PDA

View Full Version : How slow will they go (and what about us ...) ?



ehoch
August 18th, 2009, 07:02 PM
If they go back to true regular suits and Jammers, we may never see the times of the last 2 years again - well at least not until they change the rules again.... I went back to look at the World Rankings for 10th Place and 25th place for the last 7 Olympic years. The Olympic years have always been the fastest years (except of course for 2009 - thanks to you know what). I used the 10th and 25th spot to avoid the "freak" factor and good a good average rate of improvement. Also - I used Freestyle to avoid the impact of rule changes and the emergence of dlphin kicks.

1984 50.36 50.93
1988 50.13 50.54
1992 49.83 50.43
1996 49.74 50.27
2000 49.15 49.67
2004 49.08 49.45
2008 47.83 48.5

2009 47.77 48.27

A couple of things jump out:
- rate of progress has slowed down to maybe 1 to 2 tenth per Olympic cycle
- Big drop in 2000 with arrival of Fastskin suits - about half a second ! and of course a full second and more in 2008.
- In a 1996 suit, I would guess the current times to be just a little slower than the 2000 times.

They are going to have trials next year for the 2011 Worlds - I am guessing a 49.7 or 49.8 will make the US team in the 100 Free ....

Chris Stevenson
August 18th, 2009, 08:38 PM
At USMS nationals, Dave Holland (an Indiana grad) talked to Joel Stager of the Counsilman Center for the Science of Swimming. Joel told Dave that, according to his latest statistical model of swimming WRs, the times we are seeing now weren't "supposed" to happen until the 2011-2018 timeframe.

Which doesn't mean they won't ever be broken (though, as in any group of WRs, there will be some that will "live" quite a bit longer than typical).

There are a couple of interviews of Stager on Floswimming:

http://www.floswimming.org/videos/play/118572-suit-talk-with-dr-stager-pt-1

http://www.floswimming.org/videos/play/119408-dr-stager-suit-talk-pt2

ehoch
August 19th, 2009, 01:12 AM
weren't "supposed" to happen until the 2011-2018

IF they are going back to regular suits, I am willing to take any bet that nobody will go under 21 or 47 for at least 10 years ..actually, I am thinking 20, but 10 just to be safe

gshaw
August 19th, 2009, 11:03 AM
IF they are going back to regular suits, I am willing to take any bet that nobody will go under 21 or 47 for at least 10 years ..actually, I am thinking 20, but 10 just to be safe


And I wonder how this is good for the sport.

1. We will be pure.
2. We will have no distraction from the tech suits or from FINA, which found itself unable to figure out how to evaluate the suits.
3. We will swim slower.

If it is the case that "nobody will go under 47" for 10 to 20 years, well, by that time probably nobody will care, because as everyone goes slower the interest in the sport will diminish and diminish. World records create excitement and draw interest. Swimming will no longer be on TV (except for a couple of days once every four years) and as the interest in the sport fades, less kids will be attracted to compete--so times will get even slower.

But we will be pure. We will not be "unethical" (as one forumite characterized the use of tech suits). But I am sure we could become even purer. Isn't shaving also unnatural? Why don't we go all the way and aspire to be like the Plain People of Lancaster Co. Pennsylvania? Maybe, pilgrims, if we get our minds and hearts right--cleansed of tech suits and all that speed--this can become the purified look of two Masters swimmers, planning their next competion:

http://www.catholicinformationcenter.org/TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg

lefty
August 19th, 2009, 11:42 AM
And I wonder how this is good for the sport.

1. We will be pure.
2. We will have no distraction from the tech suits or from FINA, which found itself unable to figure out how to evaluate the suits.
3. We will swim slower.

If it is the case that "nobody will go under 47" for 10 to 20 years, well, by that time probably nobody will care, because as everyone goes slower the interest in the sport will diminish and diminish. World records create excitement and draw interest. Swimming will no longer be on TV (except for a couple of days once every four years) and as the interest in the sport fades, less kids will be attracted to compete--so times will get even slower.

But we will be pure. We will not be "unethical" (as one forumite characterized the use of tech suits). But I am sure we could become even purer. Isn't shaving also unnatural? Why don't we go all the way and aspire to be like the Plain People of Lancaster Co. Pennsylvania? Maybe, pilgrims, if we get our minds and hearts right--cleansed of tech suits and all that speed--this can become the purified look of two Masters swimmers, planning their next competion:

http://www.catholicinformationcenter.org/TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg

Track WR tend to last: Women's 100M is 20 years old. It took 12 years to break the men's 200M WR that Johnson set in '96. After Usain Bolt hangs it up in 7 years, the World Record in the 200M will never be broken again (okay, it might be broken in 100 years just to be safe). WR are not supposed to be set every year. It makes the sport silly and illegitimate in my opinion.

