Are you done dancing around rethoric arguments to avoid saying that you were wrong?
Comparing the performance of a non specialized teenager swimmer with that of a specialized adult woman in peak adult performance is a shitty comparison.
This is a fact that can be easily confirmed if you do 10 seconds of research and you check swimming records by age category.
It's fine, you used as source an article that made this claim based on shitty data, you have been shown that the data was shitty. The mature thing to do is to say "OK, that was a false claim".
Running gives taller people an advantage, yet ShaCarri is only like 5'1" and wins. Also, there are plenty of people taller than Michael Phelps who can't bear him af swimming. There are many people who have bigger feet who can't beat him. Is height as critical as testosterone in this case?
Do you understand what an advantage is, and that there are N attributes where people have advantages?
Anyway, how is this relevant to this particular comment chain?
Can you now show a glimpse of intellectual honestly and show that your source uses poor data and therefore makes a wrong claim?
Can you recognize that your initial claim that "Ledecky beats Phelps in long distance" is based on this one source that uses poor data?
I feel like I need you to acknowledge that a comparison between 1-time trials for 15yo Phelps and Ledecky's peak performance record was not a sane comparison at all, and that the little difference even in such a shitty comparison proves the opposite of what you were claiming.
Swimming is not one of them for fucking sake.
Are you done dancing around rethoric arguments to avoid saying that you were wrong?
Comparing the performance of a non specialized teenager swimmer with that of a specialized adult woman in peak adult performance is a shitty comparison.
This is a fact that can be easily confirmed if you do 10 seconds of research and you check swimming records by age category.
It's fine, you used as source an article that made this claim based on shitty data, you have been shown that the data was shitty. The mature thing to do is to say "OK, that was a false claim".
Running gives taller people an advantage, yet ShaCarri is only like 5'1" and wins. Also, there are plenty of people taller than Michael Phelps who can't bear him af swimming. There are many people who have bigger feet who can't beat him. Is height as critical as testosterone in this case?
Do you understand what an advantage is, and that there are N attributes where people have advantages?
Anyway, how is this relevant to this particular comment chain?
Can you now show a glimpse of intellectual honestly and show that your source uses poor data and therefore makes a wrong claim? Can you recognize that your initial claim that "Ledecky beats Phelps in long distance" is based on this one source that uses poor data?
I feel like I need you to acknowledge that a comparison between 1-time trials for 15yo Phelps and Ledecky's peak performance record was not a sane comparison at all, and that the little difference even in such a shitty comparison proves the opposite of what you were claiming.