Who deserves more accolades?

With Bolt's dominance in the 100m with a poor start, and shutting it down from about 70m onwards, I think he has a VERY good case of deserving more praise than Phelps. Your thoughts?

Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

im going to have to say phelps' accomplishments surpass those of usain bolts.

To be fair, a swimming WR doesn't mean as much as a track one (it changes more), but come on, lot's of guys have broken just the 100m WR, Phelps is hopefully going to be the only one to win 8 golds.

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Michael Phelp's accomplishments in these Olympics are FAR superior to Bolt's.
Bolt became the fastest 100m runner ever.
Phelps became the greatest Olympian ever.

Phelps without question

PCNQtrack wrote:Phelps without question

+1

Well, I have to say Phelps... but I think it's also important to keep mind that swimming is the only sport where it is even possible to win all those gold medals... in other sports you just can't, because there aren't enough similar races.

I mean, who knows if some other athlete might have it in them to win 7+ golds? They don't have the oppurtunity to do it.

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

But you're giving him credit for something HE DIDN'T DO. You're saying he could have gone sub 9.6 (LOL), but he didn't. Therefore his accomplishment is very inferior to all eight of Phelps. Even if he did run a perfect race all the way to the end, Phelp's eight golds would be more amazing than that.

Track and field bias I say, I don't care if he could've gone faster.

The 100m is a classic event. Can't really compare it to swimming.....man was never meant to swim. At best, the 50m freestylers hit 5 mph. Bolt just went 25 mph down the track like it was nothing.

edit: Bolt isn't as dominant as Phelps quite yet...but I must give him serious props

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

No, he didn't. Inertia carried him at near top speed, he gave away maybe 2 hundreths of a second as very aggressive estimate. Just think of what you are saying, do you seriously think he was capable of going 9.59, when until that race no one had ever gone under 9.7?

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

No, he didn't. Inertia carried him at near top speed, he gave away maybe 2 hundreths of a second as very aggressive estimate. Just think of what you are saying, do you seriously think he was capable of going 9.59, when until that race no one had ever gone under 9.7?

His team mate Michael Frater said that he would have come in at 9.62 if he didn't screw around. I do think that he is sub-9.6 capable but it would take a tailwind near the limit and a perfect start

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

No, he didn't. Inertia carried him at near top speed, he gave away maybe 2 hundreths of a second as very aggressive estimate. Just think of what you are saying, do you seriously think he was capable of going 9.59, when until that race no one had ever gone under 9.7?

His team mate Michael Frater said that he would have come in at 9.62 if he didn't screw around.

And you said he could have gone ~9.59.

All the fastest 100m times ever run end with the guy dicking around. It doesn't make a substantial difference, in the last quarter of a 100m you are already at top speed, and relaxing will take you over the line almost exactly as fast as pushing will.

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

No, he didn't. Inertia carried him at near top speed, he gave away maybe 2 hundreths of a second as very aggressive estimate. Just think of what you are saying, do you seriously think he was capable of going 9.59, when until that race no one had ever gone under 9.7?

His team mate Michael Frater said that he would have come in at 9.62 if he didn't screw around.

And you said he could have gone ~9.59.

All the fastest 100m times ever run end with the guy dicking around. It doesn't make a substantial difference, in the last quarter of a 100m you are already at top speed, and relaxing will take you over the line almost exactly as fast as pushing will.

I still trust his teammate's estimation of 5/100ths over your estimation of 2/100ths

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

RawBeginner wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:

runner_dude wrote:

NotChangingUntilSub5 wrote:Yes, the fact that he didn't do something, but maybe could have, is much more impressive than 7+ gold medals and 6+ WR.

What didn't he do? He set the world record while seemingly out for a morning stroll. If he really wanted to, had a bit of a tail wind and had a good start, he could have beamonized the record. There is still the 200m, 400m (I think he's running, not sure) and the 4x100m. In Swimming it is a lot easier to dominate multiple events. Track and field is far different in that respect.

Are you seriously try to say that he wasn't running as fast as he could?

Have you seen the race? If he had had a reasonable start and hadn't shut it down at 65m, he would have easily gone under 9.6. Add a tail wind, and sub 9.55 would have been reasonable.

That is by far the stupidest thing you have ever said.

He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

No, he didn't. Inertia carried him at near top speed, he gave away maybe 2 hundreths of a second as very aggressive estimate. Just think of what you are saying, do you seriously think he was capable of going 9.59, when until that race no one had ever gone under 9.7?

His team mate Michael Frater said that he would have come in at 9.62 if he didn't screw around.

And you said he could have gone ~9.59.

All the fastest 100m times ever run end with the guy dicking around. It doesn't make a substantial difference, in the last quarter of a 100m you are already at top speed, and relaxing will take you over the line almost exactly as fast as pushing will.

I still trust his teammate's estimation of 5/100ths over your estimation of 2/100ths

NO U

Who knows, a huge amount of natural running ability may have left Frater lacking in the brains.

Plus he's his teammate you know he'll say almost anything.

Phelps ftw.

The reason for all the world records being broken in swimming is due to the new swimsuits. They adapt to your body type and nearly detract all water. It takes hours for the suit to mold to your body.

But I will say Phelps because he gave it his all in every race. Bolt is amazing, but he did not give it his all in that race, which is even more amazing. But at the same token he should be giving his full effort. We're comparing apples to oranges though, so in actuallity I'd say they deserve the same amount of respect for what they do.

RawBeginner wrote:
He looked around, beat his chest, put his arms out to the side, chopped his stride.....he easily gave up a full tenth with those antics.

hah yeah. what's up with that?

I WILL give Bolt credit for running a wind legal 9.69. I WILL give him credit for a gold in the 100m. I will NOT give him credit for this fictional scenario involving him running 9.62 or 9.59 or 8.75 or whatever the hell he could have run. You don't get credit for doing something until you actually do it.