2010 SCM Zone Championships

South Central Regional Championships SCM Sat Dec 4 - 5, 2010 Palo Alto College Natatorium San Antonio, TX Results Meet Info

The San Antonio meet was a little flat. In the final heat of the 100 back there was only 1 person swimming. 7 decided to scratch. Ouch. Objectively I think the suits had something to do with it. But whatever the cause, it was a bit depressing. Oh and THANKS to Ande who signed me in for the 1500 so I could leave from home a few hours later...

Results have been posted for the SPMA meet in Long Beach last weekend. Here's a list of world records that were set without tech suits: www.lbgrunions.org/.../usworldrecords.html And here are the results: lbgrunions.org/results-2010.html The Long Beach Grunions, as in the past, were both friendly and efficient, and their meet continues to be one of the best meets of the year, anywhere ...

Results have been posted for the SPMA meet in Long Beach last weekend. Here's a list of world records that were set without tech suits: www.lbgrunions.org/.../usworldrecords.html James, in all fairness, I think your comment is a bit misleading in that it suggests that world records continue to fall despite the outlawing of the high tech body suits. Though this is true, it doesn't tell the whole story. With a small handful of exceptions, all the world records were set by people who aged up this year--Rich Abrahams (just turned 65) being a notable example in our mutual neck of the chronological woods. When you age up, you are competing against the previous record holders. You are not competing against yourself from the year before. Rich, for example, did a 25.80 this year, setting the WR in the 50 free. He did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, his time was 24.93. This year, he did a 58.68 for the 100; again, he did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, he did a 56.63. It is possible that two years took a toll on his speed, but judging from his times at SCY this past spring, I don't think it's terribly likely. Much more probable, from my point of view, is that the loss of the tech suit caused him to "slow down" by about 1 second per 50 and 2 seconds per 100.

So, yes, I think the difference in time is the suit. In fairness, Glenn is one of the few people I know - or have heard of - who swam a faster 400 free at 60 than under 21. But, on a hunch, I looked at how times might change as swimmers age. I used the national SCY qualifying times for the men's 100 free, but the same trend shows up in other events: 18-24 - :55.52 25-29 - :54.02 30-34 - :55.03 35-39 - :55.39 40-44 - :55.71 45-49 - :56.43 50-54 - :57.66 55-59 - 1:00.84 60-64 - 1:04.02 65-69 - 1:09.99 70-74 - 1:16.09 75-79 - 1:23.98 80-84 - 1:44.27 Notice that, between the ages of 30 and 45, the times vary by less than :00.75. But as men age, they seem to slow: the difference between the 45-year-old time and the 60-year-old time widens to almost 8 seconds. That same trend could have been observed in the "tech suit era," suggesting that something may happen to people as they get older. (Gee, do you think?). Some people - the ones who set records last weekend are among them - are just great swimmers, with or without tech suits. Based on what we saw this weekend, I don't think the masters' "tech suit era" records will be on the books very long.

Chris, I looked again at your comparisons, and I can see why these would lead you to believe that the body suit did not make a huge difference in your personal performances. There are probably all sorts of factors, from the GVF coefficient (gelatinously vibrating flab) to the MSFF Buoyancy Factor (muscle sinks, fat floats). Your observation that the effect may not scale linearly is a good one, too. Others, Rich right here on this very thread, have wondered it perhaps the suit helped short axis strokes more than the long ones. I asked a couple comments back if any of you have ideas on the impact of body suits on turns. Would, say, a 200 swum in a LCM pool (with a total of 3 turns) be more or less impacted by the suit change than a 200 swum in a SCM pool (with a total of 7 turns.) My personal anecdotal experience thus far is that the answer is YES--that the body suits helped more for short course than long course, probably because they really gave you a nice streamline-glide advantage off the walls (more walls, more advantage.) Any thoughts here? For what it's worth, I don't mind (too much) slowing down with age. But I would very much like to come up with a fair way to compare this year's times in a jammer with last year's times in a B70. For example, I got my lifetime best 200 SCY freestyle last spring, the first and only time in my life I have broken 1:55. This year, my best time (admittedly in a much worse pool) was a hair under 2:00. A 1:54.89 in a B70... followed four months later, after similar training, but in a much worse pool, untapered, etc., by.... A 1:59.81 in a jammer... I suppose I am just looking for some sort of succour here! If the difference in suits is 1 second per 100, then my high 1:59 is equivalent to a high 1:57. If the difference is 1.5 seconds per 100, then it becomes a high 1:56... It's one thing to accept the New Reality intellectually. But it's another thing to look at times you previously considered really, really horrible for you (and perhaps consider evidence that you are starting to get congestive heart failure or something similarly dire) and instantly feel okay about said new horrible times. On the other hand, if said new horrible times can be objectively shown to be, well, reasonably good, all things considered, then joy once again reigns unfettered in the Jimcentric Universe! Really, that's all I am hoping for. Happy days again in Jimcentricity. Please, mathematicians and swimming statistical scientists, won't you all join me in this noble quest?

...lots of stuff cut for brevity...For what it's worth, I don't mind (too much) slowing down with age. But I would very much like to come up with a fair way to compare this year's times in a jammer with last year's times in a B70. For example, I got my lifetime best 200 SCY freestyle last spring, the first and only time in my life I have broken 1:55. This year, my best time (admittedly in a much worse pool) was a hair under 2:00. A 1:54.89 in a B70... followed four months later, after similar training, but in a much worse pool, untapered, etc., by.... A 1:59.81 in a jammer... I suppose I am just looking for some sort of succour here! If the difference in suits is 1 second per 100, then my high 1:59 is equivalent to a high 1:57. If the difference is 1.5 seconds per 100, then it becomes a high 1:56... It's one thing to accept the New Reality intellectually. But it's another thing to look at times you previously considered really, really horrible for you (and perhaps consider evidence that you are starting to get congestive heart failure or something similarly dire) and instantly feel okay about said new horrible times. On the other hand, if said new horrible times can be objectively shown to be, well, reasonably good, all things considered, then joy once again reigns unfettered in the Jimcentric Universe! ...more deletions What about this metric: Are you beating the people that you used to beat, and still getting beaten by the people who used to be faster than you?... or are there insufficient repeat competitions to get a statistically significant data set?

