This story was going really well until the very end. I hoped the conclusion would describe how she let go of needing to be comparatively great just to make swimming worthwhile. Instead she threw in that nutty thing about being in the "top five."
I never competed at anything when I was young, entered my very 1st swim meet at 68. A heart defect prohibited me (unnecessarily) from even participating in any sports until I was about 30. But I do understand the competitive fire. Swimming is the only sport I have seen where middle aged people can come anywhere close to, not to mention exceeding their younger times.
A few decades ago I was a track & field coach, and I organized "masters" teams for the corporate cup relays. I spent much of the year trying to motivate formerly competitive athletes to return to good form, sprinters, middle distance runners, throwers, jumpers. Those who were most reluctant were those who performed at the highest levels when young. They knew they could never come close to college times and seemed to be somehow embarrassed by being a lesser athlete than they once had been. Those who were most enthusiastic were the ones who came into competitive form rather late and were still seeing improvements.
I hoped the conclusion would describe how she let go of needing to be comparatively great just to make swimming worthwhile.
It was pretty clear to me well before the end that she was not heading down that road. Different strokes for different folks and all, but honestly I didn't like the article very much.
For many who swam competitively at a high level during their youth and college years, the competition is a big part of why they started training again. For me, I started training for health reasons but once I started to get in shape and find some speed, I was bit by the competitive bug and I, too, feel like a young age grouper trying to hit a time and place high in meets....and I'm hitting my original goal of better health and fitness.
At the same time I train with swimmers my age who are every bit as fast as me, or faster, and they have no interest in competing....to each their own....but the story does touch some of us who spent so much time in the pool so long ago, and have rediscovered the thrill in swimming competitively.
... I compared the #1 and #10 swims in the 2016 SCY USMS Top Ten listing with the American Record for the event in 1981 (when someone who was 55 in 2016 would have been 20). For the women the #1 time was 24% slower than the 1981 record and the #10 time was 32% slower. For men, #1 was 14% slower, and #10 was 25% slower.
The 1981 American records were 52.93 by Steve Lundquist and 1:01.13 by Tracy Caulkins, by the way.
I wonder how fast Lundquist and Caulkins could swim 100 SCY *** today if they took say 12-18 months to train. I'd bet they would crush the USMS records.
I have sometimes thought about what swimmers I would like to see do masters, Mary T. would be very high on my list.
It depends upon the swimmer. Male swimmers are usually able to hold the times better than women in their 50's. The top female swimmers in the 55 to 59 and 60 to 64 are swimming really good in a 100 yard breaststroke if they swim under 1:20. Some of these women as kids swam 1:10 to 1:13 when they were young. None do that in their age group since the record I think for 55 to 59 year old women is 1:13.
I'd hate to make this assumption purely based on the results from a single event, but the 100 *** in the 55-59 age group does support your claim. I compared the #1 and #10 swims in the 2016 SCY USMS Top Ten listing with the American Record for the event in 1981 (when someone who was 55 in 2016 would have been 20). For the women the #1 time was 24% slower than the 1981 record and the #10 time was 32% slower. For men, #1 was 14% slower, and #10 was 25% slower.
The 1981 American records were 52.93 by Steve Lundquist and 1:01.13 by Tracy Caulkins, by the way.
I never competed at anything when I was young, entered my very 1st swim meet at 68. A heart defect prohibited me (unnecessarily) from even participating in any sports until I was about 30. But I do understand the competitive fire. Swimming is the only sport I have seen where middle aged people can come anywhere close to, not to mention exceeding their younger times.
A few decades ago I was a track & field coach, and I organized "masters" teams for the corporate cup relays. I spent much of the year trying to motivate formerly competitive athletes to return to good form, sprinters, middle distance runners, throwers, jumpers. Those who were most reluctant were those who performed at the highest levels when young. They knew they could never come close to college times and seemed to be somehow embarrassed by being a lesser athlete than they once had been. Those who were most enthusiastic were the ones who came into competitive form rather late and were still seeing improvements.
It depends upon the swimmer. Male swimmers are usually able to hold the times better than women in their 50's. The top female swimmers in the 55 to 59 and 60 to 64 are swimming really good in a 100 yard breaststroke if they swim under 1:20. Some of these women as kids swam 1:10 to 1:13 when they were young. None do that in their age group since the record I think for 55 to 59 year old women is 1:13.
There must be a reason that not many "world class" swimmers come back into master to "crush" records. They have had their time as top flight swimmers and now prefer to help others or relax. I have witnessed some that have done crushing times and it is awe inspiring and humbling.
