lefty!

I'm not saying that Ion was the only one claiming this. I've heard lots of people not happy about the short time between Trials and Olympics. All I'm saying is that this is just the opinion of some of the people. The data between the last two Olympics seems to justify the shorter time between meets. From my own experience, our college conference meet was 2 or 3 weeks before division 3 nationals. I had to fully taper for the conference meet in order to qualify for nationals. In each event in every year, I went faster at nationals 2 or 3 weeks later. The longest event I swam was the 500, and went 5 seconds faster at nationals one year than the conference meet. I do believe that everyone is different. Eric Vendt obviously didn't like the shorter time in 2000, but he was one of only 3 US swimmers who didn't swim faster in a distance event at the Olympics (he swam 2 events, both slower). Tom Dolan may not have liked it, but he did swim a world record at the Olympics. Some people just can't be satisfied!

This: Originally posted by SwimsWithAFist ... 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? ... works well for whoever is dominant at home enough to swim thru the Trials, still qualify and shoot for one taper, the one for the Olympics. In 2000, Tom Dolan (U.S.) in 400 I.M., Chris Thompson (U.S.) in 1500 free, Klete Keller (U.S.) in the 400 free, and now in 2004, Michael Phelps (U.S.) used or use this semi-luxury. This: Originally posted by dorothyrd ... 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. ... is what Erik Vendt's 14:59 in the 1500 free, Chad Carvin's 400 free, up and comer Tommy Hannan (U.S.) in the 100 fly did when they peaked at the 2000 Trials then they were spent and way slower in the 2000 Olympics, and is what could have happened to Kieren Perkins (Aus.) in the U.S. system -because he needs a month of recovery after a sub 15:00 performance for the 1500 free-. A beneficiary of the 2000 short span between Trials and Olympics, Tom Dolan did call the decision for a short span "...irresponsible..." in usswim.org.

In fact, this: Originally posted by dorothyrd ... 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. ... is applicable in the 2004 Olympics in women 100 free: 17 years-old Amanda Weir, Jenny Thompson and Natalie Coughlin have about similar chances to represent U.S. against Inge de Bruijn (Ned.) in the race for gold. Yet, the Olympics take two from the U.S., meaning that Amanda, Jenny and Natalie will taper for the Trials in order to advance a step further and probably will peak out during the Olympics.

This: Originally posted by SwimsWithAFist ... The data between the last two Olympics seems to justify the shorter time between meets. ... I do believe that everyone is different. Eric Vendt obviously didn't like the shorter time in 2000, but he was one of only 3 US swimmers who didn't swim faster in a distance event at the Olympics (he swam 2 events, both slower). Tom Dolan may not have liked it, but he did swim a world record at the Olympics. Some people just can't be satisfied! is true though...

