I was able to watch some of the swimming from the Olympics while attending the Long Course Nationals in Savannah - GREAT meet by the way- and although I was impressed by many of the swims, I couldn't help but wonder if the trials were held too close to the Games and as a result compromised the taper of the US swimmers?
The competition at the trials was fierce. Many world records were set. Many had the swim of their lives at trials (I was lucky enough to attend several sessions). But there was only one month after trials until the games. For that elite level it seems to me that many of the swimmers would be into a four week taper following the trials. But inorder to swim their best to make the team in Long Beach, they would have had to taper for trials. Look at Brendan Hansen with two world records or come from nowhere Katie Hoff.
My understanding is that if you hit your taper you can expect (about) a 2% drop in time. Did anyone do that in Athens? My question is why do we have trials so close to the Games? Seems to me we should have had trials two or three months before the Games.
Any comments?:)
Parents
Former Member
When the OIOC of USA Swimming was considering when to hold the 2000 Trials, we (at Sports Publications) were asked to analyze the percentage of best times performed at the Big Meet depending upon how far in advance of that Big Meet the Trials were held. (For this analysis, "Big Meet" referred solely to the Olympics and World Championships.)
We went back about 30 years and what we found was that the highest percentage of personal best times at the Big Meet occurred when Trials were held about 4 weeks (+/- 1 week) ahead of the Big Meet.
There was some difference between men and women (a higher percentage of men than women performed PBs with this time interval between Trials and the Big Meet), though this time interval was still the best one for the women.
There was also, of course, a great deal of individual variation, with some swimmers performing better with longer intervals. Still, overall, the 4-week interval appeared to produce the best results.
Consequently, USA Swimming adopted the 4-week interval for the 2000 Olympic Games and reaffirmed that decision in fixing the dates for the 2004 Trials.
When the OIOC of USA Swimming was considering when to hold the 2000 Trials, we (at Sports Publications) were asked to analyze the percentage of best times performed at the Big Meet depending upon how far in advance of that Big Meet the Trials were held. (For this analysis, "Big Meet" referred solely to the Olympics and World Championships.)
We went back about 30 years and what we found was that the highest percentage of personal best times at the Big Meet occurred when Trials were held about 4 weeks (+/- 1 week) ahead of the Big Meet.
There was some difference between men and women (a higher percentage of men than women performed PBs with this time interval between Trials and the Big Meet), though this time interval was still the best one for the women.
There was also, of course, a great deal of individual variation, with some swimmers performing better with longer intervals. Still, overall, the 4-week interval appeared to produce the best results.
Consequently, USA Swimming adopted the 4-week interval for the 2000 Olympic Games and reaffirmed that decision in fixing the dates for the 2004 Trials.
