Yes. Nobody cares about swimming, because essentially nobody knows how to swim.
The sponsorships are few and far between, and are small unless you are Phelps.
It is a pretty small, tightly-knit community in the US, everybody knows everybody and top-level coaches and camps are few. The NCAA system is everything except for one person, Andrew—and he has been repeatedly savaged for having avoided it.
Which is a big reason I hope he does well.
not everyone wrote:
Natalie Coughlin -
5 medals in 2004 Olympics (22 yo)
6 medals in 2008 Olympics (26 yo)
Sets PR 100 IM SC (national record) at 32 yo.
Sets PR in 50 FR and 50 Back (national record) at 33 yo.
Or what about Dara Torres? Olympic career spanned 24 years...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dara_Torressit and kick wrote:
interesting thread. I remember the US's [and everyone elses] all-time greats [Spitz/Gaines/et all] basically were non-professional college athletes. There simply wasnt a post-collegiate sponsorship/$$ train for professional swimmers. It was even worse for women.
Fast forward 30 years and little has changed outside the top 3-5 across all events. You've got room for a phelps, a ledecky, and maybe a Lochte with everyone else scratching a living together.
It's not that women age out of swimming, its that it isnt economically viable --Dara Torres was mentioned already, of course sprinters tend to hang on a bit longer in this sport as opposed to others. Guys like Ian Thorpe tried to come back in his early 30s and couldnt quite make it. Spitz was about 2s off of his PB in the 100 fly when he tried to come back at 40. So theres some variance. Age matters a bit but certainly 20s is not too old. Janet Evans tried to come back and was awfully close in the 800 at the trials in 2012 for instance, in-season competition suggested she only needed to come up with about :15s in an 800 which isnt a ton [but it didnt show at the trials, bad race]
The most important factor is $$$/opportunity cost of time. For female swimmers especially there arent a lot of opportunities past age 25 and its just not worth postponing family/career/education/etc.
So I disagree with this post---especially because female sprinters can [and do] continue to improve past the ages mentioned here. For the more endurance-y related races I do tend to agree that the mid 20s are about ideal, however. But that doesnt mean teenagers are going to always dominate like they do in gymnastics. I think in swimming its because most women that would be their competition have exited the sport for other reasons already [time//$$$]
Yes, nothing was "professional" back in those days, as we know it today. And yes, lots of swimmers improve well past their teens and early 20's, even elite or sub elite's, both men and women. The problem is that unless one is truly Olympic caliber its next to impossible to support ones self with alone swimming as a stand alone. And the training hours required to maintain ones fitness for elite swimming competition pretty much eliminates the ability to begin and maintain a career. Also, saw a post about Dara Torres..............she was lucky in that she came from a family with money to begin with, then married into it which allowed her to train unimpeded without the types of responsibilities most people have.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Yes. Nobody cares about swimming, because essentially nobody knows how to swim.
The sponsorships are few and far between, and are small unless you are Phelps.
It is a pretty small, tightly-knit community in the US, everybody knows everybody and top-level coaches and camps are few. The NCAA system is everything except for one person, Andrew—and he has been repeatedly savaged for having avoided it.
Which is a big reason I hope he does well.
Thats true but only to a degree. USA swimming has fostered hundreds of swim clubs across the US, and there's at least one swim team in every YMCA in every community. USA swimming also sponsors camp after camp after camp. I remember attending one way back in the 70's when I was a college swimmer that Doc Councilman from Indiana put on. I would suggest to you that, having been in the sport for years, that there are more competitive swimmers than competitive runners in the US, particularly if you take into consideration the age groupers.
Scorpion_runner wrote:
here is the thing wrote:
The thing they don't discuss much is the time investment swimming takes.
You have to do hours upon hours in the pool. At some point many swimmers simply get tired of the grind.
It use to be swimmers were done after just a couple years out of college, now that they can make somewhat of a living at it, they are swimming longer...
