not participate or participate making it
> clear that they are not operating under the same rules as others. I am not
> averse to changing rules,

I'm sorry, but you are lying. You wrote the statement below, and it
means you equate changing rules with cheating.

"Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
becomes one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with
rules at all? If you don't bother with rules, why bother with the
competition at all? Why bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan

If you are now withdrawing your remarks, fine.

> so long as those changes are properly made and
> considered. Breaking rules is not the same thing, it is cheating.
> In relation to the CSA, it was the sneaky and dishonest way in which the CSA
> (and notably its secretary Duncan Taylor and his 'CCA') sought to circumvent
> the agreed rules of the CSA without ever consulting the members which I
> objected to. Duncan Taylor's motives were purely mercenary, and when he was
> exposed he lied to cover up what he had done, and Mike Read the then
> Chairman supported him. Whilst still being paid secretary of the CSA Taylor
> used CSA facilities etc to set up a private rival organisation - the CCA,
> which is what much of the argument was over. If you'd been involved at all
> you might know that, but as your interest in Channel Swimming starts and
> ends with trying to make yourself look cleverer than you are, you wouldn't
> would you ?

Sorry again, but none of that is relevant. You continue to try to
divert the discussion into the politics. It isn't about politics. You
also wrote this, concerning the CSA's intent to allow the use of
wetsuits:

"The CSA decided in 2001 to start certifying wet-suit swims."
....
"Several CSA members heard of this in April 2001 (me included)
and made representations to the committee to complain that :
a) this was against the spirit of LD swimming generally,
b) against all the history, rules and traditions of the CSA and
c) had never been put to the CSA members for approval."

Your (a) is clearly false. Swimming with a wetsuit is swimming. The
spirit of swimming, long distance or short, has nothing to do with the
costume. Swimming with a wetsuit is against the spirit of swimming
without a wetsuit, but both are clearly swimming.

Your (b) is true, but it would have become false after the rules were
changed and some wetsuit swims were certified. From then on, the
history, rules, and traditions of the CSA would have been divided into
pre-wetsuits-allowed and post-no-wetsuits allowed.

Finally, you wrote this:

"The swimmers are the losers in all this. The achievement of The
Channel is being eroded in the public imagination by the influx of wet-
suit swimmers,"

This is again clearly false. The public has no idea how many people
swim the English Channel and almost certainly assume most swimmers do
it in a wetsuit.

andresmuro@aol.com

08-19-2008, 12:49 PM

On Aug 16, 9:24 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
> Woods, or Michael Phelps?

Messi.

andresmuro@aol.com

08-19-2008, 12:52 PM

On Aug 17, 2:36 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "NB" <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f746ba79-bf5d-4376-bfbe-ea1193d0c067@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> Without laying down criteria for comparability the question is just stupid.
> Troll on.
> --
> Duncan Heenan

Even if people try to establish a criteria, comparisons are silly. who
cares if Lance Armstrong is better than Maradona, Michael Jordan or
Phelps. They all are exceptional at what they do.