Muppet
August 19th, 2009, 11:58 AM
to reply to the "what about us?" portion:

I for one, have swum personal best times in a speedo and fs1 jammers in the last 13 months and have no reason to believe that I will have any trouble continuing to do the same should these FINA rules affect USMS.

I would think that a good portion of masters swimmers will be just fine. Remember, the percentage of USMS membership that does meets, and that do nationals, is small. (Jim Matysek had percentages on these forums a while back, and i think it was somewhere about 15% total participants did meets.)

There are plenty of these participants who have NOT been wearing any of the new suits and/or have not worn anything more than a normal brief/jammer (for men) or tank (for women). I bet these same people will be doing just fine, where the folks who've been wearing full body LZRs, b70s, Jakeds, etc., will be struggling to get to where they were in 2009.

Jazz Hands
August 19th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Someone did a statistical study after the 2000 Olympics to see if there was an unexpectedly large time drop, caused by suits. There wasn't, so the big drop you note might just be due to random error. In 2008 and 2009 it's much more obvious. I think we'll be back to 2007-ish times. Didn't 48 mid or low win worlds that year?

ehoch
August 19th, 2009, 01:10 PM
Someone did a statistical study after the 2000 Olympics to see if there was an unexpectedly large time drop, caused by suits. There wasn't, so the big drop you note might just be due to random error.

Someone was wrong .... I know they did all kinds of studies and tests -- but just look at the 100 and 200 Free times in the 90s going to 2008. All over sudden there was some other sort of breakthrough or random error that just happened to be at the same time they added the suits ? I guess we will find out next year when we get to wear jammers ....

ehoch
August 19th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Track WR tend to last: Women's 100M is 20 years old.

That can't count as a woman's record :badday:

aquageek
August 19th, 2009, 01:44 PM
My hope is that the ancient farts at FINA who are stuck in the 70s (even worse than AARP gold club member Smith) will eventually retire and people who understand technology and progress will come in an move the sport slowly forward. This dramatic back pedaling is ridiculous. I personally don't think the records will remain for too long but certainly won't fall so quickly.

The real question to me is if by stiffling technology will FINA turn promising athletes off to the sport?

Tim L
August 19th, 2009, 01:48 PM
They are going to have trials next year for the 2011 Worlds - I am guessing a 49.7 or 49.8 will make the US team in the 100 Free ....

I was thinking slower for sure, but 49.7 or 49.8 seems really slow. I was thinking more 48 mid or high might win trials and 49 low would make the relay. If times are really going to be that slow, then Greg might be right and the popularity of the sport will suffer. I hope, however, that the popularity of swimming at least in the U.S. is highly correlated with individual stars and I hope those stars shine just as bright without tech suits.

At this moment the whole tech suit fiasco feels like I am watching an unavoidable car crash. You don't want to see it, but you can't take your eyes off it.

Tim

Midas
August 19th, 2009, 01:55 PM
It will be very interesting to see what going back to the "old" suits will do to the elite swimmer's times. I think there have been a number of possible "innovations" in swimming that might account for a larger percentage of the time drops than we all give credit, such as SDKing off the walls, high elbow catch free, etc.

My guess is that we will see times slow down by less than a second in the 100s and less than 2 seconds in the 200s.

I suspect that we will see more variance among Masters. I know from personal experimentation last year that I was only about half a second faster in my B70 compared to swimming shaved in 100s. I didn't swim shaved in the 200s so I don't have a comparison there...

jim clemmons
August 19th, 2009, 02:08 PM
...But I am sure we could become even purer. Isn't shaving also unnatural? Why don't we go all the way and aspire to be like the Plain People of Lancaster Co. Pennsylvania? Maybe, pilgrims, if we get our minds and hearts right--cleansed of tech suits and all that speed--this can become the purified look of two Masters swimmers, planning their next competion:

http://www.catholicinformationcenter.org/TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg

Okay, I give up - who's the guy talking with Wookie?

aquageek
August 19th, 2009, 02:36 PM
Okay, I give up - who's the guy talking with Wookie?

That's Wookies' wife, Beulah Mae Furburglar.

Ahelee Sue Osborn
August 19th, 2009, 02:37 PM
I don't know about all these stats and studies...

But I had a conversation last weekend with a certain recent (3 time) World Record breaking swimmer who says that they will be looking at the records knowing that swim time has been done.
Without concern about the suit, its a time on the wall and they are training to beat it.

I hope this is a call to action for swimmers to ramp it up.
Especially masters swimmers since this is a masters forum.

Seriously!
Work on technique and more specific training for specialty events.

Take a look at the dry land Fort & co. are doing.
Loose that weight that is jiggling and slowing you down.
Quit over-trainng.
Get some ART or therapy attention to the niggling injuries.
Read Ande's Tips

Yes, I'm tired of hearing about how the suit is all that - and we are doomed with or without it.