There are probably all sorts of factors, from the GVF coefficient (gelatinously vibrating flab) to the MSFF Buoyancy Factor (muscle sinks, fat floats). I suppose I am just looking for some sort of succour here! ...unfettered in the Jimcentric Universe! Really, that's all I am hoping for. Happy days again in Jimcentricity. Please, mathematicians and swimming statistical scientists, won't you all join me in this noble quest? Can't help you much in your quest but do agree with MSFF, especially when it's encapsulated in plastic. And you lose me with "succour" - isn't there a succor born every minute, according to P.T Barnum? :chug:

James, in all fairness, I think your comment is a bit misleading in that it suggests that world records continue to fall despite the outlawing of the high tech body suits. Though this is true, it doesn't tell the whole story. With a small handful of exceptions, all the world records were set by people who aged up this year--Rich Abrahams (just turned 65) being a notable example in our mutual neck of the chronological woods. When you age up, you are competing against the previous record holders. You are not competing against yourself from the year before. Rich, for example, did a 25.80 this year, setting the WR in the 50 free. He did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, his time was 24.93. This year, he did a 58.68 for the 100; again, he did not swim it last year, but when he was 63, he did a 56.63. It is possible that two years took a toll on his speed, but judging from his times at SCY this past spring, I don't think it's terribly likely. Much more probable, from my point of view, is that the loss of the tech suit caused him to "slow down" by about 1 second per 50 and 2 seconds per 100. According to the VA Rating Calculator (which takes aging into account), that 24.93 at age 63 would "degrade" to a 25.36 at age 65. And the 56.63 would become 57.74 two years later. So my estimate of the effect of the tech suit is 0.44 sec in the 50 and 0.94 sec in the 100. We both make what I would consider to be questionable assumptions: you that age has no effect on someone's speed when they are in their mid-60s, me that Rich is in the same shape now as he was two years ago. So I think the "truth" of the tech suit effect (in Rich's case at least) is probably somewhere between our two estimates: 0.5-1.0 sec per 50. Which edge of the range you prefer depends on which assumption you trust more.

Jim, I'd say your analysis is pretty accurate. In '09 at the Ron Johnson meet I went a 25.1 for the 50 and a 57.3 for the 100 which may be a bit more comparable in terms of the suit effect (for me more like .7 per 50 and 1.3 for the 100). It's about the same for my LCM times. I think the lack of the tech suit has a bigger effect on my fly times. Rich According to the VA Rating Calculator (which takes aging into account), that 24.93 at age 63 would "degrade" to a 25.36 at age 65. And the 56.63 would become 57.74 two years later. So my estimate of the effect of the tech suit is 0.44 sec in the 50 and 0.94 sec in the 100. We both make what I would consider to be questionable assumptions: you that age has no effect on someone's speed when they are in their mid-60s, me that Rich is in the same shape now as he was two years ago. So I think the "truth" of the tech suit effect (in Rich's case at least) is probably somewhere between our two estimates: 0.5-1.0 sec per 50. Which edge of the range you prefer depends on which assumption you trust more. Rich and Chris, there are all sorts of variables to consider when comparing year to year swimming times in an aging masters swimmer. The two that Chris and I are focusing on are the effect of the suit change (body suit vs. jammer) and the yearly effect of age, especially in the upper decades. Rich, as the Undisputed King of Social Security Vested Sprint Swimming Men, I am wondering what your thoughts are about the impact of age. Chris, I am pretty sure, is arguing that even if you had swum in the body suit this year, your times would have been slower this year compared to last because you are a year older (and subject to forces, like sarcopenia of aging and decreases in maximal heart rate, etc.) that simply impact velocity. Though I agree that there is clearly an age effect across the population, I would argue that: 1) this is mitigated significantly by ongoing training 2) that when swimmers age up, they often--consciously or not--increase their training intensity in the hopes of doing really spectacularly when they become the new babies of the older age; thus the "age effect" is more likely to be seen, practically speaking, in the middle to later part of the age group, that most of us get a "motivational bump" in the first part In any event, Chris's math--again, if I am understanding this correctly--would suggest that the effect of age alone is about .55 seconds per year in the 100 in the mid 60s. I, on the other hand, think that your times slowed down almost entirely because of the suit change, that for the Magnificent Outlier that is Rich Abrahams, the increase in a year or two played virtually no role at all. What say ye? One other question. In my own case, I had a pretty good test comparison in LCM. My 50 slowed by exactly .50 from the summer of 2009 to the summer of 2010. My 100 slowed by exactly .97. These deteriorations, if you additionally factor in the wages of age (as Chris would have us do), would suggest the suit played very little difference--perhaps a little as a quarter second per 50. I just don't buy this. When warming up in a B70, I noticed my natural warm up stroke lead me to take 11-12 strokes per length (in a 25 yard pool); in a jammer, it was 13-15. This isn't just some negligible effect. One last question: do either of you think that the loss of the suit will have more or less of an impact in a short course vs. long course pool? It seems that my yards times to date have been affected more than my LCM times, and I wonder if one of the suit's most helpful aspects was faster, longer glides off the walls?