The Fastest Age

Originally posted by kaelonj ... The challenge I presented was for me to find a succesful Master swimmer (meaning someone who has made a top ten USMS time) who did not swim during their premium growth year (13 to 19) for VO2 max. If I could find such, then this would prove that your VO2 max handicap is a lame excuse, if I couldn't find such then I would have to give you credit your claim is true. Once again the ball is in your court. ... Jeff How is the ball in my court? The ball is in your court: you didn't find. (As for your claim in the thread on VO2Max that was deleted that Hoogenband is ranked in the 20s in 400 free last year because he is changing events from sprint to middle distance, as opposed to my claim that he is ranked in the 20s in the 400 free last year because of doing overdistance, I am right and you are wrong: Hoogenband went a blistering 48.96 in 100 free a few days ago, showing that he is focusing on it; so last year was overdistance like I said.)

In response to "Doc" saying he had never seen a fast distance swimmer with bad technique....Sorry....I have! They worked VERY hard and built their endurance up to compensate. But, I understand the point you are making. You just shouldn't categorize sprinters as a whole as being lazy and having poor technique. I kinda take that personal because I am a sprinter/middle distance swimmer. I constantly work hard and on my technique!

Just so we can set the world record for most beatings to a dead horse... Concerning technique vs VO2 Max: Most top coaches in any sport you care to name teach technique FIRST and then work on endurance/power/speed/etc. I worked with almost every Olympic sport in my previous career in Sports Science/Medicine with the USOC and this was a constant. If your technique is good, you gain the most from the endurance/power/etc that you have available to you. You also can generally train more with less chance of injury. Dumping an Indy car engine into a Ford F-350 isn't going to make the F-350 go 200+ MPH, even though the Indy engine has about twice the horsepower of the F-350. It just isn't in the correct "shape" (and weight) for it. (Not that my wife hasn't tried to get ours to 200 MPH...) -LBJ

Originally posted by gull80 ...although I did read in TI that your arms/shoulders are much less important than your core muscles (which I still find hard to believe). But you do understand the analogy to golf / baseball, yes? I remember a P.E. class where the volleyball coach pointed out that "throwing like a girl" happens when you lead with the same leg as your throwing arm. You are unable to get your torso muscles involved in the throwing/hitting motion. A fastball pitcher gets the high leg kick, drives the torso, and then whips the arm to get the baseball at high speed. You still need strong arm muscles (to transfer the power), and a lot of coordination to get the muscle groups working together. You *can* throw a baseball with just your arm (without involving the core muscles), but the ball would not go nearly as fast. The same principle applies when you are playing water polo, and are unable to touch a solid surface. (I actually throw much better in the water than I do on land. :) )

Random thoughts: Paul, do you know Kyle Quinn, from Ireland? I think that he swam at UCSB in the mid/late 80's. I asked my 10 year old cousin which matters more, talent or hard work. He said hard work. Isn't naivity beautiful. Two swimmers from my high school went under 21 in the 50 free. Neither of them worked out worth a crap. Still I find Ion's theory on VO2 to be quite compelling. It should be pointed out that good technique takes considerably more energy than bad technique. WHen I squat 250,my form is much sloppier than when I squat 200. Some people may surmise that I would do 250 eaiser if I cleaned up my technique, but I can't under that stress load. I have been thinking alot about the statement "Popov's hands exit further than where they entered (the water)." That is a good indication of superior technique. How can I capitalize on this new thought? Lezak's stroke is also questionable. Quite unbalanced. I don't know, some people just "have it."

Originally posted by Ion Beza front-quadrant swimming is described as having both arms in the front quadrant; It may be described that way by you, but it is not described that way by the experts. Open your copy of Total Immersion again to page 47 and read the first sentence at the top of the page: "FQS swimming means always keeping one or the other of your hands in that front quadrant." One or the other - not both! 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; And, as I noted previously, that can be front quadrant swimming if the recovering hand enters the front quadrant as the stroking hand leaves it. technique is second to conditioning, not first; I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'll respond with something that I think is very clear: If you work on conditioning before you get your technique right, you will be engraining your bad technique so indelibly that you will have a terrible time breaking out of it. And if you do succeed in breaking out of it, you are likely to find that your conditioning was largely a waste of time because you were conditioning the wrong muscles. Bob

Yes, Ion, you and Popov are one in the same. Quite lofty company you keep compared to the rest of USMS swimmers who regularly school you.

Originally posted by Ion Beza 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? Sorry, but that's not a better question! Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that a swimmer isn't likely to do as well if (a) he hasn't been swimming competitively for as many years, (b) he hasn't been training for as many hours per week, and/or (c) he hasn't had as high a quality of coaching. But all three of these are likely to be true for the swimmer who starts competing in his late 20s. how high one who started swimming in late 20s ranks in USMS in men 40 to 44, say last year? Same answer as above. Bob

Originally posted by Ion Beza triathletes don't ... I think you got suck into parroting USMS cliches ... without knowing my coaches, what they teach, how I train, and how I race. (Wow, a lot of bullet points, and not a single piece of data, all personal conjecture.) Interesting how you can lump an entire category of athletes together like that. I see lots of triathlete (who have not competed in any meets) who disprove most of the points you listed. (I can't comment on how many books they've read, because I don't know what every triathlete has read. I also didn't know that spreading my fingers causes the palms of my hands to grow bigger... wait a second, it doesn't.) I also like the double standard, how you claim to know how everyone else trains, and then end your post saying that almost no one knows how you train.

This: Originally posted by lefty ... It should be pointed out that good technique takes considerably more energy than bad technique. ... is another breaktrough. In the thread 'lefty!', I wrote that good thechnique in flip turn they occupy my mind to the point of slowing me down badly. To make them an asset I need thousands of them. Until then -right now- they are a liability to my speed.