T&F vs Swimming WR's


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby aaronk » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:57 pm

Just received my 2013 World Almanac and Book of Facts.
Was browsing through it, and looked at the WR's listed for both outdoor T&F (as of Oct 1, 2012) and the World Swimming Records (as of Oct 2012).

In Swimming, for the men, in ALL events (individual, medley, relays)....
the OLDEST record is listed as the 400 meter Individual Medley (4:03.84) by Michael Phelps, dated August 10, 2008.

For the women, the oldest is the 1500 meters freestyle (15:42.54) by Kate Ziegler on June 17, 2007.

In T&F, for the men, there are....

15 (fifteen!!) records listed from the 1990's, and...
2 from the 1980's!!

For the women, there are...

7 (seven) listed from the 1990's, but even worse, there are...
12 (twelve!!) listed from the 1980's!!

I know there are MAJOR differences between swimming and T&F, but it does seem swimming is much more a 21st century sport than T&F.....
based on just the current WR's alone!!

Let's hope 2013 puts a few dents in swimming's rep!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby TN1965 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:53 pm

Swimming records have been aided by the technological development in pool designs and swimsuits.

Gains from the technological development in track surface or running shoes have been much more limited in recent years.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby eldanielfire » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:40 pm

I think also the limited depth globally and social variety swimming talent and jumps in pool design also factor in. Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will. The ease of multiple medals in swimming also confirms this.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby 18.99s » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:00 pm

How many swimming world records have been set since January 1, 2010? That's when they banned the high-tech bodysuits. In the few years before the ban they were breaking world records at a riduculous rate like more than 25 per year.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby aaronk » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:26 pm

18.99s wrote:How many swimming world records have been set since January 1, 2010? That's when they banned the high-tech bodysuits. In the few years before the ban they were breaking world records at a riduculous rate like more than 25 per year.


Hmmm!!
Thanks, 18.99, didn't know that about the suit-banning!!
I don't follow swimming much.

Soooo, I checked my trusty new World Almanac, 2013 edition.

For men, only 4 (out of a possible 20) new WR's were set AFTER January 1, 2010.
For women, the number is only 3 (out of a possible 20)!!

Mea culpa!!

However, that still doesn't give valid excuses for all those 80's and 90's WR's left over in T&F!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby olorin » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:46 pm

aaronk wrote:
18.99s wrote:How many swimming world records have been set since January 1, 2010? That's when they banned the high-tech bodysuits. In the few years before the ban they were breaking world records at a riduculous rate like more than 25 per year.


Hmmm!!
Thanks, 18.99, didn't know that about the suit-banning!!
I don't follow swimming much.

Soooo, I checked my trusty new World Almanac, 2013 edition.

For men, only 4 (out of a possible 20) new WR's were set AFTER January 1, 2010.
For women, the number is only 3 (out of a possible 20)!!

Mea culpa!!

However, that still doesn't give valid excuses for all those 80's and 90's WR's left over in
T&F!!


Re banned suits:
If we examine the WR of textile suits then:
Men: Only 3 WR (50m pool) set before 2010 (out of 20)
Women: Only 1 WR set before 2010 (out of 20).
You can look here for the “true” WR in swimming in this site:
http://www.swimnews.com/news/view/8589

Re difference between T&F and swimming
I had a teaching assistant that swam for Australia in the 2000 Olympic. I actually asked him the same question and he argue that in swimming there has been a lot of improvement in the stroke and turns during the last two decades. He said that slight change in the angle that you put your hand in the water can mean a large improvement in your efficiency. Running is much more natural activity than swimming so there has been much less improvement (except the start in the sprints).

Re those 70’ and 80’ records
I think that we all know why so many T&F records were set in the 80’. In swimming there has being similar effect. But because of the fast progress in swimming by the turn of the new millennia most of these records were broken. Still the number of records set during the 90’ was by far lower than during the 80’ and 00’.
olorin
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby lonewolf » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:12 pm

My granddaughter was an elite HS swimmer before and during the bodysuit era. She was given developmental suits, which she said definitely helped her swim faster but she refused to wear in competition unless every girl had a suit.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby Wang Lung » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:36 pm

eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.
Wang Lung
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby lionelp1 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:31 am

Wang Lung wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.


And the reason is that is a damn sight easier to train young kids from babyhood to swim endless hours of up and down the pool than to beat up their legs on a track or across fields. The number of injuries to legs in track and upper torso in field events compared to swimming attests to this..

Generally speaking there can be no comparison between swimming and track performances. How many swimmers can sprint 50/100/200/400 and probably 800m in a world class times plus reasonable if not world class at one other stroke, all supported by several feet of water; you will not see such replication in track.
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby lionelp1 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:32 am

lonewolf wrote:My granddaughter was an elite HS swimmer before and during the bodysuit era. She was given developmental suits, which she said definitely helped her swim faster but she refused to wear in competition unless every girl had a suit.


well done to your grand daughter; shows character.!
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby 18.99s » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:51 am

Wang Lung wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.


T&F athletes don't need to start training or competing that young to become world class, nor do they need to train 6 days a week 50 weeks per year before they're adults.

A more relevant comparison is how many are competing in either sport at high school age. The T&F and cross-country numbers will easily dwarf the number of swimmers.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby aaronk » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:05 am

18.99s wrote:
Wang Lung wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.


T&F athletes don't need to start training or competing that young to become world class, nor do they need to train 6 days a week 50 weeks per year before they're adults.

A more relevant comparison is how many are competing in either sport at high school age. The T&F and cross-country numbers will easily dwarf the number of swimmers.


Actually, if you eliminate all the field eventers (and the multi-performers), and include ONLY runners......the numbers would be more comparable.
Yes? No?

Swimmers swim for time, and do laps.
Field eventers don't compete for time OR do laps!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:06 am

Wang Lung wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.

I think he was talking about global depth, not American depth.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby Pego » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:38 am

Regardless of the causes (probably all mentioned above), swimming reached human potential (human, not Marlow's androids) about a generation later than T&F.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:36 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Wang Lung wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:Swimming isn't a sport that has as much depth and talent as the track and will probably never will.


That is not true in the US. There are 500 kids in my metropolitan area (Sacramento, CA) that began competetive swimming at age 6. They swim 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. There is not a single T&F athlete here that has done that.

I think he was talking about global depth, not American depth.


Of course! Competitive swimming is almost an entirely American thing. Australia is the only exception that comes to mind. Certainly no country in Europe, including the UK, does it much. And the third world is out the window.

Any wonder why NBC loves swimming? Americans are gauranteed to win.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: T&F vs Swimming WR's

Postby hc10003 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:56 am

Another contributing factor to the rate of WRs in swimming vs T&F is that there are no tactical swim races; everything is in lanes, never a sit-and-kick race. Every time the top swimmers in the world assemble, each athlete is all out from start to finish, even in the longer races (not that the pace isn't slower as distance increases; but it is almost always all out relative to the distance being contested, thus WRs are even threatened in heats). In contrast, when the top 1500m or 5000m runners assemble, the initial laps are often nowhere near WR pace. So part of it is a matter of percentages: a much greater proportion of swim races are pursued from the start with the intent to race at PR/WR pace than in track, where at 800 and up pursuit of place often trumps pursuit of time.
hc10003
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:31 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bobguild76 and 9 guests