Mr Phelps

Diuretic

New member
I'm very happy to accept that Michael Phelps is the greatest swimmer in history. He has performed remarkably at the Beijing Olympics. He appears to be a man who is able to contain his ego (if it was me I'd be going nutso) as well, which is a huge plus. Even we, in our one-eyed (when it comes to sport) country are lauding him (and rightly so) for his greatness.

But is he the greatest Olympic athlete ever?

I don't mean to demean Phelps, he is, quite simply, a phenomenon. In a way he transcends the focus of the Games on parochial national achievements (the medal tally is reported here almost on an hourly basis, if we start to fall then it's time for national breast-beating, wailing, gnashing of teeh, rending of clothing and swearing to stay off the beer for at least three hours) and puts the focus on the achievement of the individual. That's a great thing. If Phelps was an Australian though I can assure you that you would see the poolside engulged in people in green and gold wigs who were in the latter stages of intoxication and probably ready to take on the combined might of the police and the the PLA.

But let me move on.

As remarkable as he is as a swimmer I don't think he is deserving of the breathless accolades as the greatest athlete at an Olympics. Yes, as someone said today, he's got almost as much gold as Fort Knox, but it's in one Olympics in an anodyne sport that uses changes of distance to create competitions. I know that an 800m is different from a 200m (I worked this out today, the difference is 600m) but it's still swimming, it's just that the time changes.

And it's just one Olympics (although again Phelps' performance in terms of coming back after a record-breaking swim to do it again is remarkable).

No, my nominee for greatest Olympian is the late Al Oerter.

In case you don't know, Oerter was a discus thrower. He won gold in Melbourne in 1956, Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964 and Mexico City in 1968. Twelve years. In twelve years he won four consecutive gold medals.

Anyway that's just my view.

Phelps has won more gold than any other individual in the Olympics but with all due respect to him I don't think that qualifies him as the greatest Olympian, just the greatest swimmer the world has ever seen.

Well, since Lloyd Bridges in Sea Hunt anyway (Phelps never had to fight knife-wielding baddies determined to cut his air hose).
 
Last edited:
Damo, can you give me a bit of time with this one? As soon as I've sobered up I'll go back and see if I need to edit it, 12 hours should do the trick.

Thanks cobber.
 
I'm very happy to accept that Michael Phelps is the greatest swimmer in history. He has performed remarkably at the Beijing Olympics. He appears to be a man who is able to contain his ego (if it was me I'd be going nutso) as well, which is a huge plus. Even we, in our one-eyed (when it comes to sport) country are lauding him (and rightly so) for his greatness.

But is he the greatest Olympic athlete ever?

I don't mean to demean Phelps, he is, quite simply, a phenomenon. In a way he transcends the focus of the Games on parochial national achievements (the medal tally is reported here almost on an hourly basis, if we start to fall then it's time for national breast-beating, wailing, gnashing of teeh, rending of clothing and swearing to stay off the beer for at least three hours) and puts the focus on the achievement of the individual. That's a great thing. If Phelps was an Australian though I can assure you that you would see the poolside engulged in people in green and gold wigs who were in the latter stages of intoxication and probably ready to take on the combined might of the police and the the PLA.

But let me move on.

As remarkable as he is as a swimmer I don't think he is deserving of the breathless accolades as the greatest athlete at an Olympics. Yes, as someone said today, he's got almost as much gold as Fort Knox, but it's in one Olympics in an anodyne sport that uses changes of distance to create competitions. I know that an 800m is different from a 200m (I worked this out today, the difference is 600m) but it's still swimming, it's just that the time changes.

And it's just one Olympics (although again Phelps' performance in terms of coming back after a record-breaking swim to do it again is remarkable).

No, my nominee for greatest Olympian is the late Al Oerter.

In case you don't know, Oerter was a discus thrower. He won gold in Melbourne in 1956, Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964 and Mexico City in 1968. Twelve years. In twelve years he won four consecutive gold medals.

Anyway that's just my view.

Phelps has won more gold than any other individual in the Olympics but with all due respect to him I don't think that qualifies him as the greatest Olympian, just the greatest swimmer the world has ever seen.

Well, since Lloyd Bridges in Sea Hunt anyway (Phelps never had to fight knife-wielding baddies determined to cut his air hose).

The different events in swimming are very different. There is a bigger difference between the 800m and 200m than just the linear measurement.

Can you honestly say that the only difference between the 100 yard dash and a 26k marathon is the distance?

When you are swimming 800m you use an entirely different strategy than when you swim 200m.
 
The different events in swimming are very different. There is a bigger difference between the 800m and 200m than just the linear measurement.

Can you honestly say that the only difference between the 100 yard dash and a 26k marathon is the distance?

