But he gets to eat 400,000 calories a day! How is that work? Please...
olympics shmolympics who else is sick of it?
- Thread starter jonKranked
- Start date
Phelps broke his first world record in 2001. His first Olympic appearance was 5 months prior to this in Sydney (2000). The style of swimsuit in debate (partial / full body suits utilizing high tech materials to reduce drag) started seeing use in the mid 90's. Granted they are not as high tech as the ones being used today, but they were designed to do the same thing.
Navy/Puddle Pirate rescue swimmers are typically under 6' tall. My son is 6'5" and needed a waiver to apply for Air Force PJ school (same standards). Because he was over 6', it was no guarantee into the school, so he didn't enlist.
You don't get it.
The swimsuit is irrelevant. If everyone uses the swimsuit, and one person screams past them like they aren't moving, setting multiple world records in the process, then that one person is clearly a far better swimmer than the rest of them.
Essentially, you are saying that all swimmers today are merely "above average" swimmers who would not set world records. If Phelps' success rests entirely on a swimsuit that all of the top swimmers are using, then he is simply the best of the mediocre. Do you really believe that's the case?
Basically, we could extend your comments and say that all athletes now are simply mediocre, only propelled by the technology they use during their accomplishments.
Last edited:
See? And you thought my tinfoil hat looked funny in the other thread.You don't get it.
The swimsuit is irrelevant. If everyone uses the swimsuit, and one person screams past them like they aren't moving, setting multiple world records in the process, then that one person is clearly a far better swimmer than the rest of them.
Essentially, you are saying that all swimmers today are merely "above average" swimmers who would not set world records. If Phelps' success rests entirely on a swimsuit that all of the top swimmers are using, then he is simply the best of the mediocre. Do you really believe that's the case?
Basically, we could extend your comments and say that all athletes now are simply mediocre, only propelled by the technology they use during their accomplishments.
I would definitely finish last if I had to drag my huge rudder through the water:biggrin:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Yes, I did say the following:
however it was an exaggeration. Shame on me for not wording it more deliberately to my actual intent.
The point I'm trying to make is in regards to the validity of world records: I don't see how to obtain a direct correlation of how someone can be better in X field of competition (in this case swimming) than someone from say, 3 or 4 decades ago. Or even 2 years. The technology has changed (although much less drastically given a smaller time frame). If two swimmers compete against one another, one using what is available today, and one that is only using what was available 30 years prior, obviously the swimmer using modern technology is going to win (given that they are on the same level in terms of physical fitness). You take the technology advantage away, and there's an increased possibility that the world record would not be broken.
Last edited:
Sooo...is this the Special Olympics?..
Tell that to Abebe Bikila (won the gold running barefoot). Technology only gets you so far.
Except they are not breaking records from 30 years ago. The are breaking records set in the last few years. The world records have been broken as training, nutrition and swimsuits have progressed.
Your argument about the suits not being fair could easily be compared to a DH racer having 8" suspension travel not being fair. Rules are there to keep competition regulated and fair. If you compete and do not use everything allowed by the rules to give you an advantage you are the one to blame when you lose.
Your argument about the suits not being fair could easily be compared to a DH racer having 8" suspension travel not being fair. Rules are there to keep competition regulated and fair. If you compete and do not use everything allowed by the rules to give you an advantage you are the one to blame when you lose.
The overall athleticism of the worth athletes is going up. As we better understand what makes the human body tick and get more and more experience with training and competitions, and the money in sports keeps flowing, the workout regimens are becoming increasingly specific and effective. Even sports where there is little to no technology actually involved in the performance are having world records broken year after year.
I still don't understand if you are trying to make a point. Are you saying modern athletes should not be able to take advantage of modern technology and increased knowledge of physiology and nutrition, even if it's a level playing field? That world records should exist in a vacuum blind to progress, stuck in a prior time?
There will always be progression in sports. Contemporary athletes take lessons from those who came before and do all they can to improve. The athletes compete against each other, not people from another era. Records are made to be broken - the bar will always keep moving.
In any case, even if these guys weren't using fancy suits, they would still have the advantage of better training methods, nutrition, etc., etc. More proof that comparing athletes from different eras is kinda useless, even if it is an interesting discussion.
those were actually jobs for phelps once he's done competing professionally. Yes.. there is a body surfing circuit. They make a stop here in san diego once a year. Pretty amazing how fast they can catch a wave without a board.
THANK YOU! Finally somebody gets it.
Tags RULE!
Yes, but the world records being broken today that were set 2 years ago, were records that were set 2 years before that. On a shorter timespan, the differences from technological advancements are more subtle. When you open up the time frame to a span of 10+ years, then the differences and changes become a bit more obvious.
This is true, but I've never been turned away from a DH race for NOT using 8" of travel. I was beaten in a dh race by a guy on a hardtail before (as sad as that is to admit
). It comes down to physical ability, not technology. Or at least it should. One of the original intents of the Olympics was to be a celebration of the achievements of the human body.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. See me last post, the part where I mention that one of the original intents of the Olympics is to be a celebration of the human body? Last I was aware everyone was still born naked. :biggrin:
I wish pole dancing was an Olympic Sport.
Last I checked the brain was part of the human body. Not all achievements are physical. It took a human brain to think of these technological advancements.
Real cute.
Then why aren't the SAT's part of the Olympics? Where's the Gold Medal for Calculus? Last I checked all Olympic events tested physical feats.
Last edited:
I wish pole dancing was an Olympic Sport.
Oh come on now. I'm sure you'd figure out how to invalidate it soon enough.
Yup. Fake boobs would render disqualification. Or would it be real boobs since strippers are known for fake knockers?
He would complain about the girls heels being to long making the girls legs look longer than they really are. It would be a clear disadvantage to the girl that did not purchase the extra high high heels.
Yes they are physical feats but the mental part is huge. Whether it is just in preparedness mentally or knowing how to make yourself faster/stronger within the rules.
Duh mental preparedness is part of it, but at the end of the day what is actually being measured and quantified is a physical feat.
No way! The height of Stalleto's has no impact on how many inverted spins you can do on a pole, or how wide of a spread eagle could be obtained. And I don't think anyone would go as far as to surgically alter their leg length (think Gattaca).
Obviously you've never been to Doc's in Portland for the "Pole Olympics". Awesome.I wish pole dancing was an Olympic Sport.
None of those are mine, seriously. Still funny, though.