Does anyone else swim open water times that seem to be ... a bit faster than physically possible? Here's my dilemma: I swam the Big Shoulders 5K this past weekend at Chicago. My time was fast, REAL FAST, 1:10.04. Or to put it another way, if I swam a pool 1500m (an event less than one third the distance) at that pace, I'd shatter my PR by almost a minute, or if I swam a pool 800m at that pace, I would beat my most recent swim at LC Nationals by 8 seconds. Now, I believe in the power of positive thinking, and Total Immersion, etc., etc... But, this is so far beyond the realm of the plausible, I am not certain whether I should be crowing or questioning.
It would be easy to assume that the course was simply measured a tad short, but this is not the first time I have had an open water swim bordering on fantatsy. Three years ago I swam a salt-water 3K in 40:20'ish, which again is a pace that would have shattered my 1500 PR, and is substantially faster than the pool 800 I swam 7 days before. I asked the meet organizers about this, and they assured me that this is the same, closely measured course they use for several open water swims each year, and that the added buoyancy from salt-water could account for the difference. I accepted that answer at the time, but now that I appear to have duplicated this feat in fresh water, I am wondering again.
To get to the point: does anyone else find that they are prone to swimming in open water at a pace they cannot duplicate in shorter pool events? Does anyone have any ideas about what might cause this?
Matt
Parents
Former Member
hey phil, my guess is that you are closer than anyone would think; if ya'll'l permit me a little background, including the fact that I was born on the shores of Lake Michigan, and know not only that it is deep, but also in some times and places it is shallow. Like, at the Ohio Street Beach it was very shallow when I swam the Big Shoulders at this time of year 2000, so shallow that I was touching the bottom from time to time on the return leg along the shore line. (As an aside, the original results showed me as having finished somewhere in the top 10 or 20, until I mentioned that I had gone for the 2500 rather than the 5000). Anyway, besides being very shallow at the time, the weather was perfect with very little wavelits and the water temperature delightful. I don't remember what the thermometer said.
But, to get to the point of the present question. I have taken the time to compare the times of the swimmers who swam the Big Shoulders in 2000 with those same swimmers times in 2002.
Thus in Matt's age group only 4 had swum both but their times were better by 12, 7, 2, and 11 minutes than the 2000 times. Moreover, seven of the same group had swum it in 2001 with times that were between 2000 and 2002, with only one of them not following the pattern. Since it is a public record I'll mention names, with times first in 2000, 2001, then 2002,leaving out the hour and seconds :
Reeves 14, 12, 02. Layton 16, 15, 08. Platt 24, 28, 22. Schleifman 38, 33, 27. Those who swam only 2001 and 2002 were Mathieu who went from 21 to 08; Gibson from 14 to 10. Lundeen 18 to 13.
In the next age group, comparing times of all the men who swam it in 2000 and 2002 there were 10 out of 17 who swam it 2002.
Times went from 8 to 2 for Drake, 17 to 13 for Martin, 23 to 13 for Carpenter, 28 to 18 for (not Emmett) Hines, 33 to 20 for Richard of Ft.Wayne whose last name is listed variously as Cater and Carter, Kent Kirk from 37 to 24, Bertke from 43 to 28, Cornwell form 38 to 33, Berquist from 39 to 34, and Grogan from 51 to 47.
Similar time differences happened in ALL of the men who swam both 2000 and 2002 with times between for those who swam in 2001.
So, apparently the evidence is overwhelming that the course was absolutely ideal this year. And I would guess that the water was both deeper and cleaner, recalling that it was pretty murky two years ago, with some light rain before most had finished, if my memory serves true. With the glassy smooth surface, ya'll could breath without the extra headlift that is so slowing, and the good vision would have been comforting.
Just to show that I didn't ignore the women entirely in this instance, I'll mention that one of them swam the course in a time that was faster in 2000 by eighteen hundredths of a second (.18)!
hey phil, my guess is that you are closer than anyone would think; if ya'll'l permit me a little background, including the fact that I was born on the shores of Lake Michigan, and know not only that it is deep, but also in some times and places it is shallow. Like, at the Ohio Street Beach it was very shallow when I swam the Big Shoulders at this time of year 2000, so shallow that I was touching the bottom from time to time on the return leg along the shore line. (As an aside, the original results showed me as having finished somewhere in the top 10 or 20, until I mentioned that I had gone for the 2500 rather than the 5000). Anyway, besides being very shallow at the time, the weather was perfect with very little wavelits and the water temperature delightful. I don't remember what the thermometer said.
But, to get to the point of the present question. I have taken the time to compare the times of the swimmers who swam the Big Shoulders in 2000 with those same swimmers times in 2002.
Thus in Matt's age group only 4 had swum both but their times were better by 12, 7, 2, and 11 minutes than the 2000 times. Moreover, seven of the same group had swum it in 2001 with times that were between 2000 and 2002, with only one of them not following the pattern. Since it is a public record I'll mention names, with times first in 2000, 2001, then 2002,leaving out the hour and seconds :
Reeves 14, 12, 02. Layton 16, 15, 08. Platt 24, 28, 22. Schleifman 38, 33, 27. Those who swam only 2001 and 2002 were Mathieu who went from 21 to 08; Gibson from 14 to 10. Lundeen 18 to 13.
In the next age group, comparing times of all the men who swam it in 2000 and 2002 there were 10 out of 17 who swam it 2002.
Times went from 8 to 2 for Drake, 17 to 13 for Martin, 23 to 13 for Carpenter, 28 to 18 for (not Emmett) Hines, 33 to 20 for Richard of Ft.Wayne whose last name is listed variously as Cater and Carter, Kent Kirk from 37 to 24, Bertke from 43 to 28, Cornwell form 38 to 33, Berquist from 39 to 34, and Grogan from 51 to 47.
Similar time differences happened in ALL of the men who swam both 2000 and 2002 with times between for those who swam in 2001.
So, apparently the evidence is overwhelming that the course was absolutely ideal this year. And I would guess that the water was both deeper and cleaner, recalling that it was pretty murky two years ago, with some light rain before most had finished, if my memory serves true. With the glassy smooth surface, ya'll could breath without the extra headlift that is so slowing, and the good vision would have been comforting.
Just to show that I didn't ignore the women entirely in this instance, I'll mention that one of them swam the course in a time that was faster in 2000 by eighteen hundredths of a second (.18)!
