Participation rates for competition in Running vs. Swimming
Former Member
How do these compare?
It seems to me that the number of competitors in Masters swim meets is so small compared to the number of "fitness" swimmers (including swimmers in Masters groups).
Then again there are a lot of joggers that likely never do so much as a 5k.
Parents
Former Member
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.
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.