At least we get to swim with a MILLION different ways to still improve.
Sheez!

lefty
August 19th, 2009, 02:51 PM
That can't count as a woman's record :badday:

I think FloJo's records are dubious at best, but the point remains the same: a World Record hasn't been set in the 100 / 200 / 400 or 800 in womens track in more than 20 years. For men the 100M has been broken a few times in the past 20 years the, 200 has been set three times, and the 400 and 800M have each only been set once in the past 20 years. So how do we conclude that no WR = no interest?

aquageek
August 19th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Track and field is unwatchable without a DVR. The pre race primping is awful, the excuses for poor performances unending, and the post race posing is the worst. I do like watching Jeremy Wariner, he's good. Distance events are also entertaining.

knelson
August 19th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Track and field is unwatchable without a DVR. The pre race primping is awful, the excuses for poor performances unending, and the post race posing is the worst.

You're right. These guys act like true idiots out there. All the things you mentioned and then, of course, there's the obligatory false starts and the five minutes or so it takes to get back to the blocks. For the fastest men on earth, these guys sure can move slow when a race isn't in progress!

lefty
August 19th, 2009, 03:39 PM
Track and field is unwatchable without a DVR. The pre race primping is awful, the excuses for poor performances unending, and the post race posing is the worst. I do like watching Jeremy Wariner, he's good. Distance events are also entertaining.

and yet T&F's popularity is far greater than swimming.

aquageek
August 19th, 2009, 03:51 PM
and yet T&F's popularity is far greater than swimming.

In what regard? Participation? TV rankings? What country? Cite your sources please, just curious, not arguing.

jim clemmons
August 19th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Track and field is unwatchable without a DVR. The pre race primping is awful, the excuses for poor performances unending, and the post race posing is the worst. I do like watching Jeremy Wariner, he's good. Distance events are also entertaining.

Yeah, I've been glued to T&F World's, just like I was to swimming earlier this month and TDF last month. Once you've been there, I don't think anyone (at least I can't) could handle either T&F or FINA without the DVR.

Tim L
August 19th, 2009, 06:23 PM
This is really difficult to explain how someone can compete in the world championships without this issue being resolved prior to the competition - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4409318. What I find more interesting is that Semenya was unable to even come close to the world record in the 800 set in 1983. I am sure that record was set by someone totally clean of PEDs (oh, it looks like it was set by a Czech that only ran the race once, I guess she just must have been a natural).

Tim

orca1946
August 19th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Phelps did it in an OLD suit! The rest of us will be slower for sure !

ehoch
August 20th, 2009, 12:26 AM
This is really difficult to explain how someone can compete in the world championships without this issue being resolved prior to the competition

I am soooo tired of nobody being to able to stop this kind of stuff from happening ...

Why don't they settle this prior to the meet ?

Why is Jamaica all over sudden the sprint mecca of the world and everybody is celebrating the "head clown"?

Why do we have to look at a women's 400 dash record from an athlete where I can tell you the doping regimen she was under (or 100 or 200 or 800 or Long Jump or ....) ?

Rykno
August 20th, 2009, 12:35 AM
In what regard? Participation? TV rankings? What country? Cite your sources please, just curious, not arguing.

I would say the the level of tv coverage for T&F in europe is really high. the golden league is on tv every friday night during the season.

I've only ever been able to watch swimming World cup via livetiming.

in sweden swimming only makes the news when its an international meet or our nationals. but they talk about the runners and jumpers all year long.

knelson
August 20th, 2009, 10:06 AM
This is really difficult to explain how someone can compete in the world championships without this issue being resolved prior to the competition - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4409318.

"The verification requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."

Does it really need to be this difficult? It seems like it would be fairly cut and dry. Do a DNA test and if Semenya has a Y chromosome "she" is a man, right? Unfortunately name, too, considering the controversy! :)

Tim L
August 20th, 2009, 10:19 AM
I am soooo tired of nobody being to able to stop this kind of stuff from happening ...

Why don't they settle this prior to the meet ?

Why is Jamaica all over sudden the sprint mecca of the world and everybody is celebrating the "head clown"?

Why do we have to look at a women's 400 dash record from an athlete where I can tell you the doping regimen she was under (or 100 or 200 or 800 or Long Jump or ....) ?

One thing that intrigues me is that swimming was able to surpass the world records set by dopers, but women's track hasn't been able to break many of the doping records from the 80s. Why do you think this is so? I know swimming has had a few things like rule changes in breast and back, technique changes and SDKs, and tech suits. Track hasn't had any real changes other than maybe the surface that they run on has gotten better, but so have the pools we swim in. However, I think most of the records of the dopers were broken before many of these apparent differences were used. Would you say that coaching and training has just evolved more in swimming than in track since the 80s? Were the women that doped in track just that much more effective than their swimming counterparts?

Tim

Tim L
August 20th, 2009, 10:29 AM
"The verification requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."

