World records in Olympics swimming prelims- Impressive or a joke?

Caller of calls wrote:

The water is faster now. I don't know what that means but there was an article I read about it during the U.S. swim trials after some records were broken. Apparently it is more expensive and more likely to be seen temporary or new pools for major events like the trials or Olympics.

You are correct pools are rebuilt/built with greater technology especially olympic and championship pools and give a huge impact back to speed, tuned may be the correct way to put it.

You will also note that swim suits are in constant change with technology innovations on moving through the water.

noway7 wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I love it when non swimmers pontificate about things they no nothing about, like "Its not difficult to swim 100 m in 57s, for a swimmer". As a former collegiate swimmer I can an attest to the fact that it was, and at my advanced age now, likely still is.

It can't be too hard. Let's look at college results. Last season's college rankings lists a thousand men who are 46 seconds or under in the 100m freestyle. The rankings stop at 46.27. There were a thousand women 52 seconds and under. At the NCAA D3 championship, the absolute worst male competitor swam 46.55, and the worst female was 53.95. And that's D3.

BOOM!!!!!! How bout them facts OLD SOB?

You must have not been very good. lol

Calvin Kleen wrote:

noway7 wrote:

It can't be too hard. Let's look at college results. Last season's college rankings lists a thousand men who are 46 seconds or under in the 100m freestyle. The rankings stop at 46.27. There were a thousand women 52 seconds and under. At the NCAA D3 championship, the absolute worst male competitor swam 46.55, and the worst female was 53.95. And that's D3.

BOOM!!!!!! How bout them facts OLD SOB?

You must have not been very good. lol

Pretty sure those times are for yards but the point stands, 100m is only 9 yards further than 100y.

noway7 wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I love it when non swimmers pontificate about things they no nothing about, like "Its not difficult to swim 100 m in 57s, for a swimmer". As a former collegiate swimmer I can an attest to the fact that it was, and at my advanced age now, likely still is.

It can't be too hard. Let's look at college results. Last season's college rankings lists a thousand men who are 46 seconds or under in the 100m freestyle. The rankings stop at 46.27. There were a thousand women 52 seconds and under. At the NCAA D3 championship, the absolute worst male competitor swam 46.55, and the worst female was 53.95. And that's D3.

You just made my previous point. NCAA swims in yards, not meters. Also, in short course, not long course like the Olympics. More turns equals faster times.

I used to think Track and Field was the sport of the nerds. The people who couldn't make it in other team sports. But after watching Swimming it's truly the sport of geeks. When someone with any slight athletic ability shows up they destroy the records or win 21 gold medals. Imagine if Tim Duncan ever became a swimmer or if LeBron James or Kevin Durant decided to swim instead of playing basketball. They'd probably lap people.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

noway7 wrote:

It can't be too hard. Let's look at college results. Last season's college rankings lists a thousand men who are 46 seconds or under in the 100m freestyle. The rankings stop at 46.27. There were a thousand women 52 seconds and under. At the NCAA D3 championship, the absolute worst male competitor swam 46.55, and the worst female was 53.95. And that's D3.

You just made my previous point. NCAA swims in yards, not meters. Also, in short course, not long course like the Olympics. More turns equals faster times.

The conversion over a 100, from yards to meters is around 7 seconds, Add a couple seconds for turns you're up to around 9 seconds for a typical good college swimmer. And the comment was that a girl swimmer can easily swim 100 meters in less than 57 sec, which isn't the case, and certainly not in a 50 meter pool.

The men's 200m record has been broken four times in 37 years since Mennea ran 19.72 at altitude and probably on the line in 1979.

WejoX2 wrote:

I used to think Track and Field was the sport of the nerds. The people who couldn't make it in other team sports. But after watching Swimming it's truly the sport of geeks. When someone with any slight athletic ability shows up they destroy the records or win 21 gold medals. Imagine if Tim Duncan ever became a swimmer or if LeBron James or Kevin Durant decided to swim instead of playing basketball. They'd probably lap people.

"Slight" athletic ability? Please my previous post.

Metric Miler wrote:

Calvin Kleen wrote:

BOOM!!!!!! How bout them facts OLD SOB?

You must have not been very good. lol

Pretty sure those times are for yards but the point stands, 100m is only 9 yards further than 100y.

No. They swim meters too. Only in HS do they swim yards.

jjjjj wrote:

The men's 200m record has been broken four times in 37 years since Mennea ran 19.72 at altitude and probably on the line in 1979.

Yep. Talent is much thinner than it was back in the day. All good T&F talent is being poached by other sports these days.

what about it? The best athletes in the world don't swim. That's a fact. Swimming gets the people who filtered through the rest of the sports world. Yeah it probably has more athletes than say fencing or team handball but those sports are even lower down the filter than swimming.

Metric Miler wrote:

Calvin Kleen wrote:

BOOM!!!!!! How bout them facts OLD SOB?

You must have not been very good. lol

Pretty sure those times are for yards but the point stands, 100m is only 9 yards further than 100y.

Or like just 10% longer.

Calvin Kleen wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Pretty sure those times are for yards but the point stands, 100m is only 9 yards further than 100y.

No. They swim meters too. Only in HS do they swim yards.

They swim short course meters if the school's pool is a meter pool, most however are in yards, and the NCAA records are all in yards.

WejoX2 wrote:

what about it? The best athletes in the world don't swim. That's a fact. Swimming gets the people who filtered through the rest of the sports world. Yeah it probably has more athletes than say fencing or team handball but those sports are even lower down the filter than swimming.

WHITE people

Sad Arabian :( wrote:

WejoX2 wrote:

what about it? The best athletes in the world don't swim. That's a fact. Swimming gets the people who filtered through the rest of the sports world. Yeah it probably has more athletes than say fencing or team handball but those sports are even lower down the filter than swimming.

WHITE people

On the contrary..............age group swimming starts as early as 5 and under, with age groups moving up every 5 years till "senior", which is 18 and above. By age 10 to 12, most kids that do not show a significant talent or elite potential in the sport drop out, and move to something else. Think Alan Webb. Commitment can certainly be a factor as well, as its not uncommon for age group swim clubs to have their 9 - 10 year old's swimming 3000 +meters/day, 5 to 6 days a week. That's 90 min to 2 hrs/day depending upon the workout structure.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

You just made my previous point. NCAA swims in yards, not meters. Also, in short course, not long course like the Olympics. More turns equals faster times.

The conversion over a 100, from yards to meters is around 7 seconds, Add a couple seconds for turns you're up to around 9 seconds for a typical good college swimmer. And the comment was that a girl swimmer can easily swim 100 meters in less than 57 sec, which isn't the case, and certainly not in a 50 meter pool.

I'm sorry, your "conversion" is a bit off for a start. 100m to yards is a little under 10%, not 9 seconds?!

E.g. 46 x 1.1 = 50.6

Secondly, I am watching and talking about Olympic athletes. Girls in the Olympics are easily swimming 100m in 57s. I've seen it with my own eyes.

In fact, I just watched Kate Ledecky do it twice back to back!

I'm sure you were a great swimmer. Maybe 57 was a good time for a collegiate male over 100m once upon a time, but like I've been saying, technology makes a hell of a difference in this sport.

Just like cycling.

Metric Miler wrote:

I'm sure you were a great swimmer. Maybe 57 was a good time for a collegiate male over 100m once upon a time, but like I've been saying, technology makes a hell of a difference in this sport.

Just like cycling.

57 seconds long course would equate to around 46 to 47 seconds and change short course yards. The AM at the time I was swimming NCAA was around 44 seconds and change, so a 57 LCM time would be considered sub elite then for a male. Technology certainly has helped but its been mostly pool technology however there were always faster and slower pools. The full body suits are now banned. The big change however has been in the quality of coaching, and greater understanding relative to how become more efficient and expend less energy per unit distance. Of course some rule changes have also helped allowing for one to go underwater for 15 or so meters, not having to actually touch the wall with ones hand when doing a backstroke turn, not having to have ones head out of the water during breaststroke (also the one dolphin kick now).

OOPS AR not AM