Duncan Heenan

08-19-2008, 02:14 PM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c516997d-93c0-4193-b4e6-00bdfa549af6@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 12:04 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:38be96ce-5f8a-47ce-bdd6-5c69fa3bf19a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 19, 7:46 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it
>> >> > was
>> >> > obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
>> >> > criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was
>> >> > with
>> >> > your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You
>> >> > couldn't
>> >> > accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
>> >> > credentials.
>>
>> >> Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
>> >> anything. What criteria do you refer to?
>>
>> > You couldn't accept changing the criteria for a valid channel swim, ie
>> > changing the rules. Here is your explanation:
>>
>> > "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
>> > becomes
>> > one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at
>> > all? If
>> > you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all?
>> > Why
>> > bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>>
>> > Your assumption is that rules have an inherent correctness that exists
>> > before the rules are written, that rules emerge out of what is correct
>> > and, in your explanation, moral. Rules to you (and the criteria for a
>> > recognizing a channel swim) _are_ a moral code. Most people would say
>> > that abiding by a set of rules for swimming is moral, but they
>> > wouldn't say the rules themselves are moral. But you are saying that
>> > the rules themselves are moral, because you say that "Allowing drug
>> > taking is simply to allow cheating." In other words, you are saying
>> > that even if the rules were changed to allow EPO, using EPO would
>> > still be cheating. Then allowing dolphin kicks underwater is cheating,
>> > and allowing turns without touching the wall with your hand is
>> > cheating, and allowing LZR suits is cheating, because these changes
>> > also make the competition "one of who can cheat most effectively."
>>
>> > The CSA isn't even about running a competition, but to you, allowing a
>> > swimmer to be recognized for swimming the channel in a wetsuit is to
>> > allow cheating, because the original rules say no wetsuits allowed.
>> > Nevermind that the original swimmer probably didn't use a wetsuit
>> > because neoprene hadn't been invented. Sheep fat is allowed, but it's
>> > only allowed, not required. Did the first channel swimmer use sheep
>> > fat or not? If he didn't, why don't you consider using sheep fat
>> > cheating? If he did, why don't you consider _not_ using sheep fat
>> > cheating?
>>
>> > You make it clear you can't tolerate change. Since you equate changing
>> > the rules to allowing cheating, you conclude there if you allow
>> > changing the rules, then not only is there no point in bothering with
>> > rules at all, but you ask "Why bother with anything?" So you really
>> > have a problem, Duncan, because the first channel swimmer either used
>> > sheep fat or he didn't. Therefore, the _moral_ code requires that the
>> > channel swimming rules be so written and _never_ changed. Sheep fat
>> > must either be required or prohibited. To allow a choice is to allow
>> > cheating.
>>
>> > And now when your dentist asks why your teeth got so ground down,
>> > you'll know what to tell him.
>>
>> My my Smiffy, you do make a lot of assumptions on my behalf- most of them
>> wrong.
>> I believe that rules, once agreed, should be obeyed, as they create the
>> criteria for performance measurement. If people don't agree with those
>> rules, then they should either not participate or participate making it
>> clear that they are not operating under the same rules as others. I am
>> not
>> averse to changing rules,
>
> I'm sorry, but you are lying. You wrote the statement below, and it
> means you equate changing rules with cheating.
>
> "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
> becomes one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with
> rules at all? If you don't bother with rules, why bother with the
> competition at all? Why bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>
> If you are now withdrawing your remarks, fine.
>
>> so long as those changes are properly made and
>> considered. Breaking rules is not the same thing, it is cheating.
>> In relation to the CSA, it was the sneaky and dishonest way in which the
>> CSA
>> (and notably its secretary Duncan Taylor and his 'CCA') sought to
>> circumvent
>> the agreed rules of the CSA without ever consulting the members which I
>> objected to. Duncan Taylor's motives were purely mercenary, and when he
>> was
>> exposed he lied to cover up what he had done, and Mike Read the then
>> Chairman supported him. Whilst still being paid secretary of the CSA
>> Taylor
>> used CSA facilities etc to set up a private rival organisation - the CCA,
>> which is what much of the argument was over. If you'd been involved at
>> all
>> you might know that, but as your interest in Channel Swimming starts and
>> ends with trying to make yourself look cleverer than you are, you
>> wouldn't
>> would you ?
>
> Sorry again, but none of that is relevant. You continue to try to
> divert the discussion into the politics. It isn't about politics. You
> also wrote this, concerning the CSA's intent to allow the use of
> wetsuits:
>
> "The CSA decided in 2001 to start certifying wet-suit swims."
> ...
> "Several CSA members heard of this in April 2001 (me included)
> and made representations to the committee to complain that :
> a) this was against the spirit of LD swimming generally,
> b) against all the history, rules and traditions of the CSA and
> c) had never been put to the CSA members for approval."
>
> Your (a) is clearly false. Swimming with a wetsuit is swimming. The
> spirit of swimming, long distance or short, has nothing to do with the
> costume. Swimming with a wetsuit is against the spirit of swimming
> without a wetsuit, but both are clearly swimming.
>
> Your (b) is true, but it would have become false after the rules were
> changed and some wetsuit swims were certified. From then on, the
> history, rules, and traditions of the CSA would have been divided into
> pre-wetsuits-allowed and post-no-wetsuits allowed.
>
> Finally, you wrote this:
>
> "The swimmers are the losers in all this. The achievement of The
> Channel is being eroded in the public imagination by the influx of wet-
> suit swimmers,"
>
> This is again clearly false. The public has no idea how many people
> swim the English Channel and almost certainly assume most swimmers do
> it in a wetsuit.

Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and how
little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time arguing
with.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 05:37 PM

On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c516997d-93c0-4193-b4e6-00bdfa549af6@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 12:04 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:38be96ce-5f8a-47ce-bdd6-5c69fa3bf19a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 19, 7:46 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> > No, you _are_ the only one. Yes, you stated the obvious, which, it
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > obvious, was part of the question. You couldn't choose your own
> >> >> > criteria. You had to demand that one be chosen for you. So it was
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > your petty complaint about the criteria used by the CSA. You
> >> >> > couldn't
> >> >> > accept any other. and you are doing the same now, demanding
> >> >> > credentials.
>
> >> >> Care to explain your comment about the CSA? As stated it doesn't mean
> >> >> anything. What criteria do you refer to?
>
> >> > You couldn't accept changing the criteria for a valid channel swim, ie
> >> > changing the rules. Here is your explanation:
>
> >> > "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
> >> > becomes
> >> > one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at
> >> > all? If
> >> > you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all?
> >> > Why
> >> > bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>
> >> > Your assumption is that rules have an inherent correctness that exists
> >> > before the rules are written, that rules emerge out of what is correct
> >> > and, in your explanation, moral. Rules to you (and the criteria for a
> >> > recognizing a channel swim) _are_ a moral code. Most people would say
> >> > that abiding by a set of rules for swimming is moral, but they
> >> > wouldn't say the rules themselves are moral. But you are saying that
> >> > the rules themselves are moral, because you say that "Allowing drug
> >> > taking is simply to allow cheating." In other words, you are saying
> >> > that even if the rules were changed to allow EPO, using EPO would
> >> > still be cheating. Then allowing dolphin kicks underwater is cheating,
> >> > and allowing turns without touching the wall with your hand is
> >> > cheating, and allowing LZR suits is cheating, because these changes
> >> > also make the competition "one of who can cheat most effectively."
>
> >> > The CSA isn't even about running a competition, but to you, allowing a
> >> > swimmer to be recognized for swimming the channel in a wetsuit is to
> >> > allow cheating, because the original rules say no wetsuits allowed.
> >> > Nevermind that the original swimmer probably didn't use a wetsuit
> >> > because neoprene hadn't been invented. Sheep fat is allowed, but it's
> >> > only allowed, not required. Did the first channel swimmer use sheep
> >> > fat or not? If he didn't, why don't you consider using sheep fat
> >> > cheating? If he did, why don't you consider _not_ using sheep fat
> >> > cheating?
>
> >> > You make it clear you can't tolerate change. Since you equate changing
> >> > the rules to allowing cheating, you conclude there if you allow
> >> > changing the rules, then not only is there no point in bothering with
> >> > rules at all, but you ask "Why bother with anything?" So you really
> >> > have a problem, Duncan, because the first channel swimmer either used
> >> > sheep fat or he didn't. Therefore, the _moral_ code requires that the
> >> > channel swimming rules be so written and _never_ changed. Sheep fat
> >> > must either be required or prohibited. To allow a choice is to allow
> >> > cheating.
>
> >> > And now when your dentist asks why your teeth got so ground down,
> >> > you'll know what to tell him.
>
> >> My my Smiffy, you do make a lot of assumptions on my behalf- most of them
> >> wrong.
> >> I believe that rules, once agreed, should be obeyed, as they create the
> >> criteria for performance measurement. If people don't agree with those
> >> rules, then they should either not participate or participate making it
> >> clear that they are not operating under the same rules as others. I am
> >> not
> >> averse to changing rules,
>
> > I'm sorry, but you are lying. You wrote the statement below, and it
> > means you equate changing rules with cheating.
>
> > "Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition
> > becomes one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with
> > rules at all? If you don't bother with rules, why bother with the
> > competition at all? Why bother with anything......" -- Duncan Heenan
>
> > If you are now withdrawing your remarks, fine.
>
> >> so long as those changes are properly made and
> >> considered. Breaking rules is not the same thing, it is cheating.
> >> In relation to the CSA, it was the sneaky and dishonest way in which the
> >> CSA
> >> (and notably its secretary Duncan Taylor and his 'CCA') sought to
> >> circumvent
> >> the agreed rules of the CSA without ever consulting the members which I
> >> objected to. Duncan Taylor's motives were purely mercenary, and when he
> >> was
> >> exposed he lied to cover up what he had done, and Mike Read the then
> >> Chairman supported him. Whilst still being paid secretary of the CSA
> >> Taylor
> >> used CSA facilities etc to set up a private rival organisation - the CCA,
> >> which is what much of the argument was over. If you'd been involved at
> >> all
> >> you might know that, but as your interest in Channel Swimming starts and
> >> ends with trying to make yourself look cleverer than you are, you
> >> wouldn't
> >> would you ?
>
> > Sorry again, but none of that is relevant. You continue to try to
> > divert the discussion into the politics. It isn't about politics. You
> > also wrote this, concerning the CSA's intent to allow the use of
> > wetsuits:
>
> > "The CSA decided in 2001 to start certifying wet-suit swims."
> > ...
> > "Several CSA members heard of this in April 2001 (me included)
> > and made representations to the committee to complain that :
> > a) this was against the spirit of LD swimming generally,
> > b) against all the history, rules and traditions of the CSA and
> > c) had never been put to the CSA members for approval."
>
> > Your (a) is clearly false. Swimming with a wetsuit is swimming. The
> > spirit of swimming, long distance or short, has nothing to do with the
> > costume. Swimming with a wetsuit is against the spirit of swimming
> > without a wetsuit, but both are clearly swimming.
>
> > Your (b) is true, but it would have become false after the rules were
> > changed and some wetsuit swims were certified. From then on, the
> > history, rules, and traditions of the CSA would have been divided into
> > pre-wetsuits-allowed and post-no-wetsuits allowed.
>
> > Finally, you wrote this:
>
> > "The swimmers are the losers in all this. The achievement of The
> > Channel is being eroded in the public imagination by the influx of wet-
> > suit swimmers,"
>
> > This is again clearly false. The public has no idea how many people
> > swim the English Channel and almost certainly assume most swimmers do
> > it in a wetsuit.
>
> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and how
> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time arguing
> with.
> --
> Duncan Heenan

