Elitetrack: Sport Training & Conditioning

Mike Young - 13 August 2008 02:04 AM

RussZHC - 13 August 2008 01:58 AM

Tonight’s coverage of the swimming included a somewhat in depth analysis of all the factors contributing to the large numbers of PR, OR and WR being set in the Water Cube. What surprises me in some cases is the amount by which records are being set, or the number of swimmers very near to what the old WR was (CBC has a line indicating the relative position of the competitors to the current world record).
It may be time to define the competitive conditions in that sport more exactly the way track has the allowable wind, slope of track etc. otherwise it will only be a matter of time before suspicions are raised and relevancy lost.  One of the factors is apparently water temperature, so next time, if there are too many records set this time and they want the number of new records reduced all organizers would need to do would be to raise the temperature a couple of degrees. Should sport really depend on the engineering of facilities?  Controllable variables, sort of like watering the base paths.

Dang. I actually missed that segment. I would’ve loved to have seen it.

I swam competitively for 8 years and still follow the sport and I can tell you that the water temp issue is fairly well known and there’s no way it can account for what we’re seeing. It seems to be a convergence of things (new suits which push the boundaries of legality and performance, an Olympic year, an unusually fast pool, etc) that is accounting for these performances.

I think somebody should take a sample of that pool water and measure it’s thermodynamic properties…perhaps it’s spiked with something that enhances buoyancy and decreases viscosity

I think another factor that plays in to swimming is that techniques are still developing at a much faster rate than in track.

Do you think that the change of some of the rules (such as an extra dolphin kick allowed, etc.) contributes as well?

There’s no question anymore, Phelps is the greatest ever. EVAR.

Well crap, I might as well stop training if the only thing that matters now is that Phelps is the best of anything ever done in the history of sport ( and probably the future of sport too by how much they ride him).

I’m not trying to take anything away from him, especially because it isn’t his own bragging or boasting, but I’m already sick of the obscene amount of coverage he is getting.

Yeah. It was sweet tonight when he had the second fastest qualifying time in the 200m IM to another American and they interviewed Phelps. I’m sensing a Phelps backlash if they don’t tone it down a little.

I bet if Lochte wins the IM, the interviews and news stories will all be about how Phelps failed to get 8 gold medals instead of Lochte dropping the “King of the olympics”.

I love these gems from that article

“It’s like running a marathon with your shoes untied.“

“It’s good to see Kobe Bryant is there to see the greatest athlete in the world. If Kobe goes out and wins a gold medal in badminton, that’s what it’s like to see this guy win the 200 fly and swim that leg in the 400 free.“

It’s like they gave the local idiots the microphone and then left the room, letting them say whatever the hell they want.

The phelps-mania is a bit overwhelming, then I remind myself that swimmers get zero press coverage outside the Olympics. So let Phelps have his 1 month because it will all fade for another 4 years.

Chad Williams - 14 August 2008 09:14 AM

The phelps-mania is a bit overwhelming, then I remind myself that swimmers get zero press coverage outside the Olympics. So let Phelps have his 1 month because it will all fade for another 4 years.

Yeah but the same could be said for every other swimmer who’s being neglected and all the other Olympic-only sports like weightlifting, gymnastics, rowing, diving, etc. I understand he’s the most decorated Olympian ever and an incredible athlete but I think the focus on Phelps is fueled by money at the cost of giving some much needed attention to the other athletes who are interesting (but not as dominant) in their own right.

Mike Young - 14 August 2008 03:54 PM

Chad Williams - 14 August 2008 09:14 AM

The phelps-mania is a bit overwhelming, then I remind myself that swimmers get zero press coverage outside the Olympics. So let Phelps have his 1 month because it will all fade for another 4 years.

Yeah but the same could be said for every other swimmer who’s being neglected and all the other Olympic-only sports like weightlifting, gymnastics, rowing, diving, etc. I understand he’s the most decorated Olympian ever and an incredible athlete but I think the focus on Phelps is fueled by money at the cost of giving some much needed attention to the other athletes who are interesting (but not as dominant) in their own right.

I agree with everything you are saying and I know a lot of people are sick of Phelps.  I don’t think that greatness is measured in Gold Medals anyway. There are a lot of other great stories out there, but the media rides the Phelps bandwagon.

And you touched upon it but the issue here is the coverage in general. I am sure they could jam pack 4 hours of a televised broadcast with highlights from each day, regardless of whether or not they are going to get a gold medal. To me, making the Olympics and competing for the US is an accomplishment in itself and we should get a glimpse of more athletes whether it is triumph or defeat.

Mike Young - 14 August 2008 03:54 PM

Chad Williams - 14 August 2008 09:14 AM

The phelps-mania is a bit overwhelming, then I remind myself that swimmers get zero press coverage outside the Olympics. So let Phelps have his 1 month because it will all fade for another 4 years.

Yeah but the same could be said for every other swimmer who’s being neglected and all the other Olympic-only sports like weightlifting, gymnastics, rowing, diving, etc. I understand he’s the most decorated Olympian ever and an incredible athlete but I think the focus on Phelps is fueled by money at the cost of giving some much needed attention to the other athletes who are interesting (but not as dominant) in their own right.

you should watch some more then because they have talked about other athletes quite a bit.

I am responding to both “2008 Olympics: Why all sports aren’t created equal” and “2008 Olympics: Random Observations.” I was a club, high school, and college swimmer and devoted a solid twelve years to the sport. I am now an avid runner and triathlete.

You cite swimming and track and field as two different animals. I completely agree. Swimming is a non-impact sport. It is easier to train longer, more often, etc. It is an easier sport on the body than track and field. However, there are many, many swimmers who have overuse injuries and undergo shoulder surgeries. With continued over-arm motion from all strokes except breastroke, in particular freestyle, many athletes experience impingement of the rotator cuff, tendinitis, and bursitis. This is particularly true for women. Women have more flexible shoulder joints (and joints in general) than men.

I do agree that it is easier to do a double in swimming (as stated in “Random Observations”). Even though it is easier to double or swim more events in a meet than in track and field, there is still a limitation on a swimmer’s body and physical capabilities. There is a lot of carry-over between distance, fly and/or IM events in swimming. And, because swimming is a non-impact sport, the water is not hard on your body and swimmers are able to swim more events at a high level. However, I disagree with the point that someone can be the champion in the 50, 100, 200, and 400m freestyles. This has never happened at the Olympics. There may be athletes capable of this, but I don’t remember anyone swimming the 50 and 400M Freestyles at any recent Olympics.

The point I am getting to is that I disagree with saying swimming isn’t as competitive as track and field. Since swimmers are able to train at higher levels more often than in track and field and since swimmers are less susceptible to injury the best swimmers should reach their highest potential (all else being equal), meaning the Olympic and national level swimmers are the cream of the crop.

By drawing the conclusion swimming isn’t as competitive, it is also concluded that as good as Michael Phelps is, he isn’t as good as he would be if there were more athletes in the sport. It would be more “level”. I strongly disagree. Michael Phelps was born to swim. His proportions (6’7” wingspan, large feet, double-jointed elbows, short legs) make him a perfect specimen to swim fast. Yes, he “shatters” world records and the reason for this is that yes, he is THAT good, he has the best training partners in the world (Ryan Lochte and Peter Vaanderkay, among others) and swimming is in a controlled environment (no wind, weather, track conditions to interfere).

Phelps is to swimming as Michael Jordan is to basketball. There may not be another Phelps in our lifetime. Had there been no Michael Jordan, some of the top basketball players of all time who played during his era would have NBA Championship rings. These players include such greats as Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, and the list goes on.  Does this mean this era of NBA Basketball had a diluted talent pool?  No, Jordan was JUST-THAT-GOOD.  The same can be said for Phelps.  If Michael Phelps did not exist, there would be a much wider range of swimmers with “Olympic Champion” next to their name.  Phelps deserves the media coverage he gets- so does the sport of swimming. Only being on TV once a year (if that), just like track and field, I think you understand that any media on swimming is great. Lastly, Michael Phelps is NOT the best Olympic athlete ever. Each sport requires extreme specificity and I don’t think that anyone can make that judgment as to who the best athlete is- I think a better definition is most decorated Olympic athlete.

A few other arguments: (1) Relay decisions are made by capable and keen coaches. I don’t think a few minutes of extra rest is necessary for someone who is amped up to do a relay and I’m sure the coaches know if that would make a difference or not to the athlete. Phelps leading off the 4x100 was a great decision in order to put the next swimmer into open water, with no wake in front of them.
(2) Ryan Lochte is arguably the best swimmer at the games other than Phelps. His ability to win gold tonight in the 200 Back and come back less than 30 minutes later to grab bronze in the 200IM is an unbelievable accomplishment. I have no qualms saying that double is easier than running the 400M and 400H back-to-back, but I don’t think you can compare swimming and track – they are two different entities. Neither Lochte nor Taylor are better than each other- swimming physically allows for the double, and running does not. However, I don’t know if anyone else could have accomplished what Lochte did. He has great talent for swimming.
(3) Taking away events, favored in “Random Observations”, is totally ridiculous to me. If you look at the men’s side, YES, Phelps is owning the gold medal stand but I assure you if he were not in the mix, there would be different athletes winning events. You see this on the women’s side of things, especially this Olympics. There are and would continue to be specialty swimmers, for instance, Aaron Piersol has owned the backstrokes the last 7 years, and has won ¾ golds in the stroke the last two Olympics, but I do not believe there would be swimmers dominating across all distance and events without Phelps.
(4) The one thing swimming does need to do is to reach out to minority populations- there are demographics not represented on the national, college, and high school level that need to be. I admit that if these minorities were represented, swimming would be more competitive, but I do not think their under-representation causes swimming to be less competitive than track and field. I also believe Phelps would still look that far ahead of the competition.

To end, my aim is to defend my belief that swimming is a very competitive sport, that Phelps is THAT good and that swimming is not “behind the curve”.

  1. Swimming is a non-impact sport. This has HUGE ramifications for performance, recovery, sustainability, and likelihood of injury. Athletes in swimming are able to recover MUCH faster than their collision occurring dry-land brethren. Impact induces microtrauma to all the soft tissue and increases the likelihood of catastrophic injuries like fractures, pulls, ruptures, and the like. This is why swimmers have no problem putting in 6 hours of training a day and 10-20 training sessions in a week. A similar schedule for a track athlete would BURY even the hardiest Chinese female distance runner.

Swimming is a non-impact sport but remember to look at the big picture. If the fastest wins that means power is involves somewhere and that includes strength training. Weight training is now a stable in programs and that means eccentric damage.

  2. The pool itself offers a mild form of therapeutic massage because of the hydrostatic pressure of water and the thermal transfer of heat from muscles to the water. This further reduces inflammatory responses and microtrauma to the soft tissue that might prevent repeated high intensity performances.

Hydrostatic pressure is related to depth and that doesn’t include half on top of the surface of the water. The thermal transfer allows the swimmer to work harder but not faster. Again things come down to who is the fastest.

  3. The sport isn’t as competitive as track. It just simply isn’t. Phelps is almost undoubtedly the greatest talent to ever take on the sport of swimming. At 6’4” with the wing span of a man much taller and hands dwarfed only by his feet, Phelps was made to swim. The same might be said for Usain Bolt who recently broke the 100m world record with his 9.72 seconds. Similar to Phelps, Bolt dwarfs his competitors and was recognized as a prodigious talent from a very young age. Unlike Phelps however, Bolt has only broken the world record by 0.02 seconds and has several competitors who could beat him on any given day. Phelps on the other hand SHATTERS world records in seconds. FULL SECONDS. And leaves his competitors eating his proverbial wake as if they were swimming in sand. This indicates to me that the sport of swimming has yet to approach the point of talent saturation that track and field has. More specifically, swimming is not yet at the point where you HAVE to be at the 99.99th percentile of the genetic bell curve to compete at the highest levels. When we start to see the world records level off, and when we start to see them being broken less frequently, then and only then will I believe that the sport of swimming is as competitive as track on the world stage.

Running is part of evolution and we have most of our genes for biped gait on land. Running mechanics is about shaping an athletes natural stride by removing errors. Swimming is artificial and that is why people get faster. Experimentation or innovation swimming requires smart coaches not those infamous for falling asleep in a chair while a world record holder is made. Track is genes and swimming is more talent and coach.

Track has more of a population but those involved are not as well coached.

  4. Swimming doesn’t require the same number of rounds as track and field does to qualify for the finals. In swimming, an athlete only has to advance through one round to make it to the finals. In track, this is only true for the endurance events. The 100m, for example, has three rounds of qualifying just to make it to the finals. And at the end of the day, the winner of the 100m still only gets one medal. When a swimmer races that many times, they have the opportunity to take home two medals. So not only is it physiologically easier for a swimmer to attempt repeated efforts of maximal intensity (see points 1 & 2), they are more easily awarded medals for their effort when they do.

Great points. Math doesn’t lie….

  5. The fact that athletes can be SOOO dominant across such varied events indicates that if you are at the tip of the genetic iceberg and train your butt off you can be SO GOOD that even athletes who are specialists (with presumably less talent) cannot beat you. For example, it’s not uncommon in swimming for athletes to be champions (or at least be capable of being champions) in the 50m, 100m, 200m, and 400m freestyles AT THE SAME TIME. When we look at the time durations of these events they are roughly equivalent to events on the track that are four times as long. Can you imagine a 200m sprinter (essentially the same time as a 50m in swimming) also being a champion at the 1500m (about the same time duration as the 400m in swimming). It would NEVER happen. Not in a million years. This indicates that either the talent levels in the sport are no where near what they are for track, and / or performance has much less to do with physiology (specifically energy system fitness) than in track.

Different demand. The physiology is key as absolute speed is not based on fast twich!

6. Environmental factors such as wind, rain, temperature, and even lane assignment are much less of a factor (if a factor at all) in the sport of swimming. These variables make the seemingly straight forward sport of track and field, highly unpredictable at times. Much more so than swimming.

Good points…imagine phelps doing this in an outside pool? His lungs would be black!

From the Chicago Tribune:

BEIJING - Yes, he now has won more gold medals than anyone in Olympic history.

No, that does not make him the greatest Olympic athlete in history.

In fact, he doesn’t even make my top five.

He is number six with a bullet, moving up the charts like a hot pop song.

Ahead of him?

1.Carl Lewis, U.S., track and field.

2. Paavo Nurmi, Finland, track and field.

3. Larisa Latynina, Soviet Union, gymnastics.

4. Birgit Fischer-Schmidt, Germany, kayak.

5. Steven Redgrave, United Kingdom, rowing.

Why is Phelps sixth?

It is easy to win multiple medals in swimming.

The sport is far more forgiving on the body than track or gymnastics.

And Phelps does not yet have the long-term record of the others.

Lewis won nine gold medals, four in the 1984 Olympics and four straight in one event, the long jump.

Nurmi won nine gold medals at distances from 1,500 to 10,000 meters over three Olympics. He likely would have won more had he not been declared ineligible after 1928 under rules that demanded Olympians be amateurs.

Latynina won nine gold medals and 18 total medals over three Olympics.

Fischer-Schmidt won her first of eight gold medals in 1980 and her last 24 years later as a 42-year-old mother of two. She won three for the old East Germany and five for the unified Germany. She won in singles, doubles and fours. She also won four silvers.

Redgrave won gold medals in five consecutive Olympics while rowing in three different boat types.

I asked Phelps Thursday if winning the most golds makes him the greatest of all time, and he sounded like a man wisely focused on the present.

“I have no idea,“ he said. “I just get in the water and swim. That’s the only thing I think about.“

I asked renowned Olympic historian David Wallechinsky the same question, and he ranked Nurmi and Lewis as co-leaders.

“I think Phelps needs one more Olympics to join them,“ Wallechinsky said.

Over 12 years, Lewis won two gold medals in the 100 meters, one in the 200, two on the sprint relay and an unprecedented four straight in the long jump, an event in which the impact on the body of the run-up and takeoff has been likened to falling off a truck at 25 miles per hour.

“What Lewis did is extraordinary. He is No. 1,“ said France’s Marie-Jose Perec, one of three runners to win the 200 and 400 meters in the same Olympics.

“You can’t compare track and swimming. In swimming, you can recover. You can do five races in a day and get world records in all of them. That’s impossible in our sport.“

Don’t try to argue that Phelps has been part of world-record performances in first five events.

New pool and suit technology have made swimming’s world records meaningless, with 18 record performances through Thursday in the Olympics alone. Just four world records have fallen in track and field all year.

Swimming allows an athlete to race two finals in 24 minutes, as U.S. Olympian Ryan Lochte planned Friday morning.

Track and field is so much more physically demanding that neither Allyson Felix nor Sanya Richards dared a 200-400 double after the Olympic schedule put the second round of the 200 within three hours of the 400 final.

“Swimming is pressure off your body, where we are pounding on it,“ Felix said.

Swimming offers three relays with the risk of a false start minimal. Some sprinters run both track’s relays, the 400 and 1,600, but the exchanges on the sprint relay are so dicey Lewis lost a certain medal in 1988 when other U.S. runners botched a baton pass in a preliminary round.

If Olympic track had an 800-meter relay, an event in which Lewis was part of a world-record performance, he likely would have won at least two more gold medals.

Three of swimming’s four strokes-everything but breaststroke-might as well be the same. Otherwise, how could backstroker Matt Grevers say he barely trained that stroke before winning an Olympic silver medal in the 100? Nearly every good freestyler can be a good butterflyer, and vice-versa.

You don’t see any 100-meter runners in the mile, or any milers in the long jump.

Don’t get the wrong idea. Track athletes have great respect for what Phelps has accomplished.

“It’s inspiring to watch in amazement at everything he’s doing,“ Felix said.

But he’s not the most amazing Olympian ever.

© 2008, Chicago Tribune.

KLP-
Welcome to the boards and nice post. It seems as if I struck a nerve and I wanted to make sure you know that I have the utmost respect for Phelps and swimming. As I mentioned I was a long time swimmer at the HS, Y, and National Club level while I was growing up. Having said that I want to offer a counterpoint to some of your points.

kps526 - 15 August 2008 12:13 AM

...there are many, many swimmers who have overuse injuries and undergo shoulder surgeries. With continued over-arm motion from all strokes except breastroke, in particular freestyle, many athletes experience impingement of the rotator cuff, tendinitis, and bursitis. This is particularly true for women. Women have more flexible shoulder joints (and joints in general) than men.

In my experience this still pales in comparison to the severity and frequency of injuries observed in track and field.

I disagree with the point that someone can be the champion in the 50, 100, 200, and 400m freestyles. This has never happened at the Olympics. There may be athletes capable of this, but I don’t remember anyone swimming the 50 and 400M Freestyles at any recent Olympics.

To clarify I did say CAPABLE OF doing it and not necessarily doing it (something which certainly wouldn’t be true in track) and I also didn’t say International level. There are certainly top level HSers and collegiates who could do this at there respective levels.

The point I am getting to is that I disagree with saying swimming isn’t as competitive as track and field. Since swimmers are able to train at higher levels more often than in track and field and since swimmers are less susceptible to injury the best swimmers should reach their highest potential (all else being equal), meaning the Olympic and national level swimmers are the cream of the crop.

The talent pool is smaller. Much smaller just simply due to the fact that you need a pool to be able to do it. That (along with some genetic factors) precludes entire continents from competing on a large scale. It’s the same as with BMX. How many people do BMX? It’s easier to get to the top of the heap in BMX than it is in track. Now don’t get me wrong…swimming is no BMX but I don’t think it’s at the level of track and field either. A sport which in any given year is the first or second highest participation sport in the world.

By drawing the conclusion swimming isn’t as competitive, it is also concluded that as good as Michael Phelps is, he isn’t as good as he would be if there were more athletes in the sport. It would be more “level”. I strongly disagree. Michael Phelps was born to swim. His proportions (6’7” wingspan, large feet, double-jointed elbows, short legs) make him a perfect specimen to swim fast. Yes, he “shatters” world records and the reason for this is that yes, he is THAT good, he has the best training partners in the world (Ryan Lochte and Peter Vaanderkay, among others) and swimming is in a controlled environment (no wind, weather, track conditions to interfere).

The same genetic freak comments could be made about Usain Bolt and he doesn’t shatter multiple world records every time he competes. That’s because the records in track are approaching the ceiling of human performance. This is not the case in swimming for a variety of reasons…talent saturation being one of them.

Phelps is to swimming as Michael Jordan is to basketball. There may not be another Phelps in our lifetime.

No argument on this point. I have no qualms saying that Phelps is the greatest swimmer to ever live.

Phelps deserves the media coverage he gets- so does the sport of swimming. Only being on TV once a year (if that), just like track and field, I think you understand that any media on swimming is great.

I wasn’t hoping that the attention be diverted away from swimming so much as I was spreading it amongst the other great Olympians that you have already pointed out are fantastic in their own right.