v2 G.O.A.T Round 2 Group 5

Yesterday’s first group was dominated by American Olympic Champion Michael Johnson and cricketing legend Garfield Sobers both won 45% and 32% of the vote, shutting out Edwin Moses and Babe Ruth who both exit the tournament at this stage.

Elsewhere in round 2 group 5 was quickly turning into a three way race for last sixteen qualification between Redgrave, Messi and SRR. It was the boxing icon that triumphed come close of play taking 45% of the vote with Redgrave making it through in second place with 7 votes more than Messi.

Today’s first group pits Swimming, Darts, Tennis and Football together in what promises to be a very competitive group.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted.

Michael Phelps- Swimming- Championed by 88Chris05

"There probably aren't enough superlatives in a dictionary to fully explain the greatness of Michael Phelps, or just how much he's achieved in his professional swimming career. I'll make my agenda clear early on - if Phelps doesn't make it to the advanced stages (let's just say, last eight or better) of this process, then I honestly would consider it a v2 travesty. If anyone reading this isn't a great fan of swimming, then don't fret - you don't need to be in order to gain an understanding of some sort of Phelps' accomplishments, as they're so glaring and awe-inspiring. So I'll do my best to give a reasonable explanation of them here.

Unless you paid absolutely no attention to the London 2012 Olympic Games, you'll know that, during the Games, Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time, with his London haul of four gold and two silver medals bringing his overall tally to twenty-two (a staggering eighteen gold, two silver and two bronze, spanning the Athens Games of 2004, the Beijing Games of 2008 and last year's London edition). This would be a damn good time for me to dispel and irksome myth, namely this idea I've seen thrown about that Phelps only became the most decorated Olympian of them all because there are ""loads of medals in swimming"" and / or because ""it's easy to win them in that sport."" First off, as I'll explain a little further down, there's nothing remotely easy about swimming and secondly, you'll find that, of the top ten most prolific Olympic medal winners in history, Phelps is the only swimmer amongst them. It should also be noted that Phelps is the owner of eleven individual golds in the Olympics (thirteen individual medals of all colours), more than any other man or woman in history - once again, this serves to dim the off-base talk suggesting that relay medals have given an over-inflated view of Phelps' achievements.

On top of that, there's thirty-four World Championship medals (a record), twenty-six of them being gold (a record), seven 'World Swimmer of the Year' titles (a record), a world record set at the tender age of fifteen years and nine months (a record), thirty-nine world records in all (a record), as well as becoming, in 2008, the only swimmer ever to win the coveted 'Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year' award.

Some CV: some athlete.

However, those numbers alone still can't fully convey how utterly dominant Phelps has been within his field, and nor can they give full context to his brilliance.

To me, even more than his medal collection, what sets Phelps apart is his unbelievable desire to test himself and take on new challengers, no matter how daunting they may be. By 2004, Phelps had already established himself as the most complete and best all-round swimmer on the planet at that time, with four gold medals and two silvers at the previous year's World Championships. By now, Phelps had established himself as being completely dominant in the 200m individual medley, 400m individual medley and also the 200m backstroke, and held the world record in all of these events. He was also the silver medal winner in the 100m butterfly. Let's remember here, before we get too far in, that all but a very select few swimmers spend their whole career concentrating and excelling in just one specialist event.

These were the events he'd been training for and participating in all of his career thus far, and it would have been easy for him to have stayed within these confines (although it was already one hell of a hectic schedule!) and remain undefeated throughout the 2004 Olympics. However, Phelps wanted to try and do the impossible; eclipse Mark Spitz's feat of seven golds in one Games in the 1972 Munich Olympics, and to do that meant adding the 200m freestyle to his schedule.

In that event, Phelps had to settle for a bronze medal, trailing in behind Australian legend Ian Thorpe and also Holland's Pieter Van Den Hoogenband. But the point is, a bronze in the 200m freestyle was still a remarkable feat - Thorpe and Van Den Hoogenband were the two preeminent freestylers of that era, and also the two fastest ever over that distance. Phelps, in comparison, had never even taken a stab at that discipline before Athens. It's worth noting that, after Phelps had dominated him at the 200m individual medley event at the 2003 World Championships, Thorpe never ventured in to one of Phelps' signature events again. However, the nineteen year old Phelps vowed to carry on until he became the world's best freestyler, to go along with being the world's best in the butterfly and medleys. Keep in mind that, at the time, most observers felt that this was a truly unreachable goal. Nevertheless, Phelps was the most successful athlete of the Games, narrowly falling short of Spitz's seven golds but still scooping up six golds (four of which came in individual events, equalling Spitz in that regard) and two bronzes.

His dominance in the butterly and medleys assured (he completed the 100m-200m double and the 200m-400m double in those events respectively in Athens), Phelps, good to his word, then set his sights on Thorpe's 200m freestyle world record (thought to be the best record in men's swimming at the time) of 1 minute 44.06 seconds, edging it out at the 2007 World Championships with a 1 minute 43.86 and then totally dismantling it with a 1 minute 42.96 clocking in winning the 200m freestyle gold at the 2008 Beijing Games.

I mean seriously, come on - he's not even meant to be a freestyler!