Victory is mine.

Bobby Knight

08-19-2008, 07:08 PM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
<clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote:

>Victory is mine.

I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
post. Idiot.
bk

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 07:23 PM

On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Victory is mine.
>
> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
> post. Idiot.
> bk

Get a better news service.

jason-catlin@hotmail.com

08-19-2008, 07:28 PM

On Aug 16, 11:01 pm, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
> NB wrote:
> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> Usain Bolt. His win in the biggest event in the world was ridiculous.

I thought the Super Bowl was the biggest event in the world.

Bobby Knight

08-19-2008, 07:40 PM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
<clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>>
>> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Victory is mine.
>>
>> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
>> post. Idiot.
>> bk
>
>Get a better news service.

Lame, but to be expected.
bk

Ceske_Pivo

08-19-2008, 07:50 PM

why no same level hype or love for natalie coughlin? she is setting
records for usa, displaying dominance too.

reason is obvious to me, after glancing through wikipeida biography.
there are reasons for everything. easy to decipher usa mentality, how
things work.

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 08:44 PM

On Aug 19, 8:40 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> >> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Victory is mine.
>
> >> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
> >> post. Idiot.
> >> bk
>
> >Get a better news service.
>
> Lame, but to be expected.
> bk

Then suffer in silence.

Bobby Knight

08-19-2008, 09:21 PM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:44:37 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
<clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 19, 8:40 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>>
>> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>>
>> >> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Victory is mine.
>>
>> >> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
>> >> post. Idiot.
>> >> bk
>>
>> >Get a better news service.
>>
>> Lame, but to be expected.
>> bk
>
>Then suffer in silence.

You really are a schmuck, aren't you? Not enough common sense to
edit your posts, and do the newbie idiocy of adding one line.

Then you, supreme idiocy, suggest that there's a news reader that
could ferret out your stupidity.

But the most irritating is that you think any of this is cute.

