Greatest Olympian Ever should not be defined by medals won
By Michael DiFabrizio, 4 Aug 2012 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
US swimmer Michael Phelps. AFP PHOTO / CHRISTOPHE SIMON
Related coverage
Michael Phelps has now won more Olympic medals than any other athlete, and he deserves praise for doing so. But this feat alone doesn’t automatically hand him the title ‘greatest Olympian ever’.
This isn’t to be disrespectful to Phelps at all. In fact, he could very well be the greatest Olympian ever and his performances in London have only added to his reputation as an outstanding athlete.
Rather, this is just a reaction to all those who, as soon as his medal count ticked over to 19 with a win in the 4×200 metre freestyle relay, decided that now he was the best.
As if this one single statistic is the only thing that matters in such a debate.
What crap. You have to remember that swimmers, unlike athletes from a lot of other sports, have the opportunity to claim multiple medals at the one Olympics. In fact, swimming as a discipline has 34 events at these Olympics, second only to athletics with 47. (Aquatics as a whole actually has 46.)
In comparison, there are 17 disciplines or sports at the London games that have only two events, one for men and one for women.
It’s rare for an Olympian to have as many opportunities to medal as a swimmer does. Of course, Phelps is limited by gender (ruling him out of half of the 34 swimming events), preferred strokes and time, so it’s not like he can enter every single event. But eight events per Olympiad seems to be his norm.
At the time of writing, Phelps had participated in 21 Olympic events since his debut as a 15 year-old in Sydney.
In comparison, Olympians from many other disciplines could only enter four events in the same timeframe.
Obviously, it’s just an unfair comparison. You can’t have a proper debate when the majority of Olympic athletes don’t fit the criteria.
If you find that harsh, Sebastian Coe – the man in charge of London 2012 and a two-time Olympic gold medal winner as a middle-distance runner – happens to agree.
“You can probably say that clearly, self-evidently, in medal tally he’s the most successful. My personal view is I am not sure he is the greatest, but he is certainly the most successful. That goes without saying,” Coe said.
“Who is the greatest Olympian of all time? I could go around this whole room, we’d all come up with different interpretations on that. But you have to say he’s up there. But whether he is the greatest, in my opinion, probably not.”
Unsurprisingly, a few Americans got a bit angry about these comments.
My favourite response came from sports business writer Darren Rovell on Twitter.
“Bonehead of the day goes to Seb Coe calling Michael Phelps the most successful but not necessarily the greatest Olympian. Ok, buddy,” he tweeted.
“Michael Phelps has competed in 19 Olympic events & has won gold 79% of the time #endofstory
“Phelps had to deal with suit technology that made so many better than they were. Seb Coe & others never had that challenge.”
Then, after being reminded Phelps has actually participated in 21 events: “Official Phelps tally is 19 out of 21 races with medals 15 (71% gold).”
Sorry, but it’s not quite #endofstory. There are athletes out there with 100% gold records, but they haven’t had the same opportunity to accumulate medals as Phelps has. Which just proves it’s a pretty poor basis for a “greatest ever” argument.
And if that doesn’t sway the most patriotic of Americans, well, just look at the previous supposed ‘greatest’.
Larisa Latynina, the 18-time Olympic medal winning gymnast from Russia, has been walking around London virtually unnoticed. She even offered to hand Phelps his 19th medal, but the International Olympic Committee declined.
Is that the sort of treatment the greatest ever would receive?
So no, winning the most medals doesn’t make Phelps the greatest. Stories about what he’s had to overcome (and unless he volunteered to race in his budgie smugglers, the swimsuits don’t count) and the quality of competition and a whole bunch of other factors must come into it.
Can you call Phelps the most decorated Olympian ever? Absolutely.
The most successful Olympian ever? Why not.
The greatest? Unless you can bring more to the table than his medals, no.
Michael DiFabrizio is completing his journalism degree. As an AFL writer, he has been an expert columnist at The Roar since 2009, and appeared in The Age and on ABC television and radio. Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- 2012 Olympics, london 2012, London 2012 Olympics, Michael Phelps, Olympics, swimming

August 4th 2012 @ 1:55am
Seriously, Who says Oi? said | August 4th 2012 @ 1:55am | Report comment
The Olympics is about competition. There shouldn’t be any criteria other than winning taken into account.
Phelps is definitely the greatest swimmer ever. The case for him being the greatest Olympian is pretty good. He’s been a proven winner at 4 consecutive Olympics(Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London). If he isn’t the greatest, who is?
The fact that Latynina wasn’t noticed in London means nothing. It doesn’t devalue her accomplishments and status in the slightest.
As for Coe, should his opinion be taken seriously as if it were some sort of gospel? No.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:28am
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
I wouldn’t entirely disagree that “there shouldn’t be any criteria other than winning taken into account” if someone like Michael Jordan could compete in eight separate events in his chosen sport each games. Unfortunately it’s just not that straightforward.
Also, just a slight correction: Phelps was not a winner in Sydney. Fifth in the 200m butterfly was his best result. (Although he was 15 years old and the youngest male to make a U.S. Olympic swim team in 68 years, so obviously it was still a very good effort!)
August 4th 2012 @ 3:49am
peeeko said | August 4th 2012 @ 3:49am | Report comment
nice article, he may be the greatest olympian ever but claiming it is beause of total of medals won is not a valid reason. Same reason why medal tallys are misleading. the USA basketball team can only win one gold medal while a single gymnast or swimmer can win many
August 4th 2012 @ 6:36am
WayneO said | August 4th 2012 @ 6:36am | Report comment
The key is, no matter how many opportunities you have to win a medal, in swimming there are always another 6-7 people trying to win too in the same race. So you have to win. It could also be argued that each race requires a different skill set too. Yes they may all be swimming, but it is all different swimming skills. If it were not, all good swimmers would be good in all races, clearly not the case! So not only has he won the most medals, but also across different disciplines. That arguably adds to the voracity of his claim. I hear a lot of arguments that medals should not be the criteria, but not one argument as to what criteria should be used, assuming Olympic medals at the Olympics, across multiple disciplines, don’t cut it. All you people that agree with this article, and Seb Coe, what other criteria makes up this mystery criteria that seems to not relate to winning?
August 4th 2012 @ 8:22am
Doug said | August 4th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
I think you’ll find most sports at the Olympics have “another 6-7 people trying to win” too. Actually I cant think of one that you just need to show up to get a gold medal. The Olympic fun run perhaps…?
August 4th 2012 @ 9:00am
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Michael,
I agree with you 100%.
And at the risk of being mischievous, the Yanks have this skewed belief that in every sport they’re involved in, the best has to be an American. Or, at least in the sports they care about. Most Americans are pretty dumb (but you could say that about most people in most countries).
Phelps is the most decorated Olympian, & the best swimmer. Let’s leave it at that.
Cross-comparing sports is almost impossible in determining who’s better. How do you adequately determine a swimmer is better than a track athlete, or a gymnast, or a rower, or a cyclist, or a weightlifter, etc?
August 4th 2012 @ 9:38am
David Lord said | August 4th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
If Usain Bolt can win the 100-200 double in Beijing, London, and Rio, there would be every good reason to name him the greatest Olympian. But it’s a huge IF.
August 6th 2012 @ 10:23am
jameswm said | August 6th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
A bit less of an if now…
August 6th 2012 @ 11:30am
Droppa said | August 6th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
wowo ..inane at best
August 4th 2012 @ 9:38am
Lroy said | August 4th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
“Greatest Olympian Ever” big call…
There was a Cuban boxer who won 3 consecutive gold medals back in the 70′s (heavyweight) who might have been good enough to beat Muhammad Ali… you could argue boxing is a much tougher sport than swimming.
I think we need to remember that until recently, the Olympics was purely amateur… Im sure Jessie Owens would have won a swag more medals if he was able to get paid to compete..
The same is true of Mark Spitz.. Phelps has an advantage that in 1972 there was no such thing as the 50m swim… Mark Spitz broke 16 world records in his last 17 swim meets, or something crazy like that. Not sure if Phelps has broken as many records as Spitz… sometimes Spitz broke his own world record in one day… but he didn’t get credit for both, only one of them.
