For example, the world record (WR) 5000 m on the track is 12:37.35 and the WR for the 1500 m free in the pool (long course meters, LCM) is 14:31.02. If two D1 athletes are discussing their times, and the runner went 13:53 for the 5K on the track, and the swimmer went 15:58 for the 1500 LCM (in a summer meet say, I know we swim SCY in college:)), have they not achieved the same level of accomplishment??? Are they not equal as athletes??? And would not the same argument apply regardless of the sport, as long as the results are measured in time??? It seems obvious to me that the two athletes have achieved the same level, but apparently opinions vary. What is your take on it??? If not, why not???
Eric,
Didn’t you get your fill of this on the other thread? No they aren’t equivalent for the same reasons already brought up.
Hugh
I think that might be the case in cycling if the race was comparing climbers up hill. 6.4 w/kg is maybe 38 minutes up Alp Dhuez and that is a world best time (Fresh TT-clean, TdF dirty), while 5.76 w/kg and 42 minutes is probably achievable by a top amateur or a low level pro. The 10% difference there seems roughly equivalent to comparing Mo Farah and a decent NCAA runner-roughly. Same thing in marathon 2:04 is world class, 2:10 is low-mid level pro. Just don’t compare flat TT’s. A flat 48 min 40km TT is world champ level but a 53 minute TT isn’t at a pro level at all, the aero drag compresses things there.
Eric,
Didn’t you get your fill of this on the other thread? No they aren’t equivalent for the same reasons already brought up. Hugh
No, I did not “get my fill” or else I wouldn’t have posted the new thread. I understand what you and jctriguy are saying about drag in the water and on the bike, but to me that does not matter. A time is a time and that’s all that really matters IMO. I’m sure you think I’m over-simplifying but did it ever occur to you that you are oversimplifying with your mono-maniacal focus on power, drag, etc??? Also, as I pointed out in my last long post on the other thread, the differences in numbers of runners and swimmers within 1% of the WR on the track vs in the pool is insignificant, 17 vs 14. I think the whole subject is more complicated than we know, but the stopwatch does not lie. Any given X% % slower than the WR is exactly that, regardless of sport. So, which athlete are you going to tell that he’s done better, the runner within 10% or the swimmer within 10%??? I just can’t see that as valid at all, they have both achieved the same.
No. Well, not always.
Comparing by math:
A 10% increase in speed on a bike will mean about a 31% increase in power required, while a 10% increase in speed in the run will require about a 10% power increase (probably a little more, since they start getting into aerodynamically-relevant speeds at shorter distances).
So the cyclist that does 90% of a WR speed actually only required 73% of the top guy’s power. A runner who went 90% as fast as the world record will require approx 90% of his power.
For hillclimbs, they should be roughly comparable. When climbing a hill, it’s all about W/kg, and so someone who does 90% of the WR speed up a hill will have required about 90% of the WR holder’s W/kg (and again, same for runners).
Since swimming is a much more dynamic sport requiring more finesse and technique than cycling/running, I’d say it’d be much harder to compare by math like this. Different strokes might be easier or harder to get close to the WR.
Comparing by results:
Another way to compare across sports is to just look at what percentile each competitor achieved, rather than their absolute speed
If 15:58LCM achieved the finals at state champs and so did the 13:53, then they’re about equal accomplishments IMO. If one made it to olympic trials and the other didn’t, then it’s obvious which one was tougher. But even this method of comparing is also ridden with failure. The guy that makes it to Olympic trials in sailing (high cost of entry, low popularity) probably doesn’t have as much raw talent as the guy that makes it in basketball, running or some other really popular sport.
I bet I could hit 10% slower than the “riding a bike downhill in a straight line” record, but that doesn’t make me stellar at that sport (if it were to exist). Different sports will have different “wow that’s amazing” percentages to hit.
All that said, for your given example, I think the 1500 and the 5k are pretty similar. But it is certainly not the case that 90% of any WR’s speed/distance/whathaveyou is an equal accomplishment, as the downhill biking example shows.
No. As I mentioned in the other thread, physics aside, far less people swim than run.
You’re a swimmer, so you probably don’t want to hear this, but the swimming wr is inherently less difficult to achieve than the running one, as running has little to no barriers to entry and is practiced by nearly the entire world. A relatively small population of the world learns to swim competitively. The fact that more people run makes it more competitive. Fact. You have to be more of a genetic anomaly to win a medal on the track than you do to win a medal in swimming, or fencing, or that horse bullshit (or some other obscure rich-people sport).
Similarly, the world record for knitting while doing a marathon is even less impressive than swimming and running, because only one person has done it.
In cycling, it requires something like ~3% increase in power to achieve a ~1% increase in speed. Running is closer to 1:1. Not sure if swimming is greater or less than 3:1, but resistance in water is higher than air, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it was greater than 3:1.
Fact. You have to be more of a genetic anomaly to win a medal on the track than you do to win a medal in swimming, or fencing, or that horse bullshit (or soother obscure rich-people sport-like TRIATHLON say?)
Similarly, the world record for knitting while doing a marathon is even less impressive has done it.
Similarly, the world record for knitting while doing a marathon is even less impressive than swimming and running, because only one person has done it…
This is hilarious but true. Actually just look at female cycling, which does not have nearly as deep a genetic talent pool and compare to male cycling. In women’s cycling, you still have the situation where a few exceptional riders are far above the rest (Vos for example winning in multiple disciplines). Because men’s cycling is larger, offers far more money, it is pulling from a larger sampling of the population and therefore has a larger number of genetically gifted individuals racing at the same time. So if you want to break a world record in cycling (or just win a championship as they don’t really do time records), you have a much greater chance of succeeding as a female cyclist than a male as the potential pool of riders is smaller.
I am not familiar with the other thread on this topic, but here’s what I told someone recently and it addresses similar issues. I believe the event that has the greatest different between the WR performance and a performance that some would consider “elite” is the marathon.
Look at it this way: the marathon WR is approximately 2:00 and I would say an elite marathon performance is 3:00 or better. The 100 yard freestyle WR is approximately 40 seconds and if you tack on the same delta to that, you get 1 minute which most certainly is not elite. (I can do about 5 seconds faster than that in backstroke and I am 46 years old). The 100m dash WR is approximately 10 seconds; tacking on the delta and you get 15 seconds; certainly not elite.
Said another way, which performance do you think is better: a 3 hr marathon, a 1 min 100y free, or a 15 second 100m dash?
Not everyone will agree, but I expect 90% would pick that marathon, even on this forum where we are all biased towards endurance events.
I think you’re one of the few who would consider a 3:00 hour marathon to be elite. It’s a decent time for an over 40 amateur who runs as a hobby…but nowhere close to elite.
OK, “elite” might be the wrong word, but wouldn’t you agree that a 3 hour marathon is more impressive than a 15 second 100m or a 1 min 100 yard swim?
Don’t ask me…I’d give my left elbow to swim a 1:00 100.
No. As I mentioned in the other thread, physics aside, far less people swim than run.
You’re a swimmer, so you probably don’t want to hear this, but the swimming wr is inherently less difficult to achieve than the running one, as running has little to no barriers to entry and is practiced by nearly the entire world. A relatively small population of the world learns to swim competitively.
I hear this argument a bit (mainly from non swimmers), but I am in two minds about it.
No. It’s not even close. Each sport has a different learning/improvement curve.
Take two people who are generally fit but with no prior background in running or rock climbing. After one year of structured training the runner might get 100% or 150% of the marathon WR. The rock climber could not possibly come within that percentage of the speed record on the Nose route of El Capitan (which is sort of the gold standard for long distance speed rock climbing). Indeed, even rock climbers who have been training for a decade would find it incredibly hard to come within 100% of the speed record.
Take another example. What percent of the population could come within 100% of the WR in the 100mm dash? Now, what percent of the population could come within 100% of Bonds’ single season HR record? These things are just in completely different universes.
No. Well, not always.
Comparing by math:
A 10% increase in speed on a bike will mean about a 31% increase in power required, while a 10% increase in speed in the run will require about a 10% power increase (probably a little more, since they start getting into aerodynamically-relevant speeds at shorter distances).
So the cyclist that does 90% of a WR speed actually only required 73% of the top guy’s power. A runner who went 90% as fast as the world record will require approx 90% of his power.
For hillclimbs, they should be roughly comparable. When climbing a hill, it’s all about W/kg, and so someone who does 90% of the WR speed up a hill will have required about 90% of the WR holder’s W/kg (and again, same for runners).
Since swimming is a much more dynamic sport requiring more finesse and technique than cycling/running, I’d say it’d be much harder to compare by math like this. Different strokes might be easier or harder to get close to the WR.
Comparing by results:
Another way to compare across sports is to just look at what percentile each competitor achieved, rather than their absolute speed
If 15:58LCM achieved the finals at state champs and so did the 13:53, then they’re about equal accomplishments IMO. If one made it to olympic trials and the other didn’t, then it’s obvious which one was tougher. But even this method of comparing is also ridden with failure. The guy that makes it to Olympic trials in sailing (high cost of entry, low popularity) probably doesn’t have as much raw talent as the guy that makes it in basketball, running or some other really popular sport.
I bet I could hit 10% slower than the “riding a bike downhill in a straight line” record, but that doesn’t make me stellar at that sport (if it were to exist). Different sports will have different “wow that’s amazing” percentages to hit.
All that said, for your given example, I think the 1500 and the 5k are pretty similar. But it is certainly not the case that 90% of any WR’s speed/distance/whathaveyou is an equal accomplishment, as the downhill biking example shows.
Well, at least you see my point and maybe kinda, sorta half-way agree with the 1500/5000m comparison. This swim/run comparison is the main point I’m making here, that comparing the 1500m swim to 5K run, 400 m free to the mile/1500m run, 200 m free to 800 m run, etc, are pretty valid in the grand scheme of things. To give yet another example, the WRs in the 800m run and 200m free are within 1.1 sec of each other, 800 = 1:40.91 and 200 free = 1:42.00, so in this case you don’t even need %ages: a sub-2:00 200 LCM free ~ sub-2:00 800 run.
Take a look at NAG records for swimming and running. Teenagers can approach WR in the water.
But FYI, only genetic anomalies can win medals in swimming just the same as track.
Take a look at NAG records for swimming and running. Teenagers can approach WR in the water. But FYI, only genetic anomalies can win medals in swimming just the same as track.
Right, I have looked through the USA Swimming NAG records, the one I remember best was the 10 and under record for the 400 LCM free is 4:36…unbelievable at age 10!!! And sure, no 10-yr old boy is going to run the mile in 4:36, since runners mature later than swimmers. And of course I agree on the genetic anomaly part, but you need to send that reply to snackchair, but maybe he’ll see if he re-visits this thread.
As in the last thread, I totally disagree with your point that 10% is equivalent across all timed sports. I think 10% behind in swimming is exactly that, 10% behind in swimming.
You have tried a few arbitrary things to compare times. Taking the top 1% and counting number of athletes that meet the number is pointless. You haven’t taken in to account how many athletes are participating in the respective sports at that level. You basically aren’t taking anything into account, you are just saying that 10% has to equal 10%.
Power and drag are just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many factors that come into times and progression. How technical is a sport, what is the difference in efficiency between a beginner and expert, etc etc.
Your last post has again confirmed the idea that swimmers can achieve a very high level very quickly.
As in the last thread, I totally disagree with your point that 10% is equivalent across all timed sports. I think 10% behind in swimming is exactly that, 10% behind in swimming.
You have tried a few arbitrary things to compare times. Taking the top 1% and counting number of athletes that meet the number is pointless. You haven’t taken in to account how many athletes are participating in the respective sports at that level. You basically aren’t taking anything into account, you are just saying that 10% has to equal 10%.
Power and drag are just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many factors that come into times and progression. How technical is a sport, what is the difference in efficiency between a beginner and expert, etc etc.
Your last post has again confirmed the idea that swimmers can achieve a very high level very quickly.
4:36 for 400 free LCM is still 56 sec (25%) off the WR, so not a “very high level”. Runners can be become very fast very quickly also, especially in the shorter distances. But whatever…
On the downhill speed comparison - I am living proof it is not too easy.
A couple years back Matty Reed did a stunt racing downhill from Jamestown here in Boulder. ( the car drove up at the speed limit of about 35MPH). Matty posted his time on the stretch ( about 3 miles and 500’ elevation drop - something like 4% grade). I figured cool - I get to race Boom-Boom! (This was pre-strava)
I was about 90 seconds back from his 4:something time… About 25% slower. I’m of course nowhere in his league - but I figured that’s the point, we’d spin out and be about equal. Turns out horsepower matters downhill also…
.