I am okay with it in principle; while I don't really enjoy watching 50s, it might allow swimmers like Missy Franklin more time to rest between the "real" events. :)
But I am not sure about this philosophy of "striking while the iron is hot." There are already those who complain about the overabundance of swimming events, and adding more might lead to overdose.
We already have the four 200s, the 400 IM, the 400 free, the two distance free events and the open water swims. Sprinters just have five events.
50s would be fantastic. And maybe the US wouldn't focus so much on mid-D and actually win a 400 free relay.
Distance swimmers only really have two true distance events: the 800/1500 and the 10K OW. The 400 is quasi-distance (it is still pretty anaerobic); the 200s are definitely not distance events.
The reason mid-D training is popular is that it covers the largest subset of swimming events, especially long course where the 100s are a little less sprint-like.
I am okay with it in principle; while I don't really enjoy watching 50s, it might allow swimmers like Missy Franklin more time to rest between the "real" events. :)
But I am not sure about this philosophy of "striking while the iron is hot." There are already those who complain about the overabundance of swimming events, and adding more might lead to overdose.
We already have the four 200s, the 400 IM, the 400 free, the two distance free events and the open water swims. Sprinters just have five events.
50s would be fantastic. And maybe the US wouldn't focus so much on mid-D and actually win a 400 free relay.
Distance swimmers only really have two true distance events: the 800/1500 and the 10K OW. The 400 is quasi-distance (it is still pretty anaerobic); the 200s are definitely not distance events.
The reason mid-D training is popular is that it covers the largest subset of swimming events, especially long course where the 100s are a little less sprint-like.