Thank goodness you aren't around on all of these cross-posted groups
all of the time, and can be eliminated on those that I see. Have
you been around Usenet long enough to understand the term "plonk"?
Probably not, but its been used on you a lot, I'm sure.
bk

Ceske_Pivo

08-19-2008, 09:23 PM

I am impressed.

Yes, 100m race for World's Fastest Man title is most prestigious in
Olympics.

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 09:34 PM

On Aug 19, 10:21 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:44:37 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
>
>
> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 19, 8:40 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> >> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> >> >> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Victory is mine.
>
> >> >> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
> >> >> post. Idiot.
> >> >> bk
>
> >> >Get a better news service.
>
> >> Lame, but to be expected.
> >> bk
>
> >Then suffer in silence.
>
> You really are a schmuck, aren't you? Not enough common sense to
> edit your posts, and do the newbie idiocy of adding one line.
>
> Then you, supreme idiocy, suggest that there's a news reader that
> could ferret out your stupidity.
>
> But the most irritating is that you think any of this is cute.
>
> Thank goodness you aren't around on all of these cross-posted groups
> all of the time, and can be eliminated on those that I see. Have
> you been around Usenet long enough to understand the term "plonk"?
> Probably not, but its been used on you a lot, I'm sure.
> bk

I don't think any of this is cute, and I've been doing it since
probably way before you were born. You might have considered that I
didn't edit the post because I wanted it all there. My reasons needn't
bother you, since you weren't involved in the discussion in the first
place, and post obviously wasn't meant for you. Thanks for the plonk.
Made my day.

MW Smith

08-19-2008, 09:35 PM

On Aug 19, 10:23 pm, Ceske_Pivo <ceske_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am impressed.
>
> Yes, 100m race for World's Fastest Man title is most prestigious in
> Olympics.

The World's Fastest Man For 100m, you mean.

johndagolfer

08-19-2008, 10:17 PM

On Aug 19, 2:50 pm, Ceske_Pivo <ceske_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> why no same level hype or love for natalie coughlin? she is setting
> records for usa, displaying dominance too.
>
> reason is obvious to me, after glancing through wikipeida biography.
> there are reasons for everything. easy to decipher usa mentality, how
> things work.

I think carelin is the most dominant ever. A 13 year win streak and 6
years without even a point scored against him!

dave@geewhiz.com

08-20-2008, 12:24 AM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:21:56 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:44:37 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith

>Thank goodness you aren't around on all of these cross-posted groups
>all of the time, and can be eliminated on those that I see.

Yea, but this cross posting is on one of the two newsgroups I read the
most. BTW, Bobby, this is the second day in a row that an RSGr has
called on of his posts lame. :-)

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

Dene

08-20-2008, 12:31 AM

On Aug 19, 12:44 pm, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:40 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> > <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT), MW Smith
>
> > >> <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >Victory is mine.
>
> > >> I guess that is important enough for you to reprint the whole 150 line
> > >> post. Idiot.
> > >> bk
>
> > >Get a better news service.
>
> > Lame, but to be expected.
> > bk
>
> Then suffer in silence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Great response, MW.

-Greg

Howard Brazee

08-20-2008, 12:55 AM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), jason-catlin@hotmail.com
wrote:

>> Usain Bolt. His win in the biggest event in the world was ridiculous.
>
>I thought the Super Bowl was the biggest event in the world.

Not this week it isn't.

bob

08-20-2008, 01:04 AM

<jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3567d39-d8fd-4085-9371-c76fdc4e276d@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 16, 11:01 pm, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
> NB wrote:
> > Which athlete is the most dominant in his prime? Roger Federer, Tiger
> > Woods, or Michael Phelps?
>
> Usain Bolt. His win in the biggest event in the world was ridiculous.