When you are swimming 800m you use an entirely different strategy than when you swim 200m.

Strategy? Someone hops in the pool and swims. They do a set number of lengths of the pool and that's it. All they have to do is keep count! Oerter had to go to four Olympics over twelve years and in one of them he had to have his shoulder strapped and was pumped full of pain kiillers because of damage in the preliminaries to his shoulder muscles AND he threw a world record in his FIRST (discus throwers get best of three in the finals) attempt and had to decline the other two attempts and still won the gold, from memory that was Rome. I seem to remember a Czech and I think the American Rink Babka were in that one chasing Oerter but I could be wrong, going from memory.

A 100 m sprinter isn't someone who can take on a marathon and vice versa. No track athlete (so far) is going to take the 100m AND The difference between the 100 m and the marathon is definitely the distance. the marathon because the events are differentiated not simply by distance but by so many other factors that transcend strategy. If strategy is the only difference between a 50m in the pool and an 800 m in the pool then I'm not only home and hosed, I'm reading the paper and enjoying an early Martini. :clink:
 
your insane. That is all
You do host a nice tennis tournament though!!!

It's usually insanely hot when the tennis is on in Melbourne. How those people can put up with those on-court temperatures is beyond me. And all because some bloody idiot official forgets to put the roof on and then crank up the aircon when it's 42c outside .
 
Last edited:
Is it in Sydney when it's not in Melbourne?
I plan on going to all 4 majors and want to do the Austrailian first, get a little barrier reef action!!!
 
"Strategy? Someone hops in the pool and swims. They do a set number of lengths of the pool and that's it. All they have to do is keep count!"

Yep, thats it just jump in the pool and swim. Thats why we have so many people who can do it so well.

But by the same nonsense, all Oerter did was spin around with a heavy frisbee in his hand and let go at the right time.

The demands on the body for swimming are MUCH greater than for throwing discus. That is why there are no older swimmers. You can't compete at the top level after a certain age.
 
Did everyone see Mark Spitz whining over this? And they showed a picture of him from back when he won his medals. OMG, gross. He looked like some sort of porn guy. I guess all men looked like that back then? Thank God I didn’t have to date during the 70’s, men are bad enough now. I crack up every time I see one of them from the Ted and Alice and Bob and whoever days. But then I get one of those “ech gross” chills. I can’t believe women had sex with those clowns! I totally would have went lesbo in the 70’s.
 
LOFL, Giambi of the Yankees had a porn stash for months I guess until he struck out a few times. Fans in the stands had Ginourmus fake stashes it was funny as hell.
Bring back the 70's giant fro's!!!
 
LOFL, Giambi of the Yankees had a porn stash for months I guess until he struck out a few times. Fans in the stands had Ginourmus fake stashes it was funny as hell.
Bring back the 70's giant fro's!!!

LOL that was great huh??? I laughed everytime I saw him.

BTW I agree completely with you Darla. If I had been with men in the 70's I think that might have qualified me as being a lesbo. Men were so friggin girlie then!! Way worse than the metrosexuals today.
 
LOL that was great huh??? I laughed everytime I saw him.

BTW I agree completely with you Darla. If I had been with men in the 70's I think that might have qualified me as being a lesbo. Men were so friggin girlie then!! Way worse than the metrosexuals today.

Well, I just view them as having been so stupid. Like, walking around with their hairy chests and low-cut blouses, and gold chains, swaggering in their tight polyester pants, like, oh I know you want this baby.

Get out! I would have totally tried the other side.
 
Well, I just view them as having been so stupid. Like, walking around with their hairy chests and low-cut blouses, and gold chains, swaggering in their tight polyester pants, like, oh I know you want this baby.

Get out! I would have totally tried the other side.

Yeah that's exactly what i was picturing when I read your original post. I would have considered any man with more jewelry and tighter clothes than me to BE on the other side lol.
 
LOL. True.

Having lived thru that era (no mustache or tight polyester pants on me), I can assure you that the reason men wore them was that it seemed to get them laid.

No, it doesn't look appealing now. But I have a sneaking suspicion that in 20 or 30 years, looking at today's fashions will bring just as many laughs.
 
Having lived thru that era (no mustache or tight polyester pants on me), I can assure you that the reason men wore them was that it seemed to get them laid.

No, it doesn't look appealing now. But I have a sneaking suspicion that in 20 or 30 years, looking at today's fashions will bring just as many laughs.

This goes to show, how stupit, the libs are, RJS is still getting laid where he lives, wearing tight pants, gold chains, open shirts, and a big moustache? I have to beat them off with sticks, laugh now, cry later alone at home when RJS has his hands fill, with a babe?
 
Back
Top