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 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.
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.