>I thought the Super Bowl was the biggest event in the world.

biggest in what terms? i know the SB isn't in top 3 for worldwide
viewership....

bob

jingus

08-20-2008, 06:21 AM

Robert W. McAdams wrote:
> jingus wrote:
>
>> i don't see how anyone could argue that phelps was *the* dominant
>> athlete in swimming events. however, comparing swimming events to
>> track and field is a bit of a stretch. the competition in track and
>> field is much stiffer. for example, in the current sport of track and
>> field, the degree of specialization is so great that a sprinter has no
>> chance in a hurdle event.
>
> Well, there's also a lot of specialization in swimming! That's why
> people think of Aaron Piersol as a backstroker or Brendan Hansen as a
> breaststroker. The reason no swimmer has medaled in 8 events before is
> because the skills required to excel in each event are different enough
> that no swimmer has ever before been able to do it in that many.
>

i don't doubt that there is specialization in swimming, but the level of
competition in a sport tends to drive higher degrees of specialization.
in track & field, there is a lot more competition, coming from a lot
countries, than you have in swimming. so while i never stated that
specialization in swimming was nonexistent, but because of the higher
degree of competition, the level of specialization in track & field is
greater.

jingus

08-20-2008, 06:26 AM

Duncan Heenan wrote:
>
>
> "Ron" <BigELilE05@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:44c2e27a-eb1c-4c24-96c8-6274c4c42626@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> That's like saying that Mike Tyson wasn't THE dominant force in HW
>> boxing before his loss to Buster Douglas (and prison sentence) because
>> 2 of his fights were decisions.
>
> He wasn't. Muhammed Ali was. Pity the two never met in the ring.
>

mike tyson was the dominant boxer during his time at the top in boxing
irrespective of what ali did during his time. from a career perspective
there is no doubt that ali had a more impressive career. a good
argument can be made that ali was the greatest boxer of all time, but
then a good argument can also be made that joe louis was. a boxer whose
greatness seems to be much overlooked is larry holmes (although i would
not say that holmes was the greatest of all time - but there is an
extremely small number who are greater).

Ron

08-20-2008, 07:17 AM

On Aug 20, 1:26 am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:44c2e27a-eb1c-4c24-96c8-6274c4c42626@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> That's like saying that Mike Tyson wasn't THE dominant force in HW
> >> boxing before his loss to Buster Douglas (and prison sentence) because
> >> 2 of his fights were decisions.
>
> > He wasn't. Muhammed Ali was. Pity the two never met in the ring.
>
> >
>
> mike tyson was the dominant boxer during his time at the top in boxing
> irrespective of what ali did during his time. from a career perspective
> there is no doubt that ali had a more impressive career. a good
> argument can be made that ali was the greatest boxer of all time, but
> then a good argument can also be made that joe louis was. a boxer whose
> greatness seems to be much overlooked is larry holmes (although i would
> not say that holmes was the greatest of all time - but there is an
> extremely small number who are greater).

But, we are talking about dominating here....at least one poster is.

Mike Tyson, before his loss to Douglas, won about 50% of his amateur
and pro fights with a KO in the 1st or 2nd round.

I don't believe any boxer has ever done that.

Duncan Heenan

08-20-2008, 09:06 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> snip <
>> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and
>> how
>> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time arguing
>> with.
>
> Victory is mine.

I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the world
'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
success you'll ever know.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-20-2008, 09:15 AM

On Aug 20, 10:06 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > snip <
> >> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and
> >> how
> >> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time arguing
> >> with.
>
> > Victory is mine.
>
> I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the world
> 'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
> success you'll ever know.

That, and all my swimming successes.

Duncan Heenan

08-20-2008, 11:21 AM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e28285a7-8e9d-41d2-917e-010cbeaf36d5@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 10:06 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > snip <
>> >> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and
>> >> how
>> >> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time
>> >> arguing
>> >> with.
>>
>> > Victory is mine.
>>
>> I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the
>> world
>> 'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
>> success you'll ever know.
>
> That, and all my swimming successes.

Care to let us know what they are?
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-20-2008, 11:35 AM

On Aug 20, 12:21 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e28285a7-8e9d-41d2-917e-010cbeaf36d5@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 10:06 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > snip <
> >> >> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are, and
> >> >> how
> >> >> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time
> >> >> arguing
> >> >> with.
>
> >> > Victory is mine.
>
> >> I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the
> >> world
> >> 'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
> >> success you'll ever know.
>
> > That, and all my swimming successes.
>
> Care to let us know what they are?

Not particularly. Wouldn't want them to be... eroded in the public
imagination.