Does it really need to be this difficult? It seems like it would be fairly cut and dry. Do a DNA test and if Semenya has a Y chromosome "she" is a man, right? Unfortunately name, too, considering the controversy! :)

I'm not a doctor or anything, but that seems like a reasonable test. Nice name that kind of fits the controversy.

As much as I dislike FINA, I think the IAAF might be worse and IAAF probably has a much longer history of bad decision making. I remember when Carl Lewis was running and track was probably at its peak in the U.S. and you could catch the World Championships on network television every night. Now, I think the swimming world championships get as much air time as track (weekend replays mostly), but I guess that is probably because the U.S. has very few track stars any longer.

Tim

ehoch
August 20th, 2009, 01:12 PM
One thing that intrigues me is that swimming was able to surpass the world records set by dopers, but women's track hasn't been able to break many of the doping records from the 80s.

I think there are 2 reasons - technique and pure force --- the technique in track is not moving forward. Running technique seems to be very well established and it's not too complicated. Swimming technique still seems to be changing and improving - although most likely at a decreasing rate.

The pure strength and power needed for track is just much bigger - and the impact on the body is much bigger. Obviously more power is really important for a 100 runner carrying their own body weight (where a swimmer gets the "floating assist".

aquageek
August 20th, 2009, 02:25 PM
The pure strength and power needed for track is just much bigger - and the impact on the body is much bigger. Obviously more power is really important for a 100 runner carrying their own body weight (where a swimmer gets the "floating assist".

Huh? This makes no sense. A swimmer has to propel their body through water, not air. I don't think you can categorically state that you need more pure strength and power for track. Impact on the body is much bigger? Again, where's the data to support that?

Running technique not complicated? Cmon, man, that's patently untrue. It's a hyper technical sport like swimming also.

Chris Stevenson
August 20th, 2009, 02:43 PM
I am not a track person, so I humbly suggest the following two explanations, knowing fully that they may be complete BS.

To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.

About technique, I can't claim to know that running technique is more straightforward than swimming. But as a medium, water is more dense and so perhaps small improvements in stroke can have a proportionally greater effect on swimming speed than in running.

On a related matter, look at this op-ed piece:

http://www.slate.com/id/2223941/

I disagree with most of what the author says, but I wonder about the assertion that interest in swimming among the hoi polloi will flag without world records. Being a lifelong fan and participant in the sport, I really can't get a good perspective on the effect of a relative dearth of WRs that might last through the next Olympics and beyond.

ande
August 20th, 2009, 03:30 PM
If current WR's are allowed to stand, it's going to take some serious talent, great coaching and a monumental training effort to break them.

A super talented someone who's willing to train 7 days a week for 5, 6, or 7 years.

who doesn't believe Flo Jo (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Wo_J2WP-EBg/RwXOhmgohbI/AAAAAAAAASU/Rn-orIN2wH8/s400/Flo+Jo.jpg) had a little (or a lot) of pharmecutical help
Her 10.49 WR seems highly suspect, One source said,
"Flo-jo, before this meet, had never run below 11.16 for 100m"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkpTsAmv8XQ



Track WR tend to last: Women's 100M is 20 years old. It took 12 years to break the men's 200M WR that Johnson set in '96. After Usain Bolt hangs it up in 7 years, the World Record in the 200M will never be broken again (okay, it might be broken in 100 years just to be safe). WR are not supposed to be set every year. It makes the sport silly and illegitimate in my opinion.

Tim L
August 20th, 2009, 04:01 PM
[quote=Chris Stevenson;191560]
To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.[quote]

In college we always thought it was because the track athletes were a bunch of wimps and incapable of pushing themselves, but maybe your explanation is better. We always poked fun that we would put in more mileage (as well as time) than all the track athletes except the distance guys.

Tim

aquageek
August 20th, 2009, 04:30 PM
In college we always thought it was because the track athletes were a bunch of wimps and incapable of pushing themselves...

If you factor in bling management, nail styling, uniform posing, false starts and post running posing, they actually worked out 2-3X longer than you.

The Fortress
August 20th, 2009, 04:48 PM
"The verification requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."

Does it really need to be this difficult? It seems like it would be fairly cut and dry. Do a DNA test and if Semenya has a Y chromosome "she" is a man, right? Unfortunate name, too, considering the controversy! :)

Seriously!

Can that really be a chick? Or a chick on drugs? Even a drugged FloJo had a waist ...

Distance runners are studs though.

Tim L
August 20th, 2009, 05:04 PM
If you factor in bling management, nail styling, uniform posing, false starts and post running posing, they actually worked out 2-3X longer than you.

Excellent point. It would be interesting to see Bolt's training regime. Maybe it should be a reality show.

Tim

Allen Stark
August 20th, 2009, 05:07 PM
I am not a track person, so I humbly suggest the following two explanations, knowing fully that they may be complete BS.

To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.

About technique, I can't claim to know that running technique is more straightforward than swimming. But as a medium, water is more dense and so perhaps small improvements in stroke can have a proportionally greater effect on swimming speed than in running.

