100 free time??

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:23:42 GMT

Jim it was not Ryan it was Roger Bannister I watched his race in 1954 The Miracle mile when for the first time 2 guys broke the 4 minute barrier in the same race, Roger Bannister and Australia's John Landy en.wikipedia.org/.../Roger_Bannister It is amazing that times keep dropping. In the 50 yard free, for instance, that one guy broke 19 a couple years ago, then last year, 3 guys in the final heat at NCAAs did it. There's that psychological aspect too--like the first runner who broke the 4 minute mile (Jim Ryan?) opening it up as a possibility for the myriad sub-4 minute milers to come. at some point, times won't be able to drop anymore. what's amazing to me is that we haven't reached that point yet. I think suit technology and better strokes and nutrition and training have all improved light years since Johnny Weismuller's day. Thanks to body suits and streamlining and lower head position, I was able--at age 49--to beat my own high school time in the 200 free. Still, it's hard to believe peak swimming improvement can continue much longer--even as it shows no sign of stopping. At some point, we've gotta hit the Tiger Woods of swimming (maybe it's Phelps?), and then there will necessarily be a lapse before the next Great One takes up swimming (as opposed to some sport that pays more handsomely). It kind of makes you wonder if pharmaceutical assistance has entered the picture.

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:30:52 GMT

At some point, we've gotta hit the Tiger Woods of swimming (maybe it's Phelps?), and then there will necessarily be a lapse before the next Great One takes up swimming (as opposed to some sport that pays more handsomely). ...Genetic engineering...

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:03:41 GMT

I think the ultimate limit for this and any other athletic events will come down to physiology. Perhaps a physicist could calculate how much force would be required to launch a swimmer off the blocks, the walls, and power their arms through the water to swim a 20 sec. 100 yd. free. Can the skeletal structure of the body take that? For example to cover a 25 yd. distance in 5 seconds, how much power would have to be generated just off the blocks? Can a human bone handle that? Or would we need titanium body parts? Would that swimmer have to be able to squat 1000 lbs to do that?

RE: 100 free time??

Muppet — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:39:09 GMT

What's the difference between a Long Course and a Short Course? Long Course = 50m pool (olympics) Short Course = 25m pool - most places in the US swim a 25 yard pool. There is no long course for yards.

RE: 100 free time??

jim thornton — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:25:35 GMT

It is amazing that times keep dropping. In the 50 yard free, for instance, that one guy broke 19 a couple years ago, then last year, 3 guys in the final heat at NCAAs did it. There's that psychological aspect too--like the first runner who broke the 4 minute mile (Jim Ryan?) opening it up as a possibility for the myriad sub-4 minute milers to come. at some point, times won't be able to drop anymore. what's amazing to me is that we haven't reached that point yet. I think suit technology and better strokes and nutrition and training have all improved light years since Johnny Weismuller's day. Thanks to body suits and streamlining and lower head position, I was able--at age 49--to beat my own high school time in the 200 free. Still, it's hard to believe peak swimming improvement can continue much longer--even as it shows no sign of stopping. At some point, we've gotta hit the Tiger Woods of swimming (maybe it's Phelps?), and then there will necessarily be a lapse before the next Great One takes up swimming (as opposed to some sport that pays more handsomely). It kind of makes you wonder if pharmaceutical assistance has entered the picture.

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:05:12 GMT

When Clark Kent starts swimming masters the records will start to tumble.

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:26:37 GMT

lcm- 46.00 scy-40.00

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:09:24 GMT

en.wikipedia.org/.../World_record_progression_100m_freestyle There's the progression of World Records for 100m Freestyle for the last 102 years. What's the difference between a Long Course and a Short Course?

RE: 100 free time??

art_z — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:59:32 GMT

with times being measured to the hundreth of a second, over time, even very minute drops in time will be possible well into the future. 100m free is a long race, 47 or so seconds currenty. there is ample opportunity with the anticipated advances in science to keep chipping away at the record, even in ever so much smaller slices (thousanths of a second?)

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:00:03 GMT

Originally posted by Leonard Jansen The problem is that while this is a valid mathematical exercise, it is a bit problematic as a useful exercise. -LBJ Well, biggest part of the battle would be identifying and quantifying all the elements that affect out movement, then our movement through the water. Also, one would have to understand and mathematically quantify the limits of what the human body is capable. Some of the problems in the setup of the whole thing is that scientifically we are still dealing with couple of unknowns... First would be the potential limits of what the human body is capable of (Do I sniff out a huge debate potential here). And, do we take an average human body, or do we attempt to model an ideal athlete, and what is an ideal athlete? (yeap, that could create a mega-debate just there) The other problem is that certain elements of water's physical properties (like some details of turbulent flow and water viscosity)are still fuzzy to scientists. Some good research potential there. It would be a very interesting exercise to conduct some tests and then try to scientifically model the extremes. I'm guesstimating doing this would only be about 20 times as complex as designing a space shuttle ;) Isn't there a university somewhere that is doing this kind of research already? Oh Great, now you got me thinking about grad school again...

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:39:57 GMT

I find this a very interesting question also. Would the record progression over the years not reflect those things that you say are being assumed to be held constant from this point on? Have there not been paradigmatic shifts in technique, training, rules, or other variables over the years that the records have been kept? And, therefore, nullify that argument that one would need to assume no shifts in technique, training, rules etc? One other thought. Once that ultimate record has been obtained, then what?

