I have to say, all of this "Bolt is a better Olympian than Phelps" chatter the last few days makes zero sense to me. The last time I checked, 23 gold medals is more impressive than 7. Plus, swimming entails so much more than simply running fast. Not saying running fast is easy, or that being the fastest man alive isn't impressive, but to me there just seems to be a greater level of difficult in dominating swimming, which has more facets to it.
I don't think Bolt is any better than Phelps, but I also strongly feel that Phelps' 28 medals (23 gold) massively overstates his success. Olympic swimming is pretty ridiculous as there are just such an absurd number of medals requiring pretty much identical skill. So if someone dominates in swimming (as Phelps has done), they can get dozens of medals. If someone dominates in basically any other sport (except, arguably, gymnastics) then they couldn't hope to come close to that number without a much greater range of skills.
I think you're underestimating swimmers. Swimming the backstroke is much different than swimming the breaststroke, for example.
I'm not underestimating swimmers, I'm saying that it's overstated in comparison with other sports. Sure they're different specific skills (in Phelps case, it's more front crawl and butterfly), but then his medals are doubled up by doing everything in both 100m and 200m, for example. There's similar duplication in athletics, though not quite as extreme (for example the relays are 4x100m and 4x400m which is more distinct than 4x100 and 4x200).
They added golf this year, but they don't have separate medals for accurately hitting it 100m, 200m, 300m, putting, short play, etc. They just had 2 medals - one men's, one women's. Now that's an extreme example at the other end of the spectrum, but still.