Duncan Heenan

08-20-2008, 01:05 PM

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:315e5bde-eecc-4bcd-81e1-0129fcb42299@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 12:21 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e28285a7-8e9d-41d2-917e-010cbeaf36d5@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 20, 10:06 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > snip <
>> >> >> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time
>> >> >> arguing
>> >> >> with.
>>
>> >> > Victory is mine.
>>
>> >> I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the
>> >> world
>> >> 'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
>> >> success you'll ever know.
>>
>> > That, and all my swimming successes.
>>
>> Care to let us know what they are?
>
> Not particularly. Wouldn't want them to be... eroded in the public
> imagination.

Imagination is something you're pretty long on. Unlike swimming
achievements. Your response says it all.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith

08-20-2008, 01:19 PM

On Aug 20, 2:05 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:315e5bde-eecc-4bcd-81e1-0129fcb42299@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 12:21 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:e28285a7-8e9d-41d2-917e-010cbeaf36d5@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 20, 10:06 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:b91b4fff-25b4-40b3-ab27-df09fc2d3164@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > snip <
> >> >> >> Smiffy, once again you demonstrate what a worthless troll you are,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> how
> >> >> >> little you know of matters you raise. You're not worth the time
> >> >> >> arguing
> >> >> >> with.
>
> >> >> > Victory is mine.
>
> >> >> I Smiffy, if you consider being ignored and considered a twerp by the
> >> >> world
> >> >> 'Victory', then yes. And you're welcome to it, it's probably the only
> >> >> success you'll ever know.
>
> >> > That, and all my swimming successes.
>
> >> Care to let us know what they are?
>
> > Not particularly. Wouldn't want them to be... eroded in the public
> > imagination.
>
> Imagination is something you're pretty long on. Unlike swimming
> achievements. Your response says it all.

Yes it does. I cribbed it from your explanation for why allowing
wetsuits for channel crossings might make people think you aren't as
special as you think you are. I train and compete because i enjoy
doing these things. That's why I'm good at them. I don't need swimming
successes to pump myself up. Now that people are swimming the channel
in wetsuits, I guess you'll have to find some other way to get those
old feelings of superiority.

Robert W. McAdams

08-20-2008, 01:44 PM

jingus wrote:
> Robert W. McAdams wrote:
>
>> jingus wrote:
>>
>>> i don't see how anyone could argue that phelps was *the* dominant
>>> athlete in swimming events. however, comparing swimming events to
>>> track and field is a bit of a stretch. the competition in track and
>>> field is much stiffer. for example, in the current sport of track and
>>> field, the degree of specialization is so great that a sprinter has no
>>> chance in a hurdle event.
>>
>>
>> Well, there's also a lot of specialization in swimming! That's why
>> people think of Aaron Piersol as a backstroker or Brendan Hansen as a
>> breaststroker. The reason no swimmer has medaled in 8 events before
>> is because the skills required to excel in each event are different
>> enough that no swimmer has ever before been able to do it in that many.
>>
>
> i don't doubt that there is specialization in swimming, but the level of
> competition in a sport tends to drive higher degrees of specialization.
> in track & field, there is a lot more competition, coming from a lot
> countries, than you have in swimming. so while i never stated that
> specialization in swimming was nonexistent, but because of the higher
> degree of competition, the level of specialization in track & field is
> greater.

Again, the question is why you think there isn't a great deal of
competition in swimming.

Every spring, several hundred teenagers from YMCAs around the U.S. go
down to Florida to compete in YMCA nationals. Those teens are usually
the top swimmers on their high school swim teams, where they frequently
swim most or all of the strokes. But they usually only qualify for a
few of the events at YMCA nationals. And the vast majority of them
aren't good enough to ever make it to Olympic trials. Those who do
usually don't qualify to participate in trials in more than one stroke.
And once they get there, it's only the top two swimmers in each event
who make the team.

It's very unusual for a swimmer to be one of the top two in more than
one stroke. Even I.M.ers, who have to be good at all of the strokes,
are usually only best at one of them, and sometimes aren't BEST at any
of them!

That's why there were events at this Olympics where the difference
between a gold medal and a silver medal was literally one one-hundreth
of a second!

The reason that Michael Phelps was able to win 8 gold medals wasn't
because swimming isn't as competitive as track. It was because Phelps
is an extremely unusual swimmer, the likes of which the sport has never
seen before, except perhaps in Mark Spitz!

Bob