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:16:23 GMT

Originally posted by jim thornton It's a very interesting question. Perhaps if someone with algebraic skills and the history of the 100 m world record (this might be a better distance to look at because more people have swum it), you could plot the performances over time. I would assume the rate of improvement has been slowing, and you might be able to come up with some sort of asymtote type line we'll likely never, as a species, bust through. The problem is that while this is a valid mathematical exercise, it is a bit problematic as a useful exercise. The reason is that this assumes that there can be no paradigmatic shifts in technique, training, rules, or other variables. Still, it might be fun. If I can find a site with the records progression and I have a few minutes (not likely at this time of year, but...), I'd like to look at this problem. I suspect that the theoretical limit is more complicated and based on a combination of the following: a) How fast can one react to the starting signal. b) How far can one go in the air at the start. c) What is the theoretical limit for underwater speed given one's anthropometric data, up to the legal limit for staying under water. d) What is the theoretical limit for speed for being on top of the water. (Approx 1 body length per second, I believe.) e) How quickly can one make a flip turn. f) How much velocity can be generated off that flip turn and how much streamlining can be affected off the turn. As was discussed in another thread, I'd bet that all things being equal, height will be a strongly correlated factor (it might have a slight negative correlation for a) and e)). -LBJ

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:02:39 GMT

And I can predict that I won't take anything off of Geek.

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:47:15 GMT

Yes and couldn't you build an interval around the event to take into consideration that the magnitude of the event would probably vary. The S stands for my first name. LOL Elaine

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:43:42 GMT

There is a very nice discussion of the 100m men's running WR at: members.optusnet.com.au/.../sprintlogistic.htm

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:33:50 GMT

Elaine (What does the "S." stand for, BTW) - Sort of and no. For past events, if you have no knowledge other than the date a record was set and the time, all you can do is see how far it deviates from what might have been "expected" at that time and then set a threshold beyond which we decide that something earthshaking has occured. For example, if we go back far enough to when the 100m record was done as breastroke and then see the first time the record was set as crawl (or some variant), I'd bet the this would give a deviation on the extrapolation of the breaststroke curve that would be very sharp. But without knowledge of exactly what occured to get that deviation you can only give a mathematical interpretation of "paradigm shift". With knowledge of all paradigm shifts, then you can come up with a closer definition of these shifts, but again, you can't define them with certainty even then. (Example: A genetic mutation, a la the Foundation Trilogy, occurs.) As to the future, although you can look at the effect of a change of x.x standard deviations off an extrapolated curve, it presupposes that this will, or even can, occur. So, for example, if we presuppose that a new technique will be invented that supercedes the crawl, we can get a rough approximation based on the past. But, is it likely and is it likely to be of that magnitude? Probably not. If I have some time on Monday, I will try to investigate this a bit. -LBJ

RE: 100 free time??

ArtShark — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:34:56 GMT

I'm not sure how fast the time will be, but I bet Paul Trevisan will be the closest 50 yr old to it!

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:44:37 GMT

no I'm not saying it can predict the future. Can you identify when an event caused a change in times through an analysis of the times? Can you identify the magniture that event had on the times? Then can you, in an analysis that predicts future times consider the impact of an event the magnitude of a past event?

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:53:05 GMT

Elaine - No, the shifts of yesterday can not predict the shifts of the future. For example, in the pole vault, poles were originally bamboo and then they went to steel. Despite the fact that people assumed that there would eventually be a change in materials to something better, no one then could have forseen the degree to which fiberglass and composites could have changed things. As another example, look at the backstroke and what Berkoff (sp?) did with his underwater start. That was almost completely unexpected from what had gone in the past. There are other analogies: Fosbury flop in the high jump, Mexican technique in the racewalks circa 1974-1976, etc. Sadly, the development of better performance enhancing drugs will play a role as will the eventual use of *shudder* gene therapy. All these can completely throw away any possibility of prediction of a limit based on past and present performances. The Asimov Foundation analogy is a very good analogy, BTW, if you are familiar with it. (Highly recommended, but you can NOT skip ahead and read the end or you will have to do breath-holding sets till you puke.) So, if Ian Thorpe and Janet Evans get married and have kids with size 28 feet, take hideous drugs, come up with a new tfreestyle echnique and eat their Wheaties, we can expect the middle and distance world records as we understand them, to go bye-bye in a dramatic, not incremental, way. -LBJ

RE: 100 free time??

aquageek — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:07:43 GMT

In the future I predict the following with certainty: I will annoy the Bug on this forum. I will pay too much in taxes. I will die. Other than that, it's really just for fun to guess. I know what the S stands for but I can't tell anyone.

RE: 100 free time??

aquageek — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:39:47 GMT

This thread reminds me of the Foundation sereis by Isaac Aasimov.

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:12:16 GMT

Originally posted by sparx35 WHEN time takes on full circle and human beings return to where we originated ....the sea and develop fins and fish like features ....check out dolphin(mammals)100 times..about 10 seconds...yep thats what im aiming for in 2004...!!!!!! Would that be in this, or some other parallel universe? ;) Now you made me think of Schrodinger's "Cat in the box". If that cat is alive, how fast could it swim? Ugh, I have work to do, I can't be thinking about that cat now... ;)

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:58:19 GMT

I would think that 36 seconds would be tops. Out in 8 then 9.25, 9.3 9.3 = 35.85 In the year 2030?

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:22:32 GMT

did i start a thread recently titled...AMBITION...Hmmmmmm....

RE: 100 free time??

Former Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:07 GMT

WHEN time takes on full circle and human beings return to where we originated ....the sea and develop fins and fish like features ....check out dolphin(mammals)100 times..about 10 seconds...yep thats what im aiming for in 2004...!!!!!!