On a related matter, look at this op-ed piece:

http://www.slate.com/id/2223941/

I disagree with most of what the author says, but I wonder about the assertion that interest in swimming among the hoi polloi will flag without world records. Being a lifelong fan and participant in the sport, I really can't get a good perspective on the effect of a relative dearth of WRs that might last through the next Olympics and beyond.

Re: the slate article,etc.I doubt WRs have much if anything to do with popularity.Popularity in the US is about winning and personality.Almost everyone knows how many golds Phelps has.I doubt very many know how many WRs he set.When Spitz got his golds it seemed almost an after thought when announcers added that all the times were WRs.

Chris Stevenson
August 20th, 2009, 05:11 PM
"The verification requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."

Does it really need to be this difficult? It seems like it would be fairly cut and dry. Do a DNA test and if Semenya has a Y chromosome "she" is a man, right? Unfortunately name, too, considering the controversy! :)


Seriously!

More than I wanted to know about gender testing...but it does seem legitimately more complicated than a simple chromosome test:

http://www.slate.com/id/2225810/

aquageek
August 20th, 2009, 05:14 PM
More than I wanted to know about gender testing...but it does seem legitimately more complicated than a simple chromosome test:

http://www.slate.com/id/2225810/

Why are they doing this gender testing? The only thing I can think of is that her blood test results were confusing for a woman.

orca1946
August 20th, 2009, 06:07 PM
Why does track allow 1 false start & charge ALL?? Do as we do & kick the twitcher out for that event !!

John C Smith
August 20th, 2009, 07:12 PM
ehoch,

Your 100m free time estimates post rubber suit seem a bit slow. I'm going to roll the dice and predict a 48 mid without the technology. Rowdy set the WR back in 1981 against me in Austin with a 49.3. Certainly there has been a half to three quarter second improvement in raw speed since then.

Although.... track does seem pretty dirty these days..... Some of the Jamaicans are pushing the envelope.

http://www.universalsports.com/ViewA...CLID=204773074 (http://www.universalsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=105551&SPID=13055&&DB_OEM_ID=23000&ATCLID=204773074)

That woman in the 800m didn't look like a woman. And if she passes the gender test.... what does that mean? How huge and muscular can a woman get before we start outright laughing at the testing?

John C Smith
August 20th, 2009, 07:17 PM
"If it is the case that "nobody will go under 47" for 10 to 20 years, well, by that time probably nobody will care, because as everyone goes slower the interest in the sport will diminish and diminish. World records create excitement and draw interest. Swimming will no longer be on TV (except for a couple of days once every four years) and as the interest in the sport fades, less kids will be attracted to compete--so times will get even slower."


gshaw,

I will have to disagree with this notion that WR hype is what drives interest and enthusiasm in the sport. Note, Mary T. held the 200m fly WR record for decades, Betsy Mitchell's 200m Back WR stood for years and years..... going back further we see many WR that stood the test of time. Remember Brian Goodell's 1500m free was legendary and lasted for years. These long lasting performances don't diminish interest in the sport. We don't need a fix on a new record every 2 weeks to respect the sport and keep it publicized.

Peter Cruise
August 20th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Hell hath frozen over...I have agreed with two successive John Smith posts!

ehoch
August 20th, 2009, 08:04 PM
I'm going to roll the dice and predict a 48 mid without the technology.

48 mid for the winner or to make the team ? Popov did a 48.21 in 1994 - all times faster than that were done in some form of full body suit. Here are the results from the 2006 nationals in Irvine -- I think the 2006 full body suits add about half a second -- people should have gotten a little faster, but not half a second - so times should be slower than this ...

1. 5 LEZAK Jason 75 NOVACA 0.70 22.97 48.63
2. 6 WALKER Neil 76 TXLAST 0.78 23.24 49.23
3. 4 JONES Cullen 84 NCSTNC 0.72 23.87 49.35
4. 3 WILDMAN-TOBRINER Benjamin 84 STANPC 0.69 23.35 49.39
5. 2 WEBER-GALE Garrett 85 TXLAST 0.66 23.22 49.46
6. 8 KELLER Klete 82 CW-MI 0.81 23.86 49.81
7. 1 BRUNELLI Nicholas 81 SDA-AZ 0.66 23.37 49.84
8. 7 RITTER Adam 85 FORDAZ 0.74 23.87 49.88

ehoch
August 20th, 2009, 08:12 PM
A swimmer has to propel their body through water, not air. I don't think you can categorically state that you need more pure strength and power for track.

A swimmer does not have to carry their own body weight - the amount of strength for one arm pull is so small comapred to what you need for a stride of running.



Impact on the body is much bigger? Again, where's the data to support that?

