Bad Arguments Against Phelps’ Greatness
Dave Zirin is right about one thing: the question of whether or nor Phelps is the greatest Olympian ever is one of those classic, interminable sports-talk radio questions. Great for people who love to yack, but something that can never have a real conclusion. But when talking about how Phelps stacks up to the best swimmers and/or athletes in history, there’s one common argument that’s used to denigrate his historical importance that’s just silly:
Then there is the problem with the sport itself. Swimming has become a victim of its own success at the Beijing games, under a cloud of suspicion because of the sheer number of records that have fallen. No one is alleging that Phelps or other swimmers are using any illegal performance enhancers. It’s the legal ones that are raising the questions.
The theory most bandied about is that the new Speedo Lasik suits turn normal men and women into aquatic hybrids, giving them everything but gills. Even the fabric is juiced. What if Phelps isn’t the best swimmer. What if he just has the best tailor?
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t a real argument. Every swimmer in the Olympics had the suits, or at least all the ones gunning for Phelps. Even Phelps’ world records, which are faster that Spitz by a second or two, aren’t washed out by the LZR suits because someone else could have gotten them with the same suit. The fact is, Phelps totally dominated the sport, relatively, which is all that matters. Ryan Lochte or Laszlo Cseh would beat 1972-era Mark Spitz, but that doesn’t make them better than him. Phelps, on the other hand, beat everyone, in more events, and set more world records than anyone else. That’s a fact that has nothing to do with training, equipment or any other difference between now and the early 70s.
