[drummer]

(Original post by bodie)
Serious butthurt by people with no knowledge and appreciation of swimming. Pretty amusing to see them get all worked up by the fact that breaststroke, fly and back all exist.

Not Phelps problem that other sports don't have more races. Nah, the dude instead just rocks up and wins Gold after Gold baby.

Agreed

[Jack93o]

(Original post by bodie)
Serious butthurt by people with no knowledge and appreciation of swimming. Pretty amusing to see them get all worked up by the fact that breaststroke, fly and back all exist.

Not Phelps problem that other sports don't have more races. Nah, the dude instead just rocks up and wins Gold after Gold baby.

No problem with phelps, fair play to him, by all means treasure his medals count. I just want other athletes from other sports (namely cycling and rowing ) to have the opportunity to reach a similar level of success.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Except that it is actually faster to go underwater with butterfly kick than it is to go straight freestyle. To this end, you are disqualified if you come up after the 15 meter mark. Why is that if the sport is just purely about going fast?

Well the sport should be about going fast so they should do whatever is faster. Whats the point otherwise?

[Connhk]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Well the sport should be about going fast so they should do whatever is faster. Whats the point otherwise?

Oh look it's Ricky Bobby...

[Ocassus]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Well the sport should be about going fast so they should do whatever is faster. Whats the point otherwise?

Because sports have rules that you need in order to play/ Some of these might seem arbitrary if you apply arbitrary standards to it (Go faster), but in actual fact they are not.

I can reduce the basic components of cycling, rowing, running, swimming, motorsport racing, sailing all to the same baseline of 'go faster', but each of these sports has their own rules and boundaries.

Why can you not fit a pair of springs to your legs in order to go faster in running? Well, because it is against the rules, But surely the point is to go faster? Yes, within a defined set of rules. Swimming is an inefficient way of travelling across water, a rower could easily beat them over any distance, why not get rid of swimming entirely and just row? I mean the point is to go faster right?

See what I mean? You can arbitrate any of these standards and eliminate sports like this, it just does not make any sense, because each sport is interdependent and doesn't relate to one another outside of the basic premise of 'going faster'. There is more to it than that.

[Connhk]

(Original post by Astronomical)
It isn't uncommon for a swimmer to win 3 or 4 gold medals in one olympics, yet it's practically impossible in any of the other disciplines.

That's inherently unfair.

Not if you unglue your head from the medal table (which appears to be very, very far up your backside). Swimmers train for as many and sometimes more than 4 different events, thus can dominate that many different events, and thus have a different athletic aims than other Olympians. It's similar to a rower needing to row in both an eight, a four and sculls. There are overlaps but, lets be honest, how many rowers do you see doing that, this showcases just how athletic these swimmers are.

Back to my original point, if you won a bronze in the long jump you would not be pissed off by the fact that a swimmer who competed in 4 events ended up with one or two more medals than you. You, the athlete that is. You the exasperated viewer whose right hand has drifted upwards from below the belt to the ctrl+r button on london2012.com might see this differently.

(Original post by Atmos)
You cant have more than one participants from the same country in olympic track events as well.

Which is why two Jamaicans came 1st and 2nd in the 100m and there were two Aussies in the Long Jump final? (along with numerous more Kenyan/American doubles on the podium). Christ almighty.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Because sports have rules that you need in order to play/ Some of these might seem arbitrary if you apply arbitrary standards to it (Go faster), but in actual fact they are not.

I can reduce the basic components of cycling, rowing, running, swimming, motorsport racing, sailing all to the same baseline of 'go faster', but each of these sports has their own rules and boundaries.

Why can you not fit a pair of springs to your legs in order to go faster in running? Well, because it is against the rules, But surely the point is to go faster? Yes, within a defined set of rules. Swimming is an inefficient way of travelling across water, a rower could easily beat them over any distance, why not get rid of swimming entirely and just row? I mean the point is to go faster right?

See what I mean? You can arbitrate any of these standards and eliminate sports like this, it just does not make any sense, because each sport is interdependent and doesn't relate to one another outside of the basic premise of 'going faster'. There is more to it than that.

Swimming should be about who can run fastest, running should be about how can run fastest, sailing should be about who can sail fastest etc. If I'm the fastest swimmer at backstroke there are still probably loads of people who can swim faster than me. If im the fastest 100m sprinter there is no one who can run faster than me.

[bodie]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Swimming should be about who can run fastest, running should be about how can run fastest, sailing should be about who can sail fastest etc. If I'm the fastest swimmer at backstroke there are still probably loads of people who can swim faster than me. If im the fastest 100m sprinter there is no one who can run faster than me.

So they should condense all cycling and rowing events into one to determine who the fastest is?

Bro, you're off your rocker.

[Jack93o]

(Original post by bodie)
So they should condense all cycling and rowing events into one to determine who the fastest is?

Bro, you're off your rocker.

so presumbly you'd be okay with backwards running being introduced as a new event?

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by bodie)
So they should condense all cycling and rowing events into one to determine who the fastest is?

Bro, you're off your rocker.

Are any of the cycling or rowing events based around arbitrary rules that disallow faster methods of rowing/cycling just because they are faster?

Perhaps we should introduce a new high jump event where the fosbury flop is banned? Or perhaps a cycling event where you aren't allowed to stand and have to sit on the seat the entire race.

[bodie]

(Original post by Jack93o)
so presumbly you'd be okay with backwards running be introduced then?

Yeah I'm all for it.

Do you want all the various classes of sailing removed so there's only one which is 'THE FASTEST'. what's your obsession with THE FASTEST.

[bodie]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Are any of the cycling or rowing events based around arbitrary rules that disallow faster methods of rowing/cycling just because they are faster?

Perhaps we should introduce a new high jump event where the fosbury flop is banned? Or perhaps a cycling event where you aren't allowed to stand and have to sit on the seat the entire race.

you want the slower sailing classes removed? what's the point of them. PEOPLE CAN GO FASTER.

remove all boxing classes apart from heavyweight. THEY'RE THE STRONGEST.

what's the point of the hurdles. just run round them.

[Jack93o]

(Original post by bodie)
Yeah I'm all for it.

Do you want all the various classes of sailing removed so there's only one which is 'THE FASTEST'. what's your obsession with THE FASTEST.

okay thats alright then, I take the same viewpoint, I'm not totally against all the random ways of swimming because arbitary rules/events exist in things like gymnastics as well.

what I find funny is the hypocrisy with some people here, they're okay with swimming having all the different strokes, but something thats as unusual and arbitary as backwards running is not cool with them

[bodie]

(Original post by Jack93o)
okay thats alright then, I take the same viewpoint, I'm not totally against all the random ways of swimming because arbitary rules/events exist in things like gymnastics as well.

what I find funny is the hypocrisy with some people here, they're okay with swimming having all the different strokes, but something thats as unusual and arbitary as backwards running is not cool with them

it's because swimming the four strokes is a fairly natural thing. if you've ever been in a swimming club you'll realise how each stroke is completely fundamental to the sport of swimming.

running backwards however is not. if it was it would be a part of the olympics. if it was something that people wanted to do, do you not think that over the past centuries it would have evolved into a competitive element of athletics?

comparing hopping, skipping, running backwards to the four swimming strokes is just so far removed as a comparison that it makes me laugh. it's like comparing apples and oranges.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by bodie)
you want the slower sailing classes removed? what's the point of them. PEOPLE CAN GO FASTER.

remove all boxing classes apart from heavyweight. THEY'RE THE STRONGEST.

what's the point of the hurdles. just run round them.

Don't know enough about sailing to comment.

Dont think we should be removing the boxing classes, its completely different to the swimming. A better analogy would be having boxing events, and boxing events with one hand tired behind your back.

Hurdles is combining two separate things into one race, running and jumping. Backstroke and freestyle are both swimming, just one is a slower version of it.

[Jack93o]

(Original post by bodie)
it's because swimming the four strokes is a fairly natural thing. if you've ever been in a swimming club you'll realise how each stroke is completely fundamental to the sport of swimming.

running backwards however is not. if it was it would be a part of the olympics. if it was something that people wanted to do, do you not think that over the past centuries it would have evolved into a competitive element of athletics?

comparing hopping, skipping, running backwards to the four swimming strokes is just so far removed as a comparison that it makes me laugh. it's like comparing apples and oranges.

natural?


I don't know about you, but if I was chased by a shark, my natural instincts would not be to flip over and do backstrokes

[bodie]

well looks like you're both gonna carry on ruing the creation and establishment of fly, back and breast. combined into one. THE MAGNIFICENT MEDLEY.

[Jack93o]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimmin...s_to_the_sport


Turns out the 50m freestyle was only added in the 1980s, those american vultures. Just shows that adding new events can be done.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Jack93o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimmin...s_to_the_sport


Turns out the 50m freestyle was only added in the 1980s, those american vultures. Just shows that adding new events can be done.

It was added because it is an event in the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS and is the only VIABLE SPRINT EVENT in the current Olympics.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Jack93o)
x 10000

are you seriously comparing what michael phelps has done to usain bolt competiting in 100m, 200m, 10000m and a marathon?

do you even watch the olympics? seen the difference in physique between short distance sprinters and someone like mo farrah?

There is a clear distinction in technique and training though. Nobody else can swap between strokes like Phelps so it will be interesting to see what happens in Rio where he's not competing. Most swimmers will have about 2 races where they have a realistic chance of winning, or even placing for a medal. It's not an easy thing to do it at all.

We have chance to win all the swimming events that America do, so it's not exactly unfair.