Didn't Daley Thompson recently say Redgrave was never ever the best rower in the boat let alone best Olympian we have had.
I kind of agree with him, there was a lot of talk of friction in the last couple of his olympics over how much others where carrying him iirc?
That sounds a bit like "Ringo Starr isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles" but then again Daley Thompson has always been rather fond of the headlines in regard to athletics. It wouldn't surprise me if he thought of himself as Britain's greatest ever Olympian and he's got a reasonable shout at it, he's also got an eye for a great line.
Sir Steve may not have been technically the greatest rower in the boat and at times less fit or able than others but you don't get to the position of winning five golds if you're not a bit decent and I've got to say that Jurgen Grobler doesn't strike me as the sort to allow sentiment to rule the decision - if someone wasn't good enough they'd be cut.
Didn't Lewis use banned substances? Can't really make him a greatest.
He's never served any sanctions for doping offences although he did test positive for banned substances in Olympic trials for the 1988 Olympics - his argument was that it was due to an over the counter herbal remedy.
If Redgrave is so much better than Phelps, why did he only compete in one entry each Olympics (apart from '88)? Rowing has almost as many separate, but essentially identical formats as swimming does. So why didn't he do pair, four, eight, scull and lightweight entries all at once?
I'd have said different rather than better. Eight golds in one games is a phenomenal achievement and one likely never to be bettered (maybe matched but even then...) but to say that it's better or worse than being at the top of your sport for the span of five Olympics is entirely subjective - if pressed I might say I was impressed more by longevity than someone who was exceptional for a few Games but it's a value judgement.