Participation rates for competition in Running vs. Swimming

From the few 5ks I've ran, it seems you have a lot more people just happy to do their best and complete the race. Based on conversations I've had with runners and triathletes, that seems to be a pretty accurate observation. I think that road races are a lot more like open water races Point, but I still think there are fewer "occasional" athletes (or whatever you want to call them) in OW swim races compared to road races or triathlons. OW swimming can be intimidating to some, even experienced pool swimmers.

I meant to ask in terms of X% of fitness swimmers (those that are already swimming) compete in meets vs. Y% of joggers compete in races. I suppose such stats likely don't exist. But I'm really more concerned with my observation that Masters swim meets do not attract many slower swimmers. If I look at the 100 free times for 40-44 men, the vast majority of times are under one minute. If you go over 1:10 that puts you in the bottom 50 out of 476 swimmers. From the few 5ks I've ran, it seems you have a lot more people just happy to do their best and complete the race. Its commonplace to have walkers that take 45 minutes or more. The intimidation factor is what I think keeps beginners from competing in swimming. If I hadn't been on the blocks 30 years ago in age group I doubt I could have done it. But I've also observed that in reality Masters swimmers are very friendly to all levels of swimmers. If people are happy just doing workouts then fine we don't want to force you to compete. I know for myself I like to compete against my times and that what keeps me going. Having taught a swim class made up mostly of triathletes and fitness swimmers, I would say that the intimidation factor is huge. It is interesting that beginner triathletes would prefer their first swim competition to be the swim leg on an open water swim on a triathlon. Open water competition, whether alone or the first leg on a tri, is far more dangerous than pool competition, so the preference does not seem logical. Many triathletes, however, view masters swimming as "professional swimming." To some extent, I suppose I can understand the view of masters swimming as professional swimming. Take an individual who is a good all-around athlete who has never competed in running or swimming, only knows how to do freestyle, but is equally decent in running and swimming moderate distances. I suspect that the time (months, years) that it would take that individual to make a NQT in the 100 I.M. would be LONGER than it would take to qualify for the Boston Marathon. Neither is easy, but I do think that those of us that compete forget sometimes just how technical and difficult swimming can be to somebody that has not done it. I've had success in getting triathletes to do the 1650 and 500 at winter meets. Perhaps masters meets just offering these types of things might attract triathletes and lap swimmers to compete. Isn't such a meet offered by the Maryland Terrapins masters team? Seems like a really good idea.

I was going to answer this yesterday, but I was just too exhausted to. Before answering your questions, I think we'd need to first define what a, "Swimmer," or, "Runner," is. Do you mean a person who does their activity 3 or more times a week? Do they do their activity solo, with a group, do they subscribe to magazines about their activity, do they participate in online forums about their activity? Do you want to qualify it with amount of money spent on their sport, their performance levels, or in some other ways? At first blush, I'd venture to say that swimming probably gets a higher percentage of active participants at meets. The primary reason I can see is that 90% of swimming is done in a pool. The people have to go past a place to pay, deal with a coach, see a locker room bulletin board, or something, and they usually would have contact with someone to prompt them about an event (swim meet, open water, whatever). In my limited contacts with swimmers over the years, I'd say 50% or more know about swimming events (meets, open water, etc), and about half those compete. Running can be done most anywhere. I'd venture to say it is one of the most visible sports, since in many cases runners are on the side of the road. But it is tough to get a message to someone who runs solo all the time on roads or trails near their home. This doesn't even include the countless numbers of people who use treadmills at gyms...some may just run/jog for a warm-up, while others may do an hour run then leave. In my limited contacts with runners, most do this just to keep in shape, and I'd say less than 5% ever compete in anything.

It can be very lonely and scary on the blocks. You are on display. Now lets add false starts. Hiding in the crowd of a mass start can ease the discomfort.

Point, but I still think there are fewer "occasional" athletes (or whatever you want to call them) in OW swim races compared to road races or triathlons. OW swimming can be intimidating to some, even experienced pool swimmers. Drilling down further there appear to be different kinds of OW races. My favorite local open water race is very similar to a road race crowd. The majority of swimmers are not age group or masters swimmers. I don't know how many of them are triathletes but there seem to be a good number families swimming it, and a fair number of people who swim this particular event every year but don't participate in any other organized events. I think this is their 30th year running this event. It's a two mile swim across a bay in a small town hours from any major urban centers. They also have an 8k and a short race for kids.

I suspect that the time (months, years) that it would take that individual to make a NQT in the 100 I.M. would be LONGER than it would take to qualify for the Boston Marathon. Neither is easy, but I do think people underestimate sometimes just how technical and difficult swimming can be. To bring this idea into the real world: I'm in pretty good shape. At the next Boston Marathon, I would be 50 years old, so I would have to run a 3 hour, 35 minute marathon - that's 7.3 miles per hour. Today, on a lark with no training, I ran two miles faster than that and didn't really push hard. Now I know it's a lot harder to run 26 miles than two, but the Boston goal seems within reach, if not in 2011, maybe in 2012. But I don't run. Instead, I swim 3-5 times a week. To qualify for, say, the 100 free SCY this year at Nationals, I would have to post 58.19. My personal best is 1:20 from a push, which probably translates to 1:17 from a dive. The chance of me ever posting an NQT is, I think, remote. So, although I'm a swimmer, it looks like I have a better chance of running the Boston Marathon than swimming Nationals. There are some big differences in the events. Nationals can't have as many qualifiers as the Boston Marathon. There would be no place to put everyone. Even so, were I a runner, I could reasonably try to qualify for Boston. In swimming, my goal is to be fast enough so that I could enter a meet anywhere and not be embarrassed by the result, and I'm not close to that. I think this goes a long way to explaining why more people run road races than swim in meets.

