Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No one is prying your watch out of your cold dead hands. We’re simply laying out the reasons that “real swimmers”(tm) don’t /won’t use one. It’s ingrained in a lot of us from youth swimming, coaches didn’t want a pool full of kids all fiddling with watches when they were supposed to be paying attention to the instructions for the next set.

I don’t find post workout data to be particularly useful. To me, It’s irrelevant after that workout is done. And it doesn’t capture anything that I really need to capture. If a watch were capable of accurately measuring power and drag numbers, that would be useful data. Until then, it seems like data collection for the sake of it. The computer between my ears works better than any current swim computer that fits on my wrist.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
Mike Alexander wrote:
I have heard this before. Why do "real swimmers" not use a watch in the pool? Do they not find value in recording performance or sharing that data with a coach?


Same. In all but the minority of explanations given here (like extremely short rest intervals), none of these are logical reasons to not monitor and collect your swim performance with a watch. And they reek of "I just don't really know how to use one or what the benefit would be". I think I'll continue to be a fake swimmer and use my watch.


If a watch could collect accurate data, I'd be interested. From what I've seen, swim watches can't even consistently get the basics, time and distance, right. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a friend post a swim workout on Strava with something in the comments mentioning that the actual distance was different, usually starting with the phrase "F'ing Garmin....."


Rumpled mentioned he has a watch that tracks HR in the water. I could see some value in that. There are some sprint sets where I'd scrap a send-off interval and just go on the next repeat when a targeted recovery HR was reached.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Oct 24, 18 5:44
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [Mike Alexander] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You've gotten enough answers, but I'm going to echo everything.

Distracting, plus you won't wear one in a race. When I coached masters, I had a "no button" rule. You were welcome to wear your garmin, but you couldn't touch it in workouts. That starts you down a path of being obsessed with "average pace" when downloaded into training peaks.Let me tell you, you might be able to do 42x100m on 1:30 holding 1:10, but how will that translate to an OWS with no breaks? That's why we do test (failure) sets. Also, from a very young age, we learn to use the clock (kids now don't always understand "top" and "bottom" with the advent of digital clocks) and remember our splits. With a properly placed pace clock, I can swim a 1650y/1500m and remember nearly all of my 100 splits, and most of my 50 splits. It's just something "we do."

Each sport has its own quirks, right? In cycling, they are oddly attached to their appearance. In swimming, we don't much embrace technology (maybe the guys at the super pointy/professional end) and do the same workouts that we did in the 80's. We keep it simple...work on technique, throw yardage at it to build fitness, swim often.

Edit: Many of us still wear "swedes" with no padding or anything, and I've been wearing the same pair since high school...a cool $3.75 (plus a few strap replacements) has gotten me through 12 years of swimming, including championship meets.

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5
Last edited by: boobooaboo: Oct 24, 18 6:01
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [longtrousers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
longtrousers wrote:
...In warmer water races I plan to sew a rubber band to the swim cap, as a chin strap.
I don't think sewing is ideal with those materials. I think most race caps are silicone in which case silicone adhesive might work to attach a strap. I'd try making the strap from a strip off another cap or a piece of neoprene which may be more comfortable.
If it's a latex cap, you could use puncture repair adhesive to glue on a strap. You could use part of another cap as in the case of silicone, or you could use a piece of old latex inner tube.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [Mike Alexander] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mike Alexander wrote:
I have heard this before. Why do "real swimmers" not use a watch in the pool? Do they not find value in recording performance or sharing that data with a coach?

Ok, I'll play against the grain. Yes, Real swimmers (tm) do not wear watches, but we are not real swimmers and as such do not train like "real" swimmers. We often train alone, without coaches on deck, and without fellow swimmers in our lane pushing us and helping us know how the day is going. We also seldom do the same sets that they do, as we are usually geared to a far longer swim. We bring in "toys" that most teams would be horrified at.....snorkels, bands, different pull buoys and 3 different paddle choices, and yes, a watch. I grew up swimming and swam though college, but my watch is now with me, even thought I know how and do use the pace clock (analog, for SURE!). My times are recorded, perhaps with a slight time lag and it wrecks my drive to the wall, but I am consistent in that and then have a record. I calculate my 100 and 400 times to see progress in test sets and then can see which part of my game needs work....speed, or endurance? I can visually see how things are progressing or regressing by a simple view of my account online when my mind is able to see the accumulated stress of 3 sports on the same page.
So yes, for many of us there is a huge value in wearing a watch, and very few of us will be now mistaken for "real swimmers". That's ok, because we can do much more after the swim portion than most of them. How many of train like real cyclists or real runners? Peter Reid tried that and was out of the sport with fatigue for a couple of years. We train like triathletes and along with other "old school" swim myths as hypoxic and underwater swims, bilateral breathing and a few other disproven techniques the no watch idea is in the same category. Don't be a swim "poser", be a triathlete.....it's ok.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
No one is prying your watch out of your cold dead hands. We’re simply laying out the reasons that “real swimmers”(tm) don’t /won’t use one. It’s ingrained in a lot of us from youth swimming, coaches didn’t want a pool full of kids all fiddling with watches when they were supposed to be paying attention to the instructions for the next set.

I don’t find post workout data to be particularly useful. To me, It’s irrelevant after that workout is done. And it doesn’t capture anything that I really need to capture. If a watch were capable of accurately measuring power and drag numbers, that would be useful data. Until then, it seems like data collection for the sake of it. The computer between my ears works better than any current swim computer that fits on my wrist.

I totally understand why some people would choose to not use one; I just take issue with the general assertion, in any context, that "real XX don't XX". It's elitist and frankly unimaginative.

There have been several major revelations that analyzing my post-exercise data, including swim data, has provided, and it's been fundamental in guiding my approach to structuring my own workouts.

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly. Like, really, how difficult is it to press a button when you start and press the same button again when you stop?

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the thing people are missing about watches is that messing with the watch is directly hindering your technique.
Good swimming programs are almost *all* interval-based and the reason for that is that anyone reading this can constantly improve their technique. You can get dozens of opportunities to check what’s the fastest, technique a or b, each practice, if you constantly experiment and check your splits. This gets both harder and more useful as your brain fogs deep into a set, but also that’s when you have the opportunity to find new things that actually make swimming the pace easier. That’s how you get fast.
I’ve been on full-time swimming for five years, I’m still improving, and it’s because of this a-b method of comparison.
To make that work, you need to finish well as have a global and local memory of times.
Coasting into the wall, doing some weird movement to stop your watch, and outsourcing your memory of splits directly inhibits improvement. You gotta be constantly paying attention and learning about technique in a time-based way, not just an RPE way.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I started swimming competitively at age 8, I can assure you I don't need a watch in the pool. In fact, I'll bet I could recite the splits I dropped during a set after the set was completed. Going a step further, when I was racing I could probably tell you the 50/100 splits after a race based on feel and get within a couple of tenths. I'm not claiming to be a "better" or "more serious" swimmer than anyone else, it's just that these skills are hammered into you if you do a lot of swimming. The clock is God when you're a competitive swimmer, you develop a sixth sense for it.

Also, a watch would drive me absolutely nuts in the water. I can't stand any extraneous gear in the pool.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
domingjm wrote:
Mike Alexander wrote:
I have heard this before. Why do "real swimmers" not use a watch in the pool? Do they not find value in recording performance or sharing that data with a coach?


Same. In all but the minority of explanations given here (like extremely short rest intervals), none of these are logical reasons to not monitor and collect your swim performance with a watch. And they reek of "I just don't really know how to use one or what the benefit would be". I think I'll continue to be a fake swimmer and use my watch.


If a watch could collect accurate data, I'd be interested. From what I've seen, swim watches can't even consistently get the basics, time and distance, right. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a friend post a swim workout on Strava with something in the comments mentioning that the actual distance was different, usually starting with the phrase "F'ing Garmin....."


Rumpled mentioned he has a watch that tracks HR in the water. I could see some value in that. There are some sprint sets where I'd scrap a send-off interval and just go on the next repeat when a targeted recovery HR was reached.

Of course I can't speak for all swimming watches, but I really can't even imagine what data your watch is calculating inaccurately. If mine couldn't distinguish the number of laps I completed, the time it took and the rest interval, I'd toss it in the trash too and look for a different model. But at the current moment, my watch wouldn't contribute any nickles to you.

The heart rate data has been particularly informative, although the chest strap is a bit cumbersome and has a tendency to drift downward during longer sets.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
No one is prying your watch out of your cold dead hands. We’re simply laying out the reasons that “real swimmers”(tm) don’t /won’t use one. It’s ingrained in a lot of us from youth swimming, coaches didn’t want a pool full of kids all fiddling with watches when they were supposed to be paying attention to the instructions for the next set.

I don’t find post workout data to be particularly useful. To me, It’s irrelevant after that workout is done. And it doesn’t capture anything that I really need to capture. If a watch were capable of accurately measuring power and drag numbers, that would be useful data. Until then, it seems like data collection for the sake of it. The computer between my ears works better than any current swim computer that fits on my wrist.


I totally understand why some people would choose to not use one; I just take issue with the general assertion, in any context, that "real XX don't XX". It's elitist and frankly unimaginative.

There have been several major revelations that analyzing my post-exercise data, including swim data, has provided, and it's been fundamental in guiding my approach to structuring my own workouts.

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly. Like, really, how difficult is it to press a button when you start and press the same button again when you stop?

it isn't, but it also changes how I push off the wall and how I touch the wall. I do compete in masters swimming competitions, so it's important to me to practice good habits on the pushoffs and the finishes.

out of curiosity, what revelations?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [hiro11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hiro11 wrote:
I started swimming competitively at age 8, I can assure you I don't need a watch in the pool. In fact, I'll bet I could recite the splits I dropped during a set after the set was completed. Going a step further, when I was racing I could probably tell you the 50/100 splits after a race based on feel and get within a couple of tenths. I'm not claiming to be a "better" or "more serious" swimmer than anyone else, it's just that these skills are hammered into you if you do a lot of swimming. The clock is God when you're a competitive swimmer, you develop a sixth sense for it.

Also, a watch would drive me absolutely nuts in the water. I can't stand any extraneous gear in the pool.


Again, I'm not insisting that everyone needs a swimming watch. My gripe is with the statement "if you XX then you're not a real XX". A secondary gripe is with the reasons listed above for not using a swimming watch during practice: poor accuracy, cumbersome buttons, not being able to see the numbers, hydrodynamics, etc.

As an aside, it's interesting that Jan is highly complementary of Lucy, while at the same time telling her indirectly that she's not a real swimmer. In what capacity she relies on her swim watch data, I don't know, but she's often seen swimming with one. I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest that Lucy is, in fact, a real swimmer in spite of swimming with a swimming watch.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Last edited by: domingjm: Oct 24, 18 8:13
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
Like, really, how difficult is it to press a button when you start and press the same button again when you stop?


Not, it's not hard, but what's the value of the time data if you push the button some indeterminate amount of time before you actually start, and some indeterminate amount of time after you stop? You can do just as well, if not better, just using the pace clock. At least with the pace clock you can sync your start somewhat accurately. Even the swim watches that supposedly detect starts and stops leave a lot to be desired when it comes to accuracy. If you don't finish the rep by touching the wall with the watch hand before the other hand, the time data is garbage. Even if you do touch with the watch hand, it's suspect because the start detection logic is far from perfect.

That's why I use a finger stopwatch when I actually want accurate rep times. I can easily sync the start with my push-off, and the stop with my touching of the wall with either hand without altering my technique.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Oct 24, 18 8:25
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly.

What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
domingjm wrote:

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly.


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?

Stroke count, pace per length, splits for EVERY length so one can see pacing....all pretty valuable, especially if one swims alone.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
domingjm wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
No one is prying your watch out of your cold dead hands. We’re simply laying out the reasons that “real swimmers”(tm) don’t /won’t use one. It’s ingrained in a lot of us from youth swimming, coaches didn’t want a pool full of kids all fiddling with watches when they were supposed to be paying attention to the instructions for the next set.


I don’t find post workout data to be particularly useful. To me, It’s irrelevant after that workout is done. And it doesn’t capture anything that I really need to capture. If a watch were capable of accurately measuring power and drag numbers, that would be useful data. Until then, it seems like data collection for the sake of it. The computer between my ears works better than any current swim computer that fits on my wrist.


I totally understand why some people would choose to not use one; I just take issue with the general assertion, in any context, that "real XX don't XX". It's elitist and frankly unimaginative.

There have been several major revelations that analyzing my post-exercise data, including swim data, has provided, and it's been fundamental in guiding my approach to structuring my own workouts.

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly. Like, really, how difficult is it to press a button when you start and press the same button again when you stop?


it isn't, but it also changes how I push off the wall and how I touch the wall. I do compete in masters swimming competitions, so it's important to me to practice good habits on the pushoffs and the finishes.

out of curiosity, what revelations?


I can understand that.

There were two pretty important observations I made, that I wouldn't have caught without a detailed record of my data. First, my swim performance (and thus perceived exertion at a given pace) are substantially improved if they occur between about 4 and 8 hours of a long bike or run. I can't explain why, but it's a robust trend. So that's when I swim. Second, during sets of 400 and 500yd, I noticed that my efficiency (say what you will about the usefulness of SWOLF, but it was helpful for me here) declined pretty dramatically at about 200yd. I decreased those set lengths to ~300yd in order to focus on form, and then slowly increased the set lengths accordingly.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
domingjm wrote:

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly.


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?

In addition to my previous responses, a pace clock can't ​provide a detailed historical record of training and performance (including rest and speed), record your heart rate or provide lap alerts.

What can a pace clock do that a swim watch can't?

And when you travel, what happens when your pool doesn't have a pace clock?

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [domingjm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
domingjm wrote:
stevej wrote:
domingjm wrote:

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly.


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?

In addition to my previous responses, a pace clock can't ​provide a detailed historical record of training and performance (including rest and speed), record your heart rate or provide lap alerts.

What can a pace clock do that a swim watch can't?

And when you travel, what happens when your pool doesn't have a pace clock?

The original question was....

Quote:
I have heard this before. Why do "real swimmers" not use a watch in the pool? Do they not find value in recording performance or sharing that data with a coach?

And my answer is that a pace clock is all one really needs. There is zero value to swimmers in all the other metrics a watch provides because they have an extremely high understanding/feeling/awareness of themselves in the water and are able to tell those other metrics on their own without a device. Swimmers can tell when a 50 yard or 100 yard split is 0.5 sec slower or faster than the previous one during 500 yard repeats without anyone or any device telling them. That's how much awareness swimmers have in the water. I haven't swam competitively since I graduated college 10 years ago and I can still tell anyone the splits I've held in training from 10-20 years ago. There's also the fact that a watch is extremely inaccurate at recording those metrics.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't wear a watch. I'm just answering the question on why swimmers don't wear one which boils down to just "they don't need it".

If a pool doesn't have a pace clock, absolutely wear a watch or put a watch right next to your lane. I swim in a pool that doesn't have a pace clock so I'm forced to wear a watch. But I never look at any of the data.

blog
Last edited by: stevej: Oct 24, 18 9:18
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ggeiger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ggeiger wrote:
stevej wrote:


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?


Stroke count, pace per length, splits for EVERY length so one can see pacing....all pretty valuable, especially if one swims alone.


Can your watch pick up stroke count data from the other hand? If not, that stroke count value would be of minimal value.

I count strokes in my head every length as I go, anyway. Much more valuable for me to know the stroke count mid-rep at the turn as I'm swimming than to see it on a screen hours later.

As for the splits and pacing, I have my doubts about the accuracy, but I'm certainly open to having my mind changed. Have you ever done a swim with someone recording splits on a stopwatch and compared them to the data on your watch?

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Oct 24, 18 9:48
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ggeiger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ggeiger wrote:
stevej wrote:
domingjm wrote:

So again, I completely understand if you're not interested in the data that a swim watch provides, but many of the reasons listed above for not using one are a little silly.


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?


Stroke count, pace per length, splits for EVERY length so one can see pacing....all pretty valuable, especially if one swims alone.

agree to disagree. I don't really care about stoke count (when I bother to count I'm typically about 14-16 strokes per length, a little less if I try and stretch it out or extend the underwaters). I know if my pace is falling off or picking up to a finer degree than a watch can tell me, and more importantly why its falling off / picking up. By the time you get around to looking at the data post workout, it's too late, becasue you won't remember what that felt like, and to me, linking the pace with what the pace feels like is critical to swim performance. That's stuff you need to know NOW, IMO. If you were able to link that data in RT to a display on deck, that might be useful to me. but until we get there, I don't see a heck of a lot of value.

The one area that I think a watch could be useful, maybe, is for a triathlete trying to manage overall training stress, but even then, if you are doing somewhat consistent workouts, it may not give you that much more than just plugging a TSS number into TP based on how long the practice was and the subjective intensity of the day.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
ggeiger wrote:
stevej wrote:


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?


Stroke count, pace per length, splits for EVERY length so one can see pacing....all pretty valuable, especially if one swims alone.


Can your watch pick up stroke count data from the other hand? If not, that stroke count value would be of minimal value.

I count strokes in my head every length as I go, anyway. Much more valuable for me to know the stroke count mid-rep at the turn as I'm swimming than to see it on a screen hours later.

As for the splits and pacing, I have my doubts about the accuracy, but I'm certainly open to having my mind changed. Have you ever done a swim with someone recording splits on a stopwatch and compared them to the data on your watch?

I think you’re being a bit silly. If you seriously believe you can remember better than a mechanical device all those metrics you are quite impressive. The watch will be accurate enough, and since I am very consistent in how I operate it, it will be repeatable enough. Far better than my memory. Most people can’t even remember their workout as they march in with the sheet of paper in front of them.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ggeiger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess another thing is that I don't really want to know or care about every split in the workout. I find I'm using the pace clock less and less, and going more on feel than ever before. The nature of a lot of my swims (and I haven' been in much for the last couple of months, taking a little break til the holidays for mental sanity) is that I do a lot of builds and sets where the pace changes mid-length (eg sprinters game). Stroke count per length, pace per length, or any other metrics that a watch could capture wouldn't tell me anything about how well I executed the objectives of that set. And because of these types of sets, the watch could indicate that you are improving when in fact you are regressing, or vice versa.

If that motivates you, great. I've thought about getting a watch many times, and it always comes back to "what will I do differently if I had this data?" My answer has always been "nothing". So I have yet to adopt.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
domingjm wrote:
Like, really, how difficult is it to press a button when you start and press the same button again when you stop?


Not, it's not hard, but what's the value of the time data if you push the button some indeterminate amount of time before you actually start, and some indeterminate amount of time after you stop? You can do just as well, if not better, just using the pace clock. At least with the pace clock you can sync your start somewhat accurately. Even the swim watches that supposedly detect starts and stops leave a lot to be desired when it comes to accuracy. If you don't finish the rep by touching the wall with the watch hand before the other hand, the time data is garbage. Even if you do touch with the watch hand, it's suspect because the start detection logic is far from perfect.

That's why I use a finger stopwatch when I actually want accurate rep times. I can easily sync the start with my push-off, and the stop with my touching of the wall with either hand without altering my technique.

I don't have any experience with the start/stop detection algorithms. But pressing a button takes a fraction of a second before and after. We're talking less than 1% error on a typical set of 100s. Is that really not accurate enough for you?