Go right ahead - ask any runner to complete an equal to a college swim training program while running --- 60k in the water = about 240 k a week running. A marathon a day - no problem. And during hell week - they will do one in the morning and one in the evening :applaud:



Running technique not complicated? Cmon, man, that's patently untrue. It's a hyper technical sport like swimming also.
Ok - what is "new" in running in the last 20 years ? Bolt runs exactly like Carl Lewis - he is just taller.

chaos
August 20th, 2009, 08:26 PM
you folks that think every human fits neatly into the "man" or "woman" box (no pun intended) need to pack up the jalopy and take a drive to the big city once in a while.

John C Smith
August 20th, 2009, 10:54 PM
"I think the 2006 full body suits add about half a second "

I would presume a Jaked compared to an old style classic speedo brief (which I think is more relevant or perhaps even a compared to a jammer) is worth a good second per 100 depending on body type. I would think the top two places in the 100 free (i.e. to make the team) would need to go 48 mid next year. That's a straight up comparison to the suits of the old days with Biondi and Rowdy. Probably a 49 low to squeak in to finals for eighth place next year. Who knows.... but it is interesting to see that the times really haven't improved all that much over 30 years after you take away the technology and keep the strokes the same.

Running and swimming comparisons only go so far. I mean even the swimmers who are sprinters (50/100 free) are capable of training 100 times their race distance a day (10,000). Runners will never approach this.

It will be interesting to watch Alain Bernard's last 20 meters of his 100 next year without the magic suit. I have seen large heavy bricks sink.

selkie
August 20th, 2009, 10:58 PM
Why does track allow 1 false start & charge ALL?? Do as we do & kick the twitcher out for that event !!

IAAF is phasing in zero tolerance for false starts in the next year or two.

If y'all have an American IP address, Universal Sports online is carrying the British feed of the WC meet, and it's infinitely better coverage than what Vs. has been showing, especially for the field events.

John C Smith
August 20th, 2009, 10:59 PM
ehoch,

The "what about us" portion of your thread.

I have voiced my opinion on this forum about the rubber suits and vote for keeping them as a choice for masters swimmers. I don't think it's as important an issue when it comes to masters swimming vs. USA swimming and many masters swimmers like them a lot.

What do you think? Do you care if you get beat by a person in the lane next to you in a masters event if he is wearing a rubber body condom and you are only wearing jammers?

knelson
August 20th, 2009, 11:51 PM
you folks that think every human fits neatly into the "man" or "woman" box (no pun intended) need to pack up the jalopy and take a drive to the big city once in a while.

Yeah, we realize people might cross-dress or even surgically alter their physically sexual characteristics, but unless I'm mistaken you still can't genetically alter one's sex.

aquageek
August 21st, 2009, 07:59 AM
ehoch - you failed to post any data, just opinions, which is fine. But, don't pass your opinions as some sort of technical fact. Just because a running style is similar in no way means there aren't significant technical skills required, just ask any top level runner, as you like to point out.

If you are a bad technical runner you will not be competitive. If you want proof, just go to any 10K, half or full marathon any weekend of the year.

ehoch
August 23rd, 2009, 08:47 PM
What do you think? Do you care if you get beat by a person in the lane next to you in a masters event if he is wearing a rubber body condom and you are only wearing jammers?

I have done both - I swam Nationals in a non-rubber suit and probably lost a race beacuse of it and I have "used" the suits to break a few records.

In a strange way, I was happy with both - At Nationals, I wanted an exact comparison to what I did in the previous year .. so you have to wear the same suit. Breaking the records, I am pretty convinced that the people in my age group are wearing the same suits (unless they are older records - and with Mike Ross around there not many of those ...).

I do think the current suits should be allowed in Masters -- I know many people don't think it's a big deal, but I just hate shaving and being able to put on a suit in mid-season to go fast without shaving is really important.

I think the Jaked / Arena suits are about a 2-3% difference up to the 200 distances. I would not be surprised, if nobody actually breaks 48 for the 100 Free until 2012.

I also think, people saying that records don't add to the hype or popularity of a sport are way off base -- I could not tell any women's 200 track champions, but I sure know who is the "man" for the men.

John C Smith
August 23rd, 2009, 10:17 PM
..... I also think, people saying that records don't add to the hype or popularity of a sport are way off base -- I could not tell any women's 200 track champions, but I sure know who is the "man" for the men.

ehoch,

Yes, but can you even remember even half the the names or people that set the 100+ World Records the last 2 years. The vast majority of these names seem to just slide into oblivion after their own records got broken again and again..... so many times in one year. I'm serious when I say, I stopped looking at my blackberry email updates from swimming world last year with the new world record announcements. It just got to be kind of joke.

As for women's track champions...... Are you really watching them that closely? Their sport appears to be pretty dirty to me.

