According to the announcer, Janet Evans is 64. Awesome.
And she's competing in the "Western Championships for Masters," whatever that is.I think the announcer was hitting the sauce as his facts were all over the board. He didn't even get Brian Goodell's Olympic gold stat correct (said '72 instead of '76). On top of that, he routinely got the heats wrong. Still, he seemed well-intentioned and tried to get the crowd into things from time to time.
I'll go out on a limb and say she makes the team. Since the time she set records, there is so much more information about training and nutrition than there was at the time she set the records. Plus, according to top exercise physiologists, there are unique things about her body (can't remember exactly) that enabled her to set those world records. A freak of nature with modern training? A good bet as any!
Fort, don't you think getting back in shape to swim a world class 400 free is much harder than a world class 50 free? So much more yardage is involved.
Ten years ago, I tried getting back into 200 fly shape and just had to quit. It was too hard. I found getting in shape to swim a decent 50 fly to be much easier.
Former Member
Is Janet Evans an open water swimmer? Her stroke looks like it was adapted for swimming in chop. She's hoisting her head out of the water on every cycle.
Former Member
What's up with the announcer saying that she swam in the 1972 Olympics and that her stroke is the one she used as an age grouper "back in the 70's"? How old does he think she is???
According to the announcer, Janet Evans is 64. Awesome.
Fort, don't you think getting back in shape to swim a world class 400 free is much harder than a world class 50 free? So much more yardage is involved.
I bet what Fort or another sprinter might reply is that training to be an elite sprinter takes just as much time and effort, it just isn't in the pool (accumulating yardage) as much as for distance races.
By the way, I have realized the source of my notion that aerobic capacity fades faster with age compared to strength/power: it was the article on Mark Foster posted earlier in this thread. Specifically:
...the fact that he is a sprinter, rather than an endurance athlete ..., also helps. 'Strength reduces at a slower rate than aerobic parameters,' Whyte confirms. 'That explains why strength and power-based sports have more mature athletes in the elite ranks. Foster only competes over 50metres and we know that it is possible to maintain performance to an older age in these type of events.'
I have also seen other comments that strength/power fade faster than aerobic endurance, though! No idea who is right. My *own* experience is that my strength and power are much closer to what they were in my 20s, compared to aerobic capacity. At USA-S meets I can hold my own against some kids in the 100 who just blow me away at 200+ distances.
But besides age, there is the confounding effect that I just don't train at the same volumes anymore.
I wonder if cross-training might help sprinters a bit in this regard. I simply cannot imagine pounding out the 15k-20k per day that distance swimmers used to do back when I was young (do they still do this?). Maybe cross-training confers a little more ability to recover from workouts? And maybe less likelihood of overuse injuries?
I look at the leaders of Go the Distance and know that some few masters swimmers are putting out some impressive numbers, though. I remember reading about some of the workouts that Dennis Baker was doing a few years ago and thinking to myself that they came pretty close to matching, in terms of workout volume and intensity, what I used to do in college. Maybe I only *think* I can't do that kind of thing in middle age (who has the time, anyway, though...).
I bet what Fort or another sprinter might reply is that training to be an elite sprinter takes just as much time and effort, it just isn't in the pool (accumulating yardage) as much as for distance races.
I have also seen other comments that strength/power fade faster than aerobic endurance, though! No idea who is right.
I wonder if cross-training might help sprinters a bit in this regard. I simply cannot imagine pounding out the 15k-20k per day that distance swimmers used to do back when I was young (do they still do this?). Maybe cross-training confers a little more ability to recover from workouts? And maybe less likelihood of overuse injuries?
That's exactly what I was trying to say! Probably the same amount of time and effort involved in training. And I would never say that Janet is "in better shape" than Dara. By other markers of fitness (cardio isn't the only one), Dara may be far more fit or in "better shape."
The OTC in the 400 LCM free is 4:19.39
Janet swam 4:22.84, which is 98.7% of the OTC.
Historically Janet's best 400 is 4:03.85 = 106.4% of OTC.
The OTC in the 800 LCM free is 8:50.49.
Earlier this year Janet swam 8:59.06, which is 98.4% of the OTC.
Historically Janet's best 800 was 8:16.22 = 106.9 % of OTC.
Basically she is just as competitive in the 400 as the 800, the slightly larger drop in her 800 is probably not statistically significant.
Another approach is to compute the ratings for her swims. There are a couple of rating calculators on the web, one by Great Bay Masters (GBM) and another by Virginia Masters (VM).
race VM/GBM
400@4:22.84 = 102.4/102.1
800@8:59.06 = 103.6/104.2
At least in comparison to other USMS swimmers, her 800 is slightly more competitive.
I was going to analyze Janet's 1500 too, but somehow the results for the women's 1500 have disappeared from the SPM Swim Phone results.
I won't dispute the fact that it takes tons of training and hard work to be good at either the sprints or middle distance. One thing I do know for sure, the 400 free sure is a lot more painful than the 50 free.
Frankly, I can't imagine anything more grueling than a 400 free. It seems to be along the lines of what I would call an endurance sprint. This being the case, I would think that training for it would require a demanding dryland program as well some demanding sets in the water.
Lots of arguments can be made as to what constitutes "fit." What does "fit" really mean? Are we talking about body composition or are we talking about VO2 max? Are we talking about vertical jump or are we talking about flexibility?
I was going to analyze Janet's 1500 too, but somehow the results for the women's 1500 have disappeared from the SPM Swim Phone results.
For her 1500, she swam an 800 split request and then warmed down the last 700. So just as well not to analyze it, the results would be misleading.