I do agree though that there's something to be argued for start and finish technique if you're overly focused on the watch though, so there's that.

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windschatten wrote:
Pace clock is just so much more convenient. No watch to squint at for send-offs and you can get your time the moment you touch, so you always know if you are on target pace without fussing around with buttons.
Also, in a crowded lane, a watch can definitely be an injury risk.

I really don’t mind people wearing a watch at practice, but for Christssake turn off that shrill push-off chirp on your watches in a Masters workout. Super annoying to other people swimming a different pace. Thank You.
.



I always find this kind of response funny. Do you think I have to break out a keyboard and send commands to my Fenix 5 to stop/start the lap, etc?


It's literally 1 button you have to press to stop a lap, and then the same button again to start the lap.


I am not a "real swimmer", but I make use of both, the clock on the wall helps me figure out in what rep I'm at, especially when I'm doing 10x, or 20x, and I use the watch to record my workout.
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ggeiger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ggeiger wrote:
gary p wrote:
ggeiger wrote:
stevej wrote:


What useful data does a swim watch provide that a pace clock doesn't?


Stroke count, pace per length, splits for EVERY length so one can see pacing....all pretty valuable, especially if one swims alone.


Can your watch pick up stroke count data from the other hand? If not, that stroke count value would be of minimal value.

I count strokes in my head every length as I go, anyway. Much more valuable for me to know the stroke count mid-rep at the turn as I'm swimming than to see it on a screen hours later.

As for the splits and pacing, I have my doubts about the accuracy, but I'm certainly open to having my mind changed. Have you ever done a swim with someone recording splits on a stopwatch and compared them to the data on your watch?


I think you’re being a bit silly. If you seriously believe you can remember better than a mechanical device all those metrics you are quite impressive. The watch will be accurate enough, and since I am very consistent in how I operate it, it will be repeatable enough. Far better than my memory. Most people can’t even remember their workout as they march in with the sheet of paper in front of them.


I think what people are saying is that the watch is moving your mind to focus on things that don't matter, and probably doing it at the expense of things that do matter. You think stroke count FOR EVERY LENGTH is important, but it's not. You think your pace BY EVERY SINGLE LENGTH is important, but it's not. All swimmers can maintain very accurate track of where these metrics are relative to status quo with a simple pace clock anyway. Keeping exact track of every little detail in some database is not seeing the forest through the trees.

For example... Nobody is going to have some Eureka! moment by discovering an anomaly 50m split after the workout as they examine their extensively accurate and detailed split data. It's just not going to happen. You might have a chance of a Eureka! moment if you are looking at your splits real time (might), and can correlate whatever stroke adjustment you might have just tried. After a workout are you going to remember any stroke differential on a per split level? Most likely not.

I think we've got to give experienced swimmers the benefit of the doubt about knowing the best way to approach their sport -- especially when they've seen and experimented with the newfound tech and found it lacking.

Edit: That being said, if I found myself at a pool or out in open water without a pace clock, I might well use a watch. It's just that the watch is getting put away when a better tool is available.
Last edited by: SH: Oct 24, 18 10:23
Quote Reply
Re: Ok Fishes, here is the interview we were all waiting for!! [ggeiger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ggeiger wrote:
I think you’re being a bit silly. If you seriously believe you can remember better than a mechanical device all those metrics you are quite impressive. The watch will be accurate enough, and since I am very consistent in how I operate it, it will be repeatable enough. Far better than my memory. Most people can’t even remember their workout as they march in with the sheet of paper in front of them.

Who said anything about remembering all those metrics? I said stroke count post-facto wasn't nearly as valuable as knowing it live-time. And if you think a stroke count of "15" that really could be 15, 16, or 17 is "accurate enough," that's fine, but the difference between those three numbers is pretty significant to me. Same with rep times. There are sets where I'm chasing incremental gains as small as 0.10 second per 25. An inertia sensor on one wrist isn't going to give me that kind of accuracy, let alone a watch where I have to push a button on my wrist to start and stop.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Quote Reply

Prev Next