Comments on: Michael Phelps Vs. Goldfish: Who is Faster?

By: paoneithang

paoneithang — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:14:20 +0000

fish are fish in land,the difference is that man cannot compete with fish,as fish is inside water and can swim at any speed which cannot be measured by man

By: vijay

vijay — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:17:46 +0000

Thats really a good comparison. Also Do watch Nice Pictures of Michael Phelps and top 10 reason behind his swimming power...

http://www.maathiyoose.com/2008/08/top-10-secrets-to-know-about-michae l-phelps/

Enjoy!!!!

By: Choco

Choco — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:35:06 +0000

Sharks are fish too, Let phelps swim against the Mako shark.. 110 km/h ?

By: Marcello

Marcello — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:19:21 +0000

I'm sure it's one of your best post!!! Very fantastic!!!

By: Ty

Ty — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:03:53 +0000

also, orcas are not fish.

By: LisaL

LisaL — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:27:01 +0000

Did they just say that the average goldfish is only about 3 inches long?
And let me guess, they also think putting a goldfish in to a half gallon bowl is ok too right?
Boy, they go through all of that trouble to do research and don't even do proper research on goldfish who if given PROPER care can get up to a foot long (the common variety while the fancy get to 6-8 inches).

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:26:09 +0000

Yeah, that didn't make much sense, huh, Jeremy? I edited to mean what I wanted to say.

By: bean

bean — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:54:38 +0000

Oh, and one more thing. Normalizing "swim speed compared to body length" is worthless, unless you plan on altering the Olympics so that only people exactly the same height as Phelps can compete.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:38:42 +0000

Math is not my strong suit but 300 feet in three seconds is 68.18 miles per hour. So the Indo-Pacific Sailfish has been clocked at 68 miles per hour and can sometimes go even faster - 68.18 miles per hour!

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:42:44 +0000

"Slower than a goldfish." Ummm... That's what most people would call a lame comparison, especially considering that the goldfish has a serious home-field advantage in the water.

Nice try, anarchy, but those examples aren't going to enjoy the cash quite as much as Mike will.

By: Peeves

Peeves — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:41:12 +0000

No wonder I haven't caught Olympic fever. People being fast just isn't...exciting. Unless they do it naked..for a technologically-level playing field of course.

By: bean

bean — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:26:18 +0000

I've never seen a goldfish swim over 200m in a straight line, accelerating all the way. A tuna or dolphin would have been a better comparison, or shark of some sort.

By: anarchy

anarchy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:13:06 +0000

@The Slapster:
-Keiko (better known as the whale in Free Willy)...when it was alive
-all those Shamu orcas
-the eight or so whale sharks in captivity

By: The Slapster

The Slapster — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:55:28 +0000

Oohhh, ahhhh! Show me a fish that's going to clear $30-50 million in a year. That's right, suck it you non-bipeds!!

By: Church

Church — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:54:53 +0000

True, but a goldfish is seriously disadvantaged out of water.

I'm thinking triathalon is really Phelp's sport.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:36:55 +0000

90 body length per second is the sailfish's burst speed - I don't think it could maintain that speed for a long period of time but yeah, that is insanely fast!

In comparison, reef fish, which are slower than sailfish, have an average speed of 14 body length per second.

By: Chad Cloman

Chad Cloman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:24:50 +0000

I used to scuba dive. There'd be a fish within an arm's length, and I'd reach out to touch it. With a flick of it's tail it'd be gone--faster than I could move my hand through the water. Fish are much faster than they seem.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:00:08 +0000

90 body lengths a second?! THAT'S INSANE!