Who would win at this hypothetical swim meet?

Triathlon Forum
1

Consider, if you will, this totally outlandish hypothetical: After an iron-distance triathlon, we take everyone that swam in the 60-70min range and forbid them from swimming for an entire year. They are free to run and bike to their heart’s content. Do as much yoga and crossfit as they want, but I’m going to draw the line at using swim machines. This is Group A.

After a year, we go back to the same iron-distance triathlon, and this time we take all of the people that swam in the 120-130min range, let them rest for a week or two with what ever swim training they want to do, and call them Group B.

My question is, who would win at a hypothetical swim meet between those from Group A and those from Group B? And to make it a bit more interesting we’ll look at 100m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m distances. To simplify things a bit it will be and open water swim, with a deep water start (no blocks or flip turns).

The reason I ask this is because to me Group A represents technique. They have the ability to move through the water in an efficiently, and that’s something that isn’t lost. After a year they’ll still know how to swim 1:30 hundreds. But obviously after a year out of the water they’ll have lost nearly all of their fitness.

Group B on the other hand represents fitness. After all, they just demonstrated that they can swim continuously for 2 hours, that’s no small feat. But for the two hours they’re only going 3:20 per 100m.

When looking at training and racing long distance triathlons, I think we have a flawed few of how to approach the swimming portion. The slowtwitch mantra of “more is more” doesn’t pan out. A person swimming 3:20/100 could training at that pace 7 times a week, have the fitness to swim for hours, but never go faster. In stead, they could spend a few sessions with an instructor, learn proper technique, and swim 2:00/100m.

My N=1 is that I can swim the 3.8km in about 1:08 depending on how crowded the course is. I recently took about 6 months off from swimming, then hopped in the pool and easily swam sub 2min 100s. Eventually my lack of fitness caught up to me: shoulders got tired, lats burned, felt out of breath. But by that point I had done the 1km I had wanted to do, all faster than 32min. At this point, I know finishing 3.8km would be tough, but it won’t take more than a few weeks in the pool to get back up to that point. There simply isn’t a significant fitness component to it.

This board is full of both very good and very bad swimmers. Curious to hear people’s opinion on how they think they’d do at this meet. If you are in Group A and took took a year off swimming how fast could you swim 100m? If you are in Group B what is your fastest 400m?

2

I lost ~8 seconds/100m with four months off from swimming. I wasnt swimming that much beforehand and probably have decent technique. Obviously I’d lose a lot more speed with a full year off, but nowhere near the amount that would be necessary for Group A to lose to Group B. So I’ll say Group A, perhaps without exception

3

Group A everytime every event. I was an under an hour Ironman distance swimmer 30-40 years ago. Since college days were done, I never was never really “in shape” for swimming. I hated it. Because I ran a few pools, I was sort of expected to workout a little bit and occasionally hit a Masters meet. I would sometimes not swim for a few months and hop into a stone cold trained Masters Meet. Instead of a low 50s 100y free I would go a 56 or 7. Instead of a mid 50s fly I would go a 1:01 or 2. In the 200s I was getting close to the edge, but would bet at that time I would still have beaten any of your group B people in a race, and probably would flip over on my back to check the progress.

Now approaching mid 60s and not swimming much, I don’t think I could do that kind of thing any more. But then again going mid 30s in a 10k run, or well under an hour on the bike 40k ain’t going to happen either. I get a wild hair sometimes and hit the YMCA masters program for a few weeks and after a few days end up in the faster lanes. Technique is somewhat important in cycling and running, but is huge in swimming. I think swim skills are like bowling. If you have it it remains there, if you never had it, you may never get it.

The kids that swam in age group, HS and college have a huge advantage over people that learned to swim later in life. I have seen rockfish 25 year olds swim ten years and get a whole lot better and be under an hour Ironman distance swimmers, but not college swim times better.

4

I think as the distance got longer the race gets closer but for sure up to 800 group A wins.

My reasoning behind group A winning is my own performance. Unlike many of the folks here I don’t do HIM or IM. I do sprints and sprints only. I still spend a 7-10 hours a week training but I do that because I want to be competitive and I don’t think I can go longer and still be competitive with that amount of training time. Plus my weakness is run and I can’t imagine a 13.1 much less a 26.2 after a swim and bike. From Jan 1 - August 31 I swam a total of 22,000 yards, most weeks not swimming at all. In my A race in August I got out of the water 3rd overall and 1st in my age group averaging 1:15’s with a wetsuit for about a 500. I swam in college and my best events were the 200 free (1:44) and the 500 free (4:46). I was therefore by no means the best but I was a solid college swimmer with several conference titles at the DIII level. My point is that your “A” group isn’t that fast, if you would have said sub 1hr I would say they win for sure. But as was previously stated swimming skill doesn’t change and if you are fit you can pull off a good swim. Go group A!

5

The ST poster klehner started swimming at age 26 and swam 51.0 for 100 scy free in his late 20s/30s. Also, I swim with 5 or 6 guys who did not start swimming until their mid-20s/early 30s and, in their late 20s/mid 30s, they all swam 54 to 1:03 for 100 scy free. (We’re all early 50s to early 60s now.) Granted these times are slow for college D3 even but the vast majority of people do not have the innate talent to swim low 50s for the 100 scy free much less sub-50. In my experience, the “very average high school boy”, or “very average 20s/30s man” is doing pretty good to go under 1:05 for the 100 scy free. Some will say 1:05 is too slow but remember we’re talking about everyone here, from the totally uncoordinated (who might never go sub-1:25) to the very talented (the sub-50 group).

