ATLANTA, Georgia, August 12. RECENTLY, there's been considerable hand-wringing about the all-out record assault taking place. The idea is that we've somehow lost the history of our sport when Alexander Popov gets buried in the all-time 50 freestyle rankings or Janet Evans gets knocked down a few pegs. Recently, in putting together our Georgia Tech team handbook, I had to revise the ACC and school records. It was an hour long process.
But have we really lost something? I say no. Records have been broken, no doubt. They have fallen at an unprecedented rate. The truth is, our sport has never been about records. The history of our sport to this point has not been about the times achieved on the clock. Records have always come and gone, but seldom were athletes forgotten just because their records had been broken.
Today Michael Phelps has brought swimming to a new peak in popularity. What is he famous for? He's famous for winning eight gold medals. Prior to Phelps, the peak of swimming stardom had always been Mark Spitz. Spitz was famous for winning seven gold medals. It mattered little to swimming fans that Matthew Gribble, may he rest in peace, was a faster butterflyer in the mid 80s than Spitz was in '72. No one tried to argue that Gribble was a better swimmer than Phelps.
Earlier this year, when I was coaching the University of Pennsylvania, we traveled to Dartmouth for a dual meet. The record board had an unexpected treat: still holding the pool record in the 100 butterfly was Spitz's old foil Doug Russell. He had held the record since 1968. I watched him lose it to Chris Pool of Yale. Still, I think a lot more people will still be talking about Doug Russell's Mexico City butterfly in 10 years than they will the accomplishments of Pool.
I do admit that to this point I've cherry-picked two examples that compare accomplishments at or near 40 years apart. What then, of the recent history that has been almost completely wiped from the books? I think the past two years have in someway only cemented their place in history. As long as anything beyond a brief is available in men's swimming, people will bring Popov into the discussion of any 50 free world record. We will never be entirely sure that the current record holder was truly better than Popov.
That concept goes beyond the "suits". Sports change and make it difficult to compare eras. I am reminded of this every time I watch some old basketball highlights and catch some of Bob Cousy:
Cousy is considered possibly the best ball-handling basketball player of all-time. However, if you watch his highlights now the moves seem somewhat stiff and unathletic. Have players become so much better in the last 40 years that Cousy wouldn't play well now? I say no. The sport has changed. When Cousy played officials were far tougher in calling traveling and palming of the ball then they are today. In the same way, we can never compare Jessicah Schipper to Mary T. Meagher because we don't have a time machine. Schipper is playing a different game.
Here's my point: swimming will always be about the competition taking place in the pool that day. The past is already past, and who knows what the future holds.
Chris DeSantis begins his first season at Georgia Tech as an assistant coach after previously coaching at the University of Pennsylvania.
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
August 12, 2009 Good Article...You've hit on the Nail... Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 I totally disagree. Why in the world do we keep track of world records if they don't mean anything? The whole point of swimming is go further than anyone has ever gone before. To figure out how to train and live better so your body can perform better than what was thought possible. The ideal situation is of course that everyone is doing this at the same time, so that when they meet, they all surpass themselves and then winning is twice as important. The whole point of the ban is to get back to a point where we can once again call Popov's, Egerszegi's and Evans' records the fastest swims ever and whoever breaks them won't have the dreaded suit asterisk standing next to it.
I remember Michael Phelps as much for completely redefining what I thought was humanly possible as for his 8 golds. The suit crisis did nothing to hurt his legacy until the 200 free in Rome.
The reason Beamon's long jump record was so legendary was not that he beat the previous record by so much. It was that it remained unbroken for 23 years, despite whatever advancements they made meanwhile.
August 12, 2009 What I'm trying to say: When you win Olympic gold, you show that you can perform under pressure. That's commendable. When you break a world record, you've just gone faster than anyone else has ever done. This of course is only meaningful as long as the conditions are comparable.
Come to think of it, Powell's record is 18 years old this summer. It's almost reaching the same status as Beamon's. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 I agree with Chris. Comparing eras in sport is a waste of time. Furthermore, records have a limited shelf life. If they sit around too long, they get stale. Why? Because it means the something isn't progressing, and progress is what sports are about. If not, why bother measuring? I still hold a couple of school records at my college set in 1980. It doesn't make me feel good to know that those ancient records still exist. It reflects poorly on the program more than positively on my performances. I had my day. Now it's someone else's turn. Time to move on. Raise the bar. Focus on now, not the past. No one was sad to see Beamon's record broken—more like "about time!" Submitted by: fluidg
August 12, 2009 Okay, let me get this straight... If someone commits himself to train harder than anyone, in an innovative way far ahead of its time, and has a rare talent and posts a record that stands for too long, we should forget about that record because everyone since him didn't bother/weren't able to come up with a way to beat his record. Or better yet, if the record stands for too long and no one is able to beat it with comparable equipment, we should alter the rules so the record is possible to beat by anyone and his dog. NOW THAT'S PROGRESS!!! Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 "JakedBadForYou", you made a bad comparison. Bob Beamon's long jump record had controversy as well since it was done at an altitude of 7400'. Carl Lewis the "Greatest Long Jumper Ever to Live" didn't want to break the WR at altitude and he never was the WR holder. He jump farther, but Powell did so at the 1991 World Champioship Games in Tokoyo. The running surface at Tokoyo was completely different from Mexico. At around that time was when the all weather tracks seem to get more of a bounce. Really Beamon's WR is on par with the hi tech suits. It took 23 years to break the recorder that was set at the 1968 Mexico Olympics. So, how long will it take to break the records that were set in swimming over the last 2 years. Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Summer_Olympics
"The high altitude of Mexico City (2240 m) was suspected to be difficult to adjust to for many endurance athletes. No other Summer Olympic Games have been held at a location remotely as high as Mexico City. This high altitude and the thin air were also credited with contributing to many record-setting jumps and leaps in the long jump, triple jump, high jump, and pole vault events, and throwing events like the discus throw, as well as all the men's track events of 400 meters and less."
Like I said, bad comparison "JakedBadForYou"...yes I was watching the Mexico Olympics live. Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 There are so many things wrong with you said, I'm just glad FINA didn't talk to you when deciding to ban the suits.
"it means the something isn't progressing, and progress is what sports are about. If not, why bother measuring?"
Right. So Michael Phelps was a rare talent, born to swim, steel-like mentality, motivation like no other, gifted and determined beyond anything we'd ever seen. So he takes the records of the past and shatters them. After he retires, no one in the next 50 years are able to beat his records. Perhaps a lack of his talent and determination, maybe a lack of innovation in training techniques. What should we do? Stop measuring or just invent a piece of equipment that lets the current top-20 swimmers in the world break his records? Whoopty-do, PROGRESS!!!
"It doesn't make me feel good to know that those ancient records still exist. It reflects poorly on the program more than positively on my performances. I had my day. Now it's someone else's turn. Time to move on. Raise the bar."
So if coach Halfbrain isn't smart enough to come up with better training techniques than they had in your day, and the lazy swimmers of today don't quite feel like working as hard and smart as you did, it's SAD if they don't break your records??? Again, two solutions to that: Take down the school records or give them a piece of equipment that makes comparisons to your achievements meaningless. THAT'S WHAT I CALL PROGRESS!!
For the record, I own two national records for my country and I consider them both meaningless as I didn't actually swim faster than the previous guys, I just wore a fancy piece of equipment. Progress, man... I feel so much better than them! They had their time! Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Summer_Olympics
"The high altitude of Mexico City (2240 m) was suspected to be difficult to adjust to for many endurance athletes. No other Summer Olympic Games have been held at a location remotely as high as Mexico City. This high altitude and the thin air were also credited with contributing to many record-setting jumps and leaps in the long jump, triple jump, high jump, and pole vault events, and throwing events like the discus throw, as well as all the men's track events of 400 meters and less."
Like I said, bad comparison "JakedBadForYou"...yes I was watching the Mexico Olympics live. Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 I'm not sure I would point to Popov's long course 50 meter free world record as an example of how it used to be.
Didn't he do that swim in a time trial wearing a year-2000-generation high tech Arena suit?
Tom Jager was probably the last person to set that record in a brief cut suit, but even Jager's fastest swim was done under special circumstances in televised sprint duel exhibition event - not an open event. I suppose you could argue that the 22.12 Jager did at the 1989 Pan Pacs was the last "pure" world record in the men's 50 free. Every world record swim following Jager's 1989 record was done either in a special time trial type event or with something other than a brief cut suit. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 12, 2009 There are so many things wrong with you said, I'm just glad FINA didn't talk to you when deciding to ban the suits.
"it means the something isn't progressing, and progress is what sports are about. If not, why bother measuring?"
Right. So Michael Phelps was a rare talent, born to swim, steel-like mentality, motivation like no other, gifted and determined beyond anything we'd ever seen. So he takes the records of the past and shatters them. After he retires, no one in the next 50 years are able to beat his records. Perhaps a lack of his talent and determination, maybe a lack of innovation in training techniques. What should we do? Stop measuring or just invent a piece of equipment that lets the current top-20 swimmers in the world break his records? Whoopty-do, PROGRESS!!!
"It doesn't make me feel good to know that those ancient records still exist. It reflects poorly on the program more than positively on my performances. I had my day. Now it's someone else's turn. Time to move on. Raise the bar."
So if coach Halfbrain isn't smart enough to come up with better training techniques than they had in your day, and the lazy swimmers of today don't quite feel like working as hard and smart as you did, it's SAD if they don't break your records??? Again, two solutions to that: Take down the school records or give them a piece of equipment that makes comparisons to your achievements meaningless. THAT'S WHAT I CALL PROGRESS!!
For the record, I own two national records for my country and I consider them both meaningless as I didn't actually swim faster than the previous guys, I just wore a fancy piece of equipment. Progress, man... I feel so much better than them! They had their time! Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 Got to share this. Its a good Triviral question. I found it when researching Beamon's record jump at the Mexico Olympics.
"The introduction of doping tests resulted in the first disqualification because of doping: Swedish pentathlete Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall was disqualified for alcohol use (he drank several beers just prior to competing).
Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 Got to share this. Its a good Triviral question. I found it when researching Beamon's record jump at the Mexico Olympics.
"The introduction of doping tests resulted in the first disqualification because of doping: Swedish pentathlete Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall was disqualified for alcohol use (he drank several beers just prior to competing).
Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 Speedboat, you're right. Mexico City was at altitude, making comparisons difficult. My point was that records don't get stale, they get legendary. Consider Powell's 91 jump then. Even with comparable surfaces and drug testing implemented long before, no one has beaten his record since. That makes it extremly impressve to me. I'm sure all the world's long jumpers are working day and night to figure out a way to improve it, yet they can't. Should we stop measuring records or give them a springboard like fluidg suggests????? Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 Here is something from track and field. Must have been a lot of controversy and world set when going from the old cinder track to the polyurethane surface.
This list no less than 6 different track surfaces.
BSS 1000
DUAL DUROMETER,
FULL-POUR POLYURETHANE TRACK SYSTEM
At every practice, in every race, your athletes give you their all. They deserve a track and field surface that allows them to push their performance to the limitthe BSS 1000.
The ultimate in Indoor track surfaces
Environmentally friendly Polyurethane surface
Bio-engineered force reduction layer creates an impermeable surface with maximum shock-absorption
EPDM granules in top wearing surface provides the ultimate in traction
Customized embedded and encapsulated textures provide proper return of energy
Tuned to match your facilitys needs
IAAF Certified and backed by a comprehensive warranty
Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 Swimmer Bill, you're right a couple times, but mostly wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUOl-XKMPZc
A little hard to see, but I'm pretty sure Popov is wearing briefs for 21.64... It was done with open lanes, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P9n3zXbvgo
Here you see Popov in a brief go 21.91 in a full heat which survived as an Olympic record until 2008, beyond all the fullbody Fastskins. The fastest anyone ever went in a textile suit and a full heat was Roland Schoeman with 21.69 in Montreal '05. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 gj on the links. The discussion points out the difficulty of tracing records back to what's considered "pure". You'd have to have race footage of everything going back to the late 80's to verify records done in non high-tech suits and in open meets. But of course, FINA won't bother to do that. They're too busy getting money from Speedo and spending it on themselves. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 12, 2009 speedboat, I think the main issue with swimming advancements (lane lines, goggles, better start blocks) is that none of them enhanced people's abilities, they only helped to maximize swimming potential. Like releasing the brake and letting the sled glide down the hill. The new suits go beyond a swimmer's natural potential, erases bad habits and mistakes in less talented swimmers and I think the 195 world records in 18 months is argument enough. THIS IS NOT PROGRESS Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 12, 2009 If it went another 18 months, the probabilities are there won't be another 195 WR, only a fraction. If the polyurethane suits had been banned prior to World's, I think there would only been a fraction compared to the Beijing Olympics. Submitted by: speedboat
August 12, 2009 Lets say USA Swimming bans the hi tech suits on Oct. 1......What will the USA Jr. National Team wear when they go to swim in the FINA World Cup Meets in Stckholm and Berlin in mid November? If they wear the suits they're pushing the world to swim in, the Europeans will kick their butts all over the pool because they will still be in their hi tech suits. Submitted by: Susan B_1987
August 12, 2009 Lets say USA Swimming bans the hi tech suits on Oct. 1......What will the USA Jr. National Team wear when they go to swim in the FINA World Cup Meets in Stckholm and Berlin in mid November? If they wear the suits they're pushing the world to swim in, the Europeans will kick their butts all over the pool because they will still be in their hi tech suits. Submitted by: Susan B_1987
August 12, 2009 BTW, the idea that suits didn't enhance performance just because they were "textile" is a little off the mark. Fabric is only one element in the suits. Tailoring is a consideration, as well.
New tailoring to cover more skin started in 1992 with the introduction of the Speedo S-2000, and progressed through the Speedo Aquablade to the Fastskin, and beyond.
What Jager wore in 1989 doesn't compare with what Schoeman wore in 2005. The two suits are not equal just because both are "textile". Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 13, 2009 What everyone seems to overlook is that fact that swimming has never been more exciting, more spectator friendly, or more popular than it has been in the past two years. Michael's Olympics and they were not diminished by the tech-suits. The LZR is a part of that history. The World Championships were even more exciting to watch than the Olympics. Why are some people dead-set on dragging the sport back to the yawning festival days? What good does it do to limit progress and slow everyone down after two years of rewriting the record books? What is truly in the best interest of the sport? Arresting its evolution or encouraging it? Submitted by: fluidg
August 13, 2009 Swimmer Bill, you are right. The more you cover the body with textile, especially textile that's faster than shaved skin, you're altering the result. Still, nothing compared to the 195 WR's in the past 18 months. We must acknowledge the mistake, erase it and move on. Whether allowing jammers and keeping the world records of 2007 is only the job halfway done, I can't say, but it's better than just letting this joke continue. It must be said though, that Popov did wear legskins in 2003-2004 and gained no advantage on the clock to his previous best. The fact that he was one of the most consistent swimmers in history plus the world record avalanche of late tells me that introducing the Fastskin in 2000 wasn't nearly the same mistake as the LZR and beyond was. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 13, 2009 "What everyone seems to overlook is that fact that swimming has never been more exciting, more spectator friendly, or more popular than it has been in the past two years."
This is so short sighted, it's unbelievable. Unless we keep inventing new suits, the world record progression is gonna slow down and get stale, to use your words. The only reason it's exciting is because the less talented swimmers have their bad habits and shortcomings fixed to bring them closer to the greats who are much closer to the limit of human potential, except they don't need a prop. Why do you cheat yoruself into thinking it's exciting if a piece of equipment makes the result less predictable? It's sport, not flipping a coin. Tell me this isn't exciting just because they're swimming slower than now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7TdRD0Zams
"What good does it do to limit progress and slow everyone down after two years of rewriting the record books? What is truly in the best interest of the sport? Arresting its evolution or encouraging it?"
I could go a world record with flippers on. How is that progress? The suits are making legends of the past seem as if what they did was nothing special when in reality, their performances are still very relevant today if it wasn't for the suits. How about we actually try to progress as a sport instead of inventing toys that help us go faster? If someone needs a suit to go faster than a guy in briefs, is he actually faster? The suits are a temporary curiosity and the hype over them would have eventually gone anyway.
The reason Michael Phelps is great is because he dared look past the records (the 1.44 e.g) and not set any limits for himself. His suit didn't break the boundaries, HE did. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 13, 2009 JakedBadForYou:
You are 100 right.
I had some problems uploading my prepared response to the above article.
I will post it tomorrow.
No prizes for guessing my thoughts on it!! Submitted by: scotswim
August 13, 2009 For those who don't know what an S-2000 is, check out Gjertsen, lane 8, in the clip from the men's 200 meter final in Barcelona. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 14, 2009 Chris states: "The truth is our sport has never been about records"
Well now we know, thanks Chris for enlightening us all on that score!!
This is all news to me!
WELL HERE IS THE REAL TRUTH:
The truth is our sport is almost ENTIRELY BASED ON RECORDS!!
The headliners:
Phelps breaking Spitz's 7 Olympic gold record.
Mary ‘T's Buterfly mark.
Even swimming a faster set in training or swimming further than you have before, all based on records and performance. Whether they are World or Olympic records, or "only" little Jimmy beating his best time from last month. This is what our sport is all about, all records to be broken. Most people will never reach the top but each has their own records to beat and achieve. If you are not interested in beating your own best time (your record) then you will never progress! If they are rendered meaningless then the whole sport follows and becomes meaningless.
Every training day and set a swimmer trains around records relevant to the goal of that swim or set. Ie faster 10x100m free on 2min. YOU SEE ALL ARE RECORDS.
Basketball is a game two teams play for a win on the day, yes highpoints scores can be called records but this is comparing chalk and cheese. Swimming is a time based sport relying on the clock to determine the result and comparisons around the world. It is not how good or bad the other player is that allows you to score high points etc it is the individual's effort.
Once again the pro suit brigade use the argument that records don't matter and use suits solely as a crutch for less talented athletes to break records then they say records don't matter. This is all very confused thinking and weak arguments.
However, what is less clear in this article is whether Chris is for the suits or against them. He is only stating that "The truth is our sport has never been about records".
To take Chris at his word then today's results are also meaningless and this is where he touches on the truth, never before in our sport has the result and the "record" become more meaningless than today. Thanks to the suits and those who would wish to keep them. During the years of the GDR and China drug tainted times, many records were meaningless, mainly woman's events. Now they are all tainted, men's and women's with only a few exceptions.
Without chasing records you will NEVER reach the top in the sport of swimming.
As this is the sole point of his argument then I have to completely disagree. As Chris is supposedly a coach I can only assume he had a weak moment or wrote this article "tongue in cheek" i.e. as a joke. Do you really wish records to be meaningless? How do you train your swimmers?
Submitted by: scotswim
August 14, 2009 If you want to look at how I train my swimmers, you can use the USA Swimming database to monitor the progress of the swimmers I trained at Penn. Or, you can follow the breaststroke and IM swimmers here at Georgia Tech this season.
I think you have a pretty valid point Scot (is that your name?). I don't think anyone's personal record or the pursuit of time drops are meaningless. I do believe that we tend to forget who held the world record at a given time much faster than who won Olympic gold. For instance, Franziska Van Almsick, Giorgio Lamberti and Jani Sievenen each held world records for very long periods of time. However, I don't think the general swimming public ever really judged them to be as good as the swimmers who were actually coming away with gold at World Champs and the Olympics over that time period. Do you disagree? I'd be interested in your perspective.
I hope that wasn't too "weak".
Love,
Chris Submitted by: Chris Desantis
August 14, 2009 Consider the following 3 scenarios:
1) Swimmer Jim" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach Chris's response: "So what! Records aren't important and never were!"
Swimmer Jim "Oh"
2) Swimmer Jake" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach Speedboat "No problem I have a special suit that will help you break it next time"
Swimmer Jim "But coach I thought you didn't think records were important"
Coach Speedboat" I don't but this is different, this will be ours"
Swimmer Jim " I like to win but I don't like always being asked whether I could achieve these times without help from the suits you make me wear"
Coach Speedboat "Forget them they are all losers, we can afford the latest suit so let them sink!"
3) Swimmer Peter" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach scotswim "Peter that is great you improved your time by 2sec and nearly beat the record set by Michael 6 years ago. Remember he went on to become Olympic Champion! I really respect what he achieved. All your hard work and effort have paid off, well done!"
Swimmer Peter "Thanks! Yes, what Michael achieved through hard work was great, I really admire that and 8 gold's in one Olympics, wow!"
Coach scotswim "I have some great new sets and training techniques we can do to improve your time"
Swimmer Peter "I can't wait, let's start tomorrow, swimming is great when you have goals! It would be great to beat Michael's record, that would be really cool!"
Question: Who would you rather coached your kids"
Coach Chris
Coach Speedboat
Coach scotswim
Submitted by: scotswim
August 14, 2009 Consider the following 3 scenarios:
1) Swimmer Jim" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach Chris's response: "So what! Records aren't important and never were!"
Swimmer Jim "Oh"
2) Swimmer Jake" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach Speedboat "No problem I have a special suit that will help you break it next time"
Swimmer Jim "But coach I thought you didn't think records were important"
Coach Speedboat" I don't but this is different, this will be ours"
Swimmer Jim " I like to win but I don't like always being asked whether I could achieve these times without help from the suits you make me wear"
Coach Speedboat "Forget them they are all losers, we can afford the latest suit so let them sink!"
3) Swimmer Peter" Hi coach I'm only 0.5 secs off the state record"
Coach scotswim "Peter that is great you improved your time by 2sec and nearly beat the record set by Michael 6 years ago. Remember he went on to become Olympic Champion! I really respect what he achieved. All your hard work and effort have paid off, well done!"
Swimmer Peter "Thanks! Yes, what Michael achieved through hard work was great, I really admire that and 8 gold's in one Olympics, wow!"
Coach scotswim "I have some great new sets and training techniques we can do try to improve your time"
Swimmer Peter "I can't wait, let's start tomorrow, swimming is great when you have goals! It would be great to beat Michael's record, that would be really cool!"
Question: Who would you rather coached your kids"
Coach Chris
Coach Speedboat
Coach scotswim
Submitted by: scotswim
August 14, 2009 Scotswim, I want to extend an open invitation to you at any time if your in town to come onto the pool deck here. I'm sure there are things I can learn from you. Let me know if you're ever around and I'll be happy to accommodate you.
I'm not sure why you want to berate me or accuse me of not even knowing the basics of coaching (drills, training "techniques" and dropping time). I think if you got to know me you'd find that we somehow got off on the wrong foot here. Submitted by: Chris Desantis
August 14, 2009 ...getting back to the story...I give Chris credit for trying to do an article that's very difficult to do. It's reasonable for a 20-something person to look back at Popov and think those were the good ol' days. Popov's not a bad example as a swimmer, but his 50 free record may not be perfect example because of the circumstances.
If I was writing the piece using the long course men's 50 free as an example, I might have said, "The last time a man broke the 50 meter free world record in a full heat in open competition wearing a brief cut suit was Tom Jager at the 1989 Pan Pacs..." and "Popov's record in 2000 was done wearing a brief, but he had the benefit of open lanes on both sides..." etc. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 14, 2009 swimmer bill, did you already forget Popov's 92 Olympic final of which I just posted a link? Surely your attention span is not as short as the pro-suits people? Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 14, 2009 Without a doubt....Coach Scotswim!! Submitted by: chapter13
August 14, 2009 Contrary to what Jaked has posted...
Popov did not break the 50 free world record at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.
In 1992, the record was 21.81, set by Tom Jager of the United States on March 24, 1990. Jager's record was swum at the US Sprint event in Nashville, Tennessee - a nationally televised splash 'n' dash for cash. It was not an open event, which is why I referred back to the last record he set in international competition (22.12 at Pan Pacs in Tokyo, August 8, 1989).
In Barcelona, Popov won in 21.91, defeating Biondi (22.09) and Jager (22.30). Popov's winning time was 1/10th of a second slower than the existing world record (21.81 by Jager in 1990). In fact, Popov did not own the long course 50 free record until June 1, 2000. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 14, 2009 Chris, dunno if my opinion matters to you, but the three swimmers you mention - Almsick, Lamberti and Sievinen - are all (to my knowledge) considered legends in the swimming community. You're telling me more people know Duncan Armstrong (88 winner), Nicole Haislett (92 winner) or Attila Czene (96 winner) than the swimmers above?
Progress is when Spitz or even the guys 10 years ago are made to look like their technique is clumsy and "wrong" by advancements in stroke technique and such. That is us trying to figure out how to reach the limit of our potential with what we have to work with, our bodies. Progress is not putting on a gadget and telling yourself this is the natural evolution of the sport. Where exactly is the line drawn for when it's no longer man in water and more like man and equipment skims the surface of the water? Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 14, 2009 "Popov did not break the 50 free world record at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics."
Thanks, the 92 video shows Jager's record clearly on the screen, I'm not completely blind.
So we're down to semantics. Of course Jager's record was the "last" if that's how you wanna put it, but you're not arguing that Popov's 21.91 is not a faster time done in briefs and a full heat than 22.12, are you? Thank you :)
But yeah, scotswim said it best. Swimming is about personal improvement. Just how legendary can you be if you keep winning races but you were never actually the fastest there is? Yes, Popov became legendary even though he rarely broke his PBs, in fact he didn't ever go faster than the 21.91 at the 92 Olympics in a full heat. But he was the fastest and part his legendary status was that none of his contemporaries could beat his record either (until Hoogenband in 2000), so he won by virtue of being closer to the mark they were all chasing. In the case of Phelps, Cseh and Lochte, they pretty much know they have to be at their peak because they never know when the next guy will improve and break their records, thereby... winning :)
Take Lochte. He always talks about racing. Racing this guy, all about racing, I just wanna race. If I had a crystal ball and foresee Lochte winning some world championships and olympic golds, but never again break his own records, I would find that very disappointing and dull. The thrill of wanting to see him do better than ever due to himn busting it out in training and wanting to beat others is at least half the excitement.
Phelps another example. Did he look thrilled to have won the 200 fly in Beijing? No, he had a goggle malfunction. He wanted to go 1.50... That was an anti-climax for him. Survival. Not living up to and showing the world his true potential.
Swimming is about committing yourself to better training than last year, chasing your own records, striving to improve yourself. The race within the race. The clock is your fiercest opponent. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 14, 2009 All I'm saying is Jager's 22.12 is the last world record in the men's long course 50 free that was done in a full heat in open international competition by a swimmer wearing briefs. Submitted by: swimmer bill
August 15, 2009 Hi Chris,
Firstly I really appreciate your initial response to my earlier reaction time comment on your article. By coincidence your response and my second "scenarios" pieces were it seems both being uploaded at the same time. Please don't think that was my response to your reaction time comment. Due to time differences I was unable to respond earlier. You are right to feel a bit upset.
My comments were based solely on the observations made in your article thus at the time I did not have any background information on you as a coach or person. Your reaction time comment was greatly appreciated and has thus given greater insight to the person behind the article and I will certainly have a look as you suggest.
I would agree with your comment that some competitors although world record holders who did not achieve Olympic gold may have been forgotten, however , the 3 mentioned, Franziska Van Almsick, Giorgio Lamberti and Jani Sievenen may not be the best names to use. I believe they have not been forgotten and as Jakedbadforyou comments: are"considered legends in the swimming community", certainly in Europe. I think Jesse Vassallo and Bill Barrett would have been better examples both missing out on Olympic glory but great swimmers. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule here, some who did break world records but did not reach the top of the podium are still revered, for example in athletics Roger Bannister was the first athlete to run under 4 minutes for the mile, he is remembered around the world but who won gold at the Olympics at that time? Please excuse the fact I didn't use a swimmer to make this point but I still feel the principal is relevant.
Back to records there are various "records" to consider here in the sport: It used to be when a world record was broken you could compare the splits etc of the previous holder, analyse how the time was achieved, ie negative split even pace etc. For the swim buff all very interesting. Now it is not so valid, something has been lost.
Also the world record progression as always been of interest to me ie who held the record at any given time in history and the route through the years to the current time. Regularly published in the swim journals when records are beaten they must have been considered relevant and of interest to the swimming community. With the onslaught of current times this list has been expanded at a very fast rate thus rendering the list with less meaning. I used to receive emails from Swimming World re World record breaking, now no more why? Possibly because it is too much for them to keep up with.
Chris don't take it to heart , at this time in swimming emotions are running high with the performance enhancing issues so don't think I'm attacking you personally. I also know I have much more to learn and that is what keeps it all so interesting.
Finally thanks for the invite it is much appreciated. I wish you and all the swimmers all the success at Georgia Tech.
Best wishes,Scott
Submitted by: scotswim
August 15, 2009 Anyone who knows me knows that I am almost completely obsessed with records. At any time at Penn I could rattle off the names and times to the hundredth on our board.
I didn't feel like other people cared that much. You are right that someone like Vasallo would have been a better example. I guess Sievenen always made sense to me because when I came of age and started following the sport really intently, I guess 97 or 98, he was had this godly world record but was a total non-factor at LCM international meets. Van Alsmick was almost the same- she came back for that one Euro champs and then went back to being a non-factor medal wise at a time when no one could even come close to touching her WR.
Yeah, so I guess I miscast myself here. I care a TON about records, but I didn't think fans of the sport did in general. I think I'm kinda pro-suit anyway, but I definitely feel conflicted about it, and the record smashing definitely makes uncomfortable and decreases my enjoyment of the sport. Submitted by: Chris DeSantis
August 15, 2009 Again, scotswim said it best. If we take the headline of your article, Chris - "Comparing eras in swimming" - that what was once kinda possible in swimming.
The water is (more or less) the same, the blocks are (more or less) the same, at least until they insert that trackstart block, gravity is to my knowledge the same and I'm pretty sure we haven't changed the length of seconds. We have a comparable sport. There are some factors that we cannot control such as advancements in nutrition, advancements in training equipment, what have you, but when it gets time to race, you're on your own. No flippers, no paddles, no chords pulling you, no jetstream engine. You vs water. The suits have changed all that. They're a piece of equipment that you put on and while it cleverly makes you look like you're still swimming, it enables you to do things that were impossible without.
Forget about vintage records going "stale". Now it's made to seem as if good "old" Brendan Hansen who just 3 years ago redefined breaststroke was actually pretty average, considering how 59.1 and 2:08.5 seem pedestrian now. What a joke! Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 15, 2009 If one can't win in a hi tech suit, the swimmer won't win in the low tech suit. Its all "relative". Submitted by: speedboat
August 16, 2009 Hi Speedboat: There are many currently winning in the suits who many believe may not have won in a low tech suit. Who enjoys continually having their efforts questioned? Is it you or the suit? This is bad for the winners and the sport.
Also some body types are assisted more that others, that is the problem.
The simplest and fairest way to know, is to remove the doubt and swim in suits that have minimal or no impact on the speed.
If one can win in a hi tech suit it doesn't necessarily mean they can win in a low tech suit.
We want to see the best swimmer win. Submitted by: scotswim
August 17, 2009 Scotwim, hi tech suits bring excitement and its not bad for the sport. Look at Phelps, he wrecked his Cadillac Escalade. How many swimmers drive around in something close to that? A loaded Escalade like the one he has is $70k+ at the time he brought it. With the expected drop in money coming from the manufactures, he'll do good sell it as a "clunker"....I believe the body suit will be back since I'm reading where some of the Islamic swimmers are complaining. Saw a news brief on Fox News about not allowing Islamic female swimmers to compete in the SC Championships next year in Dubai. If that is the case, it'll be hard for FINA to fight a religious principal.
Back to the hi vs. lo tech suits, I've watched for two in both high school and club meets the swimmers winning in their workout suits during the early season win when they put on the hi tech suits. Its "relative" and of course one could argue a 3% correction factor... Submitted by: speedboat
August 17, 2009 speedboat, I suggest you wake up and read this website and swimnews.com through for reasons as to why the suits do more harm than good.
"How many swimmers drive around in something close to a Cadillac Escalade?"
Uhm, you think Phelps couldn't afford a nice car before the LZR when he's been sponsored by Speedo since 2001? You should rather ask yourself: How many swimmers have won 14 Olympic gold medals? I think it'll answer all your questions as to where Phelps got his money i.e Visa, Omega, Toyota etc. Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 17, 2009 speedboat, did Phelps lose in 2007 before the suits came around? Did Phelps lose the 200 free this summer? You're hopeless Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
August 17, 2009 Jakedbadforyou:
Good for you!
speedboat: The money earned by Phelps is certainly not indicative of a general trend. Phelps wearing a suit whether briefs or speed suit will bring him in money from Speedo. However as Jakedbadforyou points out he will earn more from the other sponsors. Not much demand for the LZR outside swimming but there is for watches etc. Not much call for LZR on the beach this summer to look like Michael. Now some people outside swimming may well wear a watch that he endorses. That is where the money is, also public appearances etc
Seems like there is more money going out of swimmers pockets into the pockets of the swimsuit manufacturer's!
How does wearing a suit make it more exciting anyway? If as you believe the same swimmer will win anyway? Submitted by: scotswim
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
.jpg)
.jpg)
