PDA

View Full Version : Swimming - a sport of fads



TheGoodSmith
September 12th, 2005, 10:52 AM
I submit that swimming is one of the worst sports in terms of following fad techniques simply because someone has been successful using that technique.

I submit that talent or genetics, aerobic capacity, workout intensity as well as mental toughness play a far greater roll than mere stroke technique in the end.

Seems like the US latches on to the winner's stroke techniques all too often as the way explain success and teach kids. Front quadrant swimming like Ian Thorpe..... head down sprinting like Popoff..... these guys would be successful in their events with or without these techniques in my opinion.

Except for the latest cheating techniques...... i.e. flip turns on backstroke, underwater dolphin kick on backstroke, head under on breastroke, full body suits, and the soon to be dolphin kick on breastroke pull outs, the sport has not improved a whole lot in the last 25 years.... especially when you compare it to 25 years previous to 1980..... (1955)


Thought for the day...... :-)


John Smith

Matt S
September 12th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Uh...

Ian Thorpe's WRs in the 200 free, matched by Hoogie.

In 1980 only one person had EVER been under 50 in the 100m free, and it was such an unusual event that some people speculated the pool was 6 inches too short. Now, we expect anyone in the hunt for the Olympic Finals to be under 49.

The women's butterfly races.

AND, while we're on the subject of women's swimming, the steroid slammin' East Germans kinda fouled up the results for the 70s. Consider that women today are clean and now equaling or surpassing the time of roid-monsters, and suddenly the last 25 years starts to look better.

I toss out all these examples because I believe these races are free of the "cheating technique" issue you previously cited.

There is another whole in your hypothesis. If it was all talent and workout intensity, you would expect today's world-class swimmers to be doing more intensity and more volume than in the 70s. Actually, they are doing less.

Finally, I think that we're kidding ourselves if we think we can separate out the effects of "technique" and of "training." Anyone who has been in the sport knows you need both to have real improvement, and they are not independent of each other but in fact they interact (as anyone who has worked on fly technique while out of shape can tell you). We could go around in circles trying to figure out whether Dara Torres' successful comeback (arguably more successful than Jenny Thompson sticking with the sport during the same time) was due more to technique or training. Fact is stroke technique is different, training methods are different, and what works for one person's body and psyche may be a complete disaster for someone else.

And don't get me started on the "Like Mike" training fallacy.

Matt

Ion Beza
September 12th, 2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Matt S

...
There is another whole in your hypothesis. If it was all talent and workout intensity, you would expect today's world-class swimmers to be doing more intensity and more volume than in the 70s. Actually, they are doing less.
...
Matt
Magischo in 'Swimming Fastest' emphasizes training 60% of the mileage in anaerobic threshold.

100 meter free Word Record Pieter van den Hoogenband (Ned.) and many other Olympians (Dave Salo's Lezak, Piersol, Beard, Stitts, Krayzelburg between 2002 and 2004) they train less than in the 70s, but much more intense, 60% of their mileage is in breathtaking anaerobic threshold.

Jazz Hands
September 12th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Swimming scientist Huub Toussaint has done research on propelling efficiency, (http://www.ifkb.nl/B4/propellingeff.html) which is a major indicator of swimming ability, as shown in this experiment. (http://www.ifkb.nl/B4/triathpropeff.html) The competitive swimmers tested had about 40% better propelling efficiency than the triathletes. Most simply, propelling efficiency is better when a greater force is being applied to the water, and worse when the propelling surface (hand) is moving faster.

What causes one's propelling efficiency to be good or bad? Another experiment (http://www.ifkb.nl/B4/paddles.html) shows that propelling efficiency increases by 8% with hand paddles, so it helps to have big hands. There must also be an element of stroke technique. This element is often called "natural talent," but I think it can just as well be the result of "hard work," or spending a lot of time swimming fast.

