Just admit it. Almost everyone sandbags from time to time. Look at Ande, entering at 28.9 in the 50 back to have clear water. Bunch of his times look pretty suspect. Peg completely sandbagged the 1000 free at Zones. I entered a coach-approved NT on the 100 IM at Zones and then scratched. Paul Smith is passing on a 100 free duel with evil Smith to save up for his world-record-shattering performance to be in the 200 medley relay. Julie Oplinger sandbagged her 100 fly at Zones. The list could go on forever, so you might as well join the Club.
As for Nats, because of my lack of expertise with sandbagging, I'm over my 25% statistical probability per race of landing in an outside lane.
(Sorry Osterber! :thhbbb:)
I'm going to try a 100 fly next weekend. Should I enter my slow 400 IM split (THAT would be sandbagging), a guess based on workouts, or should I double my 200 IM split or just enter my 100 back time (the last two are close)? The only thing that seems clear is my guess will be wrong. So, you see: I am a sandbagger, and I think it's a great club.
I would suggest in your situation to enter a time that is representative of what you think you will go, since you have no entry times. For most people, NT is not representative, and you and the meet timeline would be better off with some other estimate.
Doubling the 200 IM split probably is hazardous because it's too aggressive. In the best case, you're going to be off by several seconds. If you are like a lot of people (including me!) and your fly times drop exponentially as distance increases, you'll really blow the seed time. I'd also pass on the 100 Back time.
That leaves your 400 IM split or estimating from your workout. Using an initial distance from a longer race is an accepted practice of getting seed times (for example, seeding your 1000 with the 1000 split on your 1650). But as you mentioned, it may be too conservative. Depending on your practice habits, you could estimate from an in-practice time. You may want to give some mind whether these times are underestimates or overestimates (for example, for me, I generally don't come close to replicating meet times in practice).
But whichever way you go is probably okay. Pick one of the numbers and write it down.
Patrick King
I'm going to try a 100 fly next weekend. Should I enter my slow 400 IM split (THAT would be sandbagging), a guess based on workouts, or should I double my 200 IM split or just enter my 100 back time (the last two are close)? The only thing that seems clear is my guess will be wrong. So, you see: I am a sandbagger, and I think it's a great club.
I would suggest in your situation to enter a time that is representative of what you think you will go, since you have no entry times. For most people, NT is not representative, and you and the meet timeline would be better off with some other estimate.
Doubling the 200 IM split probably is hazardous because it's too aggressive. In the best case, you're going to be off by several seconds. If you are like a lot of people (including me!) and your fly times drop exponentially as distance increases, you'll really blow the seed time. I'd also pass on the 100 Back time.
That leaves your 400 IM split or estimating from your workout. Using an initial distance from a longer race is an accepted practice of getting seed times (for example, seeding your 1000 with the 1000 split on your 1650). But as you mentioned, it may be too conservative. Depending on your practice habits, you could estimate from an in-practice time. You may want to give some mind whether these times are underestimates or overestimates (for example, for me, I generally don't come close to replicating meet times in practice).
But whichever way you go is probably okay. Pick one of the numbers and write it down.
Patrick King
