Quantcast

Is Michael Phelps the Greatest Olympian of All Time?

SodaHead Sports 2012/08/05 18:42:58
You!
Add Photos & Videos
It is hard to believe that at just 27 years of age, American swimmer Michael Phelps is a living legend. Already considered one of the greatest swimmers of all time, Phelps cemented his legacy amongst athletes of every sport in this summer's Olympics. With 22 total medals (the most of any Olympian ever), Phelps may very well be the greatest swimmer and Olympian in history.

Phelps is definitely the most popular swimmer ever, appearing in Subway commercials and other forms of media. He is the "it" guy. But don't let his star power overshadow his athletic greatness. Those 22 medals Phelps owns are more than some countries can lay claim to the last decade. If he were a country, he'd rank in the top 60 in the history of the modern Olympics. When it comes to golds, his 18 medals would place him at No. 36 ahead of Argentina. Phelps owns 39 world records, has been named Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of The Year, and that's just scratching the surface.

Phelps is also the only swimmer to win the same individual event in three straight Olympics and he set the record for the most gold medals in an Olympic year with eight in 2008 (breaking Mark Spitz's record that was untouched since 1972). Now at 27, Phelps ends his career, with 22 total medals and six alone from this year's Olympics (four gold, two silver).

What do you think SodaHeads? Is Michael Phelps the greatest Olympian of all time?

Is Michael Phelps the Greatest Olympian of All Tim

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • aley.mccaskill 2012/08/05 21:27:42
    No
    aley.mccaskill
    +2
    Nobody can be the best Olympian. He only doesn't do any other sports, so he can only be the best in swimming. I would say that he is the best swimmer so far, though.
  • Caramel 2012/08/05 21:10:24
    Yes
    Caramel
    He solidified his status by becoming the most decorated olympian ever.
  • Eyes See Wide North 2012/08/05 21:03:48
  • Heisenberg Eyes Se... 2012/08/06 00:25:39
    Heisenberg
    +1
    It seems the cannabis has affected your cognitive abilities.

    1. Imagine what he could have accomplished without smoking.
    2. The exception does not make the rule. The average pot-head is still a loser.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/06 01:04:56
    bryguy
    +7
    Blah blah blah you're just jealous of his greatness. You need a reality check. 18 gold medals and 39 world records. Apparently even that's not even enough to get it through your thick skull that maybe cannabis DOESN'T make people lazy, maybe it's lazy people that like to smoke cannabis. He could have broken a 100 records and won 50 medals and you would still go "But guise wat if eh hadn't smoked tha devil weed hurr durr"

    He's the greatest Olympian and athlete of all time, and it just makes you squirm that someone could accomplish such a feat while smoking cannabis. I say get over it and stop judging people by what they put into their own bodies. It just makes you look petty...tell me, how many gold medals have you won while ABSTAINING from cannabis? None? Really? That's what I thought.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/06 01:07:35
    Heisenberg
    +2
    Jealous? Hmmm. I did not know you were a psychich.

    Can I get some lottery numbers hipster fan-boy?
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/06 01:13:27
    bryguy
    +6
    You are jealous because it's obviously making you squirm and writhe that someone who smoked pot went on to become a legend. Well, get used to it. Your judging people for what they choose to ingest is pathetic, especially when you can't even spell a simple word like "psychic."

    Chugging all that alcohol giving you wet brain syndrome? I bet you're fine with that being legal even with the thousands of deaths it causes every year.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/06 01:17:19
    Heisenberg
    +1
    Squirm and writhe? Hmmm...you must be clairvoyant and psychic.

    We have seen all matter of famous people who use(d) drugs. The question is not if you can get famous as a drug addict, it's if that use made you better.

    I don't drink, do you?

    I am sorry the cannabis has affected you cognitive abilities.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/06 01:24:43
    bryguy
    +4
    You seem to be laboring under the delusion that cannabis causes mental decline. Why don't you try pointing me to a single reputable study that indicates this? Here's one from webmd that seems to indicate that it DOESN'T:
    http://www.webmd.com/mental-h...
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/08 22:01:09
    Heisenberg
    Not laboring...I see the evidence all around me.

    I don't take the word of ACTIVIST WRITERS like the link you sent me.

    Need proof?