When people talk about "technique," they are often talking about superficial things like head position and arm recovery style. Therefore, if someone mimicks the look of Ian Thorpe, they get praised for having "perfect technique," and it's assumed that they need to either improve their aerobic capacity or that they have maximized their swimming potential. But such people don't have perfect technique. As you said, they are just following a fad. Their propelling efficiency is lacking, maybe along with a few other hidden technique elements. They are moving their hands through the water too quickly without applying enough force to it, and that can be fixed with proper training focus.

Also, I think Thorpe's front quandrant style actually is an important element of his technique. It allows him to emphasize his kick by pausing in a low drag position at the start of each arm stroke.

Guvnah
September 12th, 2005, 01:26 PM
I can see valid points on all sides of this issue.

John mentions "cheating techniques". In my opinion, for the strokes in question, that has been the major factor for improvements in times over recent years. I look back at what it used to take to WIN the high school state meets back in the 70s for backstroke and breaststroke, and now some of those times would barely be qualifying times today.

But we have seen improvements beyond that, as was pointed out with the 100M free example.

Maybe we latch on to "fads" because we are a culture that demands immediate results. We want to see a record broken at every meet. So with the wheels of progress grinding slowly, we place our eggs in the next (and the next) fad basket, hoping that it will be the magic bullet for the next record.

BTW, I wouldn't necessarily call the changes "cheating". But it gets the idea across so I won't quibble. I'll add improved pool design to the list. Improved gutter design. Improved lane-line design. (I wonder how some of the swinmers of generations past would have fared had they not had to swim with rope-and-bobber lane lines...)

And I predict that somewhere in the not-too-distant-future, we will have to start regulating (or at least certifying) the content of the water chemicals. Denser water could make for improved times. (Broimine vs chlorine. Concentration of chlorine. Salts. Etc.)

TheGoodSmith
September 12th, 2005, 01:59 PM
Well..... Mr. Matt S...... I am afraid I am going to have to take issue with your points..... :-)


1." Ian Thorpe's WRs in the 200 free, matched by Hoogie.... "

This merely proves my point that swimming is a fad sport. Here we see two totally different stroke techniques battling it out at an elite level. Which one is better?..... Well, Hoogies is probably better for this event because he spends less time out front on his stroke than Ian and he is able to turn over a little faster. But we'll leave the stroke mechanics on freestyle to another thread.

2. "In 1980 only one person had EVER been under 50 in the 100m free, and it was such an unusual event that some people speculated the pool was 6 inches too short. Now, we expect anyone in the hunt for the Olympic Finals to be under 49."

Mr. Matt... surely you jest with this feeble response. By 1984 the World record in the 100M free had dropped to 49.36 (I remember quite vividly as Rowdy trounced me twice in a time trial that day in Austin when he set it). Take away the full body suit which probably corresponds to 3-4 tenths and you have a paulty 1 second differential between the early 80s and now. That's nothing compared to the improvements made in the 100 free from 1955 until the early 80's. (Again we ASSUME no drugs are being used... a big assumption but none the less we will assume it).

Take a totally different race as an example. The 200yd free at NCAAs. 21 years ago Rowdy did a 1:33.8 If you put a full body suit (probably 8 tenths advantage) on him back then his time would still place in the top 2 in that event.... i.e. a high 1:32. Again.... very little improvement over time in this event over 25 years. Hell my paultry 1:35.8 got 4th place at NCAAs in 1984. It wasnt until the last 3-4 years that that time go knocked out of the top 8.


3. "The women's butterfly races."

What exactly is your point here? That Mary T's legendary time is not competitive any more?...... Dude.... there have only been a handful of female swims in the world that have ever been faster than her, and she did it back in 1983. Again, I submit to you that in 25 years, this event has NOT improved that much. Especially if you gave Mary T a full body suit and reversed the clock. The same thing goes for Betsy Mitchell's 200m back. Almost no one can touch her even today. It's not like the whole final heat has caught up to Betsy. Hell.. they're still doing 2:13s in that event. My wife's time from 1984 trials could've finaled this year and she got second in 84 when she made the team. That's not that impressive for the girls in this event today considering they are wearing full body suits and do underwater dolphin kick with freestlye turns now, Matt. The whole final heat should be around 2:11 or faster today.


