Masters Motivational Times

Former Member
Former Member
When I started swimming masters a few years ago, I soon found myself wanting some time standards to compare myself against. Sure, tracking my own PRs is motivating, but I also wanted some sort of objective mark to measure myself against. There is the Top 10 list, of course, but I'm not close enough to those times for them to serve as realistic motivation. Nationals qualifying times provide a slightly lower bar, but these are still out of many masters' reach. It seems like there should be some sort of time standards that are more widely applicable -- like the A, AA, ... motivational times in kids' age group swimming. I did use those USA Swimming motivational times for a while, but I got tired of comparing myself to 12-year-olds. Eventually I decided to create my own masters' motivational time standards, using the same method that is used for the kids. I have really enjoyed using these motivational times over the past couple of years, and I'm guessing they might be useful to others as well. Especially for those, like me, who are competitive enough to be motivated by a quantitative benchmark, but not fast enough to aspire to the Top 10 list. I have just updated the SCY list, and figured I would post it here for others to use. Please enjoy. I'd also love to hear any feedback.
Parents
  • Would either of your fellows care to turn your keen mathematical minds to the job of predicting "equivalent times" with and without such suits--and do so before we need to wait several years for new data to filter in upon which your new curves can be fitted and hung? Or, barring that, what do you predict, generally speaking, will be an average time change before and after B70s go to jammers? Obviously, for St. Chris and his hairless ilk, the differences have not been too great. But for us lumpkin types, what seems reasonable? Would 2 seconds per 100 be too much of an expected increase in times--or too little? At last year's Colony Zones championships, for instance, I swam a B70 aided 52.86 in the 100 free. At this year's meet, all other things being equal, should I be delighted if I can break 55--or should I lapse into catatonia? If you haven't already seen it, I recommend going here to get an idea of the suits effects on elite athletes: www.floswimming.org/.../6033-part-iii-predictive-modeling-of-swim-performances-at-the-us-olympic-trials For the men's 100 free, for example, the actual time was 0.7 sec faster (with the suit) than predicted; for men's 100 fly it was 1.0 sec. But keep in mind that this analysis lumps the effects of all the suits of that time (B70s, LZRs, etc). Also this is for elite athletes who, um, have a different body profile and stroke efficiency than the typical masters swimmer. It is also for LCM and the effects might be different on the shorter courses. Any predictions that I or someone else can come up with will, at best, be good on the average. But I have heard too many stories of drastic time drops to dismiss them entirely, so the effects may also be spectacularly individual. One (skinny) woman I know had more or less hit a recent plateau in an event, donned a B70 and promptly dropped about 6 seconds in a 100, to set a new national record. How to account for such a drastic difference? At the Boston meet, Mike Ross theorized that the suit could reposition the body in a way that greatly increased efficiency for some people (but maybe not have much effect on others). In that scenario, it is even possible that with proper training the improvement could be maintained even after the suits become less buoyant or less compressing. George Parks mentioned something similar in a recent post. All this hand waving mostly means is that you're on your own. Right now the swim ratings are based on 2007 records (ie, pre-LZR). I'll add one based on the most recent records, so you can use them to get a ballpark estimate of the effect (eg, determine the post-LZR rating of 52.86 and then use it to calculate an equivalent time with the pre-LZR rating curves).
Reply
  • Would either of your fellows care to turn your keen mathematical minds to the job of predicting "equivalent times" with and without such suits--and do so before we need to wait several years for new data to filter in upon which your new curves can be fitted and hung? Or, barring that, what do you predict, generally speaking, will be an average time change before and after B70s go to jammers? Obviously, for St. Chris and his hairless ilk, the differences have not been too great. But for us lumpkin types, what seems reasonable? Would 2 seconds per 100 be too much of an expected increase in times--or too little? At last year's Colony Zones championships, for instance, I swam a B70 aided 52.86 in the 100 free. At this year's meet, all other things being equal, should I be delighted if I can break 55--or should I lapse into catatonia? If you haven't already seen it, I recommend going here to get an idea of the suits effects on elite athletes: www.floswimming.org/.../6033-part-iii-predictive-modeling-of-swim-performances-at-the-us-olympic-trials For the men's 100 free, for example, the actual time was 0.7 sec faster (with the suit) than predicted; for men's 100 fly it was 1.0 sec. But keep in mind that this analysis lumps the effects of all the suits of that time (B70s, LZRs, etc). Also this is for elite athletes who, um, have a different body profile and stroke efficiency than the typical masters swimmer. It is also for LCM and the effects might be different on the shorter courses. Any predictions that I or someone else can come up with will, at best, be good on the average. But I have heard too many stories of drastic time drops to dismiss them entirely, so the effects may also be spectacularly individual. One (skinny) woman I know had more or less hit a recent plateau in an event, donned a B70 and promptly dropped about 6 seconds in a 100, to set a new national record. How to account for such a drastic difference? At the Boston meet, Mike Ross theorized that the suit could reposition the body in a way that greatly increased efficiency for some people (but maybe not have much effect on others). In that scenario, it is even possible that with proper training the improvement could be maintained even after the suits become less buoyant or less compressing. George Parks mentioned something similar in a recent post. All this hand waving mostly means is that you're on your own. Right now the swim ratings are based on 2007 records (ie, pre-LZR). I'll add one based on the most recent records, so you can use them to get a ballpark estimate of the effect (eg, determine the post-LZR rating of 52.86 and then use it to calculate an equivalent time with the pre-LZR rating curves).
Children
No Data