So Larson had the better time on the stopwatches, the judges couldn't decide, then someone gave them the same time but decided that only Devitt should win Gold? Who wasn't ahead on *any* of the deciding means they used? On what grounds? Seriously, Larson should've sued them. They fucked him over big time.
Based on the video, there was one measure favoring Devitt: the three judges who were asked who came in first, two out of three agreed. The second place judges went the opposite way, but nevertheless: if a majority decision of the first place judges had been the winning condition (but it apparently was not!), the result would have been correct.
I think you had to call it a draw, hand held stopwatches and who finishing judges are not reliable enough in this circumstance, The head judge must have gone with the 1st place judges.
@@bbkingwasthegreatest711 the thing is though, if they both got 1st place, then it would be fine. But, the only difference between the two's finishes was that Larson was slightly faster. That should have been used as the final tiebreaker to decide who took first place. Instead, they gave it to the guy who got the slower recorded time, which makes no sense whatsoever. A 10 year old could make a better decision than they did lol
That decision in 1960 Olympics is so unfair. Larson is the winner. 2 out of the 3 stopwatch indicated that Larson have 10 sec faster than Devitt. That’s the rule, what they will disregard it? That is not right.
Man, that was brutal for Larson. Wish the Olympics would rectify this, as it looks pretty clear Larson touched first, and the rules were ignored, with the timer ultimately supposed to decide the winner in the case of a tie by the judges. Larson did get a gold in 1960 as part of the men's relay team, at least.
It's not pretty clear. That's the whole point. It's so close that no one could tell. Stopwatches used by trained operators are not necessarily accurate to the tenth of a second
It was clear that Larson looked ahead, but Devitt pushed his hand forward at the very last second. I’ve watched it over and over again and I can convince myself of either being the real winner. Also 1960’s stop watches were not so accurate which is why they needed 3 per swimmer and 2 judges. I agree that Larson was robbed of the gold, it should have been just called a tie because it was too close to call.
Hi everyone, we had to make changes to the previous upload, therefore the re-upload. But don't worry we'll have many new stories coming up, also for swimming.
Why wouldn’t they just give both of them Gold? Like they did a couple of days ago in the winter olympics even though Marit Bjoergen was one hundreds of a secound before her opponent they got one bronze medal each
I still don’t understand how they ended up giving Devitt the gold. The only measure they used back then that showed Devitt won was that two of the judges awarding gold thought he’d won. But two of the judges awarding silver thought Devitt was second. So that metric feels like a wash. At minimum it’s inconclusive and arbitrary. So how do you justify having the chief judge step in and give Devitt the gold? Based on what? At least if they’d given Larson the gold you could argue that there was some concrete evidence he’d won. There’s nothing shown here indicating Devitt won. It just feels so unfair. Larson was probably cheated out of a win and Devitt’s title is forever tarnished by this mess. Sheesh
@@jglynn8651 The fact that she has a really really mild accent for everything and the strongest accent ever for the T sound is quiet hilarious tbh. I mean, the fact that she can say "history" and "nineteen sixty" totally neutrally but has a total "sh" sound on word such as "later" or "greatest" is quiet weird. It's not a typical irish accent at all, seems like you're offended quickly.
Winning by 1/100 of a second is the smallest margin possible these days. In 1972, a race was won with 2/1000 of a second but this difference is so small that the builders of the pool cannot guarantee that they can create lanes of that equal length. That was also a race that changed swimming. (Mens 400 m medley in Munich)
You have to factor in Politics :-( Like that time in 1972 when the US basketball team lost to Russia because an official (from England) kept making them replay the final seconds until Russia finally scored a basket to win.
