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!
One final thing: it is too late for this year, but in two years' time (the next "Rules" year) I would be put this before the Records and Tabulation Committee to see if they want to submit a rule change proposal to add 25s and longer events for results/record tabulation. It is quite likely I will no longer be chair at the time -- and in any event, the chair cannot make motions directly -- but this sort of thing probably falls within the purview of the committee since essentially you are proposing that we start tracking results, Top 10 and records.
Just so people understand the process: rule change proposals go to the Rules Committee. They may make changes to improve clarity, ensure conformity with existing rules, clean up the rationale, etc (in collaboration with the proposing body mostly), and then they vote on whether to recommend the rule for passage. If they do recommend, then a simple majority of the House of Delegates would pass the rule; if they recommend against passage, then the bar is higher (I think a two-thirds majority is needed from the HOD but I'd have to look that up).
For a rule change to pass in an "off" year, the Rules Committee has to deem it an emergency and then I think a 90% majority is needed to pass. Or something like that; I'm being lazy and not looking it up right now...
Thanks Chris!
One final thing: it is too late for this year, but in two years' time (the next "Rules" year) I would be put this before the Records and Tabulation Committee to see if they want to submit a rule change proposal to add 25s and longer events for results/record tabulation. It is quite likely I will no longer be chair at the time -- and in any event, the chair cannot make motions directly -- but this sort of thing probably falls within the purview of the committee since essentially you are proposing that we start tracking results, Top 10 and records.
Just so people understand the process: rule change proposals go to the Rules Committee. They may make changes to improve clarity, ensure conformity with existing rules, clean up the rationale, etc (in collaboration with the proposing body mostly), and then they vote on whether to recommend the rule for passage. If they do recommend, then a simple majority of the House of Delegates would pass the rule; if they recommend against passage, then the bar is higher (I think a two-thirds majority is needed from the HOD but I'd have to look that up).
For a rule change to pass in an "off" year, the Rules Committee has to deem it an emergency and then I think a 90% majority is needed to pass. Or something like that; I'm being lazy and not looking it up right now...
Thanks Chris!