".... always look at track and field - especially the women's events. They now have a much cleaner sport. It was not even technology, it was PEDs causing all these ridiculous world records -- so fans should be more excited to have great performances by (hopefully) clean athletes. But I am not watching track any more -- I don't want to watch the women's long jump winner failing to clear 7 meters. The men's high jump has been at the same height for 25 years. By the way - does anybody think Usain Bolt is clean ? I would bet anything that he is not ..... "

DPC
August 24th, 2009, 04:58 PM
A swimmer does not have to carry their own body weight - the amount of strength for one arm pull is so small comapred to what you need for a stride of running.




Go right ahead - ask any runner to complete an equal to a college swim training program while running --- 60k in the water = about 240 k a week running. A marathon a day - no problem. And during hell week - they will do one in the morning and one in the evening :applaud:



Ok - what is "new" in running in the last 20 years ? Bolt runs exactly like Carl Lewis - he is just taller.

But water is six times more dense than air (IIRC my HS science), so it is more difficult to move through - also swimmers derive vastly more locomotion from their arms/upperbody vs legs and a runner derives vastly more from their legs ( a muscle mass many times greater than the upper body) - think of weight lifting, I can only bench at best 150 lbs, but can squat or leg press 300 plus, but I think my swimming time in a 100 would be faster (if there was a reliable conversion) than if I tried a 100 on the track.

I don't know many runners, but those that I have known really never did the amount of training I did as a swimmer when I look back on it. The exception are cross country or long distance runners - sprinters never. Also we never really thought to to compare it and factor in tghe impact of not breathing 50% or more of the time.

New in running is probably training methods, not so much "running" - Bolt runs flat out fast, but that is what he is built to do, no different than a lot of swimmers who are 50 and 100 sprinters - Lewis was also an excellent long jumper and probably have been a good decathlete (the shot and discus may have been weaker events). Bolt is to sprint track events what Ricky Henderson was to base stealing, some day both records will fall because someone will always become better, faster, and more capable.

stillwater
August 24th, 2009, 05:34 PM
I roomed with track guys in college. One was a 440 guy, another was a hurdler, and the last chap was a pole vaulter. None of them put in the training time I did. They most certainly spent more time in the weight room than I did. Technique was a huge part of their training.

We had many arguments as to the tougher sport. I would bring up the limited breathing aspect, they would bring up the fact that I could float when done with my event, and not fall to the ground like a cut puppet.

I would argue time in training, they would argue training smart. I would argue that swimmers must start young to be competitive, they would suggest talent must be present to be a winner in track.

I called the three of them and asked their take on Bolt's runs. They all said "Dirty".

Oh, two of my above roomies were taking steroids supplied by the team trainer. We knew that it was cheating, but....

DPC
August 25th, 2009, 01:22 PM
We had many arguments as to the tougher sport. I would bring up the limited breathing aspect, they would bring up the fact that I could float when done with my event, and not fall to the ground like a cut puppet.



float at the end of a race??? I'm not sure how that argument even fits - when you say it out loud it sounds so ridiculous. So when they finish a sprint or a 440 they don't stop, they run forever, or somehow floating allows us to immediately recover??

Both running and swimming are a lot about learning to pace your race properly - but I still see swimming in a medium that is more dense, and using a less powerful set of muscles (maybe slightly so) is harder if you have a comparible distance/workout/time.

Herb
August 25th, 2009, 11:00 PM
How many world records were set in the World track championships? I watched a lot of it and harldly heard world records mentioned - except of course for Bolt and he will be athlete of the year and go down as one of the greatest ever in track and field for breaking world records.

...The argument that you need to break a bunch of world records to make a sport watchable is garbage.

It doesn't even seem like the world class swimmers care as long as the field is level.

knelson
August 26th, 2009, 11:15 AM
But water is six times more dense than air (IIRC my HS science)

No, you recall incorrectly. Try close to 800 times as dense.

orca1946
August 26th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Practice in the pool how you want to finish, not the way the swimmer in front of you slows or stops too early !

aquageek
August 26th, 2009, 12:07 PM
...The argument that you need to break a bunch of world records to make a sport watchable is garbage.


This argument is obviously countered by the simple fact that more people are watching swimming and track and field now due to Phelps and Bolt, who, incidentally, regularly break world records.

ourswimmer
August 26th, 2009, 12:58 PM
Yeah, we realize people might cross-dress or even surgically alter their physically sexual characteristics, but unless I'm mistaken you still can't genetically alter one's sex.

For most people, XX maps pretty accurately to "woman" and XY to "man." But the Slate article Chris S. linked to earlier explains several reasons why one's phenotypic sex might not match one's sex-chromosome genotype. It also explains why, for sports such as swimming and track in which the general consensus seems to be that fair competition requires distinguishing "women" from "men," just looking at people naked or looking at their chromosomes might not tell you everything you need to know to assign people to categories.

aquageek
August 26th, 2009, 01:16 PM
... just looking at people naked or looking at their chromosomes might not tell you everything you need to know to assign people to categories.

But, it works about 99.99% of the time so it's a damn good starting point.

ourswimmer
August 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
But, it works about 99.99% of the time so it's a damn good starting point.