@@jimaanders7527, that’s weird considering how Europeans welcomed American help and interference and celebrated the lifestyle of the West. Guess he was the exception
The thing with Devitt and Larson was ... (and you can see this in the speed of their stroke rating) - Devitt was considerably shorter than Larson, and Devitt also had notoriously short arms - thus his incredibly high stroke rating - he was like a windmill in a tornado compared to Larson. So at the end, Devitt's head was in front of Larson's head (above the water where the judges could see) while Larson's longer reach had him at least on a par with Devitt on the touch (under the waterline where the judges could not see). Also - timekeepers were (and are) quite inaccurate, even though the three timekeepers on each lane in this instance, were incredibly consistent. This video is a little deceptive in that it implies times were recorded to the 100th of a second, and with hand-timing in 1960, I don't think they were down to the 100th of a second. (I could be wrong there). So yeah - they should've been given a dead-heat result: dual gold medalists - or a swim-off???? Swimming officials of that era, and the 70s and 80s, have a dreadful reputation - just ask Dawn Fraser (and Shane Gould - and anyone who swam against the East Germans, Russians and the Chinese women of the 80s ...)
proud to say im john devitts grandson and my grandfather is the most humble and honest people to ever grace thethe olympics ive heard this story many times and the actual story differs a bit but thats pretty much accurate my grandfather finnished first with the confusion of what happened has alot to do with the touch of the wall by devitt was under water and abit hard to see but i know 100% if he was second he would have giving up his gold but thats why the gold was given to devitt he gave his life to the sport and to the olympics his my hero
Olympic Channel can’t do maths. At 2:51, the pictures clearly say - Devitt 4 vs 2 Larsen however fast forward a little bit, the narrator says 3 to 3? How does 4 vs 2 equal out to 3 vs 3?
It is you who cannot do maths. The woman accurately summarizes the images. 2 judges thought Devitt had won (and by default, believed Larson finished second); 2 judges had thought Devitt had come in second (and by default, Larson finished first). So yes, there are 4 images of Devitt...but two of them are awarding him first place, and two of them are awarding him second place. One image of Larson is awarding him first place, and one image is awarding him second place. Thus, the first 3 judges split 2-1 for Devitt, and the second 3 judges split 2-1 for Larson, meaning it's a 3-3 tie. And if the rules stated that the stopwatches are to be used in a case when the judges are tied...that should've been the end of it. But I guess back in the '60s, one person had the power to overrule the rules, making us all ask: what's the point of the rules if you're going to allow someone to make such a unilateral decision in violation of the agreed-upon rules? [As an aside, having actually done the maths (rudimentary statistics), I think we can be pretty certain that Larson won this race. Even accounting for rounding errors on the stopwatches, and possible differences in reaction time between Larson and Devitt's timers, it is extremely unlikely that both of these sources of error favoured Larson for all 3 of his times with a magnitude that is large enough to reverse the result. Indeed, half of the time, one source of error partially or wholly cancels out the other.]
Cavic won that race,on video and underwater footage it is clearly shown that he touched the wall first,but Phelps sponsor(omega) said he didn't touch it strong enough what a joke
Annoying how they needed an incident like this in order to convince them to use electronic sensors. Kinda like how we needed Lampards disallowed goal to convince FIFA to use goal line technology. Why does it always take a catastrophe for us to progress? Why can't we be proactive instead of reactive?
This is wrong. There are still judges and stopwatches in swimming. Some are needed to eliminate cheating (certain stroke rules in breaststroke), they certify that swimmers touch the wall (very important in relays) and are a back-up for computer fails.
I believe the reasoning to it not looking like Phelps won is becase of this. The other man already had his arms outstretched when going into the wall, which means he was gliding into it. Phelps made a final stroke into the wall and his arms were bent when he hit the wall. For the sensor to pick up that you touched it you have to actually put force into it, i think the other guy, by just gliding into the stroke, had a less amount of force pushing onto the sensor than phelps would have by stroking upon the sensor, slamming his hands into the sensor. Though i could be completely wrong.
