When a new masters swimmer asked on a different thread for a meters to yard conversion utility, I referred her to the following site:
www.swiminfo.com/.../conversions.asp
Unfortunately, as another poster quickly pointed out, this site will soon be available only to those who pay for it.
I am wondering if someone with some computer savvy could recreate this very useful utility for us masters, then post it in an area of the USMS web site where we could access it for free.
This same area could also include some other useful tools for swimmers. There is, for example, a fun (though perhaps somewhat suspect) "future times predictor" for aging swimmers at:
http://n3times.com/swimtimes/
In addition, my friend and teammate Bill White wrote an Excel spreadsheet (so far not posted on the web) that allows you to easily calculate your 100 pace for distance swims. You can either input the total distance and total time and it will give you your average 100; or you can input the average 100 you hope to swim and the total distance, and it will crank out what your overall time will be if you can hold that pace.
Anyhow, I propose the USMS web site add a new section called something like "Swimmers Tool Box" that collects, in one place, all these useful and/or just fun-to-play-around-with utilities we can come up with. I know many of the posters here are brilliant amateur mathematicians, who enjoy inventing these things; maybe we could even have an annual award for whatever new calculator we users vote as the most interesting! Kind of like a Touring Prize (is that the right name) for swimming math esoterica!
I just noticed that Phil and I are tied for exactly 190 posts. So I am adding this one to go up slightly in the posting competition.
Fritz Lehman, are you the fellow originally from Poland who won the 200 back last summer? If you are, congratulations once more on a superb performance.
Even if you aren't who I'm think of, congratulations! It's nice to know that at least in this one event, the winner was not a fellow who has a swimming suit named after him (and who reportedly refused to shake the hand of the winner either before or after the race.)
PS Tracey--thanks for those conversion sites. Now I don't have to fear when the Swiminfo.com people pull the plug! The altitude one is interesting as well.
Thanks to Jim Clemmons for the link. It's particular good to know that if I can keep an average pace of 49 per hundred, I can possibly finally crack the elusive 8:21 barrier in my 1000!
Actually, what I like about my friend's calculator is that it works for any distance you want. For example, in the 1-hour postal swim, I swam 4996 yards. When I entered this in along with the 60 minute time, it calculated my 100 pace at 1:12.07.
(Now if I can just cut 13.07 seconds off of each 100....)
lefty - Certainly that 200 back race was unusual - it is not often that four swimmers swim under the existing world record!
But all your 4-years of data show is that the cohort that includes Fritz and Bill and a few others is faster than the next older cohort. Perhaps these swimmers are all outliers, but that was also Jim's point. I have no doubt that for several events in the Rutgers meet the men's 45 - 49 age group was faster than the men's 40 - 44, or that the 45 - 49 age group is faster than it was last year. Whether this remains the case for the next several years remains to be seen.
The top ten lists may not be a big enough sample for the needed statistics, as talented outlier swimmers go in and out of the lists.
And no, I don't agree that age accounts for a 6 second difference between the two age groups. That is not the evidence I have seen for me or for other individuals that have been in both age groups.
finally, the aging formula that Jim pointed to was a fun exercise but not scientific at all. I consider it to have slightly more value than astrology, but not much. Still, reading horoscopes can be fun, and I put value on that.
Originally posted by msgrupp
Isn't Swimming World published by the same people who publish SWIM? Or at least when I call the 800# for renewals I always have to specifiy Swim Magazine.
Seems that if you do subscribe to Swim Magazine--you could use your subscriber # (ala People Magazine's website that needs a user ID # from your label) to gain admittance.
They are published by the same people, but when I looked they said the subscription area was only for people who get Swimming World. As I said in the other thread if someone can get me the numbers they had over at swiminfo the program wouldn't be that hard to do. I was hoping for a cache but couldn't find one.
Fritz,
I am not sure what I think about getting older and swimming longer distances slower. The only reason I think that might be the case, is the fact of training time. Personally I only have time to swim 3-4 times per week and maybe 3,500 to 4,500 yards a practice. Not that long yardage is the only answer to success, but I know when I was younger training 7-10 times per week made a great difference in having the base to take a 200 or longer out faster. I know I had more confidence to do it then because I knew I had put in the yardage. I am hoping to train a little more in the next few months to see if I can have a decent 200 back again! :cool:
THe future times predictor is useless. It suggests that your peak is age 19. Not even close. The only way to do this correctly is to take a look at several top 10 lists, get an average and standard deviation for each age group, and compare.
Just my point Phil, I think most of those men just turn 45. So their training back 30 years ago was probably not much different from those 40 to 44. On the hand, the women in the 45 to 49 year old age group have seen some real drops of 2 to 4 seconds in the Qualifing times in a year. I bet that the younger women entering the age group are more likely to have swam either age group or college than those approching 50 years old. A good example of an elite woman is the ex-olympician Shane Gould,she didn't return until her 40's. Does great at 50's and still probably good at 100's about 4 seconds off in them and about 14 to 17 seconds off in the 200's. On the other hand, the fastest women's 200 Im at the same meet in the 45 to 49, Miss Gould got second to Collete Crabbe, who I think started back to swim a little bit earlier.