4." AND, while we're on the subject of women's swimming, the steroid slammin' East Germans kinda fouled up the results for the 70s. Consider that women today are clean and now equaling or surpassing the time of roid-monsters, and suddenly the last 25 years starts to look better."

I suggest we leave drugs out of this conversation as the US is not a totally clean nation either. But, if you want me to remind you of the greatest all-around US female swimmer of all time (Tracy Caulkins).... I think you will agree that her times are still competitive today in the final heat of nationals. Again, she is the product of the late 1970s and early 1980s.


5. "There is another hole in your hypothesis. If it was all talent and workout intensity, you would expect today's world-class swimmers to be doing more intensity and more volume than in the 70s. Actually, they are doing less."

Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt....... today's distance swimmers may be doing less than the mega yardage of the late 1970s, but the sprinters are a totally different case. I swam for Eddie in the early 80s. The good sprinting schools back then ... like Cal, Arkansas, Texas, Tennesse etc... did NOT do mega yardage back then. It was weight concentric and quality set oriented. Its not THAT much different today for them in terms of training and yardage with weights.


6. "Finally, I think that we're kidding ourselves if we think we can separate out the effects of "technique" and of "training." Anyone who has been in the sport knows you need both to have real improvement, and they are not independent of each other but in fact they interact (as anyone who has worked on fly technique while out of shape can tell you). We could go around in circles trying to figure out whether Dara Torres' successful comeback (arguably more successful than Jenny Thompson sticking with the sport during the same time) was due more to technique or training. Fact is stroke technique is different, training methods are different, and what works for one person's body and psyche may be a complete disaster for someone else."

I agree that training and technique are intertwined and related closely. Howver, once you get to a USS Nationals level it is much more beneficial to have the "talent" (i.e. genetics) and hard "training" as your weapons of choice than to rely on incremental fad stroke techniques of the winners.


John Smith

aquageek
September 12th, 2005, 02:16 PM
What sport isn't a fad sport? Basketball and baseball are off the fad charts. Football is too, both types. Golf is beyond a fad. Tennis is all about the fad these days. And, let us not forget Gull80s favorite sport, NASCAR racing.

It doesn't matter what sport or what era, you will always see the kids (or old farts, in our case) try to imitate the best in the game.

USMSarah
September 12th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
What sport isn't a fad sport? Basketball and baseball are off the fad charts. Football is too, both types. Golf is beyond a fad. Tennis is all about the fad these days. And, let us not forget Gull80s favorite sport, NASCAR racing.

It doesn't matter what sport or what era, you will always see the kids (or old farts, in our case) try to imitate the best in the game.


I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Frank Thompson
September 12th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Mr Goodsmith:

I just have one correction in your point 2, otherwise I agree with what your saying. In 1980, there were actually 2 people that went under 50 seconds in the 100 Meter Free. Jim Montgomery went :49.99 at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal and then a month later in Philidelphia in August of 1976, Jony Skinner went :49.44 and held that record until Rowdy Gains did the :49.36 swimming next to you in the time trial in Austin. The next guy to break his record was Matt Biondi doing a time of :48.75 sometime in 1985. By the way, what was your time time swimming against Rowdy? If you don't remember that's fine or maybe is just none of my business.

TheGoodSmith
September 12th, 2005, 03:33 PM
The post was a combination of Matt S. 's reply and my answers to him. I didn't say there was only 1 person under 50 seconds in the 100m free, Mr Matt S. said that. But it makes no difference in the end. I still say that times are not that much faster now then 25 years ago given suit technology and the cheating rule changes to the strokes... :-)

As for my embarassing Freshman year swim with Rowdy when he went a time trial for that record in Austin in 1984..... I think I went a 52.1 He missed it the first time and swam it again about 20 minutes later. I remember crawling off the deck hoping no one saw me..... walked up to my favorite Texmex restaurant on Lavaca and drank several pictures of beer..... :-)


John Smith

knelson
September 12th, 2005, 03:41 PM
A little bit of a tangent here, but if you're ever looking for past Olympic Trials results, they do exist on USA Swimming's web site. It took a little searching, but here you go: http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=591&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en

Most of the '70s and '80s results look to be scanned in from Swimming World, but at least they're there!

P.S. There's a great photo of GoodSmith's wife in the 1984 results.

Jeff Commings
September 12th, 2005, 05:47 PM
And from the look of things, she did from lane eight! Gotta love those outside smokers ... unless you're in the race.

Anyway, regarding the women's fly, only four women have swum faster than Mary T. since she broke the record in Aug. 1981 (not 1983, as Mr. Smith said): Susan O'Neill (the first to do it in 1995), Misty Hyman, Otylia Jedrezejak, Jessicah Schipper. And the world record is only five-tenths fatser! With the suits and dolphin kicks, it looks like the improvement is small. Kinda like the women's 200 free.

I'm one to say that I follow fads, too, though I'm usually at the end of the fad's popularity. It took me years to break down and swim the wave breaststroke. I didn't start wearing paper suits until 1990. I've been trying to imitate Kitajima -- only in his pull, and it's been scrutinized for three years now.

The only "fads" I'm still reluctant to participate in are bodysuits (because I like the feel of the water) and underwater dolphin kicking (because I don't have the strength or flexibility).

TheGoodSmith
September 12th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Yeah it was 1981 for Mary T. Brown Deer I think. My memory is going.

Anyway...... stick with the conventional suits Jeff and I'll use the cheatin' full body suits on the 100 IM. I need the extra half second.... :-)


John Smith

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 12th, 2005, 06:22 PM
I can't believe tht we even question tht swimmign is a fd. the nly conclusion is ues. Unfortunately, so few peole follow it that it doesn't matter.

Allen Stark
September 12th, 2005, 06:46 PM
I take great issue with the idea technique isn't important,it's huge.Without good technique you don't have a chance. That said there hasn't really been a great technique change since the sixties except in breaststroke and there the rules changed (unless you count underwater dolphin.) Basically it's been "rotate more on free and back and keep your head down". Hardly an earth shaking break through. Front quadrant swimming is not new and is one of those ideas that only works for some swimmers at some distances. The arguement between lift versus drag propulsion has been facinating, but has had surprisingly little effect on how most elite swimmers swim.I think the biggest reaso times dropped so much in the late 60's and 70's is goggles. Until comfortable goggles came out yardage was limited by eye pain.

Jazz Hands
September 12th, 2005, 06:47 PM
GoodSmith, anything more than a jammer might do you harm in a 100 IM. You wouldn't want your knees to be restricted during the breast or your upper body during the fly and back.

Sparky
September 12th, 2005, 06:53 PM
I disagree with the claim that swimming is one of the worst sports to follow fads, i.e. the stroke technique of whoever's on top at the moment. Fencing, which has far fewer technique restrictions in the rule book than swimming, is practically all about copying the world's best.

In the 1970s and earlier, blade technique was the big thing. If you could clash your foil/epee/saber better than your opponent, creating ever-more complex moves, you were likely to score more points. That all changed starting around the mid-1990s, when the world's elite fencers found they could win better with superior footwork and simple attacks (one movement from the attacker to the target: his/her opponent, avoiding the other blade if possible). This took no time at all to trickle down to the salles and fencing clubs around the country, and soon every coach/maitre was teaching footwork over bladework.

As I said, there are no technique rules in fencing; a simple attack is a simple attack, whether or not your elbow is straight, whether your back hand is up a la Eroll Flynn or dragging behind you. One former coach of mine said that proper technique is whatever the world's best fencers are doing at the moment.

This is a longwinded (sorry) way of saying that swimming is not alone in this phenomenon. One more point, which is sort of an aside but also relevant, is that both swimming and fencing lend themselves to the most efficient movement possible. At the elite levels, the top athletes have figured out more efficient ways of getting to their target, whether it's the finish wall or the opponent's chest. So I see nothing wrong with trying to emulate either.