Almost as a bit of fun, Phelps even tried his hand at the backstroke in 2006, an event in which he was even less experienced and trained in than the freestyle. At the Pan Pacific championships that year, he won the silver medal in the 200m backstroke event. It was the only time he ever competed in backstroke at a major championship but, a year later, he showed his hand when he gave the discipline another whirl at the US Nationals; incredibly, he clocked the third fastest time ever recorded in the 200m backstroke, and went one better in the 100m, coming up with the second best time ever, just 0.03 seconds off the world record for the event. That a part-time (at best) backstroker could, almost at the drop of a hat, produce such performances in his weakest event, all while dominating the butterfly, medleys and freestyle (2007 had been the year in which Phelps scooped seven golds in seven events at the World Championships, lest we forget) is way beyond remarkable. I don't think there are sufficient words for it, in fact.

And then, of course, came the most successful Olympic campaign ever in Beijing in 2008, as Phelps took eight gold medals in eight events (seven of them in world record time, the other 'only' an Olympic record), eclipsing Spitz's aforementioned seven. His five individual golds at the meet (400m individual medley, 200m freestyle, 200m butterfly, 200m individual medley and 100m butterfly) also equaled the record for the most individual golds won in a single Olympics.

After the Games, a debate raged on about who was the stand out performer and / or biggest star of the Beijing Olympics - Phelps, or the incredible Jamaican track star Usain Bolt, who set world records in winning gold in the 100m, 200m and 4x100m sprints. Well, due to track and field's popularity and his telegenic personality (a contrast to the quiet, reserved Phelps), Bolt was the star of Beijing. But was he the greatest performer of the Games, as many claimed? Absolutely not. Phelps was. The variety of his schedule is scary. Ian Thorpe won nine Olympic medals, which is fantastic, of course. But all of them were in freestyle. Phelps' medals came in freestyle, butterfly and medley - to even compare, I honestly think that Bolt would have needed to add long jump to his arsenal and won the gold in that event, and / or perhaps a longer sprint such as the 400m.

After the eight golds of Beijing it was, naturally, impossible for Phelps to go beyond what he'd already done, however the medals continued to flow right up until his retirement after London 2012; five golds and one silver at the 2009 World Championships, four golds, two silvers and one bronze at the 2011 World Championships and then, to put the seal on his career, those four golds and two silvers in London.

Not only does Phelps boast unrivalled diversity and variety in the pool, then, but he also has insane fitness and unbelievable longevity to bolster his claim of being the greatest sportsperson of them all.

Take his Beijing feats, for example; to collect his eight gold medals, Phelps had to complete seventeen races in one week, what with the qualification rounds before the finals. While he was doing this across the past three Olympics, he often had rivals awaiting him near the end of the week - rivals who competed in just one specialty event and, having nothing like the work load of Phelps, would have been rubbing their hands together watching him fatigue himself. Milorad Cavic, a world champion over the 50m butterfly (and a former world record holder over the 100m distance) was awaiting Phelps in the 100m butterfy final in Beijing. How much fresher and less fatigued he must have been than Phelps at that stage was staggering - he'd dropped the 200m butterfly in order to maximise his chances of upsetting Phelps over the shorter course, and Phelps had already collected six gold medals that week. And yet, Phelps was still able to claim the gold in what was, without doubt, the greatest race I've ever seen in the pool.

Once more, to consistently be able to race across so many different disciplines for a week and then, at the end of it, be able to beat world-class specialists at their best event and after they've basically spent a week resting in comparison is a true mark of Phelps' ridiculous talent, and also his wonderful winning mentality.

What's more, swimming is a hard sport to stay at the top of, and seldom do its top practicioners produce anything like their best after their mid twenties. Before Phelps came along, no man in history had ever managed to win the same event at three successive Olympics in the pool, and many observers were wondering if the 'threepeat' was indeed possible at all, given how short a swimmer's peak is. Step forward Mr. Phelps, who made history at London 2012 by becoming the first man ever to do this, taking gold in the 200m individual medley (ahead of his great rival Ryan Lochte) to go along with the golds he took in that same event in 2004 and 2008. Not content with making history once, less than twenty-four hours later he was at it again, winning the final of the 100m butterfly (the last individual race of his career), turning a never done before threepeat in to a double threepeat.

Typical Phelps, really - nobody ever did it, and then he goes and does it twice at the same Olympics! It's just an outrageously fabulous achievement. And, for the third successive Olympics, Phelps took home more medals than any other athlete of the Games, regardless of discipline.

There have been some great all-rounders in sport; Gary Sobers in cricket, Frank Riijkaard in football - but none of them have been as complete across so many areas as Michael Phelps has been. If you wanted to be pedantic, then you could argue that Phelps lacks Usain Bolt's irrepressible star quality, or that he's not at the centre of the dreams of the world's youngsters the way that Lionel Messi is. But swimming is a sport which has grown immensely in participation levels, both amatuer and professional, in the past two decades, as well as being a truly demanding and punishing one in which incredible focus, dedication and a great deal of God-given talent are all neccessities. And Michael Phelps has been, to put it mildly, the Don Bradman of swimming. In many ways, in fact, you could argue that the 'Baltimore Bullett' has dominated his own field to an even greater extent than Bradman dominated his.

Not the greatest sporting personality, but as a sportsman in the purest form, and a true freak of nature, Phelps simply must be amongst the very, very elite of all time. Despite the length of this article, I still don't think I've done him full justice - that's how highly I think of Michael Phelps, unquestionably the greatest swimmer and most successful Olympian to ever walk the planet. "

Phil Taylor- Darts- Championed by- CJB

"Phil Taylor is the character that has transcended Darts. After taking up darts at 26, Taylor would win his first professional title in two years and by 1992 was a two-time BDO world champion. However, darts would be changed irrevocably in 1993 when a rival organisation – the PDC - led by 16 leading players was created.

