IMer's I need a 200m IM split diagnosis

You see high school boys with little competitive experience who are able to swim 22 second 50 yard freestyles all the time more or less on pure athleticism. Now whether or not you want to call it "muscling through" is merely a question of semantics, but basically we're saying their technique is not great. I don't see these same guys able to swim a fast 200 or 500, though. I think we can all agree that to be a great sprinter you need great technique, but we're not talking about greatness here. edit: I like Al's analogy of a rough diamond in the next post. This is absolutely true. I have seen it many times. These high school boys are very strong, have explosive power, and overcome their deficiencies with turnover and hand speed. The same unskilled kid who goes 22 in the 50 goes 50 in the 100 and 2:00 in the 200. A more skilled swimmer might go 21/46/1:46 instead. I have also seen raw non-year round high school swimmer drop from 24 sec 50 to a 22 just with better technique. As a 49 yr old Masters swimmer - I'd be happy with a 23 sec 50, skilled or unskilled. My approach is through more skill and better fitness. I'm getting closer.

Isn't the opposite more likely to be true? Resistance in the water increases exponentially with speed: greater speed means exponentially greater resistance. Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't more drag and resistance in shorter events due to the higher speeds... I'm saying that muscle and determined ummmph can overcome these things in a race that lasts less than 30 seconds. NOT that you will be fantastically fast at the short races, but that you will be relatively faster in your 50 than your 100, your 100 than your 200, etc... No amount of 'ummmph' is going to get you through a 200 when the training and technique is lacking. That last 50 is going to be ugly (or in my case, the last 100!)

From the mouths of masters swimmers hoping to break into the USMS top 10 and refuse to do any drill work in practice: "You can muscle through them due to the short duration and do well" From World record holders: "You can't muscle through sprints as you have to have flawless technique" All triathletes who didn't come from a swimming background, print their workouts from the internet and train alone, yet never win any races or make top 10 in their age groups: "You can have poor technique and just a strong aerobic base and outlast everyone" Ian Thorpe, Dennis Baker, Jim McConica, Grant Hackett, Janet Evans, Chris McCormack: "You have to have great technique and can't muscle through it"

Bingo. Thanks for summing it up so well, Lindsay. To be really and truly FAST, you need to be good all around: technique, strength, conditioning, mentality, etc etc etc

I love drill work. But other elite swimmers (e.g., George, Ande) don't. But I believe it is possible, although not desirable, to muscle though a 50 and make top ten based on pure athleticism and strength. Anything longer, forget about it.

You see high school boys with little competitive experience who are able to swim 22 second 50 yard freestyles all the time more or less on pure athleticism. Now whether or not you want to call it "muscling through" is merely a question of semantics, but basically we're saying their technique is not great. I don't see these same guys able to swim a fast 200 or 500, though. I think we can all agree that to be a great sprinter you need great technique, but we're not talking about greatness here. edit: I like Al's analogy of a rough diamond in the next post.

Technique (for any sport) is like the jewler's chisle. A diamond can be wonderful in the rough, but well carved it can be magnificent. To neglect technique is a lost opportunity to improve.

Don't know that you can really draw conclusions from this info. You probably are a sprinter, like Ande says. Didn't you say once that you ran the 200 and 400 in track? So you're likely very strong. While Paul is right that no one can be at the top while muscling out distances, I totally agree with Kirk. Especially for those of us who do not have a swimming background, you can muscle through shorter races a lot more than the longer ones. I betcha you're relying on your strength and natural athleticism (and running background) in the 50 and inefficiency is hurting you in the longer events. I'd work on technique, but more importantly, holding technique when your body is failing... ie., descending sets, maintaining stroke count, coming up past the flags off every turn, sticking with your breathing pattern, keeping your kick at whatever cadence you're shooting for, etc etc at the END of workout... Like what you said here. Just makes me wonder - I've heard from top swimmers/ coaches that on sprints: You can muscle through them due to the short duration and do well and conversely, You can't muscle through sprints as you have to have flawless technique And on distance, I've heard: You can have poor technique and just a strong aerobic base and outlast everyone and conversely, You have to have great technique and can't muscle through it Gah!

I don't believe that anyone here is advocating muscling through a race. What people here have said is swimmers who do muscle their way through a 50 (with times that are far from top 10) will exhibit larger drop offs in the 100 and 200 races than swimmers who have excellent technique. There is a big difference between observing that a swimmer may be muscling through the 50 as a hypothesis for why a swimmer has a big drop off and advocating muscling through the 50, right? In fact, in making this observation we are advocating for working on better technique.

Technique (for any sport) is like the jewler's chisle. A diamond can be wonderful in the rough, but well carved it can be magnificent. To neglect technique is a lost opportunity to improve. Very nice.