lefty!

Originally posted by Ion Beza (The U.S. Olympic Trials are this year three weeks before the Olympics because the NCAA coaches who voted for this date are selfish about preserving the NCAA first; a better timing is in the case of the Australian Trials, held five months before the Olympics.) I will not comment on the politics (as I am blissfully ignorant). :) The timing of the Trials is debatable. Having early trials (like the Australians) will allow them more time to prepare for the Olympics, but a lot can happen in five months. The best swimmers at the trials may not be the best swimmers by the times Olympics roll around. This might be an interesting topic for discussion. With two big meets (Trials and Olympics), what is the optimal separation?

Of course the other argument used by coaches is the close spacing between Trials and Olympics allows them, personally, to train their swimmers for as long as possible. Of course the flipside of this is you then have a team that only trains together for a couple weeks and doesn't have the team cohesiveness there could be with Trials several months before the Games. Something that comes to mind that isn't exactly the same, but somewhat similar, is conference meets vs. NCAAs for college swimmers. Many swimmers perform better at their conference meet than they do at NCAAs. The thing is there are many factors at work: a "double taper" within a few weeks time, not having your whole team working out and supporting you at NCAAs (except for the few elite teams), and perhaps just the mental strain of getting up for two major meets within a few weeks time. I think it's safe to say it's not a black and white issue. EDIT: Oops, just saw the post above about conference versus Nationals. Some people go faster at NCAAs, many go slower.

I knew it! I knew that my comment there will bring overall interest in this thread. The fact is that the U.S. did the same thing in 2000. 2000 was a good Olympics for the U.S. Swimming though. However, after the Olympics, gold medal winner Tom Dolan (U.S.) deplored this decision for the short span in between Trials and the Olympics and said that it affects the distance swimmers (1500 free and 400 I.M.). Right before the 2000 Olympics, I was posting my take on this short span in nbcolympics.com, and Olympic medals winner Dan Kowalski (Aus.) -a sub 15:00 per 1500 meters free in the 90s- chimed in that the U.S. decision affects the distance swimmers. At the time of the 2000 Olympics, it was public news that Kieren Perkins (Aus.) needed a month of sloppy swim to recover from the muscle tear of a sub 15:00 per 1500 meters free race.

Ion, I won't be at Nats. My wife won't let me go! Actually, I don't want to put that on her: She can't go, and would rather spend my time with her. I will be swimming on a full taper On March 27 and 28. RE: The Olympics Trials. There is only one (small) reason why it is okay for the trials to be 3 weeks out. In 1996 the second qualifier in the 100 fly went a 54 at the Olympics (I am drawing a blank on the name). He was not the 2nd fastest American in August, but he was in March. By holding the trials 3 weeks out, you know that you are getting the top men and women at the Olympics, at the TIME of the Olympics. But yeah, it is selfish NCAA coaches that really create the problem and worse, having 3 full tapers over a period of 5 months just isn't smart. And the reason that it is REALLY selfish is that by acknowledging that swimming NCAA's on a second taper is costly to the college team, they are all but admiting that it is bad for the Olympic squad. GHjr doesn't mince words when he talks about this issue.

By the way lefty, did you swim in Texas with Neil Walker? He is known as having phenomenal flip turns, and being versatile is sprints free, back and fly. He is shooting for the 2004 U.S. Team in sprints free.

Ion, that is a good topic and I remember in 2000 that there was more than distance swimmers complaining. Trying to do a taper for Trials and then hold onto it for the Olympics was very hard for the swimmers. But the other arguements holds water also, you might miss someone who gets hot over the summer. What IS the optimal spacing?

Originally posted by dorothyrd Ion, that is a good topic and I remember in 2000 that there was more than distance swimmers complaining. Trying to do a taper for Trials and then hold onto it for the Olympics was very hard for the swimmers. But the other arguements holds water also, you might miss someone who gets hot over the summer. ... The other argument might work when sprinters are spaced in the Trials by tenths of a second. Then it might be good to assume that the sprinter who is hot will stay hot for three more weeks, in the Olympics itself. It doesn't work that well in distance to have two top races -each one worth tapering for- in one month. Tom Dolan (U.S.) in 400 I.M. managed to stay sharp after the Trials and even got sharper in the Olympics, but he decried this. Erik Vendt (U.S.) did 14:59 in the 1500 free at the Trials, then broke down three weeks later in the Olympics. Chris Thompson (U.S.) got a sluggish for him 1500 free at the Trials, got second and qualified because of lack of better opponenents, then in the Olympics he peaked and nailed a bronze in the 1500 free by outsprinting a Russian in the last 50.

Bwahaha!:p Haha! Look at this: .) Rob (i.e. Rob Copeland), .) Chris (i.e.: croberts), .) Kirk (i.e.: knelson), .) Ian (from the fame of "...the last ion that I know of lost an electron..." that he wrote shortly after I was banned for two weeks last September), .) sparx (offended deeply by Gareth's judgement and still recovering), and .) Fritz (bored to death after a shoulder surgery in November and loss of aerobic conditioning) they browse the forum, and circle this thread with a question in mind: "To post? Or not to post? But to post anyway?..."

Ion, you may want to look at the actual data from 1996 and 2000 Trials and Olympics before claiming that a short time between the two meets is absolutely terrible for distance swimmers. Here's a comparison of the 12 US swimmers performance swimming the distance events (400 IM, 400 FR, W 800 FR, M 1500 FR) in these two years. In 1996, when the Trials were in early March and the Olympics were in late July (about 20 weeks apart), 8 of the US swims were SLOWER in the Olympics than at Trials. There were no American records broken in any of these events at either meet. In 2000, when the Trials were in early August and Olympics in mid September (just 5 weeks apart), only 4 of the US swims were slower in the Olympics than at Trials. There were 4 swims under the American record at Trials (Dolan in the 400 IM, Keller and Carvin in the 400 FR, and Vendt in the 1500). There were then 3 swims under the American record at the Olympics (Dolan in the 400 IM again - in a WR, Keller in the 400 FR, and Thompson in the 1500 FR). Looking just at the extreme distance events (800 and 1500), 3 out of 4 were FASTER at the Olympics in 2000, while 3 out of 4 were SLOWER at the Olympics in 1996. Didn't Phelps also swim WR times in several meets close together last year? Based on this data, I don't agree with your assertion that it is much better for distance swimmers to hold the Trials months before the Olympics.

I heard this in 2000 from people questioning the short turn around, so I don't think that Ion is the only person asserting this. I was just wondering if there is an optimum, or if it really is dependant on each swimmer. I would think that if you taper for the Olympics, then you risk not making it by an up and comer who tapered for Trials. Regardless it will be an interesting year. And I peaked at the thread about the TYR suit, wierd, it reminds me of evening gloves for a formal gown.