Adam

Steve Ruiter
September 12th, 2005, 08:16 PM
I think swimming is a very mature sport, so the records are not likely to make much progress going forward (but they will continue to drop over time). But OMG, look at the depth! Things have definitely gotten fater if you look at the depth at, say, NCAAs. I don't have hard data, but whole heats of mens 200 free relays (consolation and championship finals) with virtually every single split under 20 is a lot of depth. And look at the depth in the 100 free...

I am still waiting for someone to break 1:40 in the 200 back and get beat, but it will happen.

I think a comparison of the top 100 times in the US or world would show a tremendous difference from 25 years ago. This would seem to indicate more about the advances in the sport than individual talents/efforts.

I think these days coaching technique has gotten to the point where they can produce lots of fast people. Probably a combination of psychology (you know someone else can go that fast, so you chase higher goals) and training programs/techniques.

Phil Arcuni
September 12th, 2005, 11:51 PM
Some of us got our feel for the water by lots of yardage as 10 or 12 year olds. For them water is a natural environment and they naturally know how to move through it. The best swimmers two generations ago were the ones that had the natural feel for the water. They got it by lots of early yardage and natural ability.

However, if the right way can be taught because now we know how to swim, it should be, rather than relying on natural ability to figure it out. That is why there is so much more depth now, because the right way to swim is taught. I am very impressed by the quality of the strokes and overall technique that I see in youth USSwimming; it is far better than it was back in the seventies, and the kids are faster.

What little stroke advice we got was often wrong. I carefully followed the advice to move my hands in an 'S' shape, while the most natural swimmers swam in a way that felt to them the best and fastest way to swim. Only now do I think that my freestyle is starting to feel like freestyle should feel.

So today we were asked to swim a 100 back in fewer than 55 strokes. I did it in 28, most everyone else struggled to make it. There is still a lot of room for improved technique, and it would be a waste to tell these swimmers that all they needed to do is to work harder.

Bob McAdams
September 12th, 2005, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Anyway...... stick with the conventional suits Jeff and I'll use the cheatin' full body suits on the 100 IM. I need the extra half second.... :-)

Full body suits? Now that's a fad!


Bob

TheGoodSmith
September 13th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Allen may have a point. The use of goggles in the late 60s and early 70s may have been key to the huge advancements in world records times and training back then. Being able to stay in the water for twice as long or longer probably helped tremendously to change the sport.

I see a lot of people defending todays training techniques as the "right" way to swim. Might I point out that many collegiate athletes enter their Freshman year with insufficient "background" or yardage in their careers now. College coaches are finding they have to give them the background themselves. Are these reduced yardage careers being reduced too much ?

We are still a nation of few great milers. Maybe mega yardage is good only for the D-man as in the case of Brian Goodell and the "animal" lane at Mission Viejo in the 70s.


John Smith

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 13th, 2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Allen Stark
I take great issue with the idea technique isn't important,it's huge.Without good technique you don't have a chance. That said there hasn't really been a great technique change since the sixties except in breaststroke and there the rules changed (unless you count underwater dolphin.) Basically it's been "rotate more on free and back and keep your head down". Hardly an earth shaking break through. Front quadrant swimming is not new and is one of those ideas that only works for some swimmers at some distances. The arguement between lift versus drag propulsion has been facinating, but has had surprisingly little effect on how most elite swimmers swim.I think the biggest reaso times dropped so much in the late 60's and 70's is goggles. Until comfortable goggles came out yardage was limited by eye pain.

But how technique is explained and what is seen as proper technique has changed dramatically. Rotation is a major change in stroke construction. It used to be that no sprinter was to rotate, now many do. When & how you breath has changed very much, especially in distance swimming. I was watching a friend who used to swim in the seventies. He has just begun to swim again. His technique looks very odd. His head is high. His elbows are very bent throughout the stroke, almost going completely underneath him. His kick is very narrow and he never rotates. He was a better than average college swimmer thirty years ago.

The lift versus drag argument is fascinating. It amazes me that we still can't determine which of hte two really propels a swimmer forward. I bet that in time we will understand that both do. I think that they probably work together at different times inthe stroke.