Khomni Gwobai not exactly the sensors are very sensitive for that reason, Phelps had him beat his strokes were off. Which happens a lot in swimming. If the other guy took another stroke when Phelps did, Phelps still would’ve won.
Ive heard Cavic say that after this got analyzed he actually reached the wall first, but the sensor picked up a more robust finish by Phelps to trigger it harder and that was the difference. I think if we split the difference and argue the equipment aspect was to blame, then its a dead heat and both Phelps and Cavic may have shared the gold or the result is Cavic.
Well, 1968 proved it - Mike Wenden (AUST) beat some guy named Mark Spitz (USA) [3:24 - green n gold trunks] ... Was the last time Australia won the event for almost 50 years.
From what I can see, the stroke technique hasn't changed much at all. Which is surprising because on paper this was before the invention of the "S stroke" and the further refinements of the 1990s.
No goggles in '60, which also limited practice time; one's eyes could only take so much chlorinated water! By '68 they were standard fare, as were longer practices---times fell. In '08 Cavic and Phelps were experienced, seasoned swimmers and knew what it took to hit the touchpad and record one's time at the end of the last lap, so the idea that Cavic touched first but not hard enough is vacuous. Age group practice includes techniques to finish properly!
I difetti di pronuncia della speaker sono imbarazzanti... 'DeviSH' (which is awkwardly called right twice at 3:13), 'Olympic commiSHEE', 'nineteen-sixty-eiSH', '40 years laSHer'... OMG, I can't go on: I must stop here, it's too disturbing -_-
so in the first round 2 chose devit and 1 chose larson and then in the second round the same thing and then they added that together and got 3 and 3 somehow lmao
JoshGraham, when 3 judges were asked who they thought won, 2 said Devitt, one said Larson. Then, another 3 were asked on who they thought got 2nd place. 2 said Devitt got 2nd place, one said Larson got 2nd place. Aka one thought Devitt won and two thought Larson won. 3 wins for Larson, 3 for Devitt. It isn’t hard to understand if you just listen.
I have never understood why a swimmer is allowed to compete in multiple events and win multiple metals and then be declared "the greatest athlete ever". Why don't I as the best runner win the 100m, 110m, 120m, 130m , 140m 150m, 160m, etc races and also have a version of the races where I wear different colored running shoes , and have versions of the races where I run backward rather than forward, etc. After my 50 gold metals in one Olympics, I guess I would be the "greatest athlete in the universe". How is an athlete that trains all of his life for swimming, practicing various strokes for various races, any different than an athlete that trains all of his life to win lets say the one and only Boxing title ???????
Not as stupid as IAAF judges in the Men's 50 kilometres walk during the 1991 World Championship when USSR athlets Aleksandr Potashov and Andrey Perlov crossed the line together shoulder to shoulder and judges decide to declare Potashov as gold medalist and Perlov as silver medalist instead of as ex-aequo gold medalist
It is completely absurd to think that all 3 stopwatches would have had the same time, except if they were imprecise analogue watches, and they "rounded" to the same 1/100th. Anyone who has every timed at their kids meet will know that the only time both timers in a lane will agree exactly to the 1/100th is if one of them had a bad time and just wants to fake a time. I've times in lanes with someone whose reaction times were very consistent, so that each time there was a consistent
Judges still ruined races when I swam in the 80s ! They where always from other clubs & you would be disqualified for things you hadn't done ! Or touch judges picked own club members over other teams ! At 15 yrs old I'd seen enough & got out of an unfair sport. This was happening here in the uk . Still does to a certain extent!
So Larson had the better time on the stopwatches, the judges couldn't decide, then someone gave them the same time but decided that only Devitt should win Gold? Who wasn't ahead on *any* of the deciding means they used? On what grounds?
Seriously, Larson should've sued them. They fucked him over big time.
There are a LOT of politics on the Olympics. They must make sure the sponsor countries are kept happy.
Based on the video, there was one measure favoring Devitt: the three judges who were asked who came in first, two out of three agreed. The second place judges went the opposite way, but nevertheless: if a majority decision of the first place judges had been the winning condition (but it apparently was not!), the result would have been correct.
I think you had to call it a draw, hand held stopwatches and who finishing judges are not reliable enough in this circumstance, The head judge must have gone with the 1st place judges.
Participating in the Olympics you forfeit your right to legal dispute. You have only the judges to rely on. No court would hear the case.
@@bbkingwasthegreatest711 the thing is though, if they both got 1st place, then it would be fine. But, the only difference between the two's finishes was that Larson was slightly faster. That should have been used as the final tiebreaker to decide who took first place. Instead, they gave it to the guy who got the slower recorded time, which makes no sense whatsoever. A 10 year old could make a better decision than they did lol
Larson was wronged. He clearly won, as you can see his hand reaches first at 1:55.
summer I know but it’s at 1:57
He put 1:55 for a better view
he won by far
aussie aussie aussie :)
ronnie saras oi oi oi
That decision in 1960 Olympics is so unfair. Larson is the winner. 2 out of the 3 stopwatch indicated that Larson have 10 sec faster than Devitt. That’s the rule, what they will disregard it? That is not right.
Rolando Jr. Antonio 10ms
@@Apple_Slices. 100 ms
aussie aussie aussie :)
Yes it is. I met Larson and he admitted to growing his finger nails for 4 weeks and felt guilty about. It.
@@shazzthedon what are you talking about?
Man, that was brutal for Larson. Wish the Olympics would rectify this, as it looks pretty clear Larson touched first, and the rules were ignored, with the timer ultimately supposed to decide the winner in the case of a tie by the judges. Larson did get a gold in 1960 as part of the men's relay team, at least.
It could be easily argued that the IOC is one of, if not THE most corrupt organizations that ever existed. And FINA ain't far behind either.
It's not pretty clear. That's the whole point. It's so close that no one could tell. Stopwatches used by trained operators are not necessarily accurate to the tenth of a second
It was clear that Larson looked ahead, but Devitt pushed his hand forward at the very last second. I’ve watched it over and over again and I can convince myself of either being the real winner. Also 1960’s stop watches were not so accurate which is why they needed 3 per swimmer and 2 judges.
I agree that Larson was robbed of the gold, it should have been just called a tie because it was too close to call.
@@purselmer5931how is fina corrupted?
Hi everyone, we had to make changes to the previous upload, therefore the re-upload. But don't worry we'll have many new stories coming up, also for swimming.
Olympic why where you so bad to larsson?
Do you have footage of Jody Henry's 100m free victory from Atlanta that can be uploaded?
Why wouldn’t they just give both of them Gold? Like they did a couple of days ago in the winter olympics even though Marit Bjoergen was one hundreds of a secound before her opponent they got one bronze medal each
Didrik Johan Stonghaugen because there is always someone faster
lol 2002 not if they can’t decide which one was faster though.
Racing in the Olympics is so much about winners And Losers it seems that a tie for First was Unthinkable.
Michael Phelps probably has more Olympic Gold Medals than I do friends
Same here, bro.
Me too
Probably more than Maxine Waters too 😂😂😂😂😂
He has more gold medals than my country has Olympic medals of any type! :_(
That can’t be too hard
I still don’t understand how they ended up giving Devitt the gold. The only measure they used back then that showed Devitt won was that two of the judges awarding gold thought he’d won. But two of the judges awarding silver thought Devitt was second. So that metric feels like a wash. At minimum it’s inconclusive and arbitrary. So how do you justify having the chief judge step in and give Devitt the gold? Based on what? At least if they’d given Larson the gold you could argue that there was some concrete evidence he’d won. There’s nothing shown here indicating Devitt won. It just feels so unfair. Larson was probably cheated out of a win and Devitt’s title is forever tarnished by this mess. Sheesh
Devitt lost and he knew he'd lost. He should have refused the gold medal
I’m Australian so I’m fine with it
Hahaha!! I keep laughing that woman who lost her balance and just decided to go for it in the beginning. LOL
Timestamp 1:00 for those like me wondering... 😅
The most sensible thing to do would have been to declare it a tie and award them each gold medals.
