Improvements

[Linny]

I was looking at the results from Moscow over the weekend and it made me think again about how difficult it is going to be to qualify for the men's backstroke events for the Americans.

Why are only 2 swimmers per nation allowed to enter? Is it to ensure that there are no clean sweeps on the podium?

If I was Olympic God I would give all champions the right to defend their title over and above their country's quota and this has nothing to do with any concern that I might have that we may not see the beautiful Aaron Piersol because of course we will.

I would also remove 800s from the Olympic schedule and give women 1500s instead. Lastly I would go against the swimming snobs and include 50s for form events. We might win some more medals then! :)

What would you do?

[Woodward]

I was looking at the results from Moscow over the weekend and it made me think again about how difficult it is going to be to qualify for the men's backstroke events for the Americans.

Why are only 2 swimmers per nation allowed to enter? Is it to ensure that there are no clean sweeps on the podium?

If I was Olympic God I would give all champions the right to defend their title over and above their country's quota and this has nothing to do with any concern that I might have that we may not see the beautiful Aaron Piersol because of course we will.

I would also remove 800s from the Olympic schedule and give women 1500s instead. Lastly I would go against the swimming snobs and include 50s for form events. We might win some more medals then! :)

What would you do?
Some have suggested having a 'C' qualifying standard but make it exceedingly tough. I wouldn't go that far. I would do what you suggested and allow defending Olympic and/or World Champions an entry into the Olympic Games provided they swim the A time in the annum prior (I wouldn't want sentimental goodbyes for those not serious about competing anymore).

The reason only 2 swimmers are allowed to enter is to prevent sweeps of events but now it is also to keep the number of competitors from ballooning past the numbers we already have at the OG. That is also one of the main reasons why adding the 50 events is running into resistance. It would mean more athletes and expanding the schedule. The IOC is resisting this. One reason that hasn't been talked about is that I think they (ie The IOC, some sporting bodies, and some member states) are concerned that swimming would have too many medals. Certain people don't want to see that happen. Adding events and expanding the time frame for Swimming's programme would enhance it's value to the medal table and increase it's visibility. There is a battle of competing interests among different sports.

[Chris]

Is it a bad thing that a nation should get a clean sweep?

Are we not meant to be testing the World's elite (and not the top two from each country?)

[NotVeryFast]

I would allow 3 per country, and if that expands the numbers too much and makes heats take too long, just drop semis, because as far as I'm aware, semis are only in the programme to make it last the required number of days of tv coverage anyway. They could perhaps hold the last few heats of each event when they would have otherwise held the semis. The reason I'd like 3 per country is that the bronze medallist should be the 3rd best in the world, not 4th best with the 3rd best sat at home watching it on tv.

I'm not sure about introducing 50s of form strokes. I'm tempted to say they should drop 200s of form strokes, and just have 100s, as many non-swimmers see form strokes as like having a track event for hopping backwards on one leg. Perhaps drop the 400 IM as well.

I would have both 800 free and 1500 free for men and women, plus 3000 free in the pool to bring the range up to a comparable level with track athletics.

So far I've cut the number of events down by 2, so I would then add 4 x 50m free and medley relays to make up for it.

[ruthcp]

If I was Olympic God I would give all champions the right to defend their title over and above their country's quota and this has nothing to do with any concern that I might have that we may not see the beautiful Aaron Piersol because of course we will.

I would also remove 800s from the Olympic schedule and give women 1500s instead. Lastly I would go against the swimming snobs and include 50s for form events. We might win some more medals then! :)


Then it's a great shame that you are not, imho!!

[Chris]

If you have entry times, why shouldn't everyone who achieves the time participate in the competition?

Comes back to whether you want the best in the world competing or just a selection from that group.

Chris

[NotVeryFast]

If you have entry times, why shouldn't everyone who achieves the time participate in the competition?

Comes back to whether you want the best in the world competing or just a selection from that group.
In a sense it's hard to argue against that, but you have to appreciate it would quite possibly result in some finals consisting entirely of USA swimmers. What you say is the fairest method for individuals, but perhaps doesn't meet the business needs of the IOC in terms of creating an interesting spectacle for a global TV audience.

[Brick]

In a sense it's hard to argue against that, but you have to appreciate it would quite possibly result in some finals consisting entirely of USA swimmers. What you say is the fairest method for individuals, but perhaps doesn't meet the business needs of the IOC in terms of creating an interesting spectacle for a global TV audience.

In some ways the olympics are seen as a competition between nations. In which case you'd expect an even number of competitors across different nations. So the current system is perhaps a balance between the two extremes.

[Linny]

One reason that hasn't been talked about is that I think they (ie The IOC, some sporting bodies, and some member states) are concerned that swimming would have too many medals. Certain people don't want to see that happen. Adding events and expanding the time frame for Swimming's programme would enhance it's value to the medal table and increase it's visibility. There is a battle of competing interests among different sports.I've considered this and I think that the fact that it is possible for one individual to win so many events adds considerable weight to the argument that there are already too many similar events in the swimming programme. In 2004, all the male form events were won by the same guy (one per stroke, not one guy winning all 6!). Didn't happen in the ladies but then I don't have to give you the flaws in my argument I'm sharing because I feel like it. :D

Let's add the 50s and lose the 100s then! :clear:

[Woodward]

I'm not sure about introducing 50s of form strokes. I'm tempted to say they should drop 200s of form strokes, and just have 100s, as many non-swimmers see form strokes as like having a track event for hopping backwards on one leg. Perhaps drop the 400 IM as well.
Not so much non-swimmers making that argument as it is others knocking swimming to promote their own sport or someone being obnoxious. Track has the Steeplechase, triple jump, and pole vault. Those events took more imagination to concoct than the form strokes in swimming. Caligula swam the backstroke. Don't get me started on "race walking."

In a sense it's hard to argue against that, but you have to appreciate it would quite possibly result in some finals consisting entirely of USA swimmers. That might have happened in some events in the 60s and 70s but not today. Though in a few races the US or Australia could potentially make up half the final. I don't like the idea of giving berths to three swimmers from the same country unless all three are ranked in the top 5 to top 8 swimmers. An extra spot for an Olympic champion and/or World champion might be worth considering. I definitely agree with ditching the semifinals ... for the 200 events at minimum.

I've considered this and I think that the fact that it is possible for one individual to win so many events adds considerable weight to the argument that there are already too many similar events in the swimming programme. There are some officials that would like to take some events away from Swimming and Gymnastics. The two sports where it is most possible for one athlete to get a massive haul. So we may do well to hold on to what we have now let alone attempting to add more events. Though being biased the more events the better it is for Swimming.

[NotVeryFast]

Not so much non-swimmers making that argument as it is others knocking swimming to promote their own sport or someone being obnoxious. Track has the Steeplechase, triple jump, and pole vault. Those events took more imagination to concoct than the form strokes in swimming. Caligula swam the backstroke. Don't get me started on "race walking."
I think race walking is the best analogue to form strokes - neither would seem to have any practical application in a survival situtation. If you're being chased by a crocodile, why would you do anything other than try to swim as fast as possible? Same for if you're trying to run away from a hungry lion. Steeplechase is valid because it simulates running across countryside over fences and through rivers, a valid survival scenario. Similarly for the long jump and hurdles. I agree the triple jump is contrived, that is also up there with form strokes.

Anyway, the people who have told me they think form strokes are silly would equally agree that walking races etc are silly.

Talking of contrived sports - anyone for Chessboxing (http://site.wcbo.org/content/e14/index_en.html)?

[Spidey]

I would allow 3 per country, and if that expands the numbers too much and makes heats take too long, just drop semis, because as far as I'm aware, semis are only in the programme to make it last the required number of days of tv coverage anyway. They could perhaps hold the last few heats of each event when they would have otherwise held the semis. The reason I'd like 3 per country is that the bronze medallist should be the 3rd best in the world, not 4th best with the 3rd best sat at home watching it on tv.

I'm not sure about introducing 50s of form strokes. I'm tempted to say they should drop 200s of form strokes, and just have 100s, as many non-swimmers see form strokes as like having a track event for hopping backwards on one leg. Perhaps drop the 400 IM as well.

I would have both 800 free and 1500 free for men and women, plus 3000 free in the pool to bring the range up to a comparable level with track athletics.

So far I've cut the number of events down by 2, so I would then add 4 x 50m free and medley relays to make up for it.
I'd drop the distances over 200m, boring for spectators. Except team races where you get to see more than one swimmer.

[Stevie_k]

I dont know about that spidey.

Id have thought swimming spectators are probably swimming enthusiasts in some manner.

Non swimming enthusiasts would get bored watching a 1500 but swimmy people love it (dont they?)

I LOVED the 1500 in athens with hacket and david davies.

[Spidey]

I dont know about that spidey.

Id have thought swimming spectators are probably swimming enthusiasts in some manner.

Non swimming enthusiasts would get bored watching a 1500 but swimmy people love it (dont they?)

I LOVED the 1500 in athens with hacket and david davies.

How many spectators were there at Sheffield for the 1500m event, how many swimmers stayed back from earlier heats to watch the last heat? Compare that to how many watched the 100m Free events, particulary the last heats?

[NotVeryFast]

I'd drop the distances over 200m, boring for spectators. Except team races where you get to see more than one swimmer.
How many spectators were there at Sheffield for the 1500m event, how many swimmers stayed back from earlier heats to watch the last heat? Compare that to how many watched the 100m Free events, particulary the last heats?
We're talking about the Olympics here, not Masters meets. I have recordings of the 1500s from the last two Olympics, and both were very exciting. At Sydney in 2000, the atmosphere was absolutely electric for Perkins vs Hackett. Apparently people all over Australia stopped what they were doing to watch that race.

If we got rid of 400m+ swimming, to be fair we would also need to get rid of 1500m+ running. However I would disagree with this as distance running and swimming are valid survival applications of athletic ability.

[Spidey]

We're talking about the Olympics here, not Masters meets. I have recordings of the 1500s from the last two Olympics, and both were very exciting. At Sydney in 2000, the atmosphere was absolutely electric for Perkins vs Hackett. Apparently people all over Australia stopped what they were doing to watch that race.

If we got rid of 400m+ swimming, to be fair we would also need to get rid of 1500m+ running. However I would disagree with this as distance running and swimming are valid survival applications of athletic ability.

Running is a different sport and if you got rid of the longer distances you would not have incidences like Decker v Budd, or Paula having a wee.

So Australia stopped to watch the 1500m, would it have been the same if the event was not in Australia and not with Australians in poll positions. How many other countries had such an audience for the event?

[Woodward]

I think race walking is the best analogue to form strokes - neither would seem to have any practical application in a survival situtation. We can throw out all the throwing events except the Javelin while we're at it.

Since when did this become the criterion for judging whether a sporting event is legitimate/silly? Did I miss something? If Australopithecus didn't need to do it then it's not a real sport!! Well, you can toss out Soccer/Football then. Don't see the need for kicking round objects between posts. Not unless one is armless and is resorting to desperate measures to scare off predators. We should also eliminate Cycling since it's not a survival strategy. Australopithecus didn't have a bike!

In my opinion they are legitimate events because each works different muscle groups in varying capacities. They require skill and immense exertion to be successful. All are distinctly exercise and aid fitness. Being able to get your body to respond with different movements and skill sets is helpful regardless if it's application to "survival situations" is not easily apparent. It was not initially obvious how Mr. Miyagi's chores for the Karate Kid were necessary.

Besides, primitive humans that swam the backstroke got an even tan and the ones that did the crawl all day died of skin cancer. Not to mention the multi skilled cavedudes got all the chicks and hence more effectively spawned their seed.

[FlyingBean]

Running is a different sport and if you got rid of the longer distances you would not have incidences like Decker v Budd, or Paula having a wee.

So Australia stopped to watch the 1500m, would it have been the same if the event was not in Australia and not with Australians in poll positions. How many other countries had such an audience for the event?
Spidey - I think distance races can be very interesting to watch. Unlike the sprints where it's all out from start to finish, you get to watch the tactics unfold. It can be very exciting.

Masters swimming is very different, most of the people there are there to swim not to spectate, so you would naturally have less spectators. Plus the fact that many are still travelling to Sheffield, or even still at work for the 1500 and recovering from a late night and excess alcohol for the 800!

[Spidey]

Spidey - I think distance races can be very interesting to watch. Unlike the sprints where it's all out from start to finish, you get to watch the tactics unfold. It can be very exciting.

Masters swimming is very different, most of the people there are there to swim not to spectate, so you would naturally have less spectators. Plus the fact that many are still travelling to Sheffield, or even still at work for the 1500 and recovering from a late night and excess alcohol for the 800!
FB, could you not sleep, you posted this at 3:49 am.

I think that Masters do watch their fellow competitor, take the 100m Free for example. I did not go to Sheffield this year, but the last time, there was such a vast crowd watching the 100m Free event.

[FlyingBean]

Spidey - you're quite correct I couldn't sleep!!

And you're also right - masters do watch, but generally if they are already there, which they were for the 100 free as many were also competing in the session. You don't see many people go to a gala just to watch.

[Linny]

I definitely agree with ditching the semifinals ... for the 200 events at minimum.Why? If you ditched the semi-finals, the likes of Phelps and Coughlin could swim and win even more events! I can't see that this would be good. What is the argument FOR ditching them?

[Juicy Lucy]

If you have entry times, why shouldn't everyone who achieves the time participate in the competition?

Comes back to whether you want the best in the world competing or just a selection from that group.

Chris

If only this was the case.

In 2004 Mark Foster swam 22.49 secs for 50m freestyle at the British Olympic Trials - well under the Olympic qualifying standard.

As we all know, Bill Sweetenham told him, “The qualifying time I’ve set for you is much faster than the Olympic qualifying time - YOU ain’t going, cobber!”

JL

[NotVeryFast]

We can throw out all the throwing events except the Javelin while we're at it.

Since when did this become the criterion for judging whether a sporting event is legitimate/silly? Did I miss something? If Australopithecus didn't need to do it then it's not a real sport!! Well, you can toss out Soccer/Football then. Don't see the need for kicking round objects between posts. Not unless one is armless and is resorting to desperate measures to scare off predators. We should also eliminate Cycling since it's not a survival strategy. Australopithecus didn't have a bike!

In my opinion they are legitimate events because each works different muscle groups in varying capacities. They require skill and immense exertion to be successful. All are distinctly exercise and aid fitness. Being able to get your body to respond with different movements and skill sets is helpful regardless if it's application to "survival situations" is not easily apparent. It was not initially obvious how Mr. Miyagi's chores for the Karate Kid were necessary.

Besides, primitive humans that swam the backstroke got an even tan and the ones that did the crawl all day died of skin cancer. Not to mention the multi skilled cavedudes got all the chicks and hence more effectively spawned their seed.
It's supposed to be about "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Not swifter, higher or stronger with some artificial constraint imposed on you. So my main objection is to any sort of form event. Walking, shot putting, high jumping, form strokes in swimming, these are all events that impose constraints on people's attempts to achieve "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Some of these could be turned into real events with rule changes, e.g. just let people take off with both feet in the high jump and a form event becomes a proper test of "Higher". Some events such as walking or breaststroke would become duplicate events, i.e. the same as running or freestyle, if the constraints were removed, so these events are arguably pointless.

Validity or sillyness is all in the eye of the beholder, just like the value of medals. I was just giving my own views on it. There's nothing wrong with a sport like football in its own right as something for people to enjoy playing and watching, but I don't think it has any place in the Olympics, as it doesn't test "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Indeed it isn't really a proper Olympic sport with the eligibility constraints it has.

It just seems to me that the origins of most sports of a "Swifter, Higher, Stronger" nature is to test and display the prowess of people in terms of useful survival abilities, and partly yes, for people to display their suitability as a mate (as you said "the multi skilled cavedudes got all the chicks and hence more effectively spawned their seed"). People in general ought not to be impressed with non-useful skills, but there are counter-examples in nature, such as the feathers of a peacock. I'm not sure we should want to choose to encourage such evolution.

If you were really going to make the Olympics into a display of prowess in the modern world then we should introduce beauty contests, tests of singing, dancing and acting ability, and intellectual contests such as chess.

Your point about using different muscles is a good one - many people would see "differentness" as important for different Olympic events. If the same person can win more than one event, the events could be argued to not be sufficiently different in what they test.

I think that Masters do watch their fellow competitor, take the 100m Free for example. I did not go to Sheffield this year, but the last time, there was such a vast crowd watching the 100m Free event.
The fact is that the Masters 1500 at Sheffield is not exciting because there is no competition. There are only a handful of people from each age group, with widely differing abilities. The 100 has competitors of a much higher standard with close racing between the top swimmers and hence is much more exciting to watch. There is no relationship between this and what happens at the Olympics.

[Spidey]

Spidey - you're quite correct I couldn't sleep!!

And you're also right - masters do watch, but generally if they are already there, which they were for the 100 free as many were also competing in the session. You don't see many people go to a gala just to watch.
But at the event, swimmers who swam in earlier heats stayed to watch the later heats for thie 100m event, which is not generally done for the longer distance evnets.
The fact is that the Masters 1500 at Sheffield is not exciting because there is no competition. No competition - ask the competitors who went and did not get gold, silver or bronze?There are only a handful of people from each age group, with widely differing abilities. The 100 has competitors of a much higher standard with close racing between the top swimmers and hence is much more exciting to watch. Are you saying that he 1500m swimmers are not swimming a high standard then?There is no relationship between this and what happens at the Olympics. A 1500m swim is a 1500m swim, no matter where it is. Of course a competition at home will get more local support than one away. So to compare support in Australia of Australians swimming together is not a good example of support for the sport of a distance event in general.

[FlyingBean]

spidey - you're not becoming an sprint specialist who's anti distance are you?:devil:

[NotVeryFast]

No competition - ask the competitors who went and did not get gold, silver or bronze? Are you saying that he 1500m swimmers are not swimming a high standard then?
Correct. If you look at the times relative to the world records for each age group, people are generally a long way off in the 1500, and there is no depth. It is rare that the silver medallist provides any real competition to the gold medallist, those not finishing in the medals are typically a very long way behind the winner.

Look at 30-34 in 2007, the 1500 WR is 15:51, the 100 WR is 50.24. The 1500 was won in 18:24, the 100 was won in 50.24 i.e. the new WR. One of these is a significant sporting achievement, the other is not. I think it's obvious why people would want to watch one but not the other. Please can we end this discussion as it is totally irrelevant to the Olympics.

[Spidey]

Correct. If you look at the times relative to the world records for each age group, people are generally a long way off in the 1500, and there is no depth. It is rare that the silver medallist provides any real competition to the gold medallist, those not finishing in the medals are typically a very long way behind the winner.

Look at 30-34 in 2007, the 1500 WR is 15:51, the 100 WR is 50.24. The 1500 was won in 18:24, the 100 was won in 50.24 i.e. the new WR. One of these is a significant sporting achievement, the other is not. I think it's obvious why people would want to watch one but not the other. Please can we end this discussion as it is totally irrelevant to the Olympics.
I have been told, why are you singling out me? All threads from time to time divert? I am still discussing swimming. I'd better go back and check all my other posts now, not wishing to offend like.

[Juicy Lucy]

You don't see many people go to a gala just to watch.

I shall be at Barnet just to watch the 1500. I haven't entered. It's a 200 mile round trip for me. I often travel to see my fellow masters in competition.

[Spidey]

Please can we end this discussion as it is totally irrelevant to the Olympics.

Not being told, I continue with a statement and question; swimming is in the Olympics - the connction. I know I won't get an answer, but how close were othe events winning times to World Records and what actual World Record were you referring to? How close were the different age groups winners to their repsective records, british (for it was british event)?

[NotVeryFast]

Spidey, I'm no longer going to answer your questions on this thread as you keep putting me in an impossible position of either having to be rude by not answering your direct questions, or be rude by posting off-topic in this thread. I consider the latter to be more rude, so will no longer answer the questions. Feel free to start a new thread where your discussions will be on-topic.

[Spidey]

spidey - you're not becoming an sprint specialist who's anti distance are you?:devil:

Sorry, can't answer this here, please start another thread. Not really, just that with Leppy and Stevie talking about counting to 60 for a 1500m event, it does seem a long way.

[Woodward]

Why? If you ditched the semi-finals, the likes of Phelps and Coughlin could swim and win even more events! I can't see that this would be good. What is the argument FOR ditching them?
It may help athletes like Phelps and Manaudou but that's beside the point for me. I don't think we should set out to design events to specifically limit certain athletes. As it is I don't think having dominant sports people is necessarily bad for the sport. On the contrary.

I think it would better facilitate the addition of other events such as the 50m events since the IOC is even less likely to lengthen the programme than they are to consent to the addition of races.

[Spidey]

Why? If you ditched the semi-finals, the likes of Phelps and Coughlin could swim and win even more events! I can't see that this would be good. What is the argument FOR ditching them?

It may help athletes like Phelps and Manaudou but that's beside the point for me. I don't think we should set out to design events to specifically limit certain athletes. As it is I don't think having dominant sports people is necessarily bad for the sport. On the contrary.

I think it would better facilitate the addition of other events such as the 50m events since the IOC is even less likely to lengthen the programme than they are to consent to the addition of races.
Could the ditching of the semis allow time for the 50's to be added? Is that feasible?

[Woodward]

It's supposed to be about "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Not swifter, higher or stronger with some artificial constraint imposed on you.
Says you. The Baron de Coubertin didn't feel that way.
Citius, Altius, Fortius is a slogan. The Baron was a businessman as much as anything and was canvassing different mottos that were submitted. He disliked the others because they were too long and liked this one because it was short and broad. It was intended to be inclusive not exclusive as you are insisting.

We could quibble about the true intent of Coubertin. But I think his actions speak well enough. He personally approved the shot put, triple jump, and discus for athletics, as well as Cycling, Shooting, and Tennis. Throw in the Pommel Horse and horizontal bar for Gymnastics and you've got a whole menu of pointless non-survival activities that would be foreign to ancient humans. Coubertin was a great patron of Cycling. So how can you mount the pulpit of a purist if the supposed father of Olympic Purists signed off on sports that don't fit into your criterion?
Validity or sillyness is all in the eye of the beholder, just like the value of medals. Exactly, and the majority of beholders aren't beholden to your view. In the past I have promoted participation in the sport and I've never had the form strokes questioned by non-swimmers as "legitimate events." Any experience I've had of persons questioning these events "validity" are slagging matches between people promoting rival sports, sarcastic freestylers, or contrarian "purists." Neither of which conform to the view of Joe Public. When Egerszegi, Meagher, Jones, Heyns, Wilkie, Gross, Belote, Darnyi, etc won Olympic Gold they were widely heralded as great athletes across the world.

I was just giving my own views on it. There's nothing wrong with a sport like football in its own right as something for people to enjoy playing and watching, but I don't think it has any place in the Olympics, as it doesn't test "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Indeed it isn't really a proper Olympic sport with the eligibility constraints it has. So then it follows that you only advocate taking the backstroke, breast, and fly out of the Olympic Games but not World Championships and other major meets? So is it only an "Olympic" issue for you and not one for the sport itself?

It just seems to me that the origins of most sports of a "Swifter, Higher, Stronger" nature is to test and display the prowess of people in terms of useful survival abilities. It seems to me you're overestimating the number of sporting activities that apply to your "survival" litmus test and underestimating the number that do not.

People in general ought not to be impressed with non-useful skills, but there are counter-examples in nature, such as the feathers of a peacock. I'm not sure we should want to choose to encourage such evolution. Yes and the number of counter examples in nature of animals doing seemingly pointless mating rituals are endless if not all as elaborate as the peacock. That evolutionary quirk of a horse has been out of the barn for ages.

If you were really going to make the Olympics into a display of prowess in the modern world then we should introduce beauty contests, tests of singing, dancing and acting ability, and intellectual contests such as chess. Modern world? 4 out of 5 of those activities predate the decadence of Babylon. We're really digressing now aren't we?

Your point about using different muscles is a good one - many people would see "differentness" as important for different Olympic events. If the same person can win more than one event, the events could be argued to not be sufficiently different in what they test. Muchas Gracias for the crumb!

Besides you are a bit of a speciesist aren't you? The Frog and the Dolphin are better adapted to the water environment than humans and they found the breast and fly kick useful!

[Woodward]

Could the ditching of the semis allow time for the 50's to be added? Is that feasible?
Yes.

The programme over a week could include those events and it would be busy enough to preclude the multi-eventers but be very much welcomed by the specialists.

[FlyingBean]

I shall be at Barnet just to watch the 1500. I haven't entered. It's a 200 mile round trip for me. I often travel to see my fellow masters in competition.
JL - you are the exception to many rules!!!:wave:

[NotVeryFast]

Exactly, and the majority of beholders aren't beholden to your view. In the past I have promoted participation in the sport and I've never had the form strokes questioned by non-swimmers as "legitimate events." Any experience I've had of persons questioning these events "validity" are slagging matches between people promoting rival sports, sarcastic freestylers, or contrarian "purists." Neither of which conform to the view of Joe Public. When Egerszegi, Meagher, Jones, Heyns, Wilkie, Gross, Belote, Darnyi, etc won Olympic Gold they were widely heralded as great athletes across the world.
My experience is the opposite, I see virtually zero interest in swimming from people who don't swim themselves, and I've encountered very little interest in what I'm collectively calling "form events" where there is some sort of artificial constraint on how you would otherwise optimise your performance. Most people in the UK who aren't swimmers would not recognise the names you listed apart from David Wilkie.

Besides you are a bit of a speciesist aren't you? The Frog and the Dolphin are better adapted to the water environment than humans and they found the breast and fly kick useful!
They don't do them as form strokes, though, they are simply employing the most effective way for them to travel through the water, i.e. they are both swimming freestyle (or at least they would be if freestyle really were freestyle rather than a form stroke in disguise with constraints such as having to have part of the body above the surface after 15m).

[Woodward]

My experience is the opposite, I see virtually zero interest in swimming from people who don't swim themselves, and I've encountered very little interest in what I'm collectively calling "form events" where there is some sort of artificial constraint on how you would otherwise optimise your performance. Most people in the UK who aren't swimmers would not recognise the names you listed apart from David Wilkie.
Well Wilkie for obvious reasons. These non swimmers probably don't know who Dawn Fraser is either. That has nothing to do with the "validity" of form strokes. Are you suggesting the "zero interest" in swimming you speak of is somehow the direct consequence of "form" strokes?


They don't do them as form strokes, though, they are simply employing the most effective way for them to travel through the water, i.e. they are both swimming freestyle (or at least they would be if freestyle really were freestyle rather than a form stroke in disguise with constraints such as having to have part of the body above the surface after 15m). It's the one comment in my previous lengthy post that was meant in jest. But let's go with it: Dolphins are evolved to live exclusively in water and swim at speeds well beyond what humans can do. Humans have to make do with appendages intended for land bound existence. Should global warming or some other cataclysm turn Earth entirely into a waterworld then freestyle (as humans define it) would be an evolutionary dead end! Given the small gap between Crocker's pb's in fly and free it may already be happening.

[NotVeryFast]

Well Wilkie for obvious reasons. These non swimmers probably don't know who Dawn Fraser is either. That has nothing to do with the "validity" of form strokes. Are you suggesting the "zero interest" in swimming you speak of is somehow the direct consequence of "form" strokes?
Partly, but admittedly there are other obstacles to mass acceptance of swimming, and this is just a small part. Indeed we might end up worse off in GB if we eliminated form strokes as fewer available medals would mean less chance of a GB swimmer winning one, and for better or worse, the public do seem to mainly care about how well our own athletes are doing.

[Woodward]

My old club used to take youth groups and summer camp kids to major regional meets to promote swimming. In many instances we had them fill out small feedback questionnaires. When asked their favorite discipline the responses always reflected a broad interest among all the strokes. There was never disdain for these events. What you seem to think is a liability I believe is an asset. I remember as a child my amazement at watching the back strokers emerge from the water and start their turnover or the bobbing heads and extensions of the breaststokers.

It gets me to a point you made about race walking and running. Many people heap derision on race walking. It looks like some labored and debilitated form of running. You seem to have seized upon race walking as a plank for your argument knowing that it seems so counter intuitive, unnatural, and awkward to many people.

It's not a premise I accept. First, the differences between the three "form" strokes and the crawl are greater than between running and "race walking." It's much easier for the lay person to discern between the different swimming disciplines than it is for them to distinguish between race walking and running. The only evident difference on first glance between marathon competitors and race walkers is the awkward gait. The motions that swimmers use for pulls and propulsion in the four disciplines constitute far greater differences in muscle movements and visually to spectators.

Humans are evolved to live on land. Not to move through and propel themselves through water. Consequently, anything other than running full stop is far less than an optimum way to get from one place to another. In the foreign environment of water there are many imperfect ways to travel of which the crawl is the fastest. However, the other alternatives are not so far behind the crawl as to render them as graceless, awkward, and clumsy as any alternatives to running. The athletes that swim breast, back, and fly travel with greater comparative efficiency than someone running backwards, while doing a handstand, in a potato sack, or race walking.

An elite flyer or backstroker can beat many if not most Junior freestyle swimmers. An elite race walker is unlikely to beat most Junior runners.

A water environment has more possibilities for movement from all parts of the body. Sans wings humans are gravity bound and largely leg dependent. Because of this swimming allows for more than one viable and yes aesthetically appealing option!

[Linny]

Why? If you ditched the semi-finals, the likes of Phelps and Coughlin could swim and win even more events! I can't see that this would be good. It may help athletes like Phelps and Manaudou but that's beside the point for me. I don't think we should set out to design events to specifically limit certain athletes. As it is I don't think having dominant sports people is necessarily bad for the sport. On the contrary.I agree that it is not necessarily bad for the sport to have dominant athletes, I think it is good; I made the remark because I had already put forward the point that having one individual winning lots of events (and medals) lends weight to the suggestion (which you have agreed is held in some quarters) that swimming already has too many events that are similar.

Besides I like the semi-finals although as Olympic God I would put the first 4 through from each so that it was about the race rather than the time.

[NotVeryFast]

The only evident difference on first glance between marathon competitors and race walkers is the awkward gait. The motions that swimmers use for pulls and propulsion in the four disciplines constitute far greater differences in muscle movements and visually to spectators.
Yet as far as I'm aware, the same athlete doesn't win the marathon and the walk, though I haven't looked up results to check this. On the other hand, the same person can win 200 fly, free and IM. People could argue that if "differentness" is a key factor, this makes the walk more valid than the different swimming events. I have even heard this argument used against different freestyle distances, in that Grant Hackett was able to win at 400, 800 and 1500 at World Champs, but you don't see track athletes winning at 100, 200 and 400.

[lane4]

If only this was the case. In 2004 Mark Foster swam 22.49 secs for 50m freestyle at the British Olympic Trials - well under the Olympic qualifying standard. <O:p</O:pAs we all know, Bill Sweetenham told him, “The qualifying time I’ve set for you is much faster than the Olympic qualifying time - YOU ain’t going, cobber!” JL
<O:p</O:p
As YOU know JL, Bill told Mark nothing of the sort. The qualifying criteria was set well in advance. All swimmers in all events knew what they had to do to make the team. There is no requirement for the BOA (who have to approve all British sports' specific policies) to use the FINA/IOC qualifying criteria. BOA can apply their own criteria to any sport subject to the minimum criteria of FINA/IOC. Mark knew as soon as he touched the wall and saw the scoreboard in the final at the Trials that he had not made the cut and would not be going to Athens. He had proved in the past he was quite capable of making the time but for whatever reason he did not do it when required to do so to make the team. It was not a ridiculously fast time that he and only he had applied to him. A standard was applied to all events and the circumstances were fair and equitable for all swimmers. A different but still fair and equitable standard to all will be used in 2008. Here's hoping that Mark can make it this time. I am certainly expecting him to just now the way he is swimming. It will be a truly outstanding achievement if he makes it again and everyone (including Bill) will be happy for him.<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

[Linny]

There is no requirement for the BOA (who have to approve all British sports' specific policies) to use the FINA/IOC qualifying criteria. BOA can apply their own criteria to any sport subject to the minimum criteria of FINA/IOC..........A standard was applied to all events and the circumstances were fair and equitable for all swimmers. <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:pThe standards may have been fair and equitable for all British swimmers but not for our swimmers within the world so whilst what you say is completely correct anyone who fell within the IOC time but outside the BOA time was bound to feel a bit mardy about it. I guess that there may have been other countries that limited their entry to swimmers faster than that which was set by the IOC or restricted it in other ways for all sorts of reasons but I never really understood what ours really was. If all the countries in the world had set the same criteria as us for Athens there would have only been a heat and a half max in each event and some straight finals!

Well, at least woodward would have had his way because we wouldn't need any semis. ;)

One final thing. Why is there the bias against 50m sprinters? I mean why is it really? Is it the coaches rather than the swimmers that are the cause? The freestyle is an Olympic event so what is this clause in the Beijing selection policy all about?
3.2 Performances in the 50m Freestyle events will not be considered for Coach selection unless the swimmer is the current World LC record holder or World Champion. Why not 1500m Freestyle events? Or 400IM? Or anything else?

[Bazza]

So as if it wasn't bad enough that sprinters are made to feel of less significance than swimmers who cover other distances, they are now actively discouraging coaches from coaching sprinters?!

[Spidey]

Yet as far as I'm aware, the same athlete doesn't win the marathon and the walk, though I haven't looked up results to check this. On the other hand, the same person can win 200 fly, free and IM. People could argue that if "differentness" is a key factor, this makes the walk more valid than the different swimming events. I have even heard this argument used against different freestyle distances, in that Grant Hackett was able to win at 400, 800 and 1500 at World Champs, but you don't see track athletes winning at 100, 200 and 400.

100m and 200m perhaps? 800m and 1500m for sure. Different athletes of course for the two shorter distances than to the two middle distances.

[Woodward]

Yet as far as I'm aware, the same athlete doesn't win the marathon and the walk, though I haven't looked up results to check this. On the other hand, the same person can win 200 fly, free and IM. People could argue that if "differentness" is a key factor, this makes the walk more valid than the different swimming events. Yet there are runners that also win hurdling events. There are also runners that have won the Long Jump.

A problem with this "differentness" makes valildity argument is that the more unusual or counter intuitive the event is the less likely you're going to have cross over competitors. It's not because they're not capable. Frankly, successful marathon runners couldn't be bothered. Many "race walkers" are former marathon runners that couldn't cut the mustard. There's not the same level of recognition or prestige. However, in swimming successful freestyle swimmers do cross over to contest other disciplines (and vice versa).

I have even heard this argument used against different freestyle distances, in that Grant Hackett was able to win at 400, 800 and 1500 at World Champs, but you don't see track athletes winning at 100, 200 and 400. True, but even in swimming it's quite rare. Gould couldn't manage it. And it's not beyond the realm of possibilitity in Track. Allyson Felix is a current athlete considered to have potential to win events from 100 to 400. The problem is that they have more heats spread over more days and more often than not these events conflict (Unlike for Hackett).