I remember when I got my first pair of goggles. My father, who had been a swimmer in the 30s, said that they were too much of a nuisance to really be taken over by the everyday swimmer. Now even the slowest lap swimmer uses them. And look at other equipment we use. All of the training devises have really changed the way we spend time in the water. Many swimmers now use sometype of weighted devise when they are practicing. There was an article about them in Swimming Wrold. I've heard that one reason Shoeman is so strong is because he uses weighted buckets on a pulley system when he swimms. I remember when many people thought that using a stretch belt was a bad idea.

Some might ask what is a fad. I thnk that many everyday, common practices started as fads. This is especially true in sports. Look at West Coast Offense in football.

TheGoodSmith
September 13th, 2005, 10:36 AM
CraigIII

Do note that Shoeman's use of weighted buckets on pulleys is nothing revolutionary. Randy Reese implemented this particular training technique in the early 1980s. I used them a summer in 1983 when I swam for him in Gainesville at the Univ. of Florida.

Again... things go out of style.......... and back in style....... like a fad.


John Smith

aquageek
September 13th, 2005, 10:41 AM
I have yet to determine the point of this thread. Every sport goes through changes in training, techniques, equipment, etc. It's just part of sport or any activity, to be honest.

gull
September 13th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Nothing faddish about this:

"This week’s Speedo Tip of the Week is an excerpt from the May-June 2005 issue of Splash, in which special correspondent Bonnie Moss writes about training with two-time Olympic medalist Erik Vendt. Here, Moss takes a look at some of Vendt’s favorite sets.

Training for Endurance
When training for the mile, endurance is key. Vendt uses endurance as his building blocks and also focuses on stroke work to help his 400 IM, the event in which he has won two Olympic silver medals. These days, he trains 50 percent endurance and 50 percent stroke work. He doesn’t want to give up too much distance training because that’s where he gets his strength for the back end of the IM.

Vendt says that in switching strokes in the IM, you need to have easy speed, great endurance and good racing sense. He likes to make his move towards the end of the race and prides himself on having the fastest last 200 in the world.

“I've always believed that if I was even with someone with a 100 to go, I would win,” Vendt says. “That sense of confidence comes from years of training endurance.”

Vendt’s favorite sets:
1.) 500 free @ 5:00 and 400 IM @ 5:00. Repeat the set five times, make the free interval, descend the IMs (Vendt went a 3:44 on the last 400 IM).

2.) 30 x 1000's @ 10:30 (Yes, you read that right). For the first 16 repeats, Vendt held his time under 10 minutes, but then fell apart physically and mentally. He found his way back, and on the last one, he went a 9:58.

“I like these sets because they're on opposite ends of the spectrum,” Vendt said. “One isn't so challenging, but you push yourself. The other is extremely challenging and shows you what you're made of. It shows you how far you can push your body because the set itself pushes you to the limit.”

aquageek
September 13th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by gull80
30 x 1000's @ 10:30

Well, there goes my pride in swimming 20 100s on 1:20.

newmastersswimmer
September 13th, 2005, 01:21 PM
originally posted by gull80

2.) 30 x 1000's @ 10:30 (Yes, you read that right). For the first 16 repeats, Vendt held his time under 10 minutes, but then fell apart physically and mentally. He found his way back, and on the last one, he went a 9:58.


In all reality.....could even one of us masters swimmers make more than 2 or 3 of these on that interval? How bout you Mr. GoodSmith?...How many do you think you could make?....I "might" (on a very very good day) make 1 of them....LOL!!


Newmastersswimmer

p.s. The entire set of 30 x 1000's is longer than swimming the English Channel BTW

gull
September 13th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by newmastersswimmer
In all reality.....could even one of us masters swimmers make more than 2 or 3 of these on that interval? [/B]

It all depends on the water temp, of course. Let's see him try to do that in a 75 degree pool.

knelson
September 13th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by newmastersswimmer
p.s. The entire set of 30 x 1000's is longer than swimming the English Channel BTW

Not quite, but close. Isn't the shortest distance across the Channel something like 21 miles? That's about 37,000 yards.

I like Vendt's quote about one of those sets "isn't so challenging." There can't be more than a handful of swimmers in the world who could actually claim that with a straight face.

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 13th, 2005, 01:56 PM
I was eating lunch and then I remembered hydroplanning. I remember whenit was the new greatest thing to ever happen to swimming in the 80s. then soemone pointed out that was how Johnny Weismiller(sp) swam.

newmastersswimmer
September 13th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Thanks for correcting my error on the length of the English Channel Kirk......Looks like your intellectual confidence was not "completely" shattered by your one spelling error here in any earlier post.

Newmastersswimmer

TheGoodSmith
September 13th, 2005, 03:45 PM
I'd probably make 2 of those 1000s on that send off and collapse at my age. Then again I've lived his life twice over.... :-) I was mostly a middle distance man in college. I usually went about 12-14K per day plus weights or dryland. Only in the summers did I venture in the mid teens on a single days yardage back then. However, there were guys like Erik Vendt that could handle that kind of brain drain back then too.

Interesting to see this style of training as it closely reflects the Brian Goodell and Salnikov training mentality of the 70s and 80s. Mega yardage for the D-man does not necessarily guarantee success, but it sure as hell develops background.


John Smith

dead fish
September 13th, 2005, 04:07 PM
background and need for serious therapy!

SwiminONandON
September 13th, 2005, 04:14 PM
30 x 1000 ... that's why I'm a sprinter ... That set would take me days to finish ... and I couldn't go anywhere near that interval ... i hate distance ...

TheGoodSmith
September 13th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Then again..... if a man my age took a little EPO...... he might make 5 or 6 of them without blowing a gasket ..... :-)


John Smith

Fishgrrl
September 13th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Aaahhhhh.......... 30 x 1000....yummy....

when do I start....????

Eat those yards! :)

knelson
September 13th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by newmastersswimmer
Thanks for correcting my error on the length of the English Channel Kirk......Looks like your intellectual confidence was not "completely" shattered by your one spelling error here in any earlier post.

Gotta get right back in the saddle, you know! ;)

newmastersswimmer
September 14th, 2005, 08:37 AM
This may be a little off the subject....but since (for the moment at least) we are talking about distance swimming, I want to congratulate you Kirk on an impressive showing last Saturday at the Chicago Big Shoulders 5K open water swim.....4th place out of 3 or 4 (or possibly 5?) hundred swimmers from all around the country aint too shabby.....so although your slipping "massively" from an intellectual standpoint with your plethora of spelling error(s), you're apparently getting the job done physically .....which is, of course, the main thing of importance anyway!



Newmastersswimmer

knelson
September 14th, 2005, 10:35 AM
Thanks! I will point out that although there were a total of 600 swimmers more than half swam the 2.5K. I was 4th out of 222 finishers in the 5K (w/o wetsuit). But, yes, I'm very happy with that!

Allen Stark
September 14th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Regarding resistance equipment as new, the Aussies were swimming towing buckets tied to the waist in the 50's.

cinc3100
September 18th, 2005, 11:12 AM
Top kid swimmers are better. But the average group isn't better than we were in the 1970's. Look at a high school duel meet and average times are not that much different.

geochuck
September 18th, 2005, 11:40 AM
My brother towed a boat behind him when he used to train at night in the ocean when he was training to swim in marathon races in the late 40s, and 50s.

cinc3100
September 18th, 2005, 10:32 PM
Well, the early 1970's they were swimming less because goggles just became available. It wasn't unit about 1974 that swimmers were doing the 15,000 to 20,000 yard workouts. In 1968 many top swimmers didn't do even 30,000 a week,no goggles. I think that the winner of men's 200 meter fly in 1968 did a 2:06 and in 1976 a 1:59. Today's swimmers swim more yardage than those in 1968 and many in 1972 but probably less those in 1977.

TheGoodSmith
September 19th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Cinc310 brings out a good point. While there are some exceptional swimmers at the top that have shown marginal improvement on the world records compared to 20 years ago, the vast majority of participants on teams nationwide aren't that much better than the kids training in the late 1970s.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of 1st place finishes at nationals over the last 25 years with 8th place.


John Smith