If they go back to true regular suits and Jammers, we may never see the times of the last 2 years again - well at least not until they change the rules again.... I went back to look at the World Rankings for 10th Place and 25th place for the last 7 Olympic years. The Olympic years have always been the fastest years (except of course for 2009 - thanks to you know what). I used the 10th and 25th spot to avoid the "freak" factor and good a good average rate of improvement. Also - I used Freestyle to avoid the impact of rule changes and the emergence of dlphin kicks.
1984 50.36 50.93
1988 50.13 50.54
1992 49.83 50.43
1996 49.74 50.27
2000 49.15 49.67
2004 49.08 49.45
2008 47.83 48.5
2009 47.77 48.27
A couple of things jump out:
- rate of progress has slowed down to maybe 1 to 2 tenth per Olympic cycle
- Big drop in 2000 with arrival of Fastskin suits - about half a second ! and of course a full second and more in 2008.
- In a 1996 suit, I would guess the current times to be just a little slower than the 2000 times.
They are going to have trials next year for the 2011 Worlds - I am guessing a 49.7 or 49.8 will make the US team in the 100 Free ....
Former Member
And I wonder how this is good for the sport.
1. We will be pure.
2. We will have no distraction from the tech suits or from FINA, which found itself unable to figure out how to evaluate the suits.
3. We will swim slower.
If it is the case that "nobody will go under 47" for 10 to 20 years, well, by that time probably nobody will care, because as everyone goes slower the interest in the sport will diminish and diminish. World records create excitement and draw interest. Swimming will no longer be on TV (except for a couple of days once every four years) and as the interest in the sport fades, less kids will be attracted to compete--so times will get even slower.
But we will be pure. We will not be "unethical" (as one forumite characterized the use of tech suits). But I am sure we could become even purer. Isn't shaving also unnatural? Why don't we go all the way and aspire to be like the Plain People of Lancaster Co. Pennsylvania? Maybe, pilgrims, if we get our minds and hearts right--cleansed of tech suits and all that speed--this can become the purified look of two Masters swimmers, planning their next competion:
www.catholicinformationcenter.org/TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg
Track WR tend to last: Women's 100M is 20 years old. It took 12 years to break the men's 200M WR that Johnson set in '96. After Usain Bolt hangs it up in 7 years, the World Record in the 200M will never be broken again (okay, it might be broken in 100 years just to be safe). WR are not supposed to be set every year. It makes the sport silly and illegitimate in my opinion.
Someone did a statistical study after the 2000 Olympics to see if there was an unexpectedly large time drop, caused by suits. There wasn't, so the big drop you note might just be due to random error. In 2008 and 2009 it's much more obvious. I think we'll be back to 2007-ish times. Didn't 48 mid or low win worlds that year?
The pure strength and power needed for track is just much bigger - and the impact on the body is much bigger. Obviously more power is really important for a 100 runner carrying their own body weight (where a swimmer gets the "floating assist".
Huh? This makes no sense. A swimmer has to propel their body through water, not air. I don't think you can categorically state that you need more pure strength and power for track. Impact on the body is much bigger? Again, where's the data to support that?
Running technique not complicated? Cmon, man, that's patently untrue. It's a hyper technical sport like swimming also.
I am not a track person, so I humbly suggest the following two explanations, knowing fully that they may be complete BS.
To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.
About technique, I can't claim to know that running technique is more straightforward than swimming. But as a medium, water is more dense and so perhaps small improvements in stroke can have a proportionally greater effect on swimming speed than in running.
On a related matter, look at this op-ed piece:
www.slate.com/.../
I disagree with most of what the author says, but I wonder about the assertion that interest in swimming among the hoi polloi will flag without world records. Being a lifelong fan and participant in the sport, I really can't get a good perspective on the effect of a relative dearth of WRs that might last through the next Olympics and beyond.
If current WR's are allowed to stand, it's going to take some serious talent, great coaching and a monumental training effort to break them.
A super talented someone who's willing to train 7 days a week for 5, 6, or 7 years.
who doesn't believe Flo Jo had a little (or a lot) of pharmecutical help
Her 10.49 WR seems highly suspect, One source said,
"Flo-jo, before this meet, had never run below 11.16 for 100m"
www.youtube.com/watch
Track WR tend to last: Women's 100M is 20 years old. It took 12 years to break the men's 200M WR that Johnson set in '96. After Usain Bolt hangs it up in 7 years, the World Record in the 200M will never be broken again (okay, it might be broken in 100 years just to be safe). WR are not supposed to be set every year. It makes the sport silly and illegitimate in my opinion.
To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.
In college we always thought it was because the track athletes were a bunch of wimps and incapable of pushing themselves, but maybe your explanation is better. We always poked fun that we would put in more mileage (as well as time) than all the track athletes except the distance guys.
Tim
In college we always thought it was because the track athletes were a bunch of wimps and incapable of pushing themselves...
If you factor in bling management, nail styling, uniform posing, false starts and post running posing, they actually worked out 2-3X longer than you.
"The verification requires a physical medical evaluation, and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, an internal medicine specialist and an expert on gender."
Does it really need to be this difficult? It seems like it would be fairly cut and dry. Do a DNA test and if Semenya has a Y chromosome "she" is a man, right? Unfortunate name, too, considering the controversy! :)
Seriously!
Can that really be a chick? Or a chick on drugs? Even a drugged FloJo had a waist ...
Distance runners are studs though.
If you factor in bling management, nail styling, uniform posing, false starts and post running posing, they actually worked out 2-3X longer than you.
Excellent point. It would be interesting to see Bolt's training regime. Maybe it should be a reality show.
Tim
I am not a track person, so I humbly suggest the following two explanations, knowing fully that they may be complete BS.
To my understanding, swimmers traditionally train significantly longer hours than most track athletes. This has always been explained to me that track is a harder sport -- in the sense of pounding the body more -- than swimming. Regardless of the reason, if the average training time is much longer them there is more "room" to play around with -- and optimize -- the type of training that is done.
About technique, I can't claim to know that running technique is more straightforward than swimming. But as a medium, water is more dense and so perhaps small improvements in stroke can have a proportionally greater effect on swimming speed than in running.
On a related matter, look at this op-ed piece:
www.slate.com/.../
I disagree with most of what the author says, but I wonder about the assertion that interest in swimming among the hoi polloi will flag without world records. Being a lifelong fan and participant in the sport, I really can't get a good perspective on the effect of a relative dearth of WRs that might last through the next Olympics and beyond.
Re: the slate article,etc.I doubt WRs have much if anything to do with popularity.Popularity in the US is about winning and personality.Almost everyone knows how many golds Phelps has.I doubt very many know how many WRs he set.When Spitz got his golds it seemed almost an after thought when announcers added that all the times were WRs.
