>>And impossible for ANYONE to say
that Phelps is a "greater" swimmer than she was at her best. <<
I think that Shane Gould was a very fine swimmer, but Janet Evans, less
than a dozen years later, swam times that were competitive with the
best MEN who swam at the time Gould swam, and which would have utterly
destroyed Gould's WR times, which were:
100 Freestyle London 30 April 1971 eq. world record 58.9
200 Freestyle London 1 May 1971, 2.06.5
400 Freestyle Santa Clara California 9 July 9 1971, 4.21.2
200 Freestyle Drummoyne Sydney 26 November 1971, 2.05.8
800 Freestyle Drummoyne Sydney 3 December 1971, 8.58.1
1500 Freestyle Birrong Sydney 12 December 1971, 17.00.6
Gould's time wouldn't have even won a fast age group meet 14 years
later.
Evan's WRs haven't been challenged in 17 years.
So Gould wasn't even as great a swimmer as Janet Evans, who, according
to coaches like Coach Smith, did nearly everything wrong technically,
including lifting her entire head out of the water with each stroke.
Evans also swam against MUCH harder competition than Gould, namely the
doped up East Germans, who defeated all other swimmers, save for Evans.
Astrid Strauss kept her head down in the water, swam with a beautiful,
perfect "TI style stroke, was a good 9 inches taller than Evans, and
was doped up with male hormones, and still didn't beat a girl who did
everything wrong, technically.
Smith claims that Evans was, in his words, a "genetic freak." In what
way? Her VO2 max was in the 50s, which is hardly freakish. She wasn't
all that strong, according to her coach, Bud McAllister, and never did
formal weight training. She didn't have unusual flexibility. She
didn't have a long torso or big feet or big hands. And she, according
to Coach Smith, didn't swim with good technique. Coach Smith claims
that Evans would have swum even faster had she used "good technique."
So how, exactly, was Evans a "genetic freak?"
Shane Gould wasn't even close to being the greatest swimmer of all
time; of that I am quite certain.
And Ian Smith doesn't have a clear understanding of what constitutes
"good technique;" nor do most of his colleagues. Their concept of
"good technique" is based upon erroneous assumptions and erroneous
deductions and erroneous extrapolations.
- Larry W