So Phelps is better because his event has 4 different strokes at 100 and 200m. Phelps won more golds partly because he had the chance to enter more events.
Actually, I agree with this. I was talking to some friends about this, and we all agreed that Phelps probably isn't the "greatest Olympian ever" simply because athletes in other sports can't compete in as many events based on their one skill. (However, we still said he was a machine, and didn't discuss it beyond that).
😉
Weightlifters will never get 8 gold medals. Same with table tennis champions, basketball, or gymnasts. Even a sport like rowing, which has quite a few events for athletes to compete in, couldn't get more than 3 or 4 gold medals if they competed in absolutely everything.
Another great American Olympian, Carl Lewis, had to at least run fast AND jump really far. Heck, he was undefeated in long jump for 10 years.
As for NBC, it seems it is only America who use total number of medals as a guide. Everyone else, including the IOC, us the number of golds followed by silver then bronze for the medal table.
Which is ridiculous. I don't know why Americans strive to do everything in a different, ass-backwards way that doesn't make any more sense than doing it the way everyone else does it.
Simple.
Gold = 3, Silver = 2, Bronze = 1.
Tally.
Gold = 5, Silver = 3, Bronze = 1.
Even Gold = 5, Silver =
2, Bronze = 1 is better.
A gold medal is worth far more to an athlete than a bronze. Nobody strives for bronze. You get silver if you lose the gold medal in the finals ('here's a sticker of a star to put on your "decent" assignment.....loser'), and bronze still has to play in a final match/game despite knowing full well that they have no chance of actually getting what they want, which would be quite sad, lacking a lot of needed motivation.