Taylor would lose the first PDC World Championship final against Dennis Priestly in 1994 but losing in this championship would be a rarity for Phil. He would win 44 consecutive games, with eight titles including a 107.46 average in the 2001 final against John Part. 2002 was one of the high points of Phil’s career winning the four majors and the first televised nine darter in the PDC.

Phil would overcome a minor blip in the 2003 final to go and win three consecutive world championships. This would lead to the 2007 world championship final between Raymond Van Barneveld, four-time BDO champion, and Phil. This would go on to be labelled as the greatest match ever. Taylor would win the first eight legs and take a 3-0 lead in sets. He would bring it back to 5-3 before winning 3 consecutive sets. Taylor would win the next set to take it into a deciding set. The deciding set would go into a nerve-wracking deciding leg with Taylor losing in the greatest game ever.

The Power, as he is affectionately nicknamed, would win both the 2009 and 2010 world championships, with normal service resumed. 2009 was another vintage Phil year, winning 10 of the 12 major tournaments. Approaching 50, Taylor would lose in the 2011 + 2012 world championships despite his 11 majors spread out with these two years. With reports of his waning powers, Taylor would go on to claim his 16th world title beating the new kid on the block, Michael Van Gerwen in a stunning final on New Years Day.

The world title would be the 194th title of his illustrious career with 74 major wins. Not only is he the most successful player in terms of career titles but is also credited with the most televised 9-dart finishes, the perfect leg. He has achieved this nine times including twice in one game, a feat still unmatched, with only 34 ever hit. His dominance of the game is also shown by his amazing 3-dart averages. In 2010, Taylor would record the highest televised average ever with 118.66 and has thrown a televised average over 105 an incredible 117 times compared to just 78 from all other players.

So whilst the merits of Taylor as a ‘sportsman’ alongside the likes of Woods, Bradman and Federer may be debatable in your eyes, Taylor is a deserved recipient of this award, with his wins and consistent domination not equalled in any other sporting arena.
"

Voted for Phil Taylor. Come on, he's dominated the sport for 23 years, won over 3 times as many World Titles as his nearest rival, and is probably only behind Bradman in terms of sporting achievement.

Pele- Football- Championed by paperbag_puncher

"Only when I sat down to write this article did the sheer scale of what I was attempting to do hit me. This article should really write itself, yet there are no words that can accurately describe the greatness of 'The King of Football' There are few human beings throughout history in any walk of life who have reached the iconic status of Pele.
“My name is Ronald Reagan, I’m the President of the United States of America. But you don’t need to introduce yourself, because everyone knows who Pele is.”
Ronald Reagan

Like most young boys I grew up hearing stories of this mythical man from Brazil who could create magic with his feet. I’d always been told of his greatness and happily accepted it but I was doing the man a great disservice by simply accepting it. Only as I got older and researched further did I realise how great he actually was. I am genuinely grateful that I have agreed to write this piece as it has given me the opportunity to revisit and explore the career of arguably the greatest sports person to have graced this earth.

There is no doubt in my mind that Pele was the most complete player of those who are generally mentioned in the greatest ever debates. Blessed with an unbelievable combination of pace, power, balance and close control he beat defenders at will making everything look effortless. Capable of the unpredictable and the sublime he was very much ahead of his time. Two footed and lethal in the air he was the ultimate goal scorer. The famous stat of 1281 goals in 1363 games is testament to this.

Pele said in 2006: ""For 20 years they have asked me the same question, who is the greatest? Pele or Maradona? I reply that all you have to do is look at the facts - how many goals did he score with his right foot or with his head?""

Pele made his debut for Santos at the tender age of 15 scoring on his debut in 1956. By the time the 1957 season came around he was a first team regular and finished as the league’s top scorer. Just 10 months later he was called up to the Brazilian national team scoring in a 2-1 defeat to Argentina making him the youngest ever international scorer at 16 years and 9 months. He would go on to become and still is Brazil’s top goal scorer with a remarkable 77 goals in 92 games.

1958 was Pele’s breakout year and he announced himself to the world in style. He won his first major title the Campeonato Paulista with Santos scoring a record 58 goals along the way (a record that still stands) He was selected for the 1958 World Cup at the insistence of of his team mates despite being injured, which shows the regard the 17 year old was already held in. He played a pivotal role scoring the winner against Wales in the quarters, a hat-trick against France and another brace Vs Sweden in the final on his way to becoming the youngest ever World Cup Winner.

Brazil repeated the trick in 1962 but did it without Pele who injured himself in the second game having looked ominously bright in the opening game. The 1966 was even worse for him. Pele was ruthlessly and cynically targeted by opposing defences meaning he missed the loss to Hungary and was never at his best for the two games he did play. Without their talisman the defending champions were eliminated in the first round.
He got his redemption in 1970 inspiring perhaps the greatest team of all time to a third world cup success. Pele at the peak of his powers won the player of the tournament and provided us with two of his most iconic moments. Had his lob from the half way line against the Czechs or his audacious dummy to round the Uruguayan goalie resulted in goals they surely would have been 2 of the greatest in World Cup history.

