The Fastest Age

Originally posted by lefty The masters swimmers who compete at meets are as a whole faster than the ones who do not. So in fact your post supports his irrelevent argument. Actually, it emphasizes just how irellevant the initial argument is.

Originally posted by dorothyrd If you take two 50 year old Masters swimmers of same natural starting ability, but one who swam as an age grouper, one who started as an adult, I think the age group swimmer probably would have an advantage, but not because of some VO2 theory. Yes, you summarized my point quite well in this statement!!! Thanks, :)

Originally posted by Dennis Tesch Aquageek, I probably wasn't very clear about people not learning anything from these forums..... you are right in how we present our information. There is a great deal of knowledge and information within these threads.... You just have to have a good filter. And to add to that, anytime you're talking on the internet it never hurts to have thick skin ;)

Originally posted by Ian The fastest time for the 10 and younger girls (USS) in 2003, was 26.24, 57.49, 2:01.25, and 5:20.03, in the 50, 100, 200 and 500 freestyle, respectively. These times are fast compared to the major principal involved in this discussion. What is the reason these little girls, who I picture to be around 4’ 10” and weigh about 80 lbs, swim so fast? Do they have phenomenal VO2max? Do they have extra ordinary strength? What other way can you explain these times other than they have good coaches and good technique? The reason is the top swimmers, regardless of age, are physiologically and mentally superior to the rest of it. Whether it's VO2 max, ability to process lactic acid, mental toughness, or some combination of these and other things I don't know. I think everyone reaches a point in their swimming career where they realize no matter what they do, they will never be faster than some others. OK, Michael Phelps, et al don't, but us mere mortals do. This isn't to say that world record holders didn't train hard to get there, but there are many people who train exceptionally hard, work on technique, etc. and never achieve that level of success. Just like we can't all be Bill Gates in the business world, we can't all be Michael Phelps or Natalie Coughlin in the pool. You've just got to accept that and instead strive to be the best you can be.

Originally posted by mattson Lefty, in the same way I can find your comment "just stupid". Let's say we have two 50 year olds. The first started swimming at age 30, and has been swimming to the present. The second swam for four years in high school, stopped swimming, and only started again last year. Are you saying that the first person, with twenty years of swimming experience, is at a disadvantage compared to the person who only swam 5 years (total)? Your question is a lot better than Lefty's, although I think it could be worded even better: Let's say that we have two 50-year-olds. The first swam competitively in high school for four years, stopped swimming, and only started again last year. The second started swimming competitively at age 45, and since that time has had the same amount of training per year and the same quality of coaching that a typical high school swimmer would have. Is the second person at a disadvantage compared with the first? Bob

I won't address all the nonsense above, just this one below: Originally posted by mattson ... Let's say we have two 50 year olds. The first started swimming at age 30, and has been swimming to the present. The second swam for four years in high school, stopped swimming, and only started again last year. Are you saying that the first person, with twenty years of swimming experience, is at a disadvantage compared to the person who only swam 5 years (total)? Obviously I am closer to the person with twenty years of experience, at seventeen years of experience. I think that I am faster than over 90% of the Masters Swimmers in U.S. (i.e.: less than 4,000 are faster than me), many who have been swimming in high school, because of my training quality. The ones that are faster than me and that I don't overtake were also swimming in high school at a high level that they developed then -not later, according to me speaking to many, not all of them but anough to generalize- and kept to a degree. As for the front quadrant in Total Immersion, read in page 47: "...One hand doesn't start until the other one's nearly back...". You got your near 0 degrees apart, righ here. In 'Swimming Dynamics' by Colwin in page 176, it reads: "...When Kieren sprints (i.e.: Kieren Perkins (Aus.), the second fastest 1500 freestyler in history) ... he retards his timing by bringing the pulling hand further back before the other hand enters. When his hand enters, his left hand will be level with his shoulder..." You got your near 180 degrees apart of the rotary stroke, right here in Kieren Perkins' sprinting -who went 50 seconds in 100 free in the early 90s-. (I gave Perkins' example one and a half years ago, but you didn't learn it.) Also read and look at the images shown in page 16 of the Swimming Technique of April-June 2003, 'Overlapping and Rotary Strokes' by Colwin.

Originally posted by Bob McAdams Your question is a lot better than Lefty's,... ... Bob I don't think that Mark's question is better. Mark's question I addressed it. Here is a better question for you: how many U.S. Olympic Trials winners did you get so far who started swimming in their late 20s? Any? Because that's 'zero', to lower the standard of swimming, here is the best question for you: how high one who started swimming in late 20s ranks in USMS in men 40 to 44, say last year?

Originally posted by mattson ... The fact that you used the word "anchor", without a definition, shows that there are at least two people who have the same understanding of the term. ;) Ships don't anchor in deep water without catching ground. Similarly swimmers don't anchor in deep water without catching the lane line, or the pool's floor. Materially speaking swimmers don't anchor anything. You use the term 'anchor' metaphorically. Swimmers pull (or crawl) their body thru water.

A quick note after observing the last posts is: .) unlike Paul says, I do have above-average flexibility as medically measured on dry land -I kept the results file, and I work on my flexibility every morning-, but Paul refers to what lack of flexibility he sees in the water, which is a part of technique; even in the water, watching my kick explode and hips roll show blatant flexibility and technique, but again Paul catches on the lack of technique that is glaring to him, start, turns, streamline and bilateral breathing; however, I emphasize again, that swimming fast is not ballet; there are examples of past fast swimmers and now of current fast swimmers (Hoogenband and Ervin) who lack the abstract 'technique' of being symetrical, streamlined after the turns and good starts and are fast mainly on fitness -which I theorize here is VO2Max-; .) front-quadrant swimming is described as having both arms in the front quadrant; rotary swimming is not front quadrant swimming, the arms are shown at all times of a cycle in the Swimming Technique of May/June 2003 as being in opposition, almost 180 degrees apart, one in the front quadrant and the other in the rear quadrant; to achieve this opposition, there is no pause after the front arm entered the water (unlike T.I. recommends), the arm has to pull the body in the water as fast as the other arm travels in the air; this is why the rotary style is faster, more muscular and tiring than the ovelapping style; (here is more technique that you are used too, already.) .) I do more technique in the workouts where I am than what it is said in this forum; the program where I am since November 2002 has more technique incorporated in it that what I have seen done everywhere else in USMS in eight years; how far does technique compared to conditioning take a late bloomer? not far; even in this forum I snicker at the proponents of technique who I know -don't let me name them, because they feel good to say 'technique'- that they remain slow; technique is second to conditioning, not first; from what I read coming off U.S. Swimming sources, it is conditioning that drives technique, not vice-versa; .) regarding my 'irrelevent' comment on 90% of Masters Swimmers being slower than me, I don't think it is irrelevent; it is a measure of character tenacity; Champions like Popov and Salnikov became such after their age-group swimming because of their character, not because of their natural ability compared to others; At my level, I despise -to their face- people who don't have the character to do things with the goal of improvement when they resort to cop out excuses and duck challenges in what they say that they do; .) to address what was posted in addition to my note here, I have to think...

Originally posted by aquageek ... Here are the columns to populate: A - Story I told ... The stories that I mention in my post above your quote. To begin only.