Well, sure. For my purposes in life, it has even always worked out fine for the test subject to stay clothed. Ambiguities are pretty rare, and have never turned out to be important. But I am not running a world championship track meet.

Herb
August 27th, 2009, 10:42 PM
This argument is obviously countered by the simple fact that more people are watching swimming and track and field now due to Phelps and Bolt, who, incidentally, regularly break world records.

And you can't forget Frederick Bosque, Cesar Cielo, Gemma Spofforth and the countless recent swimming world record holders that have become household names.

...My point was that Bolt and Phelps are one of a generation kind of athletes.

Look at the world record progression for the 200M dash:
1968 Tommie Smith
1979 Pietro Menea
1996 Michael Johnson
2008/09 Usain Bolt

World records are extremely rare in a sport like track where technology doesn't drive the performance.

Phelps would be just as famous with or without the suits. Paul Biederman is known not for breaking two world records, but for beating Phelps (with a tech suit on). World records have already become a non-issue in swimming at this point anyway.

ehoch
October 29th, 2009, 12:23 AM
OK - so far no college kid has been under 20 ... well it's waaaayyy early, but I am taking bets that nobody in college will break 19 seconds this year ...

Sub 1:38 looks like a really strong 200 Free time again ...

The French "Legion" in sprint free had their first non suit meets -- Bousquet went 22.3 and the best 100 Free was 49.4. Those actually pretty good times -- good long-course times that is :applaud: -- too bad the meets were short-course.

I think Leveaux was about 6 seconds above his 100 Free record :badday:

Oh - and a German kid swam the 50 Fly faster than Bousquet in Free -- ouch

Couroboros
October 29th, 2009, 12:51 AM
Mwahahah. There's a big shake-up coming. :bump:

It'll be fun to see who survives "withdrawal"... I foresee something akin to the Judgment of the Dead from Egyptian afterlife mythology, where a scale will decide which is heavier- the swimmer that wore the suit, or the suit that wore the swimmer. May all who fall in the latter category be consumed by the crocodile.

Phelps will survive. It's up in the air for everyone else. Of course, I do wonder how much of it is due to beginning a new season. Obviously, though, suitlessness is compacting matters.

any link to the times?

Calvin S
October 29th, 2009, 10:01 AM
OK - so far no college kid has been under 20 ... well it's waaaayyy early, but I am taking bets that nobody in college will break 19 seconds this year ...


people were going under 19 before the LZR was ever released. there will be someone under 19. maybe more than one person. i would be willing to agree that FEWER people will be under 19 than last year.

knelson
October 29th, 2009, 10:46 AM
people were going under 19 before the LZR was ever released.

However, I'm fairly confident no one has ever gone under 19 wearing just jammers and that's the situation they will be in this year. Not saying it can't be done, just that it hasn't yet. I think someone like Nathan Adrian is capable of a 19 low, but 18? We'll just have to see. I'll be very impressed if he breaks 19 seconds this season.

BR KnuckleDragger
October 29th, 2009, 05:21 PM
It's pretty amazing to think that Lezak's 46. split in "the Relay" will probably not be duplicated again in the next 20 years without technology. That has to be as Super-Human as Bob Beamon's jump!!

Has anyone else gone 46. as a split??? Is that equivelent to someone doing a 8.9 in the 100m dash?

ehoch
October 29th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Well - Cielo's record is 46.9 - that's probably as fast or faster than Lezak.

As far as sub 19 in the 50 -- I don't think it's going to happen. Bousquet was under in 2005 - Cielo was under in 08, no LZR I believe, but both in full body suits.

We can just put the American record back to Tom Jager and go from there ...

The French swims were mentioned in swimming news - but it did not say if it was short-course or long course. I went to the French federation website and checked it out. They also have the results from the same meet last year - Bousquet was at 21.1 at that time ....

lefty
October 30th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Well - Cielo's record is 46.9 - that's probably as fast or faster than Lezak.

As far as sub 19 in the 50 -- I don't think it's going to happen. Bousquet was under in 2005 - Cielo was under in 08, no LZR I believe, but both in full body suits.

We can just put the American record back to Tom Jager and go from there ...

The French swims were mentioned in swimming news - but it did not say if it was short-course or long course. I went to the French federation website and checked it out. They also have the results from the same meet last year - Bousquet was at 21.1 at that time ....


I don't think sub 19 is going to happen either. If I were to set a line for the fastest time of the year I would put it at 19.15.

I cannot believe the difference in times for Bousquet. 22.3 in SCM? I would have thought he could do that in practice in a practice suit. Didn't you go 23 low in practice with a Jaked?

American record backto Jager??? Nah, Hall beat it by a wide margin in a FS1 jammer.

ande
October 31st, 2009, 09:58 PM
it's early in the season
shaving and tapering will be critical
today's jammers are way better than FS 1 or 2