To the OP, Group A will beat Group B in all events every time but I would not say that B has fitness per se. If you swim a very easy breaststroke for 2 hrs, it is like a leisurely 2-hr walk:)

6

I’m also going with group A.

I’ll add this, however: there will be a much larger fall-off from times that the A group could do for those races, and the 800m and 1500m would hurt. The shoulders, lats and triceps specifically would be affected, due to lack of movement-specific exercise in that year. Technique would be there, just not the speed.

But, get the A group back in the water for 4 weeks, they’ll see really quick drops, back to times closer to their. PR’s. This will be much to the dismay of Group B.

I have an N-1 in two different occasions. I pretty much quit swimming altogether for 5 years, concentrating on marathon. I earned my Boston Q, not bad for a (slightly chunky) swimmer. Then, just like that, I got right back into the pool 4-5 days a week, and went 1:52 and 4:48 for 200/500, not bad for a 34 year-old with 3.5 months in the water. Then, I was back to running and my date with Boston. Then, after 3 years of Ironman, in which I had a swim PR of :55.xx (non-wetsuit), I backed off all the sports. I swam a 19:30 1500m free after a lazy summer and about 3 workouts, and got schooled by another masters swimmer. 4 weeks later, after I swam 16 workouts, I crushed him in an OW race: he swam the 1m, and I beat him to that split and turned around and negative split the second mile. Get a swimmer back in the water and it’s back in no time.

While the “B” swimmers hate that we can come back so quick, they also hate that the chunky dudes like me lead the lanes in practice. And I hate their abs…

7

Taking 70 minute guys versus 80 minute guys – from your example.

I would say 100m goes to the 70 minute guys. Everything from 400 to 1500 is a crap shoot. Most likely the 80 minute guys win the rest IMO. Age is probably a factor. The older you are the more rapidly and further you will drop off when not practicing – even if you used to be a fish.

8

It wasn’t 70min guys vs 80min guys.

It was 70min guys vs 120min (2 hour) guys. People that swim sub 1:45s for 100m vs people that take more than 3min for the same distance.

9

They have the ability to move through the water in an efficiently, and that’s something that isn’t lost.//

First of all folks that swim these times( assuming with a wetsuit) are not really that efficient through the water. It could be a real mix in that time frame, some really bad swimmers who are just in such shape that they can muscle for a little over an hour with a whole body floatie on. If you want to drill down to really efficient folks, then under an hour with no wetsuit on would get you that group. In your example it is pitting ok rec swimmers against bad ones. Most people in your range can add between 5 and 10 minutes without the wettie, and then take a look at those swimmers and say they are efficient. A few will be, but swimming in the hour and teens is pretty slow as compared to folks that did swim competitively at some point in their youth.

I remember way back when John Howard first did Hawaii and swam a 1;52. He worked hard on his swim that whole year and got down to a 1;11, right at the fast end of who you are describing as efficient swimmers(he would have done a low hour in a wetsuit). He was horrible looking in the water, but in such good shape he could hold his shitty stroke the entire time. Of course it was just enough to help him win the race that year, certainly a ton better than trying to make up for a 1;52 swim!!!

10

Starky
.

11

He was horrible looking in the water, but in such good shape he could hold his shitty stroke the entire time.

Now, imagine if instead of spending hours in the pool building fitness he had worked on his stroke, could he not have achieved the same thing?

I also noticed you worked hard to avoid answering the question, but instead tried to quibble over the word “efficient.” A person finishing the swim in 60min might not be as efficient as someone finishing in 50min, but they’re a hell of a lot more efficient than someone in the 2 hour range. I’ll happily acknowledge that the people coming out of the water first will have both technique and fitness. And I think most of the people in the 60-70min range would benefit from improving both.

To me, the people at the back don’t lack fitness. It’s true, as you suggested, that some of them could spend hours and hours and hours to get strong enough to drag themselves through the water. But why not work on technique instead?

If you took a year off from swimming how fast could you swim 3.8km?

12

Group A easily goes faster I think, but I don’t think it is specific to swimming. I bet if you took a 40 minute 10k person and didn’t let them train for a year, they would still be faster than 80 mins. I just think that the baseline differences between the two groups are too large to be competitive.

13

I was a 56-58 minute Ironman swimmer and then it went all to hell and I didn’t train much at all.No swimming at all and did 1:04…

Went from 2:45’ish for the 10k swim in Ultraman to 3:13ish with no swim training at all…
The difference is how much the lack of swim training affected the rest of each event.

14

…but I don’t think it is specific to swimming. I bet if you took a 40 minute 10k person and didn’t let them train for a year, they would still be faster than 80 mins.

I disagree, which is why I started this thread. We have a tendency to think of swimming as a fitness sport then assuming running must be a technique sport.

From my experience over the past few months, I finished the summer with an FTP around 250 after working my ass off. I took a few months off and when I tried to get back on the bike I couldn’t push 200, and struggled to get through a 30min workout. After a few weeks of reasonably intense effort I’ve got it back up towards 230 and I’m on track again.

I’ve noticed the same thing with running. If I take a few months off after a marathon my fitness drops fast. It’s hard to go out and run 5km at my previous best pace. Again it doesn’t take long to get that back, but initially the endurance just isn’t there.

So if we did the same experiment after a marathon: take everyone that qualifies for Boston, then prevent them from running for a year, what kind of times would