maybe it's because running is a "free" sport compared to the cost of swim training. for running you only need shoes and time, but with swimming you need suits, time and pool time. anyone can run/jog, not everyone can swim

To bring this idea into the real world: I'm in pretty good shape. At the next Boston Marathon, I would be 50 years old, so I would have to run a 3 hour, 35 minute marathon - that's 7.3 miles per hour. Today, on a lark with no training, I ran two miles faster than that and didn't really push hard. Now I know it's a lot harder to run 26 miles than two, but the Boston goal seems within reach, if not in 2011, maybe in 2012. But I don't run. Instead, I swim 3-5 times a week. To qualify for, say, the 100 free SCY this year at Nationals, I would have to post 58.19. My personal best is 1:20 from a push, which probably translates to 1:17 from a dive. The chance of me ever posting an NQT is, I think, remote. So, although I'm a swimmer, it looks like I have a better chance of running the Boston Marathon than swimming Nationals. There are some big differences in the events. Nationals can't have as many qualifiers as the Boston Marathon. There would be no place to put everyone. Even so, were I a runner, I could reasonably try to qualify for Boston. In swimming, my goal is to be fast enough so that I could enter a meet anywhere and not be embarrassed by the result, and I'm not close to that. I think this goes a long way to explaining why more people run road races than swim in meets. Having been a swimmer from the age of 8, and having picked up running in my mid 30s (and maintained it only for about 5 years, until my knees and ankles gave up), I would venture to say that you may be way, way off. With a decent coach, a commitment to some reasonable training, and enough time (i.e. a year), you will almost certainly break 1:00 for 100y free. But unless you have the build of a runner (which may be a contra-indication for swimming, i.e. strong legs and very little upper body mass (or strength)), it will take quite some time to get yourself in a position to knock out 26 consecutive miles at a pace of less than 7:40 per mile. Running two miles on the local track is most definitely not the same as running 26 miles on undulating pavement. Also, don't forget that the first 5-10k is walked/run in a crowd, at a pace slower than your target - so you have to make up for that from then on... Unless you want to try both - and maybe set some test milestones for yourself halfway into the training (say, a 100y under 1:06 and a 10k under 45 minutes) - I'd stick with the swimming goal. :2cents:

Having been a swimmer from the age of 8, and having picked up running in my mid 30s (and maintained it only for about 5 years, until my knees and ankles gave up), I would venture to say that you may be way, way off. With a decent coach, a commitment to some reasonable training, and enough time (i.e. a year), you will almost certainly break 1:00 for 100y free. But unless you have the build of a runner (which may be a contra-indication for swimming, i.e. strong legs and very little upper body mass (or strength)), it will take quite some time to get yourself in a position to knock out 26 consecutive miles at a pace of less than 7:40 per mile. Running two miles on the local track is most definitely not the same as running 26 miles on undulating pavement. Also, don't forget that the first 5-10k is walked/run in a crowd, at a pace slower than your target - so you have to make up for that from then on... Unless you want to try both - and maybe set some test milestones for yourself halfway into the training (say, a 100y under 1:06 and a 10k under 45 minutes) - I'd stick with the swimming goal. :2cents: The two-miler I'm referring to was a road race, and yeah, I had to leap a couple of potholes and dodge a lot of people - and one Lhaso Apso - early on. I'm not going to argue against my own potential, but I note from the USMS database that 218 men 50-54 swam 100 yards freestyle under a minute anywhere anytime at a USMS meet in the past year. This year, 1,870 men 50-54 ran the Boston Marathon, meaning all of them ran a 3:35 marathon in the previous year. Put another way, I know people who have run the Boston Marathon. They weren't jocks in high school, they haven't been running competitively since they were kids. They set it as a goal and they did it. Of the 218 fast swimmers, how many did something similar? How many weren't swimmers in their youth but at middle age just up and decided to swim 100 yards under a minute, then trained toward that goal and hit it? It has happened, but I really don't know how frequently. I think some people who swim competitively underestimate how difficult it is to swim really fast. It's quite difficult, and those who can do it should be quite proud of their accomplishment and not assume that anyone with a little drive could do the same thing. As for my case, it's purely hypothetical. I used to run, but I find it boring, frankly, so have no interest in running a marathon. I'd rather swim.

I meant to ask in terms of X% of fitness swimmers (those that are already swimming) compete in meets vs. Y% of joggers compete in races. I suppose such stats likely don't exist. But I'm really more concerned with my observation that Masters swim meets do not attract many slower swimmers. If I look at the 100 free times for 40-44 men, the vast majority of times are under one minute. If you go over 1:10 that puts you in the bottom 50 out of 476 swimmers. From the few 5ks I've ran, it seems you have a lot more people just happy to do their best and complete the race. Its commonplace to have walkers that take 45 minutes or more. The intimidation factor is what I think keeps beginners from competing in swimming. If I hadn't been on the blocks 30 years ago in age group I doubt I could have done it. But I've also observed that in reality Masters swimmers are very friendly to all levels of swimmers. If people are happy just doing workouts then fine we don't want to force you to compete. I know for myself I like to compete against my times and that what keeps me going.