Equipment Rep
Trains with every piece of equipment available at all times.
The Luddite
Trains with nothing. Only uses a loin cloth and goggles in workout.
The Barnacle
Leaves right on your feet. Couldn't count to five or ten if his life depnded on it.
The Coach
Not an actual coach, but someone who is consumed with technique. Swimming is a precise set of moves that can be broken down, categorized, and scientifically analyzed.
The Jaded
Could care less about technique. Just wants to swim and leave the analysis to the eggheads.
The Swimaholic
Trains at least 10 swimming workouts a week. Anything less is viewed as not trying.
Fast Guy who Never Trains
Shows up once a month and breaks national records in practice.
Hardest Working Man in the Swim Business
Trains like a ferocious animal in workout, but has no speed when it comes to racing.
Lane Guy
Works out in a lane that is far too fast or slow for him.
The Crack Guy
Dude, pull your swimsuit up or get a bigger size.
The Newbie
Shows up to practice in board shorts and a scuba mask.
_________________
As for myself, I would fall into the categories of Luddite and Jaded. Also, I wrote this from a male perspective, but the women are included as well. Any other stereotypes?
According to stats from USMS, 61 percent of USMS members from 20-29 now are female.
In running races, a 10-12 percent time gap between men and women has stabilized in pretty much every distance. At both elite and amateur running competitions, two to four times more men than women turn in relatively fast times as evidenced by how close they come to sex-specific world-class standards.
The same fellow who did this statistical analysis and published two papers in the journal Evolutionary Psychology is now collecting data on swimming. Somewhat to his surprise, he has found that this gap in competitiveness does NOT exist in swimming. If anything, the opposite is true--with more women coming closer to sex-specific world class standards than men.
It's really fascinating to me to see this rise in the Super Girls of the world. Kristina and Dara and Leslie all seem to embody it. The evolutionary biology theory has long held that men are competitive because victory endears them to the distaff gender. (One researcher told me that during medieval jousting bouts, the fair ladies would actually lift their skirts to show the knights what was at stake.)
I am not sure if Super Girl swimmers reap the same psychosexual rewards as the Super Boy swimmers, and I find it impossible to imagine that many (or any) of you would be motivated by even the most attractive male swimmer "lifting his Speedo" as you step up on the blocks as a way of showing you what's at stake.
Allegedly, women in the Olympic village were throwing themselves at Michael Phelps. I don't think the reciprocal was true for Natalie C, though she is arguably a much more physically appealing specimen as a female as MP is as a male. It fact, it seems that I read somewhere that guys in the Olympic village were hitting on females based on f their standard attractiveness measures, not their medal status. If anything,women who won Gold were kind of a turnoff.
My question to you super girls of swimming--and I am not joking--is what motivates your training and zeal to be the best? I do think that for a lot of guys, there is at least a subtle subtext involved of attracting the chicks. It almost seems that super girls get more satisfaction from crushing guys than attracting them. Is it as simple a matter as this: guys swim for lust; girls swim for revenge?
I would honestly love to hear the philosophy of female competitiveness.
According to stats from USMS, 61 percent of USMS members from 20-29 now are female.
In running races, a 10-12 percent time gap between men and women has stabilized in pretty much every distance. At both elite and amateur running competitions, two to four times more men than women turn in relatively fast times as evidenced by how close they come to sex-specific world-class standards.
The same fellow who did this statistical analysis and published two papers in the journal Evolutionary Psychology is now collecting data on swimming. Somewhat to his surprise, he has found that this gap in competitiveness does NOT exist in swimming. If anything, the opposite is true--with more women coming closer to sex-specific world class standards than men.
It's really fascinating to me to see this rise in the Super Girls of the world. Kristina and Dara and Leslie all seem to embody it. The evolutionary biology theory has long held that men are competitive because victory endears them to the distaff gender. (One researcher told me that during medieval jousting bouts, the fair ladies would actually lift their skirts to show the knights what was at stake.)
I am not sure if Super Girl swimmers reap the same psychosexual rewards as the Super Boy swimmers, and I find it impossible to imagine that many (or any) of you would be motivated by even the most attractive male swimmer "lifting his Speedo" as you step up on the blocks as a way of showing you what's at stake.
Allegedly, women in the Olympic village were throwing themselves at Michael Phelps. I don't think the reciprocal was true for Natalie C, though she is arguably a much more physically appealing specimen as a female as MP is as a male. It fact, it seems that I read somewhere that guys in the Olympic village were hitting on females based on f their standard attractiveness measures, not their medal status. If anything,women who won Gold were kind of a turnoff.
My question to you super girls of swimming--and I am not joking--is what motivates your training and zeal to be the best? I do think that for a lot of guys, there is at least a subtle subtext involved of attracting the chicks. It almost seems that super girls get more satisfaction from crushing guys than attracting them. Is it as simple a matter as this: guys swim for lust; girls swim for revenge?
I would honestly love to hear the philosophy of female competitiveness.