Phelps has muscles that don't even exist. His body is designed to dominate human sport events.
like what
lol
He's extra tall is all.
Without any muscle how is he even suppose to swim jerk.
Purnachander, you misinterpreted.
3:38 "40 years lasher, the greashest olympic swimmer of all time was greatful for thash"
@@jglynn8651 The fact that she has a really really mild accent for everything and the strongest accent ever for the T sound is quiet hilarious tbh.
I mean, the fact that she can say "history" and "nineteen sixty" totally neutrally but has a total "sh" sound on word such as "later" or "greatest" is quiet weird. It's not a typical irish accent at all, seems like you're offended quickly.
@@jglynn8651 And calling John Devitt "John Devish" is just wrong.
Winning by 1/100 of a second is the smallest margin possible these days. In 1972, a race was won with 2/1000 of a second but this difference is so small that the builders of the pool cannot guarantee that they can create lanes of that equal length. That was also a race that changed swimming. (Mens 400 m medley in Munich)
Phelps should give Larson his 8th gold out of kindness
top
Wait, so there's 6 people with stopwatches, who ALL agreed that Larson won, and yet he lost?
How?
You have to factor in Politics :-(
Like that time in 1972 when the US basketball team lost to Russia because an official (from England) kept making them replay the final seconds until Russia finally scored a basket to win.
@@jimaanders7527, wait, why would an English official want Russia to win considering how much the British disagreed with Soviet views on communism?
@@joeyjerry1586 Back in 1972 that particular official may have hated the Americans more than he hated the Russians. :-(
@@jimaanders7527, that’s weird considering how Europeans welcomed American help and interference and celebrated the lifestyle of the West. Guess he was the exception
I can watch these episodes for ages 😄
Just love the motto: Faster, Higher, Stronger.
That was some BS! Both men raced equally well, dude got jipped! Both earn sharing that 1st place honestly!!!
@3:38 ....and 40 years *lasher* , the *gracioust* olympic swimmer of all times was very grateful for *dash* ....
The thing with Devitt and Larson was ... (and you can see this in the speed of their stroke rating) - Devitt was considerably shorter than Larson, and Devitt also had notoriously short arms - thus his incredibly high stroke rating - he was like a windmill in a tornado compared to Larson. So at the end, Devitt's head was in front of Larson's head (above the water where the judges could see) while Larson's longer reach had him at least on a par with Devitt on the touch (under the waterline where the judges could not see).
Also - timekeepers were (and are) quite inaccurate, even though the three timekeepers on each lane in this instance, were incredibly consistent. This video is a little deceptive in that it implies times were recorded to the 100th of a second, and with hand-timing in 1960, I don't think they were down to the 100th of a second. (I could be wrong there).
So yeah - they should've been given a dead-heat result: dual gold medalists - or a swim-off????
Swimming officials of that era, and the 70s and 80s, have a dreadful reputation - just ask Dawn Fraser (and Shane Gould - and anyone who swam against the East Germans, Russians and the Chinese women of the 80s ...)
Yes we are revealing just how corrupt we are
proud to say im john devitts grandson and my grandfather is the most humble and honest people to ever grace thethe olympics ive heard this story many times and the actual story differs a bit but thats pretty much accurate my grandfather finnished first with the confusion of what happened has alot to do with the touch of the wall by devitt was under water and abit hard to see but i know 100% if he was second he would have giving up his gold but thats why the gold was given to devitt he gave his life to the sport and to the olympics his my hero
Thanks for bringing such great stories .
0:12 why are they playing vivaldi's "winter" if this is about the summer olympics?