    Take an IQ test then get high and take the same test.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/08 23:47:46
    bryguy
    +1
    Both of the things you define as "proof..." things around you and me taking two IQ tests, are anecdotal and mean NOTHING.

    If your opinions are so accurate why can't you back them up with scientific evidence? Why don't you post a study not covered by "activist writers?" It shouldn't be that difficult. You know how to use Google, don't you?

    Hmm let's see someone who used to smoke weed using science and a purported abstainer using "things around him." Who sounds more logical and intelligent? It certainly isn't you.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 01:08:13
    Heisenberg
    >things around you and me taking two IQ tests, are anecdotal and mean NOTHING.

    Nope. This is called evidence and something you can't pervert with a left wing organization submitting a 'study'.

    You are dopey when high. That's science.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 01:30:52
    bryguy
    +2
    an·ec·do·tal/ˌanikˈdōtl/
    Adjective:
    (of an account) Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

    Yup...pretty sure that fits the definition of 'anecdotal' EXACTLY.

    But please then, submit your own study that's not biased. Just claiming that something is "science" doesn't make it true. But, you seem to have an obvious problem defining simple words. Maybe you should go back to grade school before using too much stupid logic?
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 02:28:11
    Heisenberg
    Sorry but you must be high.

    A scientific experiment conducted by you on yourself is not an anecdote.

    You want so badly to be right about pot that you ignore reality.

    Pot makes you dopey and your comments prove your cognitive abilities are degraded.

    Are you high right now?
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 02:37:23
    bryguy
    +1
    Taking 2 IQ tests is not a "scientific experiment." Post something that is, to prove your point, or stop talking. I want standardized tests conducted on a wide range of individuals. Me testing myself two times is NOT statistically significant in ANY way. Once again, if you had attended grade school you would know this about statistics.

    Or can't you find anything meaningful/significant? If what you're saying IS true, there should be an entire body of research proving it.

    Or, instead of posting something to back your claims up you can just keep insulting me...that's pretty pathetic, though.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 02:44:26
    Heisenberg
    Sure it is.

    Even a single experiment is a scientific experiment.

    Are you familiar with the scientific method?

    I asked if you are high. How is that an insult?

    Your comments are consistent with someone who is under the influence of cannabis.

    Are you?
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 02:59:52
    bryguy
    +1
    You are playing semantics and have sidestepped my point about statistical significance. No reputable scientific journal would, in their right mind, ever publish a study involving a single individual taking two IQ tests.

    A single experiment like that is not verifiable and may be scientific to me personally but to anyone else it wouldn't matter...it is not verifiable and you could not draw any conclusions. I could take the tests and tell you anything I wanted, the actual results would not matter. And, even if I could somehow verify I was telling the truth the results could also be a fluke and they wouldn't be significant when applied to the general population as a whole.

    Since you obviously can't find any studies conducted on larger populations you have hit a dead end and can't really prove anything.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 03:50:27
    Heisenberg
    I focused on the facts and ignored your distractions.

    Deal with it.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 03:03:11
    bryguy
    +1
    Actually, I take that back. You are not even correct semantically because in order for something to be scientific it absolutely MUST be verifiable. What you're saying doesn't fit even the basest, most generalized definition of science.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 03:50:54 (edited)
    Heisenberg
    LOLZ!

    You still live at home with mama?

    I bet you do and I bet you are high.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 04:15:29
    bryguy
    +1
    If anyone is high, it's you. You make all these claims and can't post a shred of evidence. Statistical significance is NOT a distraction, it is a very valid point that two IQ tests administered on a single person is NOT statistically significant in any way and is NOT verifiable.

    You have absolutely nothing to stand on and you know it. Like I said before EITHER BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH A REPUTABLE STUDY OR STOP TALKING. Thanks.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/09 04:22:33
    Heisenberg
    I asked if you were high and you keep dancing around the issue.

    When was the last time you smoked?

    Do you live at home with your mom?
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/09 04:32:41
    bryguy
    +1
    That's because it's an ad hominem attack and a non-issue. I am not high, I have not smoked in about a month.

    But even if I was that is completely irrelevant, especially since you can't even present any evidence that smoking makes you stupid.

    I have a feeling at this point that you're just trolling me. If not, simply back up your claims and I will respond. Otherwise, have a nice day and good luck with your trolling.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/16 03:20:42
    Heisenberg
    You write as if you were under the influence of cannabis.

