I was wondering if being tall gives you an advantage in swimming because alot of the olympic male swimmers today are over 6 feet.
What do you guys think?
:D
Former Member
Well, someone gain on me because they were slightly higher in height on the dive and turn. Also, they were 34 versus my 46 and I sacifice some of the underwater pull in breaststroke in order to have oxigen, I still beat them by 7 seconds in the 100 meter. I just was able to kick into gear more in the last 50 meter and they might have less some speed because they stayed down longer in the underwater pull. It can work both ways from gaining from turns.
I'd love to think so, b/c I need all the help I can get (I'm tall for a woman, 5'9"), but I'm still SLOOOOOW... I'd hate to think how much slower I'd be if I were shorter lol!
Former Member
There can be no doubt certain physical characteristics are advantagous to swimming. I'd guess being tall is generally one of them, since longer vessels are faster in a fluid.
I disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to search for what you are looking for, and if a topic is covered in an old post, why not resurrect it? Too many "new" posts plow the same ground plowed in the past -- generally quite thoroughly.
I reference plenty of old threads in new postings if they are pertinent and helpful. Some of this just appears to somewhat like unnecessaryly dragging up many old controversial topics. But whatever. It's a free world and everyone has different posting styles. To each his own.
Former Member
It does, but there are exceptions. I remember as a kid racing a short scrawny-looking dude in the 500 free and before the race thinking I'd have no trouble (I was a tall scrawny-looking dude, used to my height advantage). Well this short kid was an exceptional distance swimmer (5:00 - 5:10 or so at age 13-14) and beat me by quite a bit.
Why not just start a new thread instead of necro-posting absolutely everything?
I disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to search for what you are looking for, and if a topic is covered in an old post, why not resurrect it? Too many "new" posts plow the same ground plowed in the past -- generally quite thoroughly.
Former Member
Thanks, Fort:agree: If you're pushing up daisies *that* old and often...sheesh:snore:
Why not just start a new thread instead of necro-posting absolutely everything?
Former Member
Why not just start a new thread instead of necro-posting absolutely everything?
I've liked reading some of the old threads that have been resurrected. Many of them are discussions I didn't see the first time around.
And I would much rather see someone take the time to read old threads first before starting a new thread on the exact same topic. I wish more people would do that.
Anna Lea
It seems a lot of narrowminded crap is being dredged up from the past of late...
That's an understatement. :blah:
To paraphrase Bill Bowerman, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.