The Paris 2024 opening ceremony should be the subject of a future "Strangest Moments" video. 😂
1:04 I'M IN LOVE
It's a video about an old Olympic competition and they still SOMEHOW managed to make it about Phelps.
even Omega said in 2009 that Cavic was first to tuch the wall but not enough strongly....:-\
Pavel Vodnar well it's a rule to push it with a certain force so still fair
LaNague So you finish first but you don't get the gold, how is that fair?
He’s right u have to push with a certain force maybe Michael Phelps just approached with more speed so then he could push it harder?
Michael Phelps total medals=28 having gold=24 and and India also has 28 medals in Olympics having 9 gold only.
It is all alll doping, can't belive it is a fair game from American sportsman .
Phelps was second in that race.
Olympic Channel can’t do maths. At 2:51, the pictures clearly say - Devitt 4 vs 2 Larsen however fast forward a little bit, the narrator says 3 to 3? How does 4 vs 2 equal out to 3 vs 3?
It is you who cannot do maths. The woman accurately summarizes the images. 2 judges thought Devitt had won (and by default, believed Larson finished second); 2 judges had thought Devitt had come in second (and by default, Larson finished first). So yes, there are 4 images of Devitt...but two of them are awarding him first place, and two of them are awarding him second place. One image of Larson is awarding him first place, and one image is awarding him second place. Thus, the first 3 judges split 2-1 for Devitt, and the second 3 judges split 2-1 for Larson, meaning it's a 3-3 tie. And if the rules stated that the stopwatches are to be used in a case when the judges are tied...that should've been the end of it. But I guess back in the '60s, one person had the power to overrule the rules, making us all ask: what's the point of the rules if you're going to allow someone to make such a unilateral decision in violation of the agreed-upon rules?
[As an aside, having actually done the maths (rudimentary statistics), I think we can be pretty certain that Larson won this race. Even accounting for rounding errors on the stopwatches, and possible differences in reaction time between Larson and Devitt's timers, it is extremely unlikely that both of these sources of error favoured Larson for all 3 of his times with a magnitude that is large enough to reverse the result. Indeed, half of the time, one source of error partially or wholly cancels out the other.]
Wait why reupload
Cavic won that race,on video and underwater footage it is clearly shown that he touched the wall first,but Phelps sponsor(omega) said he didn't touch it strong enough what a joke
He should have touched it with both hands at the same time. He touched it with left first and then the other and that's why it was not counted.
Honestly, they could have given both of them gold like what happened in pole vaulting in 2020.
It was actually high jump
Annoying how they needed an incident like this in order to convince them to use electronic sensors.
Kinda like how we needed Lampards disallowed goal to convince FIFA to use goal line technology.
Why does it always take a catastrophe for us to progress? Why can't we be proactive instead of reactive?
Este video ya no lo habias subido?
@2:51 you have too many pics of Devitt.
This is wrong. There are still judges and stopwatches in swimming. Some are needed to eliminate cheating (certain stroke rules in breaststroke), they certify that swimmers touch the wall (very important in relays) and are a back-up for computer fails.
Wow, that's crazy
didnt look like Phelps won it to me
Reality Time,
That's because you have a better vantage point to be able to judge.
Send them an appeal NOW!!! RIGHT THE WRONG!
I believe the reasoning to it not looking like Phelps won is becase of this.
The other man already had his arms outstretched when going into the wall, which means he was gliding into it. Phelps made a final stroke into the wall and his arms were bent when he hit the wall. For the sensor to pick up that you touched it you have to actually put force into it, i think the other guy, by just gliding into the stroke, had a less amount of force pushing onto the sensor than phelps would have by stroking upon the sensor, slamming his hands into the sensor.
Though i could be completely wrong.
Khomni Gwobai not exactly the sensors are very sensitive for that reason, Phelps had him beat his strokes were off. Which happens a lot in swimming. If the other guy took another stroke when Phelps did, Phelps still would’ve won.