I just think biological changes are more of factor than training. Training does take its toll, but the drastic changes that a women's body go through from the ages of 16-22 are immense. For one they are lighter when they are younger, because the mass is more lean than fat.
Plus Male Swimmers don't have the same decrease, and they experience the same amount of intense training. So not only are they able to gain and hold on to more lean mass, they don't experience the early stage or stages of burnout. That was also part of the study. So if it were just a mere thing of being burned out, then men would be affected as well, because they endure the same amount of stress and high level training.
I agree with the study, the biological make up and the progression of the biological make-up is the major difference.
Now if more female swimmers were to adopt a high level muscle building program, to keep fat down ,like Dana Torres did, and keep their testosterone levels up, then I could see those numbers changing. Now there will always be a few outliers like Torres, but for the most part, compared to men, they lose speed once they hit 22 -24 off standard elite swim training . Their top level swimming will mostly happen in their teens.
And due to the study, for those women who are able to maintain speed or even get faster way off in their 20s, etc, then the suspicion of doping wouldn't be far from the mind See: East German female swimmers of the 1970s. Doping in swimming is huge, but since no one really follows the sport, it's way under the radar. .... Especially with the women. Diana Taurasi, Uconn's biggest star of all time, and at the time, was one of the WNBA's biggest star ( Candace Park ), tested positive for PEDs, and not one gave a crap. In swimming, it probably wouldn't even make the news ( unless it were Katie).
1. It's swimming. 2. It's a woman.
If a woman doped in a sport that no one watches , and she tested positive, and it was reported, but the public didn't react, did it really happen? lol
You seem to have skipped over my reply to you. Fat helps swimmers. It floats. Look at some Olympic marathon swimmers.. pretty chubby
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
Scorpion_runner wrote:
I just think biological changes are more of factor than training. Training does take its toll, but the drastic changes that a women's body go through from the ages of 16-22 are immense. For one they are lighter when they are younger, because the mass is more lean than fat.
Plus Male Swimmers don't have the same decrease, and they experience the same amount of intense training. So not only are they able to gain and hold on to more lean mass, they don't experience the early stage or stages of burnout. That was also part of the study. So if it were just a mere thing of being burned out, then men would be affected as well, because they endure the same amount of stress and high level training.
I agree with the study, the biological make up and the progression of the biological make-up is the major difference.
Now if more female swimmers were to adopt a high level muscle building program, to keep fat down ,like Dana Torres did, and keep their testosterone levels up, then I could see those numbers changing. Now there will always be a few outliers like Torres, but for the most part, compared to men, they lose speed once they hit 22 -24 off standard elite swim training . Their top level swimming will mostly happen in their teens.
And due to the study, for those women who are able to maintain speed or even get faster way off in their 20s, etc, then the suspicion of doping wouldn't be far from the mind See: East German female swimmers of the 1970s. Doping in swimming is huge, but since no one really follows the sport, it's way under the radar. .... Especially with the women. Diana Taurasi, Uconn's biggest star of all time, and at the time, was one of the WNBA's biggest star ( Candace Park ), tested positive for PEDs, and not one gave a crap. In swimming, it probably wouldn't even make the news ( unless it were Katie).
1. It's swimming. 2. It's a woman.
If a woman doped in a sport that no one watches , and she tested positive, and it was reported, but the public didn't react, did it really happen? lol
You seem to have skipped over my reply to you. Fat helps swimmers. It floats. Look at some Olympic marathon swimmers.. pretty chubby
Fifty yard &/or 50m splash and dash is mostly about strength and length. How hard one hits the water to propel forward. Every swimming event longer than 100m, we can notice the gap between males and females closing as the distance increases. The women build is an advantage as swimming distance increases. Look at how by percentage the world records get closer and closer in swimming. This does not occur in running. In every running event, 60 yards to Marathons, gravity is the enemy so women body fat is not a performance advantage in running. Running is a series of triple jumps. I excluded ultras, "raced" at (7 to 12) minutes a mile. Ultras are closer to a good hike. Women close the gap by percentage in ultras.