So, Phelps is a wonderful athlete no question.. and is right up there with the greatest of all time.. but.. lets spare a thought for those men and women who trained just as hard as him as amateurs .. who didn’t get paid or received endorsements and who had to back up and appear at work afterwards.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:23am
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
That’s very true, Lroy. Amateurs would’ve had less time to dedicate to their chosen craft and would have also lacked the benefit of modern sports science.
Now, obviously you need to be careful because in those times it would’ve been the same for the whole competition. Amateurs were competing against amateurs, so it’s not like they were at a disadvantage while competing. However, would these factors have affected their longevity in the sport and their ability to stay at their peak for longer? Perhaps.
Your other point that the number of events, and thus the number of opportunities to medal, has expanded is also a great one.
August 4th 2012 @ 9:46am
Aidan said | August 4th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Determining the greatest would be a challenging exercise and it would be difficult to establish criteria based on how different each sport is. I disagree however that medals don’t at least tell some story. If you compare phelps to other swimmers alone he is a fair distance in front of the field. Let’s just say he has one three times as many gold Medals as Ian Thorpe and twice as many as Mark Spitz. So when you are twice or three times as successful as some of the biggest names you have to be boardering on great. The other thing that should also be considered is that he has achieved things no one else has in the sport- three gold in three straight olympics in the same event. That is usually a pretty good sign of greatness also.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:18am
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Aidan, good points raised. Obviously when comparing within sports medals won can be quite convenient, and I should add that I’m not saying ticking the ‘medals won’ box doesn’t build your credentials in the ‘greatest ever’ but it just shouldn’t define that title.
I think the best way to establish the greatest would be to have a nomination from each sport – using the relevant statistics and achievements in both sports to determine who gets nominated. From there, you can start to assess who’s feats you can consider ‘greater’.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:41am
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Aidan,
Everything you say is true. No-one is disputing that Phelps is the greatest swimmer. But is he really, REALLY better than say Jesse Owens, or Carl Lewis, or Daley Thompson, or Steve Redgrave, or Al Oerter, or Paavo Nurmi, or Emil Zatopek, to name just a few others.
BTW, Dawn Fraser won the gold medal for the 100m freestyle at 3 successive Olympics – 1956, 60, 64. Or doesn’t this count if it didn’t happen in your time?????
OPPORTUNITY has a lot to do with Phelps huge medal haul. In Dawn’s day, there was no 50m freestyle, or 100m freestyle relay (until 1960, but replacing the 200m freestyle relay).
Dawn won 4 gold & 4 silver. But had there been these other events, you could quite safely say that barring a calamity, she would have also won every 50m freestyle in 1956, 60, 64 as well as the 100m freestyle relay in 1956 & 200m freestyle relay in 1960 (maybe).
Dawn was an out & out speedster. Had the 50m been around in her day, she would have won the 50-100m freestyle double 3 times. We would be eulogising her even more than we are today.
So that’s another 4-5 gold medals you could add to Dawn’s tally, making it in the vicinity of 10-11 gold medals.. But she didn’t have the opportunities that Phelps has enjoyed.
Furthermore, she was denied the opportunity to compete at the 1968 Olympics by officialdom, when she might possibly have won the 100m freestyle gold medal a 4th successive time! And again, if the 50m had been around, that might have been the 50-100m double 4 times!!!
On the track, you can only compete in 3 events, or 4 at the most, at each Olympics. Owens & Lewis each won gold in 4 events – 100m, 200m, 4 x 100m relay & long jump. Michael Johnson only had 3 events available to him – 200m, 400m, 4 x 400m relay.
Daley Thompson, a decathlete, only has one event, but it includes 10 separate & extremely demanding disciplines. Al Oerter won the shot put gold medal at 4 successive Olympics – 1956, 60, 64, 68.
For Usain Bolt to match Phelps eventual 24 events, he would have to compete at 8 Olympics, repeat 8 Olympics!!!!!!!!!!
Phelps needed only 4 Olympics, remembering he competed in just one event at Sydney in 2000.
Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian, & the best swimmer. To suggest anymore than that, will require much greater scrutiny.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:54am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
But why isn’t Bolt good enough to compete in more events? Most track and field events are just different types of running events, with some jumping and throwing included for variety. If he was as good as Pehlps he’d win those events as well, they’re just variations on a basic theme.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:07am
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
In swimming, each event has a heat & a final, while many of the shorter individual races also include a semi-final. So each event involves 2-3 swims. Remember this, 3 swims per event at the max.
No such luxury in track & field. In the 100m & 200m events, for example, there might two heats, followed by quarters, semis & a final. So the final is actually the 5th race in that event.
It’s the same with relays. In the pool, there’s only two races – the heat & the final. But on the track, you have at least one heat, followed by quarters, semis & a final. Once again, the final might be the 4th race in this event.
It’s not simply a matter of saying athletes should enter more events. The qualifying is also much more intense on the track than it is in the pool.
If Usain Bolt added more events to his programme, simply to keep pace with Phelps, he would lose his edge at those events he was dominant in. By spreading his talent further, he would actually be inviting defeat rather than more glory.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:13am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Most of the qualifying heats for the track events are walk overs for the top athletes, competing against runners with no chance of progressing. As for Bolt diluting his talent, I say again that if he was as good as Phelps he wouldn’t need to worry about that, he dominate at a much wider range of events and win far more than two medals per games. But he simply lacks the overall ability in his field to do so.
August 4th 2012 @ 4:01pm
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
“Most of the qualifying heats for the track events are walk overs for top athletes”.
Really…..?
A swimmer has his weight supported by water when in the pool. The biggest concern for injury with a swimmer, is breaking a finger when hitting the wall in a close race. otherwise, any injuries will most likely occur away from the pool in the weights room.
An athlete doesn’t have water to support his body weight. On the track, his body is weighted down by gravity. What might seem like a walk in the park to you, is still fraught with danger.
The top athletes have to get through 4-5 races BEFORE the final, without any injury concerns. For the taught muscles of a track sprinter, muscle strains or tears remain a constant fear.
Even the slightest strain has the potential to jeapordise their chances in the finals.
Please Fussballs, tell me you’re not serious with some of this stuff……….
August 6th 2012 @ 10:24am
jameswm said | August 6th 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Sheek’s right. Running takes a much bigger toll on your body and it’s harder to back up.
August 4th 2012 @ 1:41pm
Matty_Ed said | August 4th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
While swimming may only have a heat and final, the vast majority of swimming races take over one minute. Compare this to a 10-20 second 100m/200m/hurdles event and I think the fatigue levels between the two sports are pretty similar.
August 4th 2012 @ 6:24pm
Bestywins said | August 4th 2012 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
Hey foosball, since u are going on about all this stuff I’d suggest bolt would win more medals if they had similar events in running like swimming has . Let’s say they had a 100 Mtr event running backwards because that’s what swimming has, it’s called backstroke , there’s another two gold medals for bolt in the 100 and 200 Mtr backrun to go with his running forwards ones. Also since they swim like a frog in breast stroke let’s have a running event called leap frog and also have a 100 200 Mtr event for that as well ,then throw in relays for this , someone jumping like a frog, then bolt getting the baton running backwards and then passing it onto a team mate running forwards then bang bolt is getting close to phelps medal haul, because as u point out about athletic events and just running up and throwing or jumping , aren’t all swimmers just flopping around in a pool trying to replicate what mammals do better than us. Phelps is not even close to the greatest Olympian ever . End of story lol
August 4th 2012 @ 6:35pm
Aidan said | August 4th 2012 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
I agree that much more scrutiny is required and the approach that Michael advocates is similar to the approach that I think would best determine the ‘greatest’. I would use medals from each of the different sporting categories to determine nominees then evaluate them against the next best in their sporting field, hence why I only evaluated Phelps against other swimmers. The ‘greatest’ would then be determined based on who was the most dominate in their field. My feeling is that Phelps would come out on top but that is a pure assumption.
Other criteria such as olympic records or world records etc. could be used, but for me that doesn’t prove much. Others will no doubt disagree with me but for me this is based on discussions with mates regarding the ‘greatest’ in other sports. The example that comes to mind is Favre v Marino or Brady. Based on my methodology above Favre is no comparison because he only won 1 Superbowl. My mates feel this is a limited view but I would take gold or championships over individual stats any day.