Ive heard Cavic say that after this got analyzed he actually reached the wall first, but the sensor picked up a more robust finish by Phelps to trigger it harder and that was the difference. I think if we split the difference and argue the equipment aspect was to blame, then its a dead heat and both Phelps and Cavic may have shared the gold or the result is Cavic.
Would've made more sense to average stop watch times really.... I've timed at meets before, it's incredibly hard to match the time that the pad got
Can we speak about that woman at 1:03?
Filmed as split second 1960 Eye-Candy!
Why does the speaker pronounce the words so weird?
She's Irish
Holy balls this is freaking ridiculous!!! Larson should’ve won this. This is the first i’ve ever heard of this too.
Very interesting, did not know that. Pretty cool how technology has helped sports. Now we need to figure out the offside rule in soccer!!
They should have a sensor in the water to tell who touched the wall first . IDK though
Lilly They do now. Back then they didn't. They started using in 1968 Olympics because of that incident.
Judiska Ekonomen “ they mentioned it in the video “ .
Lilly it was still stated lmao
Kevin Alvarez 😂
Da para ver claramente Manoel dos Santos (Brasil) liderando os primeiros 50 metros e tendo problemas para a virada
Well, 1968 proved it - Mike Wenden (AUST) beat some guy named Mark Spitz (USA) [3:24 - green n gold trunks] ... Was the last time Australia won the event for almost 50 years.
0:58 10,000 fans were watching
It’s so annoying that captions are on by default
0:59 best part
“You tied, but you win”
Plenty of Americans here complaining ( as usual )
The rest of us can just roll our eyes and say aren't Americans so predictable
I looooove her irish accent
So the chief judge went against the rules and did something we all know to be wrong. Rectify it and give Larson the gold.
Muy bueno 💕😚
Reupload
この問題は🇯🇵日本では、1980年代前半、ＮＨＫ教育、土曜20:00海外ドキュメンタリー、という枠内、確か🇬🇧ＢＢＣ制作番組内で取り上げられていました。着順判定を゙、ゴール地点を゙真っ直ぐでなく斜めに見ている審判が順位を決めていたのが原因だと結論付けていました。ただストップウォッチ計時は、これ以降も゙会場によっては続き、1968🇲🇽メキシコ五輪の年、🇺🇸アメリカ国内大会、女子200m個人メドレーで、第一人者、クラウディア・コルブ2.25.1、若手ペダーセン2.25.0（世界タイ）だったが着順判定で、コルブが優勝となった例が有ります。まだ電気計時ばかりでは無い時代、新聞のスポーツ欄に載ってた記事です。
again? you already showed us this story, c'mon I'm sure there are other interesting stories besides this one
Yeah. It really pisses me off that I had to watch this again. (Now where's that sarcasm icon...?)
it is Larson duh!
From what I can see, the stroke technique hasn't changed much at all. Which is surprising because on paper this was before the invention of the "S stroke" and the further refinements of the 1990s.
No goggles in '60, which also limited practice time; one's eyes could only take so much chlorinated water! By '68 they were standard fare, as were longer practices---times fell. In '08 Cavic and Phelps were experienced, seasoned swimmers and knew what it took to hit the touchpad and record one's time at the end of the last lap, so the idea that Cavic touched first but not hard enough is vacuous. Age group practice includes techniques to finish properly!
Jeph629 not trying to be rude but WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Aye the background music is Winter by Vivaldi and somehow that makes this video so much better :D.
Please new swimming stories instead of reuploads
Thank goodness for technology today lol
My God, how old-fashioned. I am glad things have improved.
Is it just me or did they confuse the pictures of who won
Nvm I was confused
Oh no the Olympic Games did an oopsie
Even in recent games judges have given dodgy decisions, particularly in boxing. Check Michael Conlan’s bout at the Rio Olympics.
