100 freestyle--how to split the 50s

From what I've witnessed over the years..I think Fisch had a great point...except for the 200. I believe the 200 is all to it's own. No other race it like the 200. It is not a sprint..per say...and it is not mid distanve..per say..I base that on the splits I've watched over the years. Many great 200 swimmers hold down up front..and many have not. In the 100 and 50 they all hold close up front. And the 400/500 on up... they pace. Hey, just my observations over many years...and again... when I looked at my watch or the splits.... it my have been tuned to "The Jetsons."

I swam every event last year in each of the three courses. I'm neither a sprinter, nor a distance swimmer. My favorite events are the 200s. In two of the three 100 freestyles that I did (I don't have a 50 split for the 100LC), the spread between the 50s was 2.1 and 2.4 respectively. My best 200 freestyle however, I evenly split all four 50s. This year when I tried it again I went out too fast and added 1.5-3 seconds for each successive 50. I like the idea brought up about sprinting and distance being two different systems. But my question is, is there a completely different physiological system for us 200 specialists? I'm not one of those fast swimmers (1:04 in 100y free) either, so are our systems different from those of the Anthony Ervin's?

The legendary Laura Val wrote me a direct e-mail regarding splits in the 100, and when I asked her if I could post it, she said yes. In light of what my colleague Bill White has to say about my 50-54 age group, I think Laura's comments are particuarly apropos. Here's our conversation: Laura-- can i post what you wrote me about the splits? it's very interesting and adds great info to the discussion, coming as it does from a certifiable living swimming legend! This is the part I'd like to post: I enjoyed your postings on the 100 free-in fact I ALMOST responded. I even did some calculations on my last good 100 free swims. It is, in fact, my favorite event and I think that's because I have fun playing with the splits (and it rarely hurts). My last SC fast swim was 53.27 and I split 26.17 and 27.10 (diff. 0.93). LC was 1:01.13 splitting 29.83 and 31.30 (diff. 1.47). Essentially, I think those are both pretty close to negative or even splitting with the dive. Anyhow, keep up the interesting posts. --Laura I then asked her this directly: Have you ever tried going all out on the first 50 and seeing if you can hold on to the second? That's what I did (not on purpose) at Nationals in Cleveland-- 28.59 32.26 (dif 3.67--true death!) 1:00.85 Jim To which Laura responded: Hardly a legend-but some may say I'm certifiable. Sure go ahead and post. Yes, as matter of fact I did swim that way for years. When I was younger I had a coach that thought the only way to swim 100 was to go all out. I never broke: 56-and it hurt like heck! I've become a real weenie in my old age and in looking for ways to hurt less, I've also found a way to go faster. Although I thought this was my secret way to swim the 100, it seems from your research that the faster swimmers do not go all out on the first 50. Oh, one other thing, I breathe every stroke on the first 50. I've found it doesn't slow me down too much and it helps avoid the 02 debt on the second. Talk to you later! Laura

Tom and Ian and Val: First of all, I think Tom's "2 second rule of thumb" is, in fact, pretty good guidance. Or at least a starting point for an optimal time differential for most of us. The fact that world record holder Val has a much reduced differential, however, adds more reason than ever for me personally to want to experiment with going out slower myself on the first 50 of a 100. Ian and I make for excellent comparisons because, though Ian is 61 and I am 50, we are biologically both 56 in my estimation--Ian because he is a youthful stud of a Canadian; me because I have been so regularly beaten down by life. I invite my fellow "virtual 56-year-old" Ian to analyze his splits next to mine. This is from the Cleveland Nationals, i.e., a long course meet. Jim's 50m: 27.58 Ian's 50: 27:87 Jim's 100m: 1:00.85 Ian's 100: 1:03.54 first 50 split: 28.59 Ian's 1st 50: 31.08 second 50 split: 32.26 Ian's 2nd 50: 32.46 dif 3.67--true death! dif 1.38--true death? I would argue Ian should have gone out faster; and I should have eased up a bit on the 1st 50; and we both would have done better times. Do you think that if I very carefully argue my case, the Top 10 officials would make the necessary adjustments--and perhaps consider putting me into the 55-59 age group to boot?

Ian-- Just realized we're comparing slightly different things. Me: the difference between the first and second 50 in the 100. You: the difference between the time in the 50 event vs. the first 50 in a 100. Both are interesting to look at. Tom's "2 second rule" refers to my comparison. The yet-to-be-announced rule refers to your comparison. If you look at your statistics, it looks like most swimmers in this small sample group took out the first 50 in their 100 about 1 second or so slower than their all out 50 time. In my case, this was almost exactly how I swam the 100. In your case, you went out almost 3 seconds slower than your 50. So, here's what I propose as a starting point for strategic thinking: A) Go out anywhere from 1-2 seconds slower on the first 50 of a 100 than you can all-out sprint on a 50 alone. This isn't actually as big a gap as it might seem, since in the latter you must do a flip turn before the split registers, whereas on the former your hand touches the wall to stop the clock. B) Swim the second 50 as hard as possible. If your split here is significantly more than 2 seconds slower than your first 50 on this same 100, go out a little slower next time. Example: Best 50 yard time--24 flat. Ideal 1st 50 in 100--25-26 flat. Ideal 2nd 50 in same 100--27-28 flat. Time for 100--52-55 flat. Assuming you can do this, tinker around with the tenths on subsequent races to optimize your personal best. What do you think?

Maybe I missed it, but it seems no one has answered Fisch's question of "how does your 50 time relate to the first 50 of your 100" (or should it even relate). This interests me a lot since at Cleveland I was only 0.22 slower than Jim in the 50 but 2.25 secs slower in the 100. I know I went out too slowly (30.85 vs. a 50 time of 27.80) but are there any 'guidelines' or statistics on how fast to go out on the first 50 of your 100 vs. your 50 time? (these time differences between Jim & myself could be just that I am an old geezer and only train 8000m/week or less) Ian.

Gosh, until after Bill White's post..I thought maybe my stop watch really had been turned to "The Jetsons." In reality, (what an interesting word) everyone swims this race different...except the guys up front. After a very ramdom look back, I found most held close to the 2 sec. rule.

Should have done my homework before the previous post. Given that not all 50 swimmers swam the 100, in the 50-54 at Cleveland, these were the time differences: Place in 100 / Difference 50 Time vs First 50 of 100 (secs) 1 = 1.63 3 = 0.40 4 = 1.15 5 = 1.01 7 = 1.36 The third placer's difference in times destroys the theory that Jim (#5) went out too fast relative to his 50 (unless #3 was cruising his 50)

Jim, Those were my last year's times you used - I've had a whole year to improve and was faster this year. (that's how it works doesn't it?) Nevertheless, still went out 3 seconds slower than the 50 and it seems, from what others do, that this should be more like 1.5 slower. Ian.

more age specific data Jim? 50-54yr old USMS 2002 Results for 100 yd free: Average 50 split-time difference 2.175 secs, smallest 0.74 (10th place), largest 3.37 (5th place). 1st place 2.43 secs.