I was researching the 910 and the Garmin Swim and saw the Garmin Swim uses a term for swimming efficiency called SWOLF. Is anyone using this? Or can explain how it calculates swimming efficiency
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/swimming/garmin-swim-/prod97287.html
Vince
www.tribikerun.com
I was researching the 910 and the Garmin Swim and saw the Garmin Swim uses a term for swimming efficiency called SWOLF. Is anyone using this? Or can explain how it calculates swimming efficiency
https://buy.garmin.com/...swim-/prod97287.html
Vince
http://www.tribikerun.com
https://support.garmin.com/...t/case.faces?caseId={0897fdd0-f90b-11e0-73d0-000000000000}
It’s basically another semi useless concept. Less strokes per length does not necessarily mean more efficient or faster.
John
What is SWOLF?
Email this AnswerPrint this Answer
06/25/2012
SWOLF is derived from combining the terms swimming and golf. The SWOLF data field on the Forerunner 910XT and Garmin Swim adds the time and the number of strokes it takes to swim a pool length. For instance, 30 seconds and 10 strokes to swim the length of a pool will equal a SWOLF score of 40. A lower score is better, just as in golf.
The Forerunner 910XT can only utilize SWOLF when set to Pool Swim within the Swimming sport mode.
I have the Garmin swim, and absolutely love it, but I agree that SWOLF is useless for the reasons listed…swim golf is an exercise in futility that has been popularized by some, but a waste of time for most. Just swim fast.
swim golf. strokes per length plus time per length to give you a score.
I don’t use it, never have, I don’t think it really measures efficiency. I occasionally count strokes, but the ultimate measure of efficiency is time. not strokes per length, not strokes + time, just time. i.e,. if I take 9 strokes per length and kick like hell, I can swim close to the same speed as if I take my normal 14-15 strokes, slightly slower. But that 9 strokes is way harder than the 14 strokes, even though the SWOLF score is better.
if I take 20 strokes, I’ll actually be slower, and less efficient.
in both cases, the time taken indicates most efficient way of getting from one end of the pool to the other.
I was thinking about this the other day and was going to work on a better formula. The 3 data points I was going to work off of was the 2nd lap of Nathan Adrians 100 free at London, the 19th lap of Peter vanderkaYs American record 500 freestyle and the 2nd to final lap (not the last lap) of Katy ledeckys wr 1500 swim. If you assign each a score of 100 and then come up with the formula using their stroke rate and speed you might have something half way decent.
swim golf. strokes per length plus time per length to give you a score.
I don’t use it, never have, I don’t think it really measures efficiency. I occasionally count strokes, but the ultimate measure of efficiency is time. not strokes per length, not strokes + time, just time. i.e,. if I take 9 strokes per length and kick like hell, I can swim close to the same speed as if I take my normal 14-15 strokes, slightly slower. But that 9 strokes is way harder than the 14 strokes, even though the SWOLF score is better.
if I take 20 strokes, I’ll actually be slower, and less efficient.
in both cases, the time taken indicates most efficient way of getting from one end of the pool to the other.
Agree. Better swimmers tend to have lower scores, but not because they focus on a lower score. Rather they focus on swimming better and faster and the lower score is the result. Same as golf. Good golfers don’t play 18 focused on a lower score. They play 18 focused on a good drive, solid short game and excellent putting. The score is the result. I swam the other day with a Swimsense because I wanted to mess around on Swim.com and the SWOLF came up in the data. Never paid attention to it before that day.
I look at it once in a while but like others implied, I didn’t find it too useful. Though if you are a data metrics geek, it’s another thing you can analyze/OCD about.