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!
For one thing a race ending in the middle of the pool would require a completely different timing setup and this would be way too costly...Then why not have it start in the middle instead of end there? You could run it like Sailing, where part of your race tactics is to hit the starting line at full speed just as the horn sounds. If you cross the start line too early you are DQ’ed.
For one thing a race ending in the middle of the pool would require a completely different timing setup and this would be way too costly...Then why not have it start in the middle instead of end there? You could run it like Sailing, where part of your race tactics is to hit the starting line at full speed just as the horn sounds. If you cross the start line too early you are DQ’ed.