I do not think it has to do with overall age, but rather the amount of time the athletes have been competing. Some swimmers have been COMPETING YEAR ROUND since they were FIVE. There are many children who do not even learn how to swim till they are six or seven. If you start at five, and retire at 25, that seems on par with running. Most runners start when they are 14. Add twenty years, and you are 34...a great retirement age in running.
I will give you this, that competitive masters swimmers are often insanely dedicated, it’s like an addiction.
Yes USA Swimming has a ton of camps, and the Y system has been around for a long time. I guess the same could be said about running as I said about swimming: essentially nobody does it—but I would guess that there are way more hobbyjoggers than hobbyswimmers. Whether they go to meets and watch competitions on tv is debatable, but for sure they buy gear, which is the whole point of giving sponsorships.
Swimming is trying different things, like the invitational series they just had, and like team competitions—but IMO these things won’t provide the kind of incentive needed for women to stay in the sport. Some like Meili can extend their reach through grad school, which I think is a great path for a swimmer to take, if available.
By saying that the NCAA is everything, I meant for really competitive adult swimmers. Yes there are a few (3?) real clubs around, but not really. Andrew’s dad had to build him a pool. My friend swims with the U that he went to, at 5:30am. Go to NCAA’s and you will see everyone, past and present, in the seating areas that they reserve. Last men’s I went to I couldn’t see shxt for a while because Biondi was standing in front of me, so I went to the back and hung around with another peripheral sort of guy: Ervin. Another time we were hanging out with the whole Ledecky family, they’re really nice people.
Everybody travels to all these meets, which is unlike my track experience. Tight community. Often, parents or close family members were also swimmers.
former 1st class USMC swimmer wrote:
I excluded ultras, "raced" at (7 to 12) minutes a mile. Ultras are closer to a good hike. Women close the gap by percentage in ultras.
I don't know about your other points, but you're way off on this one.
That's like saying a mile is more than a 100 times easier than running Western States.
Also you are ignorant about the fact that women's times in ultras are no closer than in track events.
Fat helps hobbyswimmers who float on their backs while smoking, drinking, and reading Paris Match.
Fat does not help competitive swimmers. Just ask Leverentz. Among other things there is less shoulder flexibility. And all swimmers will tell you that it is much easier for them to pull themselves through the water when they are as thin as reasonably possible.
Ryan Lochte is still great and a terrific role model for our yutes. JEAH!
But Gymnastic chicks age faster than swimmers, and they age badly. They are little old women at 30, wrinkled faces and tiny, squatty bodies with no curves. And theyre screwed up in the head.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
That's not true. In fact, only very long distances - half/marathons, triathlons, or cycling benefit older athletes. VO2MAX decreases after early 20s. That's why most elite runners PR in the 5k when they are 18-23 years old, and I assume the decline in VO2MAX also effects swimming.
Here a list of the fastest 5k times and the age in brackets at which they ran it:
1. Kenenisa Bekele (22) ETH 12:37.35
2. Haile Gebrselassie (25.2) ETH 12:39.36
3. Daniel Komen (21.3) KEN 12:39.74
4. Selemon BAREGA (18.5) 12:43.02
5. Hagos GEBRHIWET (24.3) 12:45.82
4. Eliud Kipchoge (19.7) KEN 12:46.53
5. Yomif KEJELCHA (21.0) ETH 12:46.79
6. Dejen GEBREMESKEL (22.7) ETH 12:46.81
7. Sileshi Sihine (21.4) ETH 12:47.04
8. Isiah Kiplangat KOECH (18.5) KEN 12:48.64
9. Issac Songok (22.3) KEN 12:48.66
10. Yenew ALAMIREW (22.1) ETH 12:48.77
11. Saif Saaeed SHAHEEN (20.7) KEN 12:48.81
Lagat, ran 12:53 at 26 years old, which is already quite impressive. But he always did low mileage and focused on the 1500, so it's likely he just wasn't at his peak when he was younger, and could have run even faster.
Some, like El G peaked even later, at 28 years, but they also never focused on the 5k when they were young. He could have run faster than his 12:50 had he focused on the 5k many years earlier.
Lol all of those ages are fraudulent. Add 5 to 10 years.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Fat does not help competitive swimmers.
Among other things there is less shoulder flexibility.
I didn't know anyone could be so stupid and ignorant until you started posting.
Please stop. wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Fat does not help competitive swimmers.
Among other things there is less shoulder flexibility.
I didn't know anyone could be so stupid and ignorant until you started posting.
That’s because you’re a moran.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I will give you this, that competitive masters swimmers are often insanely dedicated, it’s like an addiction.
Yes USA Swimming has a ton of camps, and the Y system has been around for a long time. I guess the same could be said about running as I said about swimming: essentially nobody does it—but I would guess that there are way more hobbyjoggers than hobbyswimmers. Whether they go to meets and watch competitions on tv is debatable, but for sure they buy gear, which is the whole point of giving sponsorships.
Swimming is trying different things, like the invitational series they just had, and like team competitions—but IMO these things won’t provide the kind of incentive needed for women to stay in the sport. Some like Meili can extend their reach through grad school, which I think is a great path for a swimmer to take, if available.
By saying that the NCAA is everything, I meant for really competitive adult swimmers. Yes there are a few (3?) real clubs around, but not really. Andrew’s dad had to build him a pool. My friend swims with the U that he went to, at 5:30am. Go to NCAA’s and you will see everyone, past and present, in the seating areas that they reserve. Last men’s I went to I couldn’t see shxt for a while because Biondi was standing in front of me, so I went to the back and hung around with another peripheral sort of guy: Ervin. Another time we were hanging out with the whole Ledecky family, they’re really nice people.
Everybody travels to all these meets, which is unlike my track experience. Tight community. Often, parents or close family members were also swimmers.
Started masters swimming in my mid 40's, when the running injuries were such that I could no longer do significant track work or mileage. Very quickly progressed to around 4000 to 6000 m/day (sometimes further), attained All American status in my early 50's. Masters is as tight a community as it gets, I ran into swimmers I competed against in college, and at least one former team mate. Numerous former Olympians swim every year at nationals. Wish I had the time for it these days.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Fat helps hobbyswimmers who float on their backs while smoking, drinking, and reading Paris Match.
Fat does not help competitive swimmers. Just ask Leverentz. Among other things there is less shoulder flexibility. And all swimmers will tell you that it is much easier for them to pull themselves through the water when they are as thin as reasonably possible.
Open water marathon gold medalist
https://images.app.goo.gl/zZFTGHQXhdE31gZK8Not that lean..short distance it matters more
Open water marathon isn’t “competitive swimming” as I have used the term. It is to pool swimming sort of as ultras are to track running.
And still, that’s not much fat. Usually they wear wetsuits to aid buoyancy, to keep warm...and to keep lampreys off, and parasites out?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Open water marathon isn’t “competitive swimming” as I have used the term. It is to pool swimming sort of as ultras are to track running.
lol, let's see usain bolt do leadville 100, he would DNF.
ultra thon bro wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Open water marathon isn’t “competitive swimming” as I have used the term. It is to pool swimming sort of as ultras are to track running.
lol, let's see usain bolt do leadville 100, he would DNF.
You're not understanding what he is saying. His comparison is right on.
Scorpion_runner wrote:
Sarah Sjostrom , 25 , loses to a 19 year old, which denied her 5 straight championship titles.
200m is not exactly an "endurance" event (it lasts about as long as a 800m run), but Pellegrini just won another title at age 30.
Hozssu has one her 200IM (also at age 30), and is favored to win 400IM again.