14.34.56 1500 free, Grant Hackett, in Japan, 2001!
14.26.62 1650 free, Chris Thompson, in the US of A, 2001!
I know who Hackett is, Thompson is only vaguely familiar. Fact is, their records are nearly a decade old. Does anyone else find this as impressive and striking as I do? Did Hackett set such an out-of-reach record that more swimmers are cowed rather than motivated to break it? Or have male swimmers just collectively lost a lot of interest in the mile? All of the other men's records are newborns. In fact, Phelps's 400 IM from Beijing is the second-oldest, and it's still not even two years old (it survived the climax of the suits, though, so that's impressive).
My general feeling has always been that the "tech suits" had less of an impact the longer the distance. By in large it was the 50's and 100's that were dropping time off the record at nearly major meet.
If you go back to "pre-millennium" swim records it wasn't uncommon to see a record stand for at least 2-4 years. Seeing them broken in non-major swim years was much less common.
As for the 1650/1500, they certainly are no glamor events. It's hard to swim the Olympic event in which you can be assured they will cut to commercial half way through your race.
My general feeling has always been that the "tech suits" had less of an impact the longer the distance. By in large it was the 50's and 100's that were dropping time off the record at nearly major meet.
If you go back to "pre-millennium" swim records it wasn't uncommon to see a record stand for at least 2-4 years. Seeing them broken in non-major swim years was much less common.
As for the 1650/1500, they certainly are no glamor events. It's hard to swim the Olympic event in which you can be assured they will cut to commercial half way through your race.