At one stage it was universally accepted that Pele was the greatest footballer of all time. In recent years it has almost become fashionable to dismiss his claim and achievements in favour of two little Argies. There are two sticks that are usually used to beat him which are contradictory for me. True he never tested himself in Europe. Having been named a ‘national treasure’ by the Brazilian Government and not being allowed to be ‘exported’ he spent his best years in his native land. However, we do have some clues as to how he would have fared had he moved to a big European club. His goals record and performances at international level leave me unequivocally convinced that he would have burned it up in any league. Also Santos (mainly to be able to afford his wages) regularly toured and faced the biggest clubs in Europe where Pele showed he was still on another level. The other criticism is that he was part of the greatest international team ever and had world class team mates around him which somehow should dilute his success. Many of these same team mates also predominantly played in Brazil yet this isn’t held against the likes of Garrincha, Rivelino, Tostao or Jairzinho who regularly had to play second fiddle to Pele and his Santos team. Nor is it held against one Lionel Messi who is a part of the greatest team I have ever seen. Like Messi now, Pele was the undoubted jewel in a beautiful crown.

For me, to be worthy of being called the greatest sports person of all time you need to tick several boxes. You must be supremely talented and have a strong argument to be the GOAT in your own sport. In my opinion you also have to have transcended your own sport and have made a widespread universal and lasting impact. With all due respect to the big hitters who have been voted through so far, most people have no idea who Bradman, Merckx etc are. While this may not be a popularity contest Pele’s notoriety and worldwide acclaim stemmed solely from his prodigious talent and countless achievements. He wasn’t a character, he wasn’t a loveable rogue. He did all his talking with his feet and his reputation is a product of his talent alone.

I have used a lot of words despite originally stating words could not do the great man justice. Still for me Pele is a treat best enjoyed visually. Watching him nutmeg two defenders and rounding the keeper or seeing him effortlessly flicking the ball over a defender’s head and volleying home is still jaw dropping even today. I will leave you with some quotes from his peers and contemporaries who say it a lot better than I ever could.

""I told myself before the game, 'he's made of skin and bones just like everyone else'. But I was wrong.”
Tarcisio Burgnich, the Italy defender who marked Pele in the Mexico 1970 Final

“The difficulty, the extraordinary, is not to score 1,000 goals like Pele – it’s to score one goal like Pele.”
Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Brazilian poet

“The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pele as a player. He was above that.”
Ferenc Puskas

“After the fifth goal, even I wanted to cheer for him.”
Sigge Parling of Sweden on a 5-2 defeat by Brazil in the 1958 FIFA World Cup Final

“I arrived hoping to stop a great man, but I went away convinced I had been undone by someone who was not born on the same planet as the rest of us.”
Costa Pereira on Benfica’s 5-2 loss to Santos in the 1962 Intercontinental Cup in Lisbon

""Pele was the greatest – he was simply flawless. And off the pitch he is always smiling and upbeat. You never see him bad-tempered. He loves being Pele.”
Tostao
“When I saw Pele play, it made me feel I should hang up my boots.”
Just Fontaine

“Pele was one of the few who contradicted my theory: instead of 15 minutes of fame, he will have 15 centuries.”
Andy Warhol

“Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic.”
Johan Cruyff

“His great secret was improvisation. Those things he did were in one moment. He had an extraordinary perception of the game.”
Carlos Alberto Torres

“I sometimes feel as though football was invented for this magical player.”
Sir Bobby Charlton

""Pele played football for 22 years, and in that time he did more to promote world friendship and fraternity than any other ambassador anywhere.”
J.B. Pinheiro, the Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations

Malcolm Allison: “How do you spell Pele?”
Pat Crerand: “Easy: G-O-D.”
British television commentators during Mexico 1970

Pelé is the greatest player of all time. He reigned supreme for 20 years. All the others – Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff, Michel Platini – rank beneath him. There's no one to compare with Pelé.
—West Germany's 1974 FIFA World Cup-winning captain Franz Beckenbauer

The best player ever? Pelé. Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are both great players with specific qualities, but Pelé was better.
—Real Madrid legend Alfredo Di Stéfano
"

Tough group.

Discount Taylor because, while he's clearly and by far the best at what he does, the competition is quite limited to Britain, Holland and a bit of North America, so in this company of greats he falls short.

Navratilova - the best woman tennis player if you take account of her doubles prowess as well as her fantastic singles record. Indeed, there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether she is the best singles player of the open era (Graf probably just edges it for me). To be at the top of the sport from her early 20s to mid-late 30s, and even coming back to compete and win doubles titles in her 50th year shows both incredible talent and longevity.

Phelps - The greatest Olympian in terms of medal success. Staggering that he was the dominant swimmer across 3 Olympics, when so few swimmers are at their peak for even 2 games. I have to admit a personal prejudice though that swimming as an event just leaves me a bit cold, so maybe this makes me think Phelps's achievements are slightly 'puffed up' by the number of swimming events and more particularly by the fact that swimmers are able to compete in a number of events even on the same day - Phelps's range of events is a bit like a track and field athlete competing at every distance from 100m to 800m and in both the long and triple jumps: can't be done in athletics (because of the different physical demands) but can in swimming, while the frequency with which some guys race in the pool (maybe 3 races in 90 minutes) suggests that the physical demands of each race are maybe not so extreme.

Pele - for me the finest footballer ever based on a combination of his abilities and achievements. Has a legacy in the game that even Maradona can't match and the likes of Messi are not even close to (despite the increased profile of the sport). After all, who was the star in Escape to Victory (other than Sly as the goalkeeper)? OK, so the 1000 senior goals is something of a PR stunt, but he was a phenomenal player from the late 50s to the early 70s, leading great Brazilian teams to World Cup triumph in both of the tournaments where he wasn't kicked out of the games.

Ultimately it has to be Pele, simply because he was the best in the biggest global sport.

Has to be Martina. 344 career titles. No-one can post a better number.

Between Phelps and Pele for me. Pele wins it down to participation.

Tough Tough group.

The great phil taylor is the champ of many things, his sport, drinking , being abit of a nut job!

But then we have phelps and pele.. Two ubber GOATS, kind of like superhero goats..

Phelps wins for me, even though he is in a sport where medals won shouldnt be matched up v other olympic sports(just to many opps)

A tough one this. Four of the sportspeople i most admire. All totally dominant in their particular sports in their time. Ill rule out Taylor 1st as my particular GOAT favourites need to be athletes as well as mentally strong. Next ill rule out Martina because as much as i thought she was a fantastic player, i thought Graf was better. Now then, Phelps or Pele? Pele or Phelps? Going for Pele as id probably put him 2nd overall behind only Ali.

Sticking with my guns, naturally - Phelps for me. Forget the medal count, if you insist on doing so, but he's been utterly and ridiculously dominant in an incredibly diverse and international sport during which an athlete's peak tends to be extremely short, too.

Pele faces competition for the title of greatest footballer. On the flip side, there isn't a swimmer in history who can see Phelps with a telescope. As amazing as Pele was, he did play in arguably the two greatest all-round World Cup teams in history (1958 and 1970). Take away Phelps' relay golds, and he still has more gold medals than any other Olympic athlete in history.

Im not sure why we have to think about taking away Phelps relay golds anyway, if we do that we may as well say we are taking away all 5 of Redgraves medals as they came in a team, a team formed from one of rowings strongest nations selecting an event specifically to optomise the chance to win a gold medal.
Im certainly no fan of Redgrave going far in this competition but even I wouldnt do that to him.

Diggers ...point being olyimpic golds are only one part of the story. And not the overall judge(especially when matching olympiads against each other from different sports)

Doesnt alter my point Mysti, how do you differentiate a coxless four race from a freestyle relay ? They both have equal merit.

yep..

but i think the argument in this case is about the amount of swimming golds available without much deffering skillz

not neccesarily the relay golds..(infact relay gol.ds isnt something i ever truely think about when thinking of individual sports..)

Redgraves primary sport is team as well. so its kind of comparing apples and oranges

88Chris05 wrote:Sticking with my guns, naturally - Phelps for me. Forget the medal count, if you insist on doing so, but he's been utterly and ridiculously dominant in an incredibly diverse and international sport during which an athlete's peak tends to be extremely short, too.

Pele faces competition for the title of greatest footballer. On the flip side, there isn't a swimmer in history who can see Phelps with a telescope. As amazing as Pele was, he did play in arguably the two greatest all-round World Cup teams in history (1958 and 1970). Take away Phelps' relay golds, and he still has more gold medals than any other Olympic athlete in history.

Chris - one thing I am curious about. It was mentioned a couple of times during the Olympics coverage that Phelps's real skill was at the "fifth stroke" - the section underwater at the turn - and watching his races it was noticeable that he was often behind his main competitors coming into the turns but would make up 2, 3, 4 metres while underwater. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this? I don't think it detracts from his achievements (and I did vote for him), but it's interesting that the key to his versatility seems to be absolute dominance of the one common element of each event coupled with international class but not world-beating ability in the other elements.

Don't get me wrong, Diggers, I see no reason to add caveats to Phelps' medal count (plenty of other swimmers have come and gone, great ones too, and still none of them have managed a career anywhere near as good as Phelps') but the idea that winning medals in swimming is easy does seem to exist amongst a lot of people.

As I've said throughout this process, there are reasons aside from the number of medals he has which lead me to believe that Phelps is, at least, a contender for the sporting GOAT honour (longevity in a sport where an athlete's peak is so short and usually comes at such a young age, his mastery across so many strokes, his desire to take the harder, more challenging option in order to test himself such as going after Thorpe in the 200m freestyle in Athens rather than Peirsol in the backstroke, being able to beat fresher swimmers late on in a meet after having spread himself across so many disciplines beforehand etc).

I can totally understand that not everyone is going to be as big a swimming fan as me, but regardless of what you think of it, it's a sport which scores pretty damn well in terms of being international, having high participation levels and requiring insane fitness, training and dedication. Athletes who have been as dominant in their own particular field as Phelps has been in his are unbelievable rare.

Its only team because he chose to compete in rowings team events, rowing is also an individual sport just like swimming.
But yes swimmers do get access to compete for al ot of medals, but very few win that many of them and the vast majority of swimmers will only be in one or two events plus a relay.

Diggers your kind of arguing this balck and white.. I am not discounting any medal .. I am saying that phelps medal count is exagerated compared to other olympic sports..

And rowings number one particpation and flagship events are team events.

In swimming you dont need additional skillz to do the relay -it is truely not too much different from just racing individually..

Poorfour wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Sticking with my guns, naturally - Phelps for me. Forget the medal count, if you insist on doing so, but he's been utterly and ridiculously dominant in an incredibly diverse and international sport during which an athlete's peak tends to be extremely short, too.

