I know that I have seen others talk about "how good am I if I swim the 200 in this time", or "if my mile is 17min".
and then the responses are typically, look at results from previous meets, or last years top 10 time.
But does anyone try to take into account how many actually swim that event/distance? Is one a good swimmer merely because only 12 people swim the 400 IM.
I looked at the 2007 top 10 SCM for Men 30-34. for *** and IM I would have been top 10 in 3 of 6 events/distances.
50 br 33.37 outside of top 10
100br 1:14.08 (10)
200br 2:42.20 (7)
400 IM 5:19.71 (7)
but how many 30-34 competed in those events in 2007? I would guess that more people competed in 2006 at the World Championships in Cali.
In Sweden I have top 10 times in nearly everything but 50-100 free, but that is only because it's not too often that there are more than 10-12 swimmers in my age grupp. I know of 4-6 swimmers that will be 35-39 in 2010 and all of them are significanly faster than me, just not sure swimming at the Worlds is something they plan on doing.
I recently looked at a German time standard, since they had one for every year 11-18 and then an open I used the open table. The table was scaled to 1-20. 20 being the fastest. something simliar to the US AAAA standards but with more divisions. I was at best 6 of a possible 20 in Breaststroke. and not even 1 in Back and Fly. and between 1-2 for Free and IM. to me that seems more like a realistic measurement of my ability.
I have this friend who could easily do a 5:30 in the 500 free at a Masters meet. Of course, she is not training at the moment. But, she refuses to do it because of childhood issues. For me, doing meets motivates me to train harder so I can swim faster at the next meet, and thus, I lose more weight.
There are alot of people that I train with that just don't do any meets. I just don't get because they are able to do this killer 4000 to 5000 yard workout day in and day out and yet, they don't want to see what kind of times that they can do. Of course, some people have families and I get that but, alot of masters swimmers do bring their kids and significant others to the meets. Heck, some Masters swimmers bring their parents and inlaws. I guess that everyone has their reason for and against doing masters meets.
We aren't talking obnoxiously fast or a 5:30 500. The allegation made was national record. A 5:30 for a woman is pretty darn fast but it's not a national record in the lower age groups, it is Top 10 however.
I see the swimmer formerly known as (S)he-Man, now known as Jiggly Puff, holds the top slot last year in her age group with a 5:12. Makes me feel a lot less bad about the whooping she put on me in the 500. Revenge will be mine, o' Puffstery one.
A 5:30 for a woman in 500 free would not break any national records unless she is over 60. In fact, it would not make the top ten at all for this year in the 25-29 age-group or the top five in any age group under 50.
National record holders are a breed unto themselves and to suggest that their records can be broken in practice is downright disrespectful. I think some good swims can be done in practice, but look up the times before a claim is made that a record can be broken in practice.
I also want to add that not only is a record impressive because of the speed, but it is impressive because it is done in a tense, high-pressured setting - competition. A fast swim in practice is not as impressive because it is done on the swimmer's own terms -when he/she knows that he/she feels good at that moment.
You can choose to believe what you want. If you don't think this can be done, then don't believe it--it really doesn't matter that much to me in the grand scheme of things. Someone was just looking at rankings and trying to find where they were relative to others. I only caution that these rankings are incomplete and that there are other swimmers out there that still have record-breaking speed.
Insofar as the rankings, it really does not matter if these people that you mention can break records in practice. I personally would only want to compare myself to those that have the desire, the guts, and the courage to race in competition. What matters is who shows up to race.
No doubt about it rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt, but they are still quite meaningful. Yes, if all the people who kicked my *** as a kid were still swimming, I might not even be in the top 100. But they aren't and I am. Of those still swimming, I feel justifiably proud of my rankings. I think this gets even more significant the older one gets.
One thing USMS swimmers can do if they want to increase the competition against whom they are ranked is to use "Event Rankings" feature under the "Competition" tab of usms.org and set a broad range of ages. For example, I'm 35 and if I select everyone aged 30-64 in the 100 *** LCM, my ranking goes down by 10 places (relative to my ranking within in my age group). Impressively, 5 of these additional 10 people not in my age group who swam faster than me are OLDER (40+). My goal is to break into the top 10 of the 30-64 "age group". While this is a goal that will only get harder as I age, there are plenty of examples of super-fast 40 and even 50 year olds out there--a trend I think will continue and expand.
I have to side with Elise and Fort on this. I don't take rankings with any sort of grain of salt. I know many of those on the rankings, either personally or by reputation, and none of those guys/gals are slackers. It pains me to admit this about the Smiths, but it is true. I also workout with some top 10 guys and there's nothing grain of salt about their dedication or results. No one lucks into a ranking and no one knocks out a national record in practice. The fact you won't name the event or time proves this.
Also, getting your Red Bull on and knocking out something fast at practice and then rushing home to check the rankings is the feel good story of the season, but it doesn't mean jack. With the exception of a few (probably) the run-up to a national record at 35+ is a big undertaking that requires months of preparation. Even the "softer" rankings are still damn impressive.
If you are really good and have record breaking speed, you prove it at a meet, you don't allege it via proxy on a discussion forum.
Thanks. That's really not a fast time. The girls I now train with can do 4:50 to 5:10 at the slowest.
You are too humble, CreamPuff! That is a fantastic time! I wonder how many of those gals you mention will be able to do a 5:12 at 36. :)
You are too humble, CreamPuff! That is a fantastic time! I wonder how many of those gals you mention will be able to do a 5:12 at 36. :)
Oh Diety, I know that I CAN'T do that and that's enough for me.
(S)he-Puff, we have to meet at the Auburn meet, I have to meet someone who is THAT fast and THAT humble. It's a refreshing change from the Smiths.
You can choose to believe what you want. If you don't think this can be done, then don't believe it--it really doesn't matter that much to me in the grand scheme of things. Someone was just looking at rankings and trying to find where they were relative to others. I only caution that these rankings are incomplete and that there are other swimmers out there that still have record-breaking speed.
I don't give a toss about any alleged fast time being done by someone who doesn't compete. It's irrelevant and doesn't effect my analysis of the rankings.
To the extent that the rankings are "incomplete," it is not because of the "stay-at-home-been-there-done-that" folks. It's because: (1) other competitive swimmers may not have gotten a chance to swim certain events or to compete in certain courses that year; (2) a ranked competitive swimmer could have taken a season off, but will be back; or (3) they're jinxed like Jiggly Puff and their times got thrown out for pool non-compliance.
After my workout last night, I'm sure I'm striking fear in the hearts of all the real swimmers competing in the 200 back. Ha!
Jiggly Puff, I refuse to suck up, but you know I heart you. lol
(S)he-Puffy is very humble, trust me. (P)uff-Man lets the swimming do the talking, same with Fort.
But, (C)hecream-Puffman has changed her name so now I'm confused.
