I don't have any data to back this up, so I'm just speaking out my ass here. But I'd guess around 1:30/100m would roughly equate to 20k 5k. That would be a 22:30 swim (1500m), which is faster than most people can do, but slower than any real swimmer can do. Similar to a 20min 5k. But again, I'm just spit balling here.

using a fairly standard rule of thumb (4:1 run:swim distance equivalency) - a 20 min 5k translates to about a 24 min 1500.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Ooh I like this. Let's go with this. Still 30s off but better than being 2 minutes off!

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

A mile is not 1500... it's 1600m (1750yd) so that's a 1:20-30 minutes difference... Quite considerable. I'd say the equivalent of a 20 min 5k would be a 22:30ish mile time. Open water is a different though.

---

What's your CdA?

the 1500 (or 1650 for my American friends) is often colloquiallly referred to as "the mile" though. We all know it's not really a mile.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

The definition of "good" is obviously subjective, but you've set a criteria of a 20 min 5k and seem to be looking for the equivalent swim performance. The men's World Record for the 5k (on a track) is 12:37. A 20 minute 5k is 158.5% of that. Men's World record for the Long Course (50m pool) 1500 is 14:32. 158.5% of that would be ~23:02. That converts to a ~22:38 1500 for Short Course Meters (25m pool) or a ~22:35 for 1650 Short Course Yards.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I like that analysis. I do wonder though if it's not totally fair to do straight % performance given the much greater resistance of water vs air (hence going 10% faster in the pool is exponentially harder than going 10% faster running in terms of energy required for the increase), but I suspect it's close enough for ballpark estimates.

If anything, it's confirmed that yes indeed I suck at swimming!

If there was a database of what the top triathletes can do in a 1 mile OWS, or maybe a 1500m pool swim, maybe that would be a good standard. I guess it's the same thing as asking what a top triathlete would do in a stand-alone TT or 10k run.

As it stands, there is a SWIMMER database that is kept up in real time. This database has the top times in EACH AG, both genders, in three sizes of pools (yards, short meters, long meters), for MANY years. Visit http://www.USMS.org and look under the "EVENTS" tab and find the top times tracker, and you can get an idea of what the top times are. I will venture to say that these times in the top X% are probably almost exclusively by lifelong swimmers, and not by triathletes. This might be a good idea to compare yourself, in absolute terms, with other athletes of your age and gender in the particular swims. Remember, however, that USMS swimming only covers 1650 yards and 1500m, which is short of a mile. You'd have to adjust your swim distance to get the right time for comparison, or extrapolate backwards.

I don't know if many of the top triathletes compare really well with the top individuals in the particular stand-alone disciplines. The top triathletes are just really good at putting all three together. I doubt that the top swimmers among pro triathletes would even qualify for Nationals in a pool swim, and probably might not in the USA Cycling TT or USAT track 10k. I'm not altogether sure that AG triathletes on the pointy end of the OC would crack the top spots in the USMS ranks. The really pointy ends of all three sports are really pointy and don't translate well to success in other sports. Andy Potts has seen some pretty good results, but not year-over-year results, even though he was a top 1% swimmer in college. Even so, he wasn't Olympic-caliber when it came to swimming, and he never came close to qualifying for the US team. Lars Jorgensen (sp?) did qualify for the Olympics, and he has/had the IMWC swim record, but where was he in the OC for that particular day?

Wasn't Potts 4th at Trials? Or Am I misremembering? Sheila T was an Olympian in the pool, and Carol Montgomery was a phenomenal runner back in the day...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I get what your saying, and there is more of a technical component to swimming. But aero drag isn't the primary resistance force in running, gravity is. Once you have a certain amount of technical proficiency in swimming, the physical performance asymptotes are probably pretty similar. For what it's worth, a 22:35 1650y freestyle is just under the USA Swimming "BB" time standard (which means you're only in the top ~35% of your cohort)......for 12 year old boys. The BB cut for 12 year old girls isn't much slower at 23:07. A 22:35 is probably a 25th percentile 1650 performance in that cohort.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Oh boy, I knew that I was a slow swimmer. This just put it in a different perspective. Think I need to go to the cry like a little biatch thread...

