WC Sprinters-Tall is in!

john smith is 6' 4' paul swim looked 6' 6" or 7 I don't think robert peel is 6' 6" I remember seeing him at Nashville in 1991 and he looked 6' 2 or 3 I think he weighed in the 180's biondi was 6' 7" jager was 6' 3" andy coan 6' 5" neil walker is about 6' 5" shaun jordan is 6' 0 - 1" jonty skinner is 6' 5 ish jim montgomery is 6 5ish rowdy gaines is 6' 0" Garrett Weber Gale is 6' 0 - 1" isn't Anthony Ervin around 6' 1" Gary Schatz is 5' 8" I was talking with a fellow who makes racing canoes and he talked about the boat's footprint in the water Same with swimmers, tall lean, skinny hips, long arms, big hands, big feet are all pluses ande Originally posted by Racer X Please excuse me if this has been posted before. It seems that in order to be a National/World class sprinter, you have to be 6ft 3 or better. It would appear that taller is better. Popov was 6' 7", Hall 6'5", Lezak 6'5', Cullen Jones 6' 5", Sabir Mahammed 6'6". our own Smith crew 6'?, An oldy but a goody Robert Peel 6'6 etc, etc. From my TV, it looked as though Phelps was the shortest guy on the WR 400 free relay at 6' 4" Knowing this, in the future, should shorter, young, potential world class sprinters be redirected to middle distance or other strokes? Do short guys/gals even stand a chance anymore? It would seem that basketball players would make the best sprinters. They have the height, the strength and the vertical leap down pat.

George.....sorry to disagree.....but this distance is hands down the single most challenging in our sport. Sure, anyone can swim it as you describe......but not "fast". The elite athletes at this distance have the rare combination of strength (mental as much as physical) and absolutely flawless technique.

If by most challenging you mean that the 50 is the most difficult to win consistently over a significant period of time, then I would have to agree. There is little margin for error. I think you would have to say, however, that physiology is a fairly important factor in sprint events. Given similar levels of technique and mental toughness, I will put my money on the 6' 6" guy over the 5' 10" guy any day no matter how hard the 5' 10" guy trains. This is not necessarily the case at longer distances, but at least the little guy stands a chance in those events. Sincerely, 70 inches and shrinking

And then along comes some little guy who can't jump a lick and beats them all.

George, Do you have any examples?

Ande, I know for sure Rob Peel is at least 6' 4" and has size 14 feet. From my recollection, he didn't even start swimming until he was in his early teens. It would be interesting to see what he could do now in the 40-44 age group. Smiths beware!

Not recently but in 1932 the USA mens team comprised of Giants compared to the Japannese swimmers who were of small stature. And others short guys are now starting to get in the action. www.infoplease.com/.../A0114516.html

George, Nice find. I think the short guys do still have a chance in the hundred. Of course some of us think the hundred is a distance event ; )

Found this nice article here which explains a bit like the way I think. findarticles.com/.../ai_n8836967

Yet another good article about generalities of swimmers. It sounds very communist Russian in thought process. Not that that's a bad thing when it comes to athletics. Identify those with potential early, isolate them, focus their efforts and make them Olympians. Taking his theories to the Sprint lane, eliminate the short guys early on, for they have no chance in the 50 at an elite level.