In swimming, how is it that one can excel in both sprints and long distance? Is it because the distance games in swimming are only "relatively" distance games but are not really distance games from a physiologic perspective?
In the world of tracks, for example, an athlete cannot excel at both sprints and distance. Even the athletes from the two areas look different - much leaner for the distance runners and muscular for the sprinters.
I am wondering about this because whether I should focus on either the sprint or the distance as I plan to participate in the masters meet, or whether I don't have to sacrifice one for the other.
Not to say this is THE factor, but how you split a race is also a clue. Sprinters typically take out their races faster, and comparatively "die" on the back half. Distance swimmers tend to even or negative split. The 200 might be the perfect race to test this. I'd say if your second 100 is more than three seconds slower than your first, you might be a sprinter. If your second 100 is 2-3 slower than your first, you're a middle distance swimmer. Less than two seconds difference, you're a distance swimmer. So now you know :)
Knelson you are very wise! That's the best explanation I've ever heard! Soo true!
Not to say this is THE factor, but how you split a race is also a clue. Sprinters typically take out their races faster, and comparatively "die" on the back half. Distance swimmers tend to even or negative split. The 200 might be the perfect race to test this. I'd say if your second 100 is more than three seconds slower than your first, you might be a sprinter. If your second 100 is 2-3 slower than your first, you're a middle distance swimmer. Less than two seconds difference, you're a distance swimmer. So now you know :)
Knelson you are very wise! That's the best explanation I've ever heard! Soo true!