I just had a look, and it doesn't even make the chart for the 13-14 boys...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I don't think running is directly comparable with swimming, because technique component is much less important.
From what I can see there is a wast plateau where majority of non-swimmers land - around 1:30-1:40/100m

So if your time is 1:30, which gives 24 min for real human 1600 meters - that's a good time.

Just like breaking 20 in the 5k, sub 30 is of similar efforts for me. Hard to find a proper distance 1 Mile ows. Usually end up short. There is only one here in SD I have to wait for every year that is legit ( channel crossing swim). My best 30:04

I think many triathletes land there because that's where the rate of improvement for time and effort invested starts getting shallow, and the yields are better putting that time into running and/or biking. If they put their sole focus on swimming, they'd continue to improve. For IM/HIM, a 1% improvement in the bike is worth more than a 4% improvement in the swim. At a certain point, I can see why many triathletes throw in the towel on improvements and just swim to maintain.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I agree: it's the best ballpark I've seen. It conforms for me that I suck at running tho. Not that that is news to me

Those three are pretty good exceptions to the rules. Potts was 4th at USA Swimming Olympic Trials in the 400 IM, about .98% off making the team (behind the 2nd place finisher). Of course, top 4 at USA Trials is in itself is a huge achievement, and I can't even claim to have qualified for Trials, so maybe I can't talk. Potts was also a Trials qualifier in the 1500m, and he was 9th in prelims, just out of finals. Taormina was a gold medalist in the 4 x 200 FrR.

And at least in terms of Potts and Taormina, they were top national-caliber swimmers BEFORE becoming triathletes. I guess I was trying to say that I'd be pretty certain that no one in the midst of their triathlon career would be able to qualify for US Nationals in the pool now. Probably few people, if anyone at all who was a national-level swimmer-turned triathlete dropped triathlon and returned to swimming would have a chance being within 1-3% of the top swimmers.

I would look at the distributions of Age-grouper splits and OC in an Olympic tri. I'd say the extremely pointy end of the swim, discounting NYC swimming downstream in the Hudson, would be in the 19:00-21:00 range for AG's up to about 45 years. Take that 19-21, then subtract another maybe :30-:45 for it being a pool swim (flipturns plus it's the only event you're doing that day), and you get a pretty good indication of a good pool swim time. But note that the top USMS swimmers are still in the 17-18 range in those stand-alone pool events, and we're talking some pretty good distributions. If you want to compare what the top PRO triathletes are doing, there is absolutely no comparison to what the top swimmers in the world are doing.

I think most guys under 50 can break 20 in the 5k if they really want to and are willing to get rid of excess bodyweight. To me it seems like the biggest obstacle in swimming is technique. I personally have a hard time interacting with the water and it took a lot of videos of me and explanation from my coach before my spatial awareness in the water even slightly correlated with reality. Now that I understand what I am supposed to do, I still need to work on one or two things at the time to get it right. From what I see in the local pool there are a lot of triathletes who have the same problem(s) as I do.

So I guess it depends. Some non swimmers will never crack 2.00/100m, some will be able to do 1.20/100 in a short time. But unlike in running, except for some extreme cases, coordination, mobility and spatial awareness are limiters in swimming.

Bare mes 0.02$

Well...really it's 1760 yards or 1609 meters.

---

#swimmingmatters
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
The Doctor (#12)

As someone who has took up triathlon later in life and has had to learn to swim. The difference between running a sub 20 min 5k compared to holding 1.30s for a mile is so far away from each other for me. This is my first ever comment on here I'd like to just thank use all for the wealth of info I've gain from the forum..

A good swim time is one that wins your age group. It's informative and fun to see what really good 20 and 30 year olds can do but when I hit my sixties the only thing I really care about are the guys my age. I just checked out the masters records for 65-69 year olds 1 mile cable swim, 22:53. I still have some headroom on improvement!

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

yeah, but a 20 min 5k is also makes you a below average runner among serious 13-14 boys.

For triathletes...
50m LC pool? Holding around 1.30's.
25yd pool? Around 1.25ish.

And then for a comparison, the 5k USATF record for M65-69 is 17:31. (Geez that' crazy fast!)

https://www.usatf.org/...=65-69&sport=LDR

Anyone want to say if a 22:53 is closer to a 20min 5k or a 17:31 5k?