The Lonious Monk
New member
Shizlansky;9290545 said:The Lonious Monk;9290539 said:Shizlansky;9290049 said:The Lonious Monk;9290021 said:ineedpussy;9289894 said:Beta;9288873 said:
but back to my earlier statement. until he races against blacks he aint shit. thats like playing basketball in the 40's and being bill russell against crap white boys
That doesn't make any sense. It's not like there is a separate swimming league of blacks that Phelps is ducking. Blacks simply aren't elite swimmers.
The medal count argument needs to stop. Phelps is great, but he's competing in a sport that has a million different events. He still may be the best Olympian ever, but it would be because of how dominant he has been across four sets of games not because he has a bloated number of medals.
He has the most medals in a single olympic.
So what. If you're a wrestler or a boxer, you have to go through several grueling matches and only get one medal. Say you dominate in that sport for four different Olympics, that's an unheard of feat, but you'll still only have 4 medals. Is Phelps automatically better than that athlete just because Phelps' sport is set up in a way that will allow him to win 5 or 6 medals ever Olympics? I mean Phelps could have a competed in 6 events each Olympics and won gold in half and lost the other half badly. He still would have had the most Gold medals in history. Would you still say he's the greatest Olympian?
We ain't talking about boxing or wrestling. We talking about running vs swimming
And that changes my point how? It's not possible for a sprinter to win as many medals as a short distance swimmer either. Even if Bolt added the 400 and 4x400 to his resume, he'd still only have 15 medals assuming he still won every race.