Torres has opted out of the 100 free in Beijing. Lacy Nyemer(sp?) will swim the individual event in her place.
Former Member
How about Dennis Baker, Dr. Ron Karnough, Karlyn Pipes
You are basically making my argument -- you can maybe come up with 3-4 swimmers who are somewhat close in terms of training as fasr as we know. None of the swimmer have the talent or swimming resume like Dara.
I read the training schedule for Dennis Baker -- while he is running around trying to make a living as a coach, Dara is either getting a massage or taking a nap. It does not compare.
It's another myth to always assume that people reached their full potential in prior years. I would bet that Dara is just now training like a true sprinter - anything she did before was probably way too much. Just saw a few things from the book that covered Santa Clara in 2000 - and she did not train like a sprinter. The first thing she now says about her prior training is " way too much". I trained under a few Olympic coaches and I could list many swimmers that swam well, but were not close to their potential -- for example Erik Vendt.
ehoch,
If there were an 800 fly relay then the answer to your question is "yes".... :-)
Note, making the Olympic team in a relay is obviously great. It is not, however, as impressive as doing it on your own in an individual event.
As for the spread on times..... You raise an interesting question. Discounting the effect of the new rubber suits, most elite level former US finalists in their 40s who are motivated in masters can come within about 3-3.5 seconds of their best 100 free. The spread is slightly worse LCM vs. SCY for obvious aerobic reasons. If you trained for "real" for US Nationals, I could see dropping another second or so from that range. With the new rubber suits helping as much as say a half second per hundred..... I think it might be possible to get within 1.5 - 2.0 seconds of your lifetime best LCM.
As for beating your lifetime best 100 time in your 40's...... not a chance.... :-)
John Smith
John Smith
I guess that one went over my head. I don't get it.
Some people have this odd notion that having a baby at 40 or so is performance enhancing because of the influx of hormones.
:notworking: :lmao:
Wasn't there a story about the East German women getting pregnant then aborting to try and elevate their natural hormone levels?
Yes, I saw the recent TV special on that. But the East Germans were teenagers. It's a bit different at 40. Then you confront insomnia, allergies, asthma, exhaustion. Let's have a survey of 40ish moms and see what they say ... I think there's a reason why many elite masters don't have kids.
I am curious why the hormone levels would be so different at 40 as opposed to 20......would be an interesting study!
I have no idea whether hormone levels are different between 20 and 40. But the effect of my hormones at 30 and 40 was vastly different!! And, let's face it, your body is different. Things are just not the same at 20 (or even 30) and 40! No way!
Matteo, I also have no idea what hyperemesis and TPN via PIC line is, but it sounds awful! I hope it wasn't your wife! Still, I don't think working out during pregnancy exempts you from complications during or exhaustion after childbirth. Unless perhaps your sleep is never interrupted because you have nannies ... And multiple children are, of course, more exhausting than having just one.
Paula Radcliffe is one of the greats. However, her 2.23.09 winning NYC marathon time in 2007 at age 33, an age not considered old for women's marathons, after having a child 9 months earlier is:
1) almost 8 minutes off her WR;
2) one second faster than her winning NYC marathon of 2004 when she was not in top form as admitted by her; and
3) not an explosive fast twitch event.
Finally, she is coming off a stress fracture and hip injury which should either 1) prevent her from running at all in the Olympics or lining up and having an extremely difficult time medaling.
I do not believe there is any comparison between her and Dara Torres other than they are both female athletes that had children.
Paula Radcliffe is one of the greats. However, her 2.23.09 winning NYC marathon time in 2007 at age 33, an age not considered old for women's marathons, after having a child 9 months earlier is:
1) almost 8 minutes off her WR;
2) one second faster than her winning NYC marathon of 2004 when she was not in top form as admitted by her; and
3) not an explosive fast twitch event.
Finally, she is coming off a stress fracture and hip injury which should either 1) prevent her from running at all in the Olympics or lining up and having an extremely difficult time medaling.
I do not believe there is any comparison between her and Dara Torres other than they are both female athletes that had children.
I don't know a lot about the woman and don't really follow running. I just noticed that she had won a high level marathon shortly after having a child. Seemed pretty impressive.
As for it not being an explosive and fast twitch event, I agree. It should be more difficult for somebody to compete in long distance endurance events with breaks in training and injuries. Fast twitch and sprint events are easier to maintain a certain level of performance in as one ages (or so I have read on FORUMS.USMS.ORG).
This came up as I was searching for some sort of research that covered the performance of female athletes after childbirth. I often hear that pregnancy can improve athletic performance but have never seen anything to document such claims.
