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

Metric Miler wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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!

Here's an example. Ian Crockers best 100 LCM butterfly time was consistently around 51 - 52 seconds. One flip turn. His SCY (3 flip turns) times were around 45 seconds. 6 to 7 seconds difference. As you move up from his level (he held the WR in the LCM fly till Phelps broke it), the time conversions get longer, because the swimming velocity/meter is less, and the time/meter gets longer. For a sub elite the conversion should be around 7 to 9 seconds, and on up (or down) the ladder.

Who cares what age they start - it's still not the best potential athletes. Age group swimming enrollment vs. kids playing hoops down the local park/touch football/soccer doesn't even compare. This is why people may ohh and ahh every 4 years over gold medals but no one cares about swimming. Breaking a WR in an event in the prelims is a joke. I get that superior athletes are going to go where the money is which is why when one some how breaks an WR in the prelims it doesn't matter.

WejoX2 wrote:

Who cares what age they start - it's still not the best potential athletes. Age group swimming enrollment vs. kids playing hoops down the local park/touch football/soccer doesn't even compare. This is why people may ohh and ahh every 4 years over gold medals but no one cares about swimming. Breaking a WR in an event in the prelims is a joke. I get that superior athletes are going to go where the money is which is why when one some how breaks an WR in the prelims it doesn't matter.

Oy vey.............Why do I feel like i'm trying to reason with a toddler? or perhaps my meathead Great Dane???

Sub elite then, not now. "Then" was in the 1970's. The rule changes have made a big difference more so in the breast stroke then any of the others. Ledecky can in fact put a couple 56 second 100's back to back, but few others can.

Literally we aren't even arguing. You are just agreeing with my points left right and centre.

You even mentioned breaststroke having the biggest increases because of rule changes which is exactly the point I originally made and the reason we are talking about this 57s 100m malarkey.

What's your gripe?

WejoX2 wrote:

What's your gripe?

His gripe, which I thought was pretty clear, is that you're a meathead.

The quadrennial LRC bitchfest about swimming never ceases to amaze me.

Look, in T&F there is the LJ and TJ, 100 m and 200 m, hurdles and steeple chase, 5k and 10k, high jump and pole vault (why "retard" the HJ by not giving them a pole?), hammer throw and discus, marathon and race walking. Let's move on to other sports; road cycling and mountain biking, Greco Roman wrestling and judo, water polo and synchronized swimming, rifles and archery, clean and jerk and snatch, gymnastics and rhythm gymnastics, the list goes on and on and on.

All sports, every last one of them, "makes up" rules to add diversity to them. Someone, somewhere, says; I wonder what would happen if they had to do X or Y or Z?

There is no way in the world that a breaststroker could win a backstroke or freestyle event - this is why Phelps is such a special athlete is that he is actually a really good back/breaststroker. The same reason why you'd never see a 100m/100m hurdle champion (why "retard" a sprinter by putting barriers in their path anyway?")

As to the "lousy athlete theory" yes by all means; if a superior athlete like Michael Jordan played baseball he would clean up.

The swimmers at the Olympic level are incredible athletes, as much as any other sport. In swimming the physiology that helps them go fast in the water makes them less proficient with land lubber sports. Long arms and torso with short legs. Huge lats and no ass; i.e., the flying V. Athletes that are good on land would flounder in the pool the same way MJ's long arms took too much time to get through the strike zone. So, sorry, the LeBron theory here holds no water.

And finally, swimming records can go down more often than T&F records because all their events are competed for in lanes. Imagine how slow the 800, 1500, 5k, 10k or Marathon would be if they had to compete in lanes every race. Now imagine how much faster the swim records would be if Phelps had a dolphin for a rabbit.

Now for T&F events that are competed for in lanes, those records may not go down as often because of the influence of PEDs, which seemingly have a much greater influence in T&F than swimming. (I freely admit that I could be wrong here) Just look at the sprint record holders (both busted and not busted) in T&F and compare to swimming. A lot more convicted drug cheats.

T&F's use of pacers puts the records further out of reach for many competitors. Swimming records are much more obtainable because, the whole shark skin body suits issue aside, times are incremental obtained through time trial racing.

So can we just enjoy each sport for what it's worth without making up some bogus, one sided argument of why one is better than the other? Besides, and the haters have to agree, that right now swimming is putting on quite a show.

Metric Miler wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Sub elite then, not now. "Then" was in the 1970's. The rule changes have made a big difference more so in the breast stroke then any of the others. Ledecky can in fact put a couple 56 second 100's back to back, but few others can.

Literally we aren't even arguing. You are just agreeing with my points left right and centre.

You even mentioned breaststroke having the biggest increases because of rule changes which is exactly the point I originally made and the reason we are talking about this 57s 100m malarkey.

No not really.............the main point of contention is the impact of technology. Certainly rule changes have sped things up a but but to what degree is unclear, and certainly much more in the breaststroke. But that's not technology. Pools are faster and slower, but most competition pools have been around for a long time. The high tech suits have come and gone. The reality is that much improved technique, better coaching and more efficient swimming is the driver of what you're seeing in the pool. Additionally, a much more aggressive USA Swimming age group club scene in the US is the springboard for swimmers like Ledecky.

One thing I will comment on:

I can understand how Katie Ledecky and Michael Phelps might be able to win multiple gold medals and have multiple world records across distances. They may be the greatest of all time and just the best of the best of the best. Prodigious we will never see again.

What I don't understand is how someone like Ryan Lochte and Adam Peirsol have won multiple gold medals in events that take anywhere from 1:00 - 4:00. Ryan Lochte has won multiple gold medals across "middle" distances.

Think about that for a second in terms of track and field. Maybe if Bolt trained like a madman he could win the 100M, 200M and 400M. I'm not sure if Bolt could beat Kirani James or Merrit, in fact I am not sure Bolt would even medal at that event even in his prime.

It is even more ridiculous the longer the distance. David Rudisha - probably the best 800M runner ever - has "only run" 45 for the 400M, I am not sure we would make the final for the 400M and there is no way he would realistically compete for a medal. He has never run a 1500M but realistically what is a great day for him? 3:30? Andrew Wheating has run that time and he isn't competing for a medal in fact he couldn't even make the U.S. team.

Would Rudisha even stand a chance against this guy in a 1500M?

https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/kenya/elijah-motonei-manangoi-292900

These are for events where the training is very similar. I don't think there is anyone that could realistically compete for a gold in 800m / 1500m currently. FWIW the 5K / 10K double is far more doable however.

We are going in circles. The main point of contention was never technology. I said pro swimmers can swim 57s easily, so the breaststroke WR being smashed with a 57 low is pretty meaningless. All it means is that the technique changes over the years, to essentially redefine what breaststroke is. You ended up agreeing with that final statement.

You told me that 57s is not easy for swimmers to do, then proceeded to explain to me that it is easy now but not 'then', highlighting that changes in the sport outside of human performance have made everyone appear so much faster.

Unless you are actually telling me that Ledecky can swim your PB twice back to back (apparently a sub elite MALE time) because she has better coaching than you did. Despite swimmers like yourself putting 5+ hours a day in the pool. Something doesn't add up.

You've agreed that advances in technology are a driving force in records falling. Something which I said also.

Really I am getting kind of bored of you agreeing with me in a manner that seems as though you are arguing.

I'm gonna leave this thread alone now, everything I've said about swimming is simply true, I'm sorry it upsets some people.

For the record, I agree swimmers work very hard and are very good athletes. I accept that. Im sure some work harder than track athletes too. What I don't accept is a swimming World Record being anywhere NEAR equal to (in terms of human limits) Athletics records. It can be disproven on many levels, as can the supposed progress in swimming (WRs left right and centre).

Metric Miler wrote:

What I don't accept is a swimming World Record being anywhere NEAR equal to (in terms of human limits) Athletics records. It can be disproven on many levels, as can the supposed progress in swimming (WRs left right and centre).

It's a good thing you don't have to accept that. It a claim that nobody except you is making and is entirely made up.

I never did say what my swimming personal best (s) were. I do agree that we are traveling in circles, so the best I think we can do is agree to disagree. And I'm not upset, just right :)

Jefe in the CO wrote:

[quote]WejoX2 wrote:

What's your gripe?

His gripe, which I thought was pretty clear, is that you're a meathead.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

No wonder Ian Crocker was so fast. He was allowed to do flip turns in fly while everyone else has to do two-hand-touches.

Go read Jefe in CO's post......then leave.

Watch the swimmers arm when it enters the water?

Now take both your arms, put the palms down flat on the desk.

Rotate your arms so that both elbows are facing up.

That is the arm entry of an elite swimmer. With the elbow pulled back.

Not easy to do but a Kate Ledecky knows that and that's why she wins.

I'm hearing rumors that Sun Yang pulled out of the 1500m because of a medical condition.

Da Penguin wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Here's an example. Ian Crockers best 100 LCM butterfly time was consistently around 51 - 52 seconds. One flip turn. His SCY (3 flip turns) times were around 45 seconds. 6 to 7 seconds difference. As you move up from his level (he held the WR in the LCM fly till Phelps broke it), the time conversions get longer, because the swimming velocity/meter is less, and the time/meter gets longer. For a sub elite the conversion should be around 7 to 9 seconds, and on up (or down) the ladder.

No wonder Ian Crocker was so fast. He was allowed to do flip turns in fly while everyone else has to do two-hand-touches.

Hahahaha my bad, occasionally I type faster than my brain can keep up. Happens more and more these days with my advancing age. However, I think you get my point, and perhaps flip turns in the fly might be a reality one of these days :)

Right you are. A lot depends on type of training, technique etc and a swimmer can compete across a number of distances and disciplines. BUT you'll likely not see a Ledecky, as good as she is, being as successful as she is in the 200, 400, and 800, in the 100 and 50. In track, you're limited a lot by your body type.........a heavier sprinter like Bolt likely would not be as successful at the 400 and 800, where his body weight would limit him dramatically. This isn't an issue in swimming.