Pele faces competition for the title of greatest footballer. On the flip side, there isn't a swimmer in history who can see Phelps with a telescope. As amazing as Pele was, he did play in arguably the two greatest all-round World Cup teams in history (1958 and 1970). Take away Phelps' relay golds, and he still has more gold medals than any other Olympic athlete in history.

Chris - one thing I am curious about. It was mentioned a couple of times during the Olympics coverage that Phelps's real skill was at the "fifth stroke" - the section underwater at the turn - and watching his races it was noticeable that he was often behind his main competitors coming into the turns but would make up 2, 3, 4 metres while underwater. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this? I don't think it detracts from his achievements (and I did vote for him), but it's interesting that the key to his versatility seems to be absolute dominance of the one common element of each event coupled with international class but not world-beating ability in the other elements.

Interesting point, mate. I'd say that Phelps' brilliance under the water has helped him particularly in freestyle. In butterfly, his technique has always been phenomenal even when riding the wave, so to speak. On the other hand, he wasn't a natural or particularly great looking freestyler (look how uneven his stroke pattern looks compared to Thorpe's incredibly symmetrical one, for instance). It tends to be the butterfly kick used when turning, even in freestyle events, so Phelps definitely had the edge underwater compared to many of his rivals, you're right.

Take a look at Phelps' first 200m freestyle world record (the 1:43.86 in 2007 at the World Championships) and it's notable how much longer Phelps stays underwater on the turns. I guess you could say that this helps to make up for the fact that he's not a silky-smooth freestyler, but at the end of the day if he's got such a good 'fifth stroke' then good for him. I guess it just comes from the fact that Phelps was such an incredibly dominant butterfly swimmer and that background - none of Thorpe, Van Den Hoogenband, Biondi etc had that background and hence, when they had to use the butterfly kick on the turns in freestyle, it was only serviceable for them, whereas Phelps had already spent years perfecting that kick full-time.

Hmm, not sure I agree on the flagship events side. I think you'd soon find if we are any good at single skulling as a nation thats what we would be calling the flagship event. Just as the 1500 became the blue riband when we were winning anything...the rest of the world knows its the 100.
Personally though I dont understand why rowers dont compete in multi events, Im sure some must do it. Maybe they are just all wusses.

Swimmers do enjoy the luxury of 50, 100, 200m, plus four different strokes. The being the case, they will win more golds, although Phelps has taken it to a far out level.

Diggers wrote:Hmm, not sure I agree on the flagship events side. I think you'd soon find if we are any good at single skulling as a nation thats what we would be calling the flagship event. Just as the 1500 became the blue riband when we were winning anything...the rest of the world knows its the 100.
Personally though I dont understand why rowers dont compete in multi events, Im sure some must do it. Maybe they are just all wusses.

It probaqlly requires a very different ethic and training tbh.. This guys are not wuses.. They are truely competing as a team.. they are like one cog, whereas in swimming they are like 4 different cogs

Its so simple to just swim in a relay - as i said its no different from the individual stuff!

And you can argue that there may be other important rowing events- but you are really pushing it to suggest that team rowing is on a par with relay in swimming!

relays are sideshow stuff

Pele

Diggers wrote:Its only team because he chose to compete in rowings team events, rowing is also an individual sport just like swimming.
But yes swimmers do get access to compete for al ot of medals, but very few win that many of them and the vast majority of swimmers will only be in one or two events plus a relay.

Would Pele have been as good Diggers if he was not part of an all conquering Brazil team but the striker for The Faroes?

Not really sure why Redgraves team element is different from Pele's or any other team player.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Its only team because he chose to compete in rowings team events, rowing is also an individual sport just like swimming.
But yes swimmers do get access to compete for al ot of medals, but very few win that many of them and the vast majority of swimmers will only be in one or two events plus a relay.

Would Pele have been as good Diggers if he was not part of an all conquering Brazil team but the striker for The Faroes?

Not really sure why Redgraves team element is different from Pele's or any other team player.

Look at it the other way too SR

Would Brazil have been as all-conquering without Pele? In 1962 there is an argument; they won the WC with Garrincha leading the way and Pele injured after game 1.

But equally, the '58 side was led by Pele and the '70 side too. Add to that the Santos side that he anchored that tore apart teams the world over (including European Champions) and it's probably glib to give all the credit to teammates when it certainly seems Pele is a common denominator in these great sides.

no they wouldnt- allthough that is a different point to the one being argued..

however that one is clearly more on toipic!! so fair play!

offcourse we could also say(playing the devils advocate) as I am actually a phelps fan in this.

The yanks wouldnt have been as fast in the relays without phelps- clearly!!

and to add Diggers 'favourite' contestant(not) redgrave into this- he was also the common demoniator in his rowing events

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:Hmm, not sure I agree on the flagship events side. I think you'd soon find if we are any good at single skulling as a nation thats what we would be calling the flagship event. Just as the 1500 became the blue riband when we were winning anything...the rest of the world knows its the 100.
Personally though I dont understand why rowers dont compete in multi events, Im sure some must do it. Maybe they are just all wusses.

It probaqlly requires a very different ethic and training tbh.. This guys are not wuses.. They are truely competing as a team.. they are like one cog, whereas in swimming they are like 4 different cogs

Its so simple to just swim in a relay - as i said its no different from the individual stuff!

And you can argue that there may be other important rowing events- but you are really pushing it to suggest that team rowing is on a par with relay in swimming!

relays are sideshow stuff

I think you are over emphasising how difficult it is to row as a four, its really not that hard for them to stroke at the same time and speed. Its all about power.

WOuld PInsent have won as many goals without Redgrave? It's all relative isn't it. Success in some breeds success in others.

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:Hmm, not sure I agree on the flagship events side. I think you'd soon find if we are any good at single skulling as a nation thats what we would be calling the flagship event. Just as the 1500 became the blue riband when we were winning anything...the rest of the world knows its the 100.
Personally though I dont understand why rowers dont compete in multi events, Im sure some must do it. Maybe they are just all wusses.

It probaqlly requires a very different ethic and training tbh.. This guys are not wuses.. They are truely competing as a team.. they are like one cog, whereas in swimming they are like 4 different cogs

Its so simple to just swim in a relay - as i said its no different from the individual stuff!

And you can argue that there may be other important rowing events- but you are really pushing it to suggest that team rowing is on a par with relay in swimming!

relays are sideshow stuff

I think you are over emphasising how difficult it is to row as a four, its really not that hard for them to stroke at the same time and speed. Its all about power.

No I am not-(difficulty has no real bearing on this)I am highlighting the clear difference between a team sport over a relay event(which is just individuals competing on there own after each other)

Pele, with Navaratilova a very close second.

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:Hmm, not sure I agree on the flagship events side. I think you'd soon find if we are any good at single skulling as a nation thats what we would be calling the flagship event. Just as the 1500 became the blue riband when we were winning anything...the rest of the world knows its the 100.
Personally though I dont understand why rowers dont compete in multi events, Im sure some must do it. Maybe they are just all wusses.

It probaqlly requires a very different ethic and training tbh.. This guys are not wuses.. They are truely competing as a team.. they are like one cog, whereas in swimming they are like 4 different cogs

Its so simple to just swim in a relay - as i said its no different from the individual stuff!

And you can argue that there may be other important rowing events- but you are really pushing it to suggest that team rowing is on a par with relay in swimming!

relays are sideshow stuff

I think you are over emphasising how difficult it is to row as a four, its really not that hard for them to stroke at the same time and speed. Its all about power.

No I am not-(difficulty has no real bearing on this)I am highlighting the clear difference between a team sport over a relay event(which is just individuals competing on there own after each other)

Four runners running, four rowers rowing, four swimmers swimming. They all do the same thing. Its not like different football positions. No difference IMO.

Can you seriously not understand the difference between being part of the same motor over just competing completly on your own one after the next?

a relay in rowing would be each individual rowing 100 metres after the next!

and if that was an event - we would untilse the best individual rowers

Like I say, you are assuming its tricky to row in time. Id say getting a baton round efficiently was just as hard (as British teams seem to constabtly illustrate), as are the changeovers in swimming...its all team work Mysti.

Think it has to be Pele.
While he is possibly not as obvious a G.O.A.T. in his own sport as Phelps and Taylor in particular, that could, certainly, be put down to participation levels. To be among the top 2-3 G.O.A.T's, at the very least, in the most popular sport in the world is pretty damn good. Add to that the fact that Pele has probably transcended sport in a way that non of the others have, and you have to go with him IMO.

Diggers

Having done dragon boat racing and relay races on sports day, I can safely say, rowing would be harder to keep the boat/baton going smoothly.

I knew was come come up eventually!!(batons!!)

anyway fact is these lads are serious athletes and Rowers cant seem to compete in individual and team stuff.. but i am 100% sure if there was a relay rowing event the individuals would compete- wouldnt you say?

There is alot more to rowing in a team over a relay event..

they make change over mistakes- yes(due to the pressure of getting it perfect.. However that never ever seems to be the be all and end all of picking the team. Its allways about the quickest individuals..


There is another argument and that could be that rowing takes alot more out of you than swimming events. So the physicality is much tougher to compete in many events

America use to win on speed alone during the Lewis/Burrell era. Their baton changing was mostly average.

I can imagine that if one rower is not synchronised then that's that.

mystiroakey wrote:


There is another argument and that could be that rowing takes alot more out of you than swimming events. So the physicality is much tougher to compete in many events

Id argue that as the talent pool is so tiny for rowing compared to swimming they just dont produce the uber talents who can multi event like say Spitz and Phelps. Lets not pretend that many swimmers do what these guys do, again...the overwhelming vast majority of swimmers.....only do one or two events.

Diggers if your a lesser swimming(ie not a phelps or a spitz) you may concentrte 100% on your best medal winning chances. Your goal posts change

sodhat wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Its only team because he chose to compete in rowings team events, rowing is also an individual sport just like swimming.
But yes swimmers do get access to compete for al ot of medals, but very few win that many of them and the vast majority of swimmers will only be in one or two events plus a relay.

Would Pele have been as good Diggers if he was not part of an all conquering Brazil team but the striker for The Faroes?

Not really sure why Redgraves team element is different from Pele's or any other team player.

Look at it the other way too SR

Would Brazil have been as all-conquering without Pele? In 1962 there is an argument; they won the WC with Garrincha leading the way and Pele injured after game 1.

But equally, the '58 side was led by Pele and the '70 side too. Add to that the Santos side that he anchored that tore apart teams the world over (including European Champions) and it's probably glib to give all the credit to teammates when it certainly seems Pele is a common denominator in these great sides.

That cuts both ways for rowing, too. Redgrave was the common factor in British rowing from the early 80's to 2000. He (and Pinsent) won Britain's only Olympic gold medal in '96; he excelled even when pretty much all of the rest of British sport underperformed.

On the whole rowing vs sculling thing, they are as different as, say, butterfly and backstroke, or striking vs being a central defender in football. Perhaps the most apt comparison would be 100m and 110m hurdles. There are people who are fairly decent at both, but as far as I'm aware there's no-one who's both a top flight flat sprinter and a top flight high hurdler. Redgrave was a decent sculler but his physique and engine lent itself better to sweep-oar rowing; that necessitates being in a team, just like being a footballer does. The one material difference as far as I can see is that, at least in the smaller boats, there is nowhere to hide. In football, cricket or rugby we can all think of mediocre players who played in great teams, or teams that were great despite fluctuations in individual performances. Rowing in singles, doubles, quads, pairs and fours doesn't allow for that - each seat has significant technical demands and a requirement for a huge amount of physical power. (The eight is a little different in that there are technical seats (bow, 2 and stern) and engine room seats (3, 4, 5) that accommodate a little bit more variability.)

There's a lot more to it than just "rowing in time", by the way. It's a question of synchronising the application of power through the stroke with each other and with the movement of the boat to minimise the deceleration when the blade goes into the water and maximise the acceleration throughout the stroke. If you want to understand the difference that good technique makes, look at some videos of the Boat Race in the late 90s and early 2000s when the technically skilled Cambridge Blue Boat regularly overcame the more powerful Oxford one.

Oh, and the reason rowers make the technical aspects look easy is the sheer amount of time they spend practicing it. Conversely, the reason track relay runners frequently make mistakes is that they never spend more than a couple of sessions practicing it before major tournaments.

Stella wrote:America use to win on speed alone during the Lewis/Burrell era. Their baton changing was mostly average.

I can imagine that if one rower is not synchronised then that's that.

You can equally say that Britain wins rowing golds on power, we are hardly officiandos as to whether they aret he best technical rowers. Ive rowed a boat, Ive rowed in rapids a few times at the Olympic centre and its a lot harder to keep a stroke in white water but even then it really wasnt tricky. Complete novices can stroke together in 10 minutes, its just about fitness to keep it going.

Diggers wrote:

Stella wrote:America use to win on speed alone during the Lewis/Burrell era. Their baton changing was mostly average.

I can imagine that if one rower is not synchronised then that's that.

You can equally say that Britain wins rowing golds on power, we are hardly officiandos as to whether they aret he best technical rowers. Ive rowed a boat, Ive rowed in rapids a few times at the Olympic centre and its a lot harder to keep a stroke in white water but even then it really wasnt tricky. Complete novices can stroke together in 10 minutes, its just about fitness to keep it going.

Erm, well actually I know a fair bit about rowing. I rowed and coached at college level for several years, and I work with a guy who designs boats for the British Olympic squad. It's utter tosh to say that "complete novices can stroke together in 10 minutes, it's just about fitness to keep it going". Complete novices might be able to move a boat after 10 minutes, but they would struggle to keep it moving as they raise the rate and power levels.

I'm also not convinced by your "rowed in rapids a few times". That sounds more like canoeing to me.

Rowing is about the application of power. You need an extreme level of physical fitness to shift a boat quickly but it's not enough. Any flaw in your technique wastes that power. It's a multiplier effect. If you're the most powerful rower in the world but your technique only turns 75% of that into work on the water you'll win nothing. There were almost certainly rowers who were a few percent better than Redgrave technically, but no-one who was better at turning power into boat speed (except for the much younger Pinsent in the last 18 months of Redgrave's 18 year career).

Has to be Pele - even though he didn't have the stomach for a re-match with Sir Garfield!

Poorfour wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Stella wrote:America use to win on speed alone during the Lewis/Burrell era. Their baton changing was mostly average.

I can imagine that if one rower is not synchronised then that's that.

You can equally say that Britain wins rowing golds on power, we are hardly officiandos as to whether they aret he best technical rowers. Ive rowed a boat, Ive rowed in rapids a few times at the Olympic centre and its a lot harder to keep a stroke in white water but even then it really wasnt tricky. Complete novices can stroke together in 10 minutes, its just about fitness to keep it going.

Erm, well actually I know a fair bit about rowing. I rowed and coached at college level for several years, and I work with a guy who designs boats for the British Olympic squad. It's utter tosh to say that "complete novices can stroke together in 10 minutes, it's just about fitness to keep it going". Complete novices might be able to move a boat after 10 minutes, but they would struggle to keep it moving as they raise the rate and power levels.

I'm also not convinced by your "rowed in rapids a few times". That sounds more like canoeing to me.

Rowing is about the application of power. You need an extreme level of physical fitness to shift a boat quickly but it's not enough. Any flaw in your technique wastes that power. It's a multiplier effect. If you're the most powerful rower in the world but your technique only turns 75% of that into work on the water you'll win nothing. There were almost certainly rowers who were a few percent better than Redgrave technically, but no-one who was better at turning power into boat speed (except for the much younger Pinsent in the last 18 months of Redgrave's 18 year career).

Clearly the better you are the more extreme the action. Which is no different to Olympic sprinters passing a baton, comparing it to a school changeover doesn't work.
But all these guys do all day is practice rowing in rhythm, sorry I really don't think it's a great sporting skill.

I think you could say the same about all skills in all sports DIggers, it becomes automatic. Isn't that what practice is all about?

Some are more automatic or respective than others though.

Not so sure. I don't think Rugby is a particular skillful game, more coordination.

Pele