London Olympics: "We're pretty much ready..."

[MaxBuck]

This US basketball team could use them some Aaron Craft today. Absolutely execrable defense.

Having said that, Spain is now officially the whiniest basketball team on the face of the planet. Coach K should appreciate the irony, I'd think.

 

[jlb1705]

He's not even the best Olympian from this year. I'd vote for Michael Phelps every day of the week over Bolt.

I also do not like his overly cocky attitude, even though he has the talents to back his talk up.

Phelps was beatable in these Olympics. Bolt was not.

Also, Phelps isn't exactly modest himself. After all, during these very games he compared himself to Michael Jordan and called himself the greatest swimmer of all-time. He's right though, so I don't see a problem with it.

 

[scott91575]

Phelps was beatable in these Olympics. Bolt was not.

Also, Phelps isn't exactly modest himself. After all, during these very games he compared himself to Michael Jordan and called himself the greatest swimmer of all-time. He's right though, so I don't see a problem with it.

and yet won more gold medals. I am sure if Bolt ran the 400 he would be beatable too.

 

[scott91575]

Was that Pittbull in the crowd? I wonder if he is having a real good time.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Better than the Dream Team

 

[Mike80]

Yeah....this team would definitely beat the Dream Team....errr wait....

David Robinson and Patrick Ewing would rip this team's guts out and that doesn't even cover what Jordan, Pippen, Bird and Barkley would do to them...

 

[OH10]

He's in the discussion for best sprinter ever. He's only on the periphery of the discussion for best Olympian ever. And yes, Phelps still has him beat both from an athletic and Olympic standpoint. In my mind, Bolt needs to sweep in Rio AND needs to add something else in his repertoire.

That said, he has every right to be cocky. He has earned some leeway here. And just imagine what he's tearing through in the Olympic Village....

Discussion?

9.58

19.19

I'm not sure, in sprinting, what more there is to debate? This isn't basketball where it's difficult to cross-compare generations. And this isn't golf where technology has vastly advanced and improved performance. We KNOW that Usain Bolt for the past TWO Olympics would beat every sprinter in history. End of discussion

As far as the Michael Phelps debate goes, I hate to disagree with you here because I feel as if it may be viewed as an attempt to diminish his accomplishments. But Phelps has never been as dominant as Bolt. And swimming isn't nearly as inclusive a sport as sprinting. It is still, in the U.S., very much a suburban sport. And there aren't nearly as many opportunities for a sprinter to win medals in the Olympics as for a swimmer - and even then, Phelps has been dependant on his teammates for 40% of his medals.

If track and field added the 4x200 (like the 4x200 freestyle) and the sprint medley (like the swimming medley relay), Bolt would probably have 10 gold medals right now. If the Track and Field schedule allowed for a sprinter to run the 100/200/400 (and it really doesn't with the amount of prelims, etc.), AND if Jamaica actually had better 400m runners, he could have even more (he's been clocked at 43.58 in the 400).

The number of medals is just an incredibly overrated Olympics statistic. There isn't another sport where an athlete could conceivably win more than 6 medals in an Olympics besides swimming. And track is even more limited.

 

[Roundabout]

You need to do two things great to be a great ath in my book.

That is why I put Bolt a notch below other ath's, he is the best pure sprinter in the olympics bar none the last 2 games. If he would do something like the long jump like Lewis, or earn gold while doing 4 different strokes in swimming then he could lay the claim to being the greatest ever.

I don't care for his showboating, but he's no worse then a long list of other guys and gals over the years so I won't hold it against him.

 

[Mike80]

Discussion?

9.58

19.19

I'm not sure, in sprinting, what more there is to debate? This isn't basketball where it's difficult to cross-compare generations. And this isn't golf where technology has vastly advanced and improved performance. We KNOW that Usain Bolt for the past TWO Olympics would beat every sprinter in history. End of discussion

As far as the Michael Phelps debate goes, I hate to disagree with you here because I feel as if it may be viewed as an attempt to diminish his accomplishments. But Phelps has never been as dominant as Bolt. And swimming isn't nearly as inclusive a sport as sprinting. It is still, in the U.S., very much a suburban sport. And there aren't nearly as many opportunities for a sprinter to win medals in the Olympics as for a swimmer - and even then, Phelps has been dependant on his teammates for 40% of his medals.

If track and field added the 4x200 (like the 4x200 freestyle) and the sprint medley (like the swimming medley relay), Bolt would probably have 10 gold medals right now. If the Track and Field schedule allowed for a sprinter to run the 100/200/400 (and it really doesn't with the amount of prelims, etc.), AND if Jamaica actually had better 400m runners, he could have even more (he's been clocked at 43.58 in the 400).

The number of medals is just an incredibly overrated Olympics statistic. There isn't another sport where an athlete could conceivably win more than 6 medals in an Olympics besides swimming. And track is even more limited.

Being a sprinter is a natural thing to Bolt. But he doesn't have to do anything at any type of distance with speed.

Swimming is much more of a whole body type event, you have to be fast, strong, flexible and you have to do it over a similar distance.

And yes, even sprinting has a generational gap, a rather large one too, especially when it comes to training, track types, equipment, etc. The differences now to 20 years ago are HUGE and growing every single day.

EDIT: I get it, you're talking medal count. I'm talking about the actual event types and movements needed. Swimming is MUCH more taxing than sprinting and Bolt is basically doing 3 or 4 events. To be able to compete at an Olympic championship level over so many events like Phelps does gives him a huge advantage.

 

[scott91575]

Where in the heck is Chandler. He only has 2 fouls. Did he get hurt?

 

[Mike80]

Where in the heck is Chandler. He only has 2 fouls. Did he get hurt?

Marc Gasol ate his lunch.

 

[scott91575]

Discussion?

9.58

19.19

I'm not sure, in sprinting, what more there is to debate? This isn't basketball where it's difficult to cross-compare generations. And this isn't golf where technology has vastly advanced and improved performance. We KNOW that Usain Bolt for the past TWO Olympics would beat every sprinter in history. End of discussion

As far as the Michael Phelps debate goes, I hate to disagree with you here because I feel as if it may be viewed as an attempt to diminish his accomplishments. But Phelps has never been as dominant as Bolt. And swimming isn't nearly as inclusive a sport as sprinting. It is still, in the U.S., very much a suburban sport. And there aren't nearly as many opportunities for a sprinter to win medals in the Olympics as for a swimmer - and even then, Phelps has been dependant on his teammates for 40% of his medals.

If track and field added the 4x200 (like the 4x200 freestyle) and the sprint medley (like the swimming medley relay), Bolt would probably have 10 gold medals right now. If the Track and Field schedule allowed for a sprinter to run the 100/200/400 (and it really doesn't with the amount of prelims, etc.), AND if Jamaica actually had better 400m runners, he could have even more (he's been clocked at 43.58 in the 400).

The number of medals is just an incredibly overrated Olympics statistic. There isn't another sport where an athlete could conceivably win more than 6 medals in an Olympics besides swimming. And track is even more limited.

I guess Jesse Owens just sucks then. He has been beat a ton of times in the last 70 years.

You have also destined Usain Bolt to obscurity at some point too. So why should we care. He is just going to be beat at some time in the future.

 

[Mike80]

I guess Jesse Owens just sucks then. He has been beat a ton of times in the last 70 years.

You have also destined Usain Bolt to obscurity at some point too. So why should we care. He is just going to be beat at some time in the future.

Yep Carl Lewis sucks too, as does Maurice Green and Donovan Bailey...they all suck, all hail [insert fastest sprinter currently running]

 

[scott91575]

The international game sucks as far as unsportmanlike penalties. Other teams literally run into the US point guard on the break. They have been doing it during the entire Olympics and no unsportsmanlike is called. Yet if a hard foul is made, while a legit foul, they call it unsportmanlike.

 

[OH10]

Being a sprinter is a natural thing to Bolt. But he doesn't have to do anything at any type of distance with speed.

Swimming is much more of a whole body type event, you have to be fast, strong, flexible and you have to do it over a similar distance.

And yes, even sprinting has a generational gap, a rather large one too, especially when it comes to training, track types, equipment, etc. The differences now to 20 years ago are HUGE and growing every single day.

EDIT: I get it, you're talking medal count. I'm talking about the actual event types and movements needed. Swimming is MUCH more taxing than sprinting and Bolt is basically doing 3 or 4 events. To be able to compete at an Olympic championship level over so many events like Phelps does gives him a huge advantage.

So because something is natural, that's a negative in this debate? Phelps is a natural as well. Look at his body type, length of arms, size of feet. He was identified as a prodigy at a young age.

And it does a disservice to Bolt to assume he hasn't put in work. What basis do you have for that? You think sprinters just wake up and go to an event?

The only generational gap in sprinting is in track type. To that end, it is hard to compare to Jesse Owens, who didn't run on the same track. But it's a stretch to think that the track makes that big of a difference when you look at the graphs of where Owens would finish compared to Bolt.

Training? I thought sprinters were just natural.

Equipment? Are you kidding? We're talking about shoes. Regardless of what Nike tries telling the world, shoes haven't made a difference (at least not in sprinting) in decades.

Sprinting is the most physically-based and objective sport in human history. If we can't call Bolt the greatest sprinter of all time, then we can't call anyone in any sport ever the greatest of all time.