1:04 I'm sure to come back and look at ... this video
I difetti di pronuncia della speaker sono imbarazzanti... 'DeviSH' (which is awkwardly called right twice at 3:13), 'Olympic commiSHEE', 'nineteen-sixty-eiSH', '40 years laSHer'... OMG, I can't go on: I must stop here, it's too disturbing -_-
1:03 Whoa...someone's Grandma used to be a hottie!!!
You’ve incorrectly stated that time keepers and judges are a thing of the past.
This is not true.
so in the first round 2 chose devit and 1 chose larson and then in the second round the same thing and then they added that together and got 3 and 3 somehow lmao
Yeah, i also don't know why they chose to display 3/3 then. I mean, questions were different, so...they probably were confused by the judging too.
JoshGraham, when 3 judges were asked who they thought won, 2 said Devitt, one said Larson. Then, another 3 were asked on who they thought got 2nd place. 2 said Devitt got 2nd place, one said Larson got 2nd place. Aka one thought Devitt won and two thought Larson won. 3 wins for Larson, 3 for Devitt. It isn’t hard to understand if you just listen.
I have never understood why a swimmer is allowed to compete in multiple events and win multiple metals and then be declared "the greatest athlete ever". Why don't I as the best runner win the 100m, 110m, 120m, 130m , 140m 150m, 160m, etc races and also have a version of the races where I wear different colored running shoes , and have versions of the races where I run backward rather than forward, etc. After my 50 gold metals in one Olympics, I guess I would be the "greatest athlete in the universe". How is an athlete that trains all of his life for swimming, practicing various strokes for various races, any different than an athlete that trains all of his life to win lets say the one and only Boxing title ???????
Type: Olympic stories
You can find many stories from the Olympic Channel.
A 'stories' playlist would awesome @Olympic
Not as stupid as IAAF judges in the Men's 50 kilometres walk during the 1991 World Championship when USSR athlets Aleksandr Potashov and Andrey Perlov crossed the line together shoulder to shoulder and judges decide to declare Potashov as gold medalist and Perlov as silver medalist instead of as ex-aequo gold medalist
Lucky that Omega is Phelps sponsor. 😉
That wasn't fair
I swam competitively in the 1960s, and cheating was rampant. Pathetic that adults would cheat in races of young people.
It is completely absurd to think that all 3 stopwatches would have had the same time, except if they were imprecise analogue watches, and they "rounded" to the same 1/100th. Anyone who has every timed at their kids meet will know that the only time both timers in a lane will agree exactly to the 1/100th is if one of them had a bad time and just wants to fake a time. I've times in lanes with someone whose reaction times were very consistent, so that each time there was a consistent
Stop watches in those days were +/- 0.1 sec at best.
Haha oh well, America wins enough anyway. Just give us Aussies this one. But nah seriously that was a stitch up
Judges still ruined races when I swam in the 80s ! They where always from other clubs & you would be disqualified for things you hadn't done ! Or touch judges picked own club members over other teams ! At 15 yrs old I'd seen enough & got out of an unfair sport. This was happening here in the uk . Still does to a certain extent!
the narrator's accent intrigues me :)
She is Irish
"John Devish", "age" (8) gold medals?
Pronounce greatest properly..
Why not just get some time keepers for those time keepers?
they shouldve gave both gold
what, problem with T?
My friends father’s father was the guy who came second place.
You could just say your friend’s grandfather.
They should have just add more time keepers and judges, instead of coming out with those devilish electronic devices.
Faster, Higher, Stronger - what about Judged better? Sadly most Olympic Sports are now Judged by so called bribe-able experts. A shame.
Put the video on 0.25 speed and you’ll see
3:21 it was threwn euch
Micheal Phelps is in my state.
Lance Larson won because it was 00.5510 but the other guy time was 00.5520🤔🤨
The german judge ripped off Larson ... He clearly won the gold!
Larsson won this race!
Wow, that's crazy!