Very interesting discussion on the timing of Olympic Trials. My semi-informed take on this that it depends on whether you want the best swimmers or the best olympic competitors on your national team. Let me explain what I think the difference is. There are some swimmers who have distinguished careers, with multiple National or World Records to their credit, but none in the biggest meet of all--the Olympics--and decidedly disappointing Olympic performances relative to what they were expected to do. Franze Van Almsick would be an example of this; Tracey Caulkins another (of course, she was robbed of her best chance to shine in 1980). They are what I would call great swimmers. Great Olympians are those who have a distinguished career, AND their best performances in the Olympic Games. Let's be honest; the publicity, the attention and the fact you only have a chance once every four years makes the Olympics unlike any other meet, even if all the same competitors show up for a meet like World Championships. Some great swimmers wilt in that atmosphere, others feed off of it. I call those people great olympians. So do you want your team to have the very best swimmers your country has to offer, regardless of whether they do well under pressure? If so, you want a selection committee and no Olympic Trials at all. If you must have a Trials Meet, then you want it as close to the Olympic Games as possible. That way, if you have a talented 15 year old who's just gone through a growth spurt, and figures out how to use his/her new body to set a National Record six weeks before the Olympics, you will get that athlete on your team. That is the "fairest" way to pick your team based on the best performance each swimmer has to offer. On the other hand, do you want athletes with the best chance to medal once they get to the Olympics? If so then you want a high stakes, high pressure Olympic Trials meet. Exactly when that happens is not so important. So what if you have an early Trials, and then Buffy the Butterflyer takes fives seconds off of her personal record 2 months later? Where was that when the pressure was on? If she really is full of youthful potential, she will still be around in four years, and if she is not still around, what does that say about her ability to handle pressure? In contrast, an early Olympic Trials meet means that the people who prove they have what it takes in a high stakes meet can back-off, reset their training, and have the best chance to do their best again for the Olympics. Lefty has a valid point: what coach in their right mind would have a taper plan that called for a mini-taper for a peak performance three weeks prior to the big enchilada? There is no school of thought I've ever heard from the coaching ranks advocating that practice. On the other hand, maybe that is in fact a better way to do it, and we simply have not made the connection yet. As I understand the lore of swimming, the whole idea of a taper was discovered accidentally. So the legend I've heard goes that some college swimmers used to participate in a meet pitting teams from fraternities against each other, and this meet happened a week or some after the varsity team's big conference championship meet. At the time, the practice was to train hard every day up to the actual day of the big meet. Some of the varsity swimmers noticed that they were going faster for the fraternity meet, after a week off, than they did for conference championships. They decided to explore that apperant discrepancy, and now as they say, you know the rest of the story. So, is it possible that you can go faster by peaking for the Olympic Trials, and then riding the high of making the team all the way through the Olympics themselves? Maybe. Anyone have any ideas about how we could test that hypothesis? Matt

I'd almost think "splitting the difference" would be a good approach. Have Trials about three months before the Olympics. This would be a similar time frame as many swimmers are already used to. Many teams at least partially rest for a meet around mid-December, such as U.S. Open, then taper fully for their conference meet or some other big meet in early to mid-March.

Many of the doubters re timing of 2000 and 2004 OT remember the 1988 Olympics and "below expectations" performance of that team. 2000 supports the counter arguement. I don't think it really matters and prefer having trials closer to the Olympics. In 1996, a number of young swimmers who just missed the team would have probably qualified that year. At the end of the day, it really doens't matter that much. Most of these athletes and coaches can adapt.

ION, the only time I swam in the same heat vs N Walker was at Senior Circuit meet. Sr. Circuit is designed to give collegians in Texas meets to attend with out the annoyance of kids under the age of 16 (unless they are fast enough to qualify). Anyhow, in 1997 I entered a best time in the 50M free and was seeded like 2nd or 3rd. Appearantly you are supposed to enter at in-season times, but I didn't get that memo. Anyhow, my heat had 3 future Olympicans, Dusing, J Davis (current), and Walker. I finished 8th in the heat, but went a very good time for me (25.2). Regarding this discussion: It is flat wrong to say that this is not a disadvantage to the US contingent. If you don't think so, then for your next taper meet, start your taper 3 weeks earlier, and then do 3 days of all out speed work 3 weeks before your meet. Does that not sound just plain stupid? These are phenomenal athletes, and they CAN overcome this problem, but to say that it is not a disadvatage is just silly. I know for a fact that Dolan did not taper all the way down for trials in 00 so he can be thrown out. But consider this, Stitts, Walker, Tucker, Moses, Calhoun, Thompson, Goldblat, Rose all added significant time from the OT

To paraphrase Michael Phelps:Give me the events, give me the meet, tell me how to train, and we'll see what I'm made of. I really don't think that the trials date will affect Phelps.

I think the World Cup circuit has proven that at least for those events that a swimmer can swim great on any given week or day. Many new world records were set the last couple of years by swimmers who were having a big meet every week. And there had to be a lot of jet lag and poor training going from Paris to Berlin to Bejing!!! I call it getting RACE HARDENED, and is why Amanda Beard is back and on target again. I feel many great swimmers in the past did not compete enough, tapering once a year and only for a big big meet. There is always going to be great swimmers who just do not swim well during the Olympics. It may not have anything to do with the taper, many variables such as food, sleep, tension, all can have a huge affect on a persons performance.