As a mid-distance to distance guy, I want to side with the argument that training for and competing at a high level in the 400/800 is harder than the 50/100. My own experience racing this summer across the three events I swam best in --
200 fly -- was 5.8% off lifetime best
400 IM -- was 8.6% off lifetime best
1500 free -- was 10.9% off lifetime best
-- is anecdotally in that direction. If I go back to when I was wearing my bodysuit, when my 50 was a lifetime best and my 100 was close to a lifetime best, my 500 was 7.2% slower than a lifetime best.
As a counterpoint to my personal data, though, it should be noted that, on average I swim about 25% of the weekly volume now versus what I did when I was a teenager and in college. I'm pretty sure that, if I could raise my training to 75% of where I used to be, with some smarter addition of strength work and race pace, my distance times could be closer (on a percentage basis) to my best than my shorter distance times. I just don't have the time to do that ... but I imagine Janet's making that kind of time in her quest.
So, I really want to say that it's harder to do what Janet's doing than what Dara's doing, I don't think it actually is. I think they are two very different sides of the same coin. If you look at Dara these days versus Dara back in the 80s, she is way more ripped and muscular now than then -- she's had to amp up her dryland and strength as a 40-something in a manner she didn't have to do as a 20-something. That doesn't require hours slogging 10K or more workouts, but it is very different (I believe) than she trained when she was younger. Janet will undoubtedly need to train more yards/meters, but she'll also need to figure out what she needs to do differently now with a 40-something body to compete. Neither of them would probably want to train like the other, but I think it's wrong to think that either of them has an 'easier' road than the other.
I'll go out on a limb and say she makes the team.
Then I'll take the contrary view and say she doesn't. She's swimming well, but I think she'd need to throw down something in the neighborhood of 4:10 right now to have a realistic chance next year. Her Mission Viejo swim would place her somewhere around 90th at USA Swimming Nationals that were just swum a couple weeks ago. She's got her work cut out for her.
Janet will undoubtedly need to train more yards/meters, but she'll also need to figure out what she needs to do differently now with a 40-something body to compete. Neither of them would probably want to train like the other, but I think it's wrong to think that either of them has an 'easier' road than the other.
I wouldn't know a single thing about this... But I do wonder if having 1 child vs. 2 is a pro or con for these fast swimming mothers.
In the second picture her body alignment looks really weird; seems like it would create a lot of drag. Was that during her race?
It is a shot from her 1500 race.
The photographer messaged me about that exact thing - how high she rides in the water and her head position on her breath.
He said she looked almost like a water polo player :)
She was wicked fast with that stroke before and looks like she is sticking with it.
I think she can qualify but I have to admit only a second improvement over a few months just coming back is a little bit of a dissapointment.
Her 800 split in the 1500 at SPM (apparently she swam the 1500 to get the 800 split, which would make sense because there is no women's 1500 in London) was about 9:02, actually slower than this past june.
Would love to see her get back to the top.
It would indeed be very cool.
It can go both ways I suppose. The men's 400 free OT cut has actually gotten SLOWER since I swam in 1992. It was 3:58.6 (give or take a tenth) back then. What's up with that.....it's 20-years later!
The meet has been getting less exclusive over time. Here are some examples on the number of competitors at each OT meet:
Men's 100 fly
1992 - 32
2004 - 51
2008 - 106
2012 - 110+ (est.)
Men's 200 fly
1992 - 20
2004 - 41
2008 - 84
2012 - 110+ (est.)
Men's 400 free
1992 - 28
2004 - 27
2008 - 70
2012 - 100+ (est.)
I've assumed this to be the case for years, since most of the current cuts are slower than 2004 cuts (and as you pointed out even earlier in some cases). I never looked at actual numbers until now.
Membership numbers in the prior year leading up to OTs:
1991 - 165,622
2003 - 235,013
2007 - 251,547
2010 - 286,900 (most recent full year)
Especially in the last 8 years, the number of qualifiers has increased much more than the membership growth. But that will happen when you make cuts slower even though suit technology and training methods are continuously improving. With most events having over 100 swimmers, I have to imagine cuts will be faster in 2016.
As a counterpoint to my personal data, though, it should be noted that, on average I swim about 25% of the weekly volume now versus what I did when I was a teenager and in college. I'm pretty sure that, if I could raise my training to 75% of where I used to be, with some smarter addition of strength work and race pace, my distance times could be closer (on a percentage basis) to my best than my shorter distance times.
It is an interesting conjecture -- that if you ramped up your training closer to HS/college levels your distance events would be as close to your bests as your shorter events -- but despite you're being "pretty sure," it is just an opinion devoid of data.
A complication in your case is that I imagine that you trained primarily for distance, so your best times in short events might be more accessible than your best times in the longer events. That fact may taint the personal data you gave, skewing them to favor the shorter events over the longer.
In LCM, I trained equally for the 100 and 200 fly while in college and I think I did about equally well in them by the standards of the time (eg, world rankings were very similar). My personal data based on this year is:
100 fly: +6.86% (55.4 to 59.2)
200 fly: +13.30% (2:01.8 to 2:18.0)
More training would probably improve both of these and probably would improve the 200 more than the 100. But I can't ever see the 200 fly getting as close, relatively speaking, to my career best as the 100 fly. (But of course this is just opinion, too.)
I wonder if Janet was rested at all for the meet. If not, both 400 and 800 times were very good and she should have no trouble getting the OTs, a very impressive feat for anyone in their 40s, regardless of events. I would be shocked if she made it to the finals of Trials, though; it would be nice to see!
As far as Dara vs Janet...didn't Dara make the OT cut (or come very close) at 2006 Masters Worlds, something like 1 month after delivery when she was in her upper 30s? I have a hard time imagining a distance swimmer managing that feat! (Actually, I have a hard time imagining anyone else doing that in ANY event.) As far as "fitness" level, however defined, unless Janet medals in London in 2012 I think we'd have to give the nod to DT.
The Fortress has 9 months to achieve a 400 IM time
Bah! Been there, done that, never going back. Perfectly happy being a sprint specialist.
I didn't disagree that it was harder to make a comeback in the distance events. I just disagreed that Janet Evans is more fit than DT because she can swim a fast 400 free or that distance specialists are necessarily more fit than sprint specialists. And I agree with Chris that DT gets the nod, and would most definitely win a cage fight!
The meet has been getting less exclusive over time.
The only conclusion that can be reached is they want Olympic Trials to bring in more money. More qualifiers means more money coming in. To me when you're getting over 100 people per event it's getting a little ridiculous, but so far USA Swimming hasn't asked for my opinion. :)
The meet has been getting less exclusive over time. Here are some examples on the number of competitors at each OT meet:
Men's 100 fly
1992 - 32
2004 - 51
2008 - 106
2012 - 110+ (est.)
Men's 200 fly
1992 - 20
2004 - 41
2008 - 84
2012 - 110+ (est.)
Men's 400 free
1992 - 28
2004 - 27
2008 - 70
2012 - 100+ (est.)
I've assumed this to be the case for years, since most of the current cuts are slower than 2004 cuts (and as you pointed out even earlier in some cases). I never looked at actual numbers until now.
Membership numbers in the prior year leading up to OTs:
1991 - 165,622
2003 - 235,013
2007 - 251,547
2010 - 286,900 (most recent full year)
Especially in the last 8 years, the number of qualifiers has increased much more than the membership growth. But that will happen when you make cuts slower even though suit technology and training methods are continuously improving. With most events having over 100 swimmers, I have to imagine cuts will be faster in 2016.
The slower cuts may be intentional. The swimmers all pay entry fees per event to USA-S to swim in the meet just like Nationals or a local meet. More entries = more entry fee revenue. 2000 was the last year Trials was held in a traditional natatorium (Indy). Since then they went to a large outdoor stadium (Long Beach 2004) and then the huge indoor Qwest Center (2008, 2012). Their rental costs are much higher now than Indy (e.g. temporary pools, arena rental, etc.) so it could simply be a business decision to loosen the cuts. I have no idea if this is true or not, it's pure speculation on my part but somebody has to pay the rent!
PS. Just after posting I saw Kirk's post immediately before mine. We're obviously on the same wavelength.