In regards to Dawn that was an error, for some reason I thought she only won two in a row. In regards to your ageist comment about her being before my time nice call, correct, but off the mark.
August 4th 2012 @ 5:56pm
Bestywins said | August 4th 2012 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
Al Oerter from America won 4 golds at consecutive Olympics in the discus from 1956 until 1968. This was totally amazing at the time and gained world wide attention. I think it’s worth mentioning because I think only Carl Lewis has achieved anything similar. He overcame injuries and a bad car accident and was reknowned for his sportsmanship and attitude. He was still throwing competitively at 43 years old and actually threw his personal best at that age.
Cheers
August 4th 2012 @ 10:17am
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Ah yes – the great Cuban boxer with a Spanish-English name – Teofilo Stevenson.
Won the heavyweight gold medal in 1972, 76 & 80.
Actually,he just passed away recently in June, aged 60.
August 4th 2012 @ 10:47am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Let’s examine this notion that Phelps’ effort isn’t that impressive because of the number of different styles of swimming in which he competes. Take for example track events. If Usain Bolt is as good as Phelps why can’t he win at least six individual gold medals? By my reckoning any half decent runner should be able to win the 100, 200 and 400 metre events and then the equivalent hurdle events. After all, the hurdles is just running with some jumping involved, no real difference. And then if they were really good they should also be able to win the long jump (running followed by a jump), triple jump (running followed by a different jump), high jump (again, running with a jump) and pole vault (running followed by a jump with a long stick). And don’t mention the decathlon, that’s just an event for people who aren’t good enough to compete in the individual events.
As for the throwing events, well they’re all the same too, just running up to a line and chucking something as far as possible. Surely someone should be able to win all of those? What’s that you say, all of these events require substantially different techniques, plus the demands on the athletes to compete in all of these events in a short time frame would make it exceptionally difficult. Exactly right, which is why Michael Phelps is the greatest olympian ever. Discussion closed.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:14am
sheek said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
See my reply above. For Phelps to enter 8 events ( 5 individual & 3 relays), would require him to swim on about 13-15 different occasions, since he wouldn’t be used in the heat of the relays, he would only swim the final of these.
For Bolt to enter 3 events (2 individual & one relay), would require him to also run 10 times individually, & at least twice in the relay.
So already, despite Bolt having just 3 events to Phelps’ 8, he is already competing close to as many times as Phelps, 12-13. But in addition to this, the competition on the track is usually much more intense than in the pool.
For Bolt to enter the same number of events as Phelps (8), it would actually require him to compete on the track or field, up to well over 20 occasions, which is reaching absurd expectations on a sngle athlete.
I’m sorry Fussballs, but you are exhibiting some extreme ignorance of how difficult track & field events really are. Furthermore, your ignorance has only demonstrated that the discussion is far from over.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:20am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I think if you re read my post you’ll see that what I’m doing is mocking those who attempt to devalue Phelps’ achievements by arguing that all swimming events are simply variations on a core activity. Of course they are, but so are all running and jumping events, the fact is for someone to be the best in the world across all of these variations is an immense achievement. The only track and field athletes who deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Phelps are people such as Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis given their all round excellence. Bolt doesn’t come close.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:29am
Jocelyn McLennan said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
exaclty….if two swimmers were to stand on the blocks and said first one the other end wins are they going to swim ?breastroke?…no…why there are even different strokes in swimming beats me….I mean Usain Bolt doesn’t hop the fastest does he…so a huge individual medal hual does not equate to greatest…..the best swimming is the winner of the 100m freestyle…ditto the best runner is the 100 metre sprint…to quote Lord Linley in Chariots of Fire ” to be THE fastest NOT just A fastest?.
August 4th 2012 @ 1:09pm
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 4th 2012 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Whereas two track sprinters would definitely say to each other ‘let’s place a set of evenly-spaced obstacles for us to jump over whilst we’re running. Makes complete sense. Bolt has the opportunity to compete in a wide range of running/jumping events, but lacks the all round ability to match the achievements of Phelps.
August 4th 2012 @ 11:29am
Jocelyn McLennan said | August 4th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment