Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
And people do not draft off of their escort boats, or use them to block chop. If they do then the observer is supposed to say something. Can't recall the exact distance, but swimmers have to be off to the side of their boats. What we have found that swimming too close to the side ends up being a huge disadvantage. The cross chop that comes off the boat makes a washing machine for the swimmer, so we always keep our guy well off to the side and a bit in front of the boat..

I'm sure you have a lot more real-world experience in this than I do. But over at places like marathonswimming.org you'll find discussions from experienced channel swimmers about best using the boat to block chop and wind.

It's also my understanding that in the English Channel itself, swimmers are required to stay within 5 meters of the boat at all times, simply because it's such a busy shipping lane. Like you said though, each area has its own rules.

Keeping the swimmer to front and off to side of the boat seems a lot less assisted to me.

We'd love to hear more about your Sea of Cortez swim!
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlwaysCurious wrote:
texafornia wrote:
AlwaysCurious wrote:
texafornia wrote:
No boat, no goggles, no suit, no navigation, carry your own food. Cross a body of water like that. That'd be rad.


Yes!!! It doesn't even need to be 110 miles to be ultra bad ass. Has it even been done for 20?


Surely. At least to escape a marauding gang of Vikings or the like. All this first-world "sport" stuff is just us re-enacting survival methods entrained in our genes, the same stuff that has helped us survive since the dawn of time. Whoever fell off a boat in the ocean and drifted to shore the longest distance is the best swimmer ever. Lots of the world still has people running and swimming for their lives every day. Either to catch food or escape getting killed. Us doing it is just the play version of the real thing - like kittens batting around a ping-pong ball.

Sperm carry their own fuel, too. Original swimmers. :)


Excellent points you make! I like your perspective on the world.

Thanks! Yeah, this "record" stuff is a little silly when you stop and think and realize that somebody once probably floated 1000 miles to another shore while nibbling on coconuts after being swept to sea by a storm. We don't celebrate that because nobody knows and he was probably shot in the head with an arrow 5 minutes after landing.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
...1/10..nice try though


my ex-wife swam the english channel so i can only speak of her experience and her attitude. i was there the whole time and its on youtube if youre so inclined to watch the video...

in terms of attitude: i trained with her to an extent and theres a large contingent of english channel swimmers from connecticut (where i live). the is absolutely no attitude i ever saw from any of them in terms of thinking they were better than anyone else, particularly triathletes. my ex did two ironmans (and was the first amateur out of the water in one..)..many of the other channel swimmers have done triathlons up to and including ironman distance. once again, massive respect for the event, and other athletes in general...no attitude whatsoever. i never heard any mocking whatsoever coming out of any of the channel swimmers mouths regarding wetsuits. in races she wore one and was actually sponsored by Aquaman wetsuits..

in terms of unassisted i would venture that what theyre referring to is the fact that you cant touch the boat, another person or get out of the water for any reason (for the first time ever the boat captain saw a shark..a 14ft basking shark in the water...had no idea what it was at the time but im like 'get her out'...they said if she gets out she cant go back in...of course basking sharks are plankton eaters but man this puppy was HUGE...luckily she never saw it)..

what i did for her in terms of nutrition was to 'throw' her water bottles with a rope, but i couldnt even hand them to her.

in terms of boat position..at no point did she get behind or in front of the boat...the captain did move the boat at one point from one side of her body to another, i can only guess to block waves but to be honest it didnt do squat. thats a mighty big body of water and a tiny boat isnt going to block anything.

you can call her or any of them a hippocrite however after standing on that deck for as long as i did (12:08) i can tell you without a doubt, from my own personal observation, that was the most badass thing ive ever witnessed in terms of an endurance event. it was signficantly harder than an ironman for sure. i would rather do three ironmans back to back that swim the channel. it was that hard.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it's good ot have rules, but I agree they should be reviewed for ensure they aren;t being abused and maintain the spirit of the event.

