Participation rates for competition in Running vs. Swimming

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:

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: