training

[traineecoach]

could someone enlighten has to why most coaches seem to think
twice a day training is the only way to go. surely this is counter-productive has the swimmers do not seem to have much time for
recuperation . Swimming has a sport must lose many potential
champions because of the amount of training most coaches expect .

[swimusa]

Actually most elite athletes train more than once a day, so swimming is not an anomaly. The more you swim, the better fit you are, (hence why coaches also like to maximize yardage/meterage???) and it makes you race tough. If you swim hard for thousands of yards/meters, the thinking is that it will be much easier for you when you race when rested. You'll be less likely to die in a mid distance race or even a sprint race.

Also, some coaches train twice a day because when it comes to the big meets (Championships and such), prelims are in the morning and semis/finals at night. It prepares the swimmer to be used to swimming fast in the morning to make it back and swim faster at night. If you constantly train at 4:30 in the afternoon, the likelihood that you'll perform well at 8:30 in the morning is severely stunted. So, from my experience as a swimmer, it would be to be race ready.

Of course, you do run the risk of injury from over training and burnout, but all sports have this threat as well.

[swimleeds]

In the Uk, the main problem is pool time. Clubs can only use the public facilities when the public don't use them.

Hence training is usually before 07:15 for two hours and then after 18:00 for land work and then 2 hours pool time until the facililities close.

Also because the vast majority o f coaches are volunteers, they do the coaching before they go to work and again after finishing work.

[rogant stard]

Well I'd suggest he has done all that inspite of his stance on morning training - not because of.

And what do you mean he doesn't believe in morning training? It definitely exists.

[rogant stard]

Thought I'd get a bite.:devil:

So your coach believes that it is only necessary to train up to 7 times a week (the maximum assuming he has his 'top' swimmers training all evenings) in order to get to the top?

What is his rationale behind this? Does he have anything to back up this belief other than one GB record holder (who I presume is training a bit more than previously now he is out in the States?) and the moderate success of another sprint specialist?

Or maybe he just doesn't like those 5am early rises?

[outside smoker]

Tough talking again from Mr. Stard who is working hard to earn his "ba" prefix. Though i have to say i agree with him wholeheartedly - morning training definitely exists and has existed for some time now.
It also has been proven time and time again to work. Also the heats & finals being on the same day makes it necessary to train (at the very least sometimes) twice per day - how else can you prepare for AM heats and PM finals?
And how can you fit all the training into 1 week just doing nights. (Technical/Tactical/Endurance/Speed/Swim/Land)?????
How can you have days off to rest body and mind if you are just doing nights? Or are you training for 4 hours per night?

[BigFish]

Other 'non-impact' sports do train just as much as swimmers; how much training do the top cyclists do (you really don't want to know)?

Besides, morning training is just plain fun ;)

[rogant stard]

Originally posted by outside smoker
Tough talking again from Mr. Stard who is working hard to earn his "ba" prefix.

That's right smoker but are you working hard to earn your 'Baby Lamb Chop' monicker?!

I find it incredible 'swimmer' that your coach believes that one doesn't need to train early mornings in order to get to the top.

How many swimmers has he actually coached to the top? And don't pretend that coaching the 1st Brit under 50 is the pinnacle of sporting achievement as it's something that should have been done 10+ years ago - maybe if Matt had been doing mornings he'd be going 48. by now?

I would bet that he has a hard time explaining his philosophy to Bill Sweetenham and I wonder how much of a task it is to train his swimmers to Break Point Volume (now I'd understand more if he didn't believe in this) without morning sessions.

Maybe you could ask him to fully explain his beliefs? Maybe then I could stop wasting my time getting up at 5.30am four times a week in order to provide my swimmers with what I believe is their best chance of 'getting to the top'

[swimusa]

Originally posted by rogant stard
What is his rationale behind this? Does he have anything to back up this belief other than one GB record holder (who I presume is training a bit more than previously now he is out in the States?) and the moderate success of another sprint specialist?

I have to give points to Rogant Stard on this one. Collegiate swimmers swim 20 hours per week both in the morning and afternoon (20 hours is limited by NCAA but there are ways to get around it with "optional time"). Matthew Kidd swims for a well established program that does do both, and he did break the GB record coincidentally while swimming most of his practices here. If your coach can produce another who does not train in the USA, I may consider the logic.

[lane4]

Nevermind two sessions per day, many swimmers are now doing three workouts in a day in the pool on certain days of the week. They want to get to the top so they see the logic in doing more (in terms of frequency of stimulation rather than volume of stimulation) to get there.

Swimmer - still waiting for you to tell us which swimmers your coach has coached to the top!???? Matt Kidd has not yet reached the top I'm afraid but perhaps he will doing two sessions a day at Auburn??

[lane4]

The point we were making Miss Swimmer was that noone from your club (incl Kidd, Belk, Stannard etc etc) has ever reached THE TOP! To most of us here THE TOP means being World Champion, Olympic Champion or breaking a World Record, not winning the British Championships or making the Speedo B Final.

[Steve]

Originally posted by rogant stard
Maybe then I could stop wasting my time getting up at 5.30am four times a week

Only 4 times a week - what are you, some kind of slacker...;):p

[rogant stard]

Guess I must be!
That would mean I'd fit in quite well down at Leatherhead it would seem! But wouldn't want to rock the boat with my revolutionary 'twice a day training' ideas.

[swimusa]

You also have to remember Lane4, Kidd is a sprinter, and we all know sprinters do nothing anyway. Too lazy :p . If Leatherhead could produce the top in events longer than the 50 and 100, again, your logic will be taken into consideration. And if you want to be polite and use the title Miss for Swimmer, go right ahead. All too many times do we see people forgetting formality.

[Pete]

Having known Matthew for some 10 years. He has a far from lazy attitude. His land training program was very comprehensive 2 hours plus; usually one to one. Of his swimming training? He always got tough whenever I saw him in the water. :angel:

[rogant stard]

Originally posted by Pete
He always got tough whenever I saw him in the water. :angel:

Not wishing to make this personal against Matt because I take my hat off to him - but it's easy to get tough when you're only in the pool once a day.

And Ms Swimmer - not wishing to bite the hand that feeds me but I think even Eric the Eel could snap up some of those Scottish Junior Records that have somehow stood since the 80's.

Again you show your clouded view of what is 'getting to the top'.

[swimusa]

Scottish record does not equate British record. Please try again. ANd please, Miss Swimmer do not chastise me for not knowing the intricate facts of Leatherhead Swim Club when I am not a British person. I could easily prove you foolish with American swimming.

[lane4]

Originally posted by swimmer


well ha coz we have a national champ in 200, a scottish record holder (junior) in 400 and the triathletes have to swim 1500 in it so ha, get ur facts rite!

Which Scottish record holder are you referring to?

We will see how national age group champion Kathryn Wyld gets on in the years ahead.

And lots of clubs have international triathletes who train with them, mine being one. However, as you are aware triathletes balance their swimming training with quite a bit of running and cycling too and once a day swim training is ample for them, not that Stannard (who was a good competitive swimmer long before he took up triathlon) and Emerson have reached the top yet.

[sub24]

everyone knows sprinters don't do nothing anyways

Mr America, YOU 'don't know nothing'. Typical of your compatriots. If you speak to ANY sports scientist they will tell you a person who has to be BOTH anaerobically fit and aerobically fit is a superior athlete to any distance person. The reason is exactly the simple facts in this thread; you have to balance your training out to adapt. If you are in a program that is training three mindless times per day you have most likely reached a plateau because of impractical progression by your coach. If you are in a program which trains one time per day in the pool, you most likely have an extensive dryland program. You will progress and when that begins to wain and you CAN add to your program and you WILL continue to progress. Until you are the best. Those coaches who continually try to reach Break Point Volume in a short time frame do not understand the principle behind this rule of thumb. Progess up to Break Point Volume over a period of TEN years depending on the athletes adaptive capabilities and you will be great. So, those that are training one time per day, they are at the beginning, those at two times, most likely close to the end of those ten years. Those that are doing too much too soon; you are doomed to failure along with MOST of the rest of your superstar 12 year olds. If you intend on training like a cyclist then you should be entering the 3 week races like the tour de swim of France! Hmmm, hey, there isn't any! Swim racing is a balance of the capacity and power of the A-lactic, Anaerobic and Aerobic training. The only swims which are slightly different but still follow this rule are 50m events and 1500m events and they too must also follow a well balanced training routine because distance swimmers must do lactic work to supply energy to the aerobic system and sprinters must do aerobic work to recover from their sprint training to be able to train more often.

So, Mr. America, you could not be more wrong. Which, I am sure, is a surprise to you.

[Pete]

I think it is Miss America because teenage American girls use the word "neat" all the time, and she uses it in posts.

I agree sprinters do have to work hard inorder to develop explosive power. Something you cannot do if you are lazy; the lactic acid would kick in after about 40m as most coaches have seen with swimmers erratic with their training.:devil:

[swimusa]

OH THIS IS IT. FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM MALE. IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, DO ME A FAVOR AND DO NOT REPLY TO MY RESPONSES OR TALK TO ME THOUGH PRIVATE MESSAGE! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS, AND CONSIDER IT A BLESSING I HAVE NOT TYPED ANY PROFANITIES THUS FAR. I AM FED UP WITH THIS PRESUMPTION THAT I AM FEMALE AND I HAVE TO CONSTANTLY DEFEND MY GENDER OTHERWISE. AS A HEAD COACH AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER PETE, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE AN EXAMPLE AND NOT ACT THE AGE OF THE CHILDREN SOME MORONIC PARENTS ENTRUST YOU WITH.

Secondly, Sub24, as an Englishman, the creators of the English language, please revert to the double negative. Don't do nothing is the same as do a bunch.

[sub24]

Mr.America, I agree, it might not have been so obvious, but when I used the'quote' I was quoting YOUR eloquance and there-after colloquial speech for humorous emphasis. So, in essence you are correcting yourself. Maybe that's a double negative.

However, more to the point: you are wrong.

I.E.: "everyone knows sprinters don't do nothing". Which I pointed out is wrong, unless you interpret this as a double negative, in which case you are right.

[lane4]

Gentlemen: I order you to pistols at dawn! 12 paces then turn and shoot!

[swimusa]

Please, I am American, we use intercontinental ballistic missles.

[lane4]

No you don't, you have them but you don't use them, you have never used them nor will you ever do.

[nsswimmer]

i find this all quite amusing, but i would like to step in here...

i'm an american teenage girl, do not stereotype us. we're not "moronic" we don't think we're always right and finding we are wrong is not "a shock" to us. every country has its geniuses as well as those who are just a few logs short of a roaring fire. surprise surprise even the uk! btw, we're the country who came up with virtually every technological advancement in the last 1/2 century, i don't think that's *too* stupid, what do you think?

oh, also, i have a british english teacher. he is the coolest guy you could ever meet, funny, smart, and guess what?? he likes the usa and is not prejudiced or stereotypical! wow!! i wish some of the rest of you could say the same!

p.s. "neat" is sooooo 5 minutes ago, pete :rolleyes:

[sub24]

NS, how can you say things like that and not expect to be stereotyped? "We have invented virtually every technological advancement this half century." How naïve can you get? You see, it IS a shock to you, but don't worry, misery likes company and you will be well served in your locale.

And don't send any balistic missiles to the British isles, incase you forgot, the internet is international. Computers have made it outside of America, of course we are all using Ataris and Commodors.

[swimusa]

I refuse to dignify this. It is ludacris. What on earth does stereotyping me have anything to do 2 practices a day? So why is it posted in this thread? The dry British wit is well known throughout the world. It is a shame when the line is crossed to insult, which can be remedied through an apology by those who insulted. So far I have yet to see an apology.

[James S]

Look. I have said it before and I'll say it again if I really have to. There is no need to turn this forum in to a transatlantic catfight. If you don't agree with a post that is a difference in PERSONAL opinion not NATIONAL opinion.

It is very interesting hearing views from coaches and swimmers from different countries and even different parts of those countries. This site was really moving on with members joining from the US and Australia and the possibility of different nationalities inputting is, I am sure, reducing considerably if they read some of the crap (sorry) going on at the moment.

I am not just berating the british contingent here although some of you are far too quick to rise to bait (and we all know there are some very eager to dangle it). Yes, swimUSA, there is an off topic forum for non-swimming discussion but that is still no place for people to start developing bitter feuds.

Come on. Sort it out!

[outside smoker]

This is not a transatlantic slanging match unless sub24 is back in the country! And his sly British wit may be sly but is certainly not British.

As for inventing things.....TV, phone, penicillin, stamp, tarmac......the list goes on.

Regarding the topic - he (sub24) makes some very apt points about pushing training up very quickly to make short term gains and get "success" at age group level without thinking about the long term. Too few coaches these days take any notice of little things like...the law of declining return, TECHNIQUE, skill development etc etc ....the list goes on. While training 2x per day is necessary for success at the very top, you need to be good on 1x per day to increase the chances of being great on 2x per day - or else where is the room for improvement?

As for sprinters not having to work hard - what a joke! They work differently to other specialists but any halfway decent sprinter works their backside off as does any distance swimmer - they just do different things. Different is not always easier - sometimes that hard for folk to understand.
Unless someone else has taken over the sub24 name then I am sure he can confirm this point himself, regarding the work ethic and dedication of top sprinters?

[Bazza]

1. Nice to see us (sprinters) getting some support!

2. James S I agree with you completely. Lets keep it pleasant guys (and girls).

3. Rogant - why did you have to go and kick this all off??;)

[sub24]

I went to 12 paces as instructed.

It isn't nice to pick on defenseless Americans. SORRY! :joker:

I am glad to see that Smoker is in agreement with the tendency to reach high milage at a very young age as a detriment to long term performance. Many coaches need to have their egos stroked by having a successful age group swimmer, but if that talent never reaches an olympic final, or any international final, then, retrospectively they were a flop. They WASTED the talent because of their own ego. Or their ignorance.

I want to be clear; I am NOT saying that a swimmer should do low mileage. I am saying they should progressively build up their mileage! A swimmer needs to specialize once they have reached full physical maturity (and mental maturity). If the 'finishing' coach has to go to training 3x per day it is unlikely that injury or burnout will not take place. It is the youth coach's decision to see how steep the adaption is taking place. Maybe you have an early developer on your hands and needs to increase mileage in a shorter term, but the majority of swimmers will not fall into that range. Two times per day is a lot of work. Two times per day every day is a huge amount of work and needs a long build up so a person's body can adapt to the work load (and IMPROVE BEST TIMES). A coach who is not getting results should not assume more work will be better.

[swimleeds]

To Swimusa

Some of us do apologise. I sent you a private message last month after your criticism.

[BigFish]

Originally posted by sub24
I went to 12 paces as instructed.
Phew!

Originally posted by sub24
If the 'finishing' coach has to go to training 3x per day it is unlikely that injury or burnout will not take place.

Sorry Sub, those double negatives popping in again. Care to clarify?

[sub24]

Fishy: to clarify for clarity: if a swimmer does not progress slowly and gradually then they will experience an injury or burnout.

[lane4]

Originally posted by sub24
if a swimmer does not progress slowly and gradually then they will experience an injury or burnout.

Could not agree more with this statement. The age group swimmers (and their parents) in my club certainly get told very frequently that they are being coached and trained for the long term, that it is about how they swim to their absolute best when they are adults that is the most important consideration.

But one has to look more closely at exactly what the above statement means and the ponderables therein.

How do we define and assess exactly what slow and gradual are? Are there models to follow or is this part of the intuitive (X factor) aspect of coaching?

The most committed swimmers in my top group average about 40-50km per week. In my opinion they have built up to this gradually. But what if I am wrong!? What if it was a too quick build up? What if I'm underestimating them and not building up quickly enough? How will I ever know? I am certain these swimmers could physiologically handle 100km a week if the 100km was made up of just easy general low intensity stuff. Conversely, they might get burned out on 30km a week if it was all hell for leather high intensity work. Hence, isn't how you do it vastly more important than how much you do?

If one of my swimmers wins the Nationals when they are 12, should I assume I pushed them too much because if they are the best for their age now they sure as hell won't be in 5, 10 years time? Are they doomed to failure because they are good at 12? Should I change their training programme because they might be making too much progress too soon!?

But what if being good at 12 helps keep you in the sport because being succesful feels damn good! And if they are not medal winners at major games when they are 22 so what, at least they achieved some experiences of success in our great sport? Wasn't the fact that they never made an Olympic or international final more likely due to the fact that they quit at 16 because they fell for a boy or girlfriend who caused them to have other priorities? Or maybe they had to study hard to get through school / college / uni and thus could not focus on swimming properly? Or maybe they did not have dedicated supportive parents to get them to all the training sessions and help them fulfill their potential? Perhaps, they had to quit swimming and get a job in order to have some money to live on? To me, these reasons (and many others similar to them) are much more likely to be the cause of a successful age grouper not progressing to optimal performances in the long term rather than having done too much training too early. Although I understand where he is coming from, I feel it is much too simplistic, and wrong to say what sub24 said:
Many coaches need to have their egos stroked by having a successful age group swimmer, but if that talent never reaches an olympic final, or any international final, then, retrospectively they were a flop. They WASTED the talent because of their own ego. Or their ignorance.

Perhaps it is not unreasonable to coach and train swimmers to be successful early and maintain that success throughout their careers and make the finals sub24 refers to? Ian Thorpe and Michael Phelps have sort of turned male swimming on its head in recent times by breaking through into senior international teams at age 14 and becoming world champion at 15. Dani Gyurta might just do the same in a couple of years time? At the 92 Olympics, the womens 200 breaststroke was won by a 13 year old Japanese girl. Was she coached for early age group success? Because of the fact she is now 23 and not swimming, is she a victim of doing too much too soon?

I struggle to think of any swimmers / clubs / coaches who I have known in Britain who trained too much too soon. If any of you guys out there do know of some, please say so?

[sub24]

Points well made. There are a plethora of reasons that swimmers quit in their mid-teens. You have named most of them. But a close look at the majority of super-stars that were in the very top of their age group in their early years would reveal more. Australia, USA, Canada have had a monthly national statistical age group ranking for decades. This enables a look at the results retrospectively. I see a trend in those swimmers who progress too fast. And it is my opinion that they are training too much too soon. If you take Thorpe as an example, he did not train a lot as a young swimmer. He was into other sports. Then both him and his coach decided to train 44K, 55k, 66k per week in a progression over three years. The results are history. But Thorpe and Phelps are not good examples. They are unusual cases and the trend would be an older swimmer would reach Thorpe's level later in a career. They are both very mature for their age and can handle the training. It has to be a coaching decision, maybe an X factor.

Most 14 and 15 year old boys are not able to philosophise with adults. These guys do. vandenHoogenband is four years older than Thorpe and he would be considered an 'early developer' in most cases! The athletes that are on national teams were in the rankings at a young age, but were not necesarily on the top. So they gradually gained skill, they had a family that adapted to a more expensive and more time demanding sport, they figured out how to balance their life including boyfriends/girlfriends because they had time, they were able to spread school out over a length of time that kept them in the sport, they reached an age that required them to be out on their own and had skills that enabled that to happen. They had fun along the way because they won and lost, had ups and downs. They performed and were able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together by PROGESSING SLOWLY AND METHODICALLY.

So when the swimmer is physically and mentally mature they can decide: do I want to become a full time athlete and reach for the top? Then, as an age group coach, you will know if you have done your job.

Pre-pubescent breaststroke girls are another story.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by lane4
I struggle to think of any swimmers / clubs / coaches who I have known in Britain who trained too much too soon. If any of you guys out there do know of some, please say so?

Well I can think of one club who have had several swimmers who are seemingly going to be world beaters at 12-14, but by 16/17 have left the sport, and I would suggest the reason they left was not one of those suggested by Lane 4, but more likely along the lines of sub24's school of thought.:idea:

[Phil Tanner]

Brilliantly put, Lane4. (Stress I'm looking at this as a parent and have only a parent's perspective on coaching issues.)

IMHO if someone hits the heights at 12-13 and doesn't go on to the Olympics, they are still a success in my book for what they have achieved and not a failure for the complete imponderable of what they might have done.

I don't think such imponderables are, so to speak, worth even a little ponder - any athlete might step off a kerb badly tomorrow and find it's all over.

[lane4]

Originally posted by bazzaroodoo


Well I can think of one club who have had several swimmers who are seemingly going to be world beaters at 12-14, but by 16/17 have left the sport, and I would suggest the reason they left was not one of those suggested by Lane 4, but more likely along the lines of sub24's school of thought.:idea:

Come on Baz, name and shame them!?

And why were they seemingly going to be world beaters at 12-14? Who said so?

[Steve]

Originally posted by bazzaroodoo
Well I can think of one club ...

Local rivals perhaps? ;) I think I know who he means...:p

[benn]

Morning training is only truely effective if the correct resting periods during training are installed. Most coaches use the sessions to get extra distance in or work on a technical aspect of training. I only do two mornings a week with my squad. The basis of these sessions are on technique primarily because it allows me to put more distance into the evening sessions and secondly because most of my swimmers have to go straight to school/uni after the session and get no chance for resting. The morning training regime will be different for the olympic athletes because they can afford to get more rest during the day.
I agree with swimusa, in that morning training is excellent preperation for morning meets, however, i disagree on the fact that doing more meterage per week will make you fitter. You must think in terms of "specific" training for specific events. For example, if you have a 50m fr sprint swimmer and your training them on heavy meterage every week, the power/sprint characteristics the swimmers muscles are going to decay. So it is important to plan any session about the specifics of the swimmers in the pool.
;)

[Bazza]

Well nobody actually said they were going to be world beaters. (I exaggerated slightly...:devil: ). What I mean is that as say a 12-14 year old they wipe the floor with their rivals at NAGs, but by the top end, ie 15 and 16 they are having to make do with medals or finals, if that. By 17/18, disillusioned with their inability to live up to the standards they and maybe others (coaches? parents?) have come to expect of them, they drift out of the sport.

The point is for certain people (early developers or whatever) it is easy to 'out-muscle' opponents by being bigger and stronger and doing more meterage (80k?!?!), but as everyone catches up they can't understand why they aren't winning anymore. Of course no-one would listen to the critics who said "you may be winning everything at 13, but you'll have to sort that technique out if you want to achieve anything", and by 15 this starts to become evident.

Of course it's different for girls and boys. Boys who mature and develop early can almost 'over achieve' as they are stronger than their opponents in early teens. For girls they can find themselves taking on and beating many older swimmers at say 14, but after maturing they never get back to that standard in their late teens. For both it can be hard to deal with and get your head round ("How come I'm slower at 17 than I was at 14?"), etc.

It would be interesting to know:idea:how many NAG champions at say 14 or 13 and below go on to represent GBR, or alternatively how many GBR internationals were NAG champions at 14 or earlier??:confused:

And Steve - you guessed it!:D

[Katie]

Swimmer stop arguing its really embarrassing!!!!! No offence Emma but can you really see Ron appreciating this? I really do like his training and i feel its great for me and most of my friends, but I think we have to respect other coach's training plans too!

[lane4]

Originally posted by swimmer
well our head coach dosent believe in early morning training and he is now a coach with GB and has produced a swimmer in the olypics, a current British record holder and many many internationals, with NO morning training!

If he can do it without morning training, why not try to do it without evening training as well? That would be the ultimate in cool coaching! ;) :D :devil:

[swimusa]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Katie]

hahahahahahahaha good one, sounds like good training 2 me!:D

[Mel]

My name is Melissa Chuck and i am the scottish champion that swimmer is talking about. I personally think that my coach is a very good coach and i think his training is excellent and i don't think anyone can disagree with me. in the south there are not that many pools around that we can use, and some of our training time is donated for free. i do belive in early morning training, but if someone could find us the pool time, then we would probably use it.
And as some people have written about me breaking the record for 400m free as "something that has stood since the 80s" well then if its so easy to break it then why has it stood for that long? how can anyone write about me if they don't know who i am? i personally think breaking a national record was a huge achievement for me, how many other people can say that, even if it was "only" a sottish one?
Also with other swimmers, we are only a small club, and so producing matt kidd and katherine wyld has to be a big achievment. Getting to the speedo B final was also a big achievement as we were the only club who was not a "city" or amalgamated. Perhaps if all clubs swam as seperate clubs, we would stand out more.

[swimusa]

Being age group champion is not the same level as Open National Champion.

[lane4]

Originally posted by Mel
And as some people have written about me breaking the record for 400m free as "something that has stood since the 80s" well then if its so easy to break it then why has it stood for that long? how can anyone write about me if they don't know who i am? i personally think breaking a national record was a huge achievement for me, how many other people can say that, even if it was "only" a sottish one?


Mel, it was the Scottish Age Group Championships MEET record that you broke if I am not mistaken. Excellent though this undoubtedly was, please realise that it was not a NATIONAL record. There is a big difference between these two types of record referred to. However, if you broke it and then someone said you could not have it (as was reported here earlier) then that is a complete disgrace as meet records should be meet records regardless of who you are or where you're from.

Also, and this does not take anything away from what you achieved, but the meet record you broke had not stood since the 80's. Rather I think it was the late 90's.

[Katie]

Ermmm ok this is getting kind of weird now can we leave it!? I think everyone values their own achievements and the achievements of their club, even though not everyone may believe they're as important as the swimmer or club member thinks. I have managed to thoroughly confuse myself by writing that bu I hope you all know where I'm heading!!! :confused:

[swimusa]

When someone says their coach produced the Scottish national recordholder in an event without morning training, one quickly assumes someone of the rank of Allison Sheppard, Louise Coull, or Kirsty Balfour, people at the top of Scottish swimming, British swimming, and world swimming. Not the age group record holder. It's alittle watered down, even though it is a great accomplishment.

[Mel]

i know, you are all right, its just when i read it yesterday, i got annoyed and i got very carried away! i do see exactly what you mean about it!