Honestly, this summer I went for an open water swim while on vacation. My brother in law and my wife's cousin followed me in kayaks so boaters didn't run me over and carried a bottle of water for me. They were 10' away most of the time and handing me a bottle of water which I hardly consider assisting. I did however have a wetsuit on. I think you must have some sort of a escort boat and spotter to swim open water safely unless you're swimming with another person. I actually have thought about actually doing a longer OWS in the Mississippi River next year before the water gets too warm to use a wetsuit if there isn't major spring flooding. Can't be any worse than most of the ponds I've raced in.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlwaysCurious wrote:

My point: Some day soon, some bad ass will swim a major channel truly solo. S/he will figure how to carry all the food/water needed, and will swim it without a boat escort (yes, taking the chance of being run over and killed by a ship). Truly solo, truly unassisted. No getting out of the water for lightning, sharks, cramping, puking and exhaustion. Swim across or die trying. It will make the swimmers who go by English Channel rules look like a bunch of tourists.


quote]

This could not happen because it violates the rule requiring a certified pilot and observer to verify that it happened, without which you would have an "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound" scenario. The Nyad channel rule skeptics make the periodic Slowtwitch witchhunts look amateurish, so it would never fly even if it was somehow done.

However, speaking of a bad ass, Matthew Webb was the first to swim the English Channel in 1875. It was not solo and who knows how he used his escort boats in terms of drafting and shielding, but the swim took him almost 22 hours and he ended up doing 39 miles due to the currents. He swam breaststroke the entire way and subsided on beer and boiled meat.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [butch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Like I said in my first post: I have huge respect for anyone who can swim 20+ miles open water, and agree it's way harder than completing an ironman. But my big questions is: Why call it "solo and unassisted"?

Shouldn't the person who swims it with no boat, no goggles, no suit, no navigation, and carries her own food get that title, and be considered more bad ass than those who use a boat, navigation, and feeders?

Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [Rambler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rambler wrote:
I thought the biggest English Channel swimming rule is that you have to cross the "English Channel."

No. The first rule of English Channel Swim Club is...

Ah! Almost got me there!

__________________________________________________
Happy trails,
Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [Trifecta] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trifecta wrote:

This could not happen because it violates the rule requiring a certified pilot and observer to verify that it happened, without which you would have an "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound" scenario. The Nyad channel rule skeptics make the periodic Slowtwitch witchhunts look amateurish, so it would never fly even if it was somehow done.

Fine. The only thing she'd wear is a GPS and go-pro camera, both with real-time satellite uplink. If someone insists on observing from a boat they can do it from a 1/2 mile away, as long as they agree to not rescue her.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
20 miles is not way harder than an Ironman. 2 mph = 10 hours. If it's choppy, then it gets ugly. The biggest issue with OWS is that you don't know what you're gonna get out there and it can change at any minute. You better train to swim twice the time you think it should take, just in case.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Last edited by: texafornia: Sep 10, 13 14:19
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
have you ever swam 20 miles in the open ocean? 62 degrees?


additionally the english channel is really no less than 26 miles in most cases, depending on whether you make it halfway before the current changes...the boat captain on the day my ex swam it said she swam a smidge over 28..
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
texafornia wrote:
20 miles is not way harder than an Ironman. 2 mph = 10 hours. If it's choppy, then it gets ugly. The biggest issue with OWS is that you don't know what you're gonna get out there and it can change at any minute. You better train to swim twice the time you think it should take, just in case.

-----

Apples and Oranges but I'll ask you this,how many Ironman finishers do you think could swim the English Channel?

---
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [butch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
butch wrote:
have you ever swam 20 miles in the open ocean? 62 degrees?


additionally the english channel is really no less than 26 miles in most cases, depending on whether you make it halfway before the current changes...the boat captain on the day my ex swam it said she swam a smidge over 28..

I believe he swam across Lake Tahoe, the long way.

Ian
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [butch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
butch wrote:
have you ever swam 20 miles in the open ocean? 62 degrees?


additionally the english channel is really no less than 26 miles in most cases, depending on whether you make it halfway before the current changes...the boat captain on the day my ex swam it said she swam a smidge over 28..

No - Swam 22 miles at 6200 feet elevation, south to north the entire length of Lake Tahoe. 13 hours. And the bonus is you can walk fine the next day, unlike an ironman. Definitely not way harder. Actually quite comparable. I highly recommend it. :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [Nick Mallett] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick Mallett wrote:
texafornia wrote:
20 miles is not way harder than an Ironman. 2 mph = 10 hours. If it's choppy, then it gets ugly. The biggest issue with OWS is that you don't know what you're gonna get out there and it can change at any minute. You better train to swim twice the time you think it should take, just in case.


-----

Apples and Oranges but I'll ask you this,how many Ironman finishers do you think could swim the English Channel?

---

Probably the same percentage as Channel swimmers who could finish an IM in the same year as their crossing.

But, yes, I agree that it's apple and oranges. For me the channel is way harder because I hope to never in my life be in 62 degree water without a wetsuit for longer than maybe 5 minutes.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlwaysCurious wrote:
Nick Mallett wrote:
texafornia wrote:
20 miles is not way harder than an Ironman. 2 mph = 10 hours. If it's choppy, then it gets ugly. The biggest issue with OWS is that you don't know what you're gonna get out there and it can change at any minute. You better train to swim twice the time you think it should take, just in case.


-----

Apples and Oranges but I'll ask you this,how many Ironman finishers do you think could swim the English Channel?

---

Probably the same percentage as Channel swimmers who could finish an IM in the same year as their crossing.

But, yes, I agree that it's apple and oranges. For me the channel is way harder because I hope to never in my life be in 62 degree water without a wetsuit for longer than maybe 5 minutes.

My opinion: 90% of channel crossers could finish an IM well under the cut off, and something like 10% of IM finishers could swim the channel.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nyad swam for a really long time and went really far. She put up with some really messed up skin /mouth issues. This is undisputed. She is an amazing distance swimmer. The current helped her. The water was warm. She wore some kind of wetsuit for part of the epic swim.

The EC is 60 degrees. The current doesn't help you. The rules are rigorously enforced. Less than 1500 people have done it.

Maybe 0.5% of IM finishers could swim the EC within the rules. That event is a wholly different sort of effort.

Read 'Dover Solo' if you're interested in the training and event.

Nyad should have swum the EC at some point. For some reason it is not on her resume. That means something.

I'd love to have the ability to try that but no way I could get used to 60 degree water.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [Lederman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was being generous with my numbers. Nyad tried it 5 times but never made it ( psssst: she is not that great of a swimmer!).
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [butch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sometimes a good reason for the boat to change sides is to prevent the swimmer from breathing engine fumes.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Out of curiosity, what was the water temperature when you did your Lake Tahoe swim?
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [Lederman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lederman wrote:
Nyad should have swum the EC at some point. For some reason it is not on her resume. That means something.

She did try 3 times to swim the channel but failed all 3 times. I think it was said that the currents were too strong or bad weather caused her to quit. She has also stated she can't swim very well in the cold water.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [npage148] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the press comment where she was hating on Chole McC was uncalled for. There is lots of goodwill and spirit in the OWS ranks, people don't hate on each other, not cool.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I train in a squad with maybe 15 people who've done the EC and a bunch tri guys, some pro's, guys well under 9 hrs, and there is almost no chance in hell some skinny tri guy is going to complete the EC.

You have to put on some serious weight to handle the cold and that takes a long time and you need serious conditioning in the cold as well. Some of the EC guys could do an IM in under cut-off but it wouldn't be pretty.

As someone else said it's apples and oranges... no apples and laptops, not even in same postcode.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [SwimRunTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SwimRunTri wrote:
I train in a squad with maybe 15 people who've done the EC and a bunch tri guys, some pro's, guys well under 9 hrs, and there is almost no chance in hell some skinny tri guy is going to complete the EC.

You have to put on some serious weight to handle the cold and that takes a long time and you need serious conditioning in the cold as well. Some of the EC guys could do an IM in under cut-off but it wouldn't be pretty.

As someone else said it's apples and oranges... no apples and laptops, not even in same postcode.

That's exactly what I've always thought, i.e. that the water temp would be the toughest thing to handle unless I gained around 30 lbs or so. I think a lot of good tri swimmers could do the EC if they were allowed to use a full wetsuit. I swam 4 days in 57-58 degree water a few years ago w/o a wetsuit, and even on the 4th day I still felt damn cold after just 30 min. Don't know how along cold water adaptation takes but must be more than 4 days, and/or I'm just too thin, at 6'2" and 175, to adapt to 58 water.


"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJVeHmc3hSw Is this bad ass enough? Because of rules I was denied My lake Ontario crossing this summer( I had 3 boats and needed 4 boats to be sanctioned) But I will try again.

http://lakeontarioswim.blogspot.ca/
Quote Reply
Re: Why do English Channel swimmers consider their swim "unassisted"? [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlwaysCurious wrote:
Like I said in my first post: I have huge respect for anyone who can swim 20+ miles open water, and agree it's way harder than completing an ironman. But my big questions is: Why call it "solo and unassisted"?

Shouldn't the person who swims it with no boat, no goggles, no suit, no navigation, and carries her own food get that title, and be considered more bad ass than those who use a boat, navigation, and feeders?

Just FYI...

If you don't have an offical boat with you while crossing the channel you will be plucked out of the water and arrested.

jaretj
Quote Reply

Prev Next