A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's translate this to track and field. Has there ever been an Olympics in which the final lap for the women's 1500 was faster than that of the men?
Not the final lap, but IIRC, in Barcelona the opening 400 was faster in the women's final than the men's.
Found it. 62.3 for Chesire in the men's final, 60.7 for Rogachova in the women's.
And while it hasn't happened in practice, I can imagine a situation where the last lap would be slower for the men's winner than the women's. On the men's side we'd need a runaway winner, who would fade somewhat towards the end, but hold on to win after a 58.x last lap. In the women's final, we could have a slow race with a sprint finish where someone runs a 57.X. Unlikely, perhaps, but perfectly possible.
So it would require a very tactical race which doesn't normally happen in swimming. I'm pretty certain Ye's competitors were time-trialing the whole race.
jazzcyclist wrote:So it would require a very tactical race which doesn't normally happen in swimming. I'm pretty certain Ye's competitors were time-trialing the whole race.
But even if they're theoretically time-trialing, they don't all use the same tactics. Some start fast and fade, while others push hard only in the second half. Also, don't forget we're talking of the IM, which is like a multi-event. It's normal that each of these swimmers will be stronger in some strokes than in others.
Powell wrote:Also, don't forget we're talking of the IM, which is like a multi-event. It's normal that each of these swimmers will be stronger in some strokes than in others.
So maybe the right comparison would be, is there a heptathlon winner who runs the 800m faster than the decathlon winner runs the last two laps?
It's amazing how the posters have perverted thickbooty's thread! This isn't about swimming time trials, Lochte, or how many medals are won relative to the world and why the US should be grateful, it's about how the rise of swimming is direcly attributable to the success of the USA over the years, how NBC has been able to parlay that success into eyeballs by showcasing American gold medal ceremonies. This isn't happening now [USA dominance and compelling personalities] and it opens an opportunity for Track and Field - an opportunity that American Track and Field will be hard pressed to take advantage of if Jamaicans are as dominant in London as they were in Beijing.
MissThickBooty wrote:So is this going to be a reverse of Beijing? The USA Swimming team performed amazing while the Track team stunk the place up...So far the heavy favored USA Swimming team has failed to make a big splash, only 2 golds and a bunch of silver\bronze......Interesting...... :wink: (As a track fan)....
preston wrote:It's amazing how the posters have perverted thickbooty's thread!
Ooooh, like no other thread in the history of message boards has ever drifted or expanded a topic!
preston wrote:it's about how the rise of swimming is direcly attributable to the success of the USA over the years, how NBC has been able to parlay that success into eyeballs by showcasing American gold medal ceremonies.
Where do you interpret this definition of the thread from the original post ? . . . .
Odell...if you were smarter you would stop laughing and you would read thickbooty's post again and understand WHY. Or you can wallow in your ability to deconstruct threads and remove the context, but look incredibly dense. Your choice.
preston wrote:Odell...if you were smarter you would stop laughing and you would read thickbooty's post again and understand WHY. Or you can wallow in your ability to deconstruct threads and remove the context, but look incredibly dense. Your choice.
Oh please, this is a friggin internet message board, stop taking yourself so seriously! Really! Don't bother responding because I am done with this discussion with you.
preston wrote:Odell...if you were smarter you would stop laughing and you would read thickbooty's post again and understand WHY. Or you can wallow in your ability to deconstruct threads and remove the context, but look incredibly dense. Your choice.
Oh please, this is a friggin internet message board, stop taking yourself so seriously! Really! Don't bother responding because I am done with this discussion with you.
That's it, run off because you don't get to tell everyone else what to do. You were wrong, accept it.
I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
Track may have not had any 15-year-olds compete at the highest level but it certainly has had 17-year-olds do it, especially on the women's side.
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
Most kids, like I did years ago, start competitive swimming when they are about 8 to 10 years old. So peaking when you are about 16 or so is, or was, pretty much the norm. That has changed a bit in recent years, since swimmers are staying in the sport longer.
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
Track may have not had any 15-year-olds compete at the highest level but it certainly has had 17-year-olds do it, especially on the women's side.
Really? Name a WR breaking 17 year old woman? The only person I can even think of getting close was Jelimo and she was 19, I think; maybe Felix, but that's a medal, when you're talking about WR...it happens in swimming it does not in track and field. Also, when American teenagers do it every Olympics there are no questions, but the chinese girl is questioned when she does it.
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
As others have stated, they start serious training much earlier than track. Secondly, most of the great young performers are women, who physically mature faster than men and so such a performance is not an anomaly as much a for the men. Yes, we have seen Michael Phelps achieve success in the pool at a young age (15 for his first Olympics) but he did not set a world record at 15 and did not medal. Thirdly, I think this 15 year old American girl in the 800 is simply an outlier, like Janet Evans or Mary Meagher. A genetic wonder who happens to hit the right event at the right time.
Also, probably most importantly for "raising eyebrows" is the fact of how the race was one by the Chinese girl. She swam the last 100 in an astonishing time and the last 50 faster than the men's race at the same distance. Legit or not, and I assume it was totally legit, that will open anyone's eyes.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
jhc68 wrote:I have a question: How does it happen that an American 15 year can set a world record and win OG gold in a swimming distance event while it would be inconceivable to think of a high school 10th grader doing the same thing on the track?
Track may have not had any 15-year-olds compete at the highest level but it certainly has had 17-year-olds do it, especially on the women's side.
Really? Name a WR breaking 17 year old woman? The only person I can even think of getting close was Jelimo and she was 19, I think; maybe Felix, but that's a medal, when you're talking about WR...it happens in swimming it does not in track and field. Also, when American teenagers do it every Olympics there are no questions, but the chinese girl is questioned when she does it.
I didn't say break a WR, I said compete at the highest level, and there have certainly been some 17-year-old African distance runners who have competed at the highest. Generally speaking I think track puts a greater premium on physical maturity than swimming does, especially on the men's side. 17 seems to be the world-class cutoff for track while there have been 14-year-old world class athletes in swimming (eg. Janet Evans).
preston wrote:Really? Name a WR breaking 17 year old woman? The only person I can even think of getting close was Jelimo and she was 19, I think; maybe Felix, but that's a medal, when you're talking about WR...it happens in swimming it does not in track and field. Also, when American teenagers do it every Olympics there are no questions, but the chinese girl is questioned when she does it.
Part of your question is the answer. The American system has been producing these performers and performances by many different swimmers for generations. When another country comes along with almost no history of doing so, it can raise an eyebrow. Especially given China's past and comments made by some of their leaders.
We also have continually seen WR's improve in swimming I think for several reasons:
1. Things that were not even thought about years ago have been fine tuned and developed, such as underwater dolphin kicking for a full 15 meters. When I was swimming, you did a flip turn and that was it. Swimmers today learn to maximize every aspect of the race.
2. Athletic talent has improved. In the 1980's, 1990's we did not see nearly the swimmer body types we are seeing today. We saw the 5' 10" body types succeeding. You look at the top level sprinters now and they are all 6'5", 6' 7", etc. Bigger feet, bigger hands, bigger paddles. You look at Missy Franklin and Allison Schmitt. They are giants among women and we have generally not seen women of this size very frequently.
preston wrote:Really? Name a WR breaking 17 year old woman? The only person I can even think of getting close was Jelimo and she was 19, I think; maybe Felix, but that's a medal, when you're talking about WR...it happens in swimming it does not in track and field. Also, when American teenagers do it every Olympics there are no questions, but the chinese girl is questioned when she does it.
Part of your question is the answer. The American system has been producing these performers and performances by many different swimmers for generations. When another country comes along with almost no history of doing so, it can raise an eyebrow. Especially given China's past and comments made by some of their leaders.
We also have continually seen WR's improve in swimming I think for several reasons:
1. Things that were not even thought about years ago have been fine tuned and developed, such as underwater dolphin kicking for a full 15 meters. When I was swimming, you did a flip turn and that was it. Swimmers today learn to maximize every aspect of the race.
2. Athletic talent has improved. In the 1980's, 1990's we did not see nearly the swimmer body types we are seeing today. We saw the 5' 10" body types succeeding. You look at the top level sprinters now and they are all 6'5", 6' 7", etc. Bigger feet, bigger hands, bigger paddles. You look at Missy Franklin and Allison Schmitt. They are giants among women and we have generally not seen women of this size very frequently.
If I recall, this trend began with Michael Gross, "the Albatross". He was about 6'6" - 6'7", and his wingspan was just shy of 8". He had a beautiful butterfly stroke...
To update the medal count - the US actually had a better Olympics than Beijing in swimming. Even though they amassed the same number of overall medals(31), the 2012 team scored 16 golds as opposed to Beijing's 12, along with 9 silver, and 6 bronze.
While I'm sure this info can be found somewhere online, I'm curious the last time T&F outmedaled swimming
guru wrote:To update the medal count - the US actually had a better Olympics than Beijing in swimming. Even though they amassed the same number of overall medals(31), the 2012 team scored 16 golds as opposed to Beijing's 12, along with 9 silver, and 6 bronze.
While I'm sure this info can be found somewhere online, I'm curious the last time T&F outmedaled swimming
Swimming looks to have passed T&F in 1968 for the first time and has bounced above and below since but has been ahead since '92
The performance decline of U.S. track and field is stark. From the 1896 through the 1988 Olympics, the team averaged 31 medals a Game, while the U.S. swim team averaged 17. Since the 1992 Olympics, the average per-Game medal haul for track and field fell 24%, to 23 medals, while the swim team's grew to 32, an increase of 83%.
For much of the 20th century, the U.S. team held a near monopoly on the best training and facilities. From the start of the modern Olympics through 2008, U.S. track and field teams collected 732 medals, including 309 gold, with the former Soviet Union's team a distant runner-up: 214 medals, 71 gold.
With the retirement of Phelps, and with Lochte, Grevers, etc. climbing up the age scale, it will be interesting to see what happens in Rio. I see a possible reversal of fortune for Track v. Swimming next time around, in the overall medal count, though probably not by much.