    If smoking is not bad, how can it be an attack?
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/16 03:35:57
    bryguy
    +1
    Oh its you again. It took you 6 days to come up with that? Still couldn't come up with a study, huh?

    It's an attack because YOU think it's bad. It would be the same as me saying "you don't believe in Allah so you're going to hell." If I actually believed in Allah, it would be considered me attacking their intelligence.

    Pointing out that science needs to be verifiable makes me sound like I'm smoking cannabis?

    This is absurd. Do you really want to keep going in circles again, you obvious troll? Either post a study so we can actually debate it or find something better to do.
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/21 18:53:58
    Heisenberg
    I respond when I decide to respond, child.

    I also don't take orders from children.

    Time for you to go to bed, boy.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/21 21:01:48
    bryguy
    +1
    You're a troll and obviously not very educated since you can't back up your claims with proof. So, as a result, I will only reply to you from now on with this one statement:
    GIVE ME PROOF OR STFU!
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/28 17:28:26
    Heisenberg
    Now you hurt my feelings.

    I am sorry cannabis has permanently affected your IQ.

    If you had a father around to love you, perhaps you would have been spared this result.
  • bryguy Heisenberg 2012/08/29 18:11:29
    bryguy
    +1
    Haha I noticed that poll you posted and I'm really surprised you didn't come here to this thread and post it as well. Wouldn't that have been a great way to shut me up? Here's the bad news: that poll doesn't even apply to me. It clearly states:
    “Adolescent-onset cannabis users, but not adult-onset cannabis users, showed marked IQ decline from childhood to adulthood."

    I didn't even start smoking until I was 19. That study is totally irrelevant because NO ONE is advocating that we legalize weed for children. So thank you for posting that, you have fueled my argument and diminished your own...it looks like weed is completely safe for ADULTS to smoke and doesn't reduce their IQ at all.
  • Eyes Se... Heisenberg 2012/08/06 02:38:10
    Eyes See Wide North
    +5
    It seems prejudice and ignorance have affected your perception

    1. I dont have to imagine, I know what he has accomplished while smoking.
    2. There is no rule, I can make the statement that the average drinker is a loser, with 10000 times the evidence to prove it.
  • bryguy Eyes Se... 2012/08/06 04:51:02
    bryguy
    +3
    Don't bother talking to him, this ignorant tard can't even back up his wild claims with a scientific study.
  • Omni bryguy 2012/08/07 11:08:09 (edited)
    Omni
    +2
    He's always been like this. He blocked me simply because I supported Ron Paul. He simply can't tolerate others thinking differently :/
  • Heisenberg bryguy 2012/08/08 22:03:00
    Heisenberg
    Define irony: A pot-head attacking the cognitive abilities of others.

    You still live with mama hipster pot fan-boy?
  • Heisenberg Eyes Se... 2012/08/08 22:01:59
    Heisenberg
    OH MY! Now you hurt my feelings.

    Go suck a pipe.
  • Eyes Se... Heisenberg 2012/08/08 23:06:40
    Eyes See Wide North
    Good point..
  • JCLadybug Eyes Se... 2012/08/06 17:37:36
    JCLadybug
    He admitted himself that it took him 2 years post Beijing to get serious and if he had trained more seriously the result may have been different. He was "tired of getting beat" so he started training better etc. Does that mean he stopped smoking pot at the time? I don't know, but the photos that surfaced were just after Beijing, so it fits with the time period.

    I'm on the fence on this issue, but I don't think weed every now and this will make the point. Unfortunately, there are many people who do fit that model.
  • Eyes Se... JCLadybug 2012/08/06 20:35:05
    Eyes See Wide North
    Exactly, where is the proof that many people fit the model of a loser stoner?

    Thats just a stereotype...

    Its not that obvious that I can call it out, but if I talked about people who drink in the same manner, it would sound like I am jumping to massive conclusions.
  • luke 2012/08/05 20:58:15
    Yes
    luke
    Or at least until his records are broken.
  • Sterling 2012/08/05 20:47:07
    Yes
    Sterling
    +1
    No contest.
  • branflakes 2012/08/05 20:45:56
    Yes
    branflakes
    +1
    100 % !!! He's the best and he's adorable !! :*

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2013/05/26 00:35:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals