Full disclosure: I am a pure (i.e. "drop dead") sprinter :)]
Watching Track & Field, I'm always struck how they offer what can truly be described as "pure" sprints: the 100m dash (and in indoors, the 60m). These are races that time sub-10 and sub-7 seconds at the elite level. Yet swimming's shortest race is 21 seconds (for the rest of us, quite a bit more than 21 seconds ...).
I was speaking with some sprint swimming coaches who agreed that even our "splash & dash" 50 free is not a true sprint ... it's close, but the best sprinters actually back off a tiny fraction from their absolute max to maintain a greater speed overall. At my USMS level, the winning times are in the low 25's. There's no way that's a true sprint -- 25 seconds is not entirely ATP-fueled. And while it's mostly anaerobic, is it entirely? Certainly a sub-10 or sub-7 race would be.
Time-wise, our 50 parallels Track & Field's 200 rather than their marquee sprint, the 100.
In my fantasy world, I imagine a 25m race at the international level (swimming through the finish like Track & Field athletes) ... fastest reaction, fastest acceleration, fastest underwater & surface, fastest ABSOLUTE speed.
Before 1988, our "shortest" Olympic race was the 100m!
In swimming, you are maintain the speed from the start in the very beginning of the race.
Interesting reply, Warren. I've sprinted for 40 years and I definitely change speeds in the 50 (as Steve pointed out, I'd fry by 20 meters were I to max out effort)
I find backing off 5% or so after beeakout in the 50m allows me to finish stronger and with a better time. Were it a 10 second race, I'd max out.
In swimming, you are maintain the speed from the start in the very beginning of the race.
Interesting reply, Warren. I've sprinted for 40 years and I definitely change speeds in the 50 (as Steve pointed out, I'd fry by 20 meters were I to max out effort)
I find backing off 5% or so after beeakout in the 50m allows me to finish stronger and with a better time. Were it a 10 second race, I'd max out.
