01-30-2008, 09:42 PM | #11 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
much more likely to be top 16 in swimming, than top 16 in <insert almost every major sport>.
I knew a guy at BYU who was on his high school water polo team. I'll bet he would have been the top water polo person in Texas if he was there. Since he would be the only one who had played. Water polor = niche sport. |
01-30-2008, 09:44 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
When more likely is still next to impossible I don't think it matters much. You make the assertion that you should have played a niche sport and I assume you mean that's because you think you'd dominate. I'm here to tell you that I doubt it.
|
01-30-2008, 09:46 PM | #13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Swimming is like track and field olympics in 1912. It's wide-open.
|
01-30-2008, 10:13 PM | #14 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Swimming in a narrow field won't mean much but on a national level it does. Competing against spots against the Aussies and Chinese if formidable. The conditioning required coupled with enough talented athletes is also significant. Would it be better if more minorities participated? Probably. It's mostly driven middle income families in warm weather states, Cali, SoCal and NoCal, Texas, Florida and a little bit from everywhere else. Though during the days of Spitz, Indiana University excelled due to its world class coach. You may have excelled within your city but the size of today's sprinters also included athletes. Most of the guys go 6'2" and beyond and female swimmers are also comparatively long. Distance is about lots of work. People who don't swim underestimate the quality of the top notch swimmers. The main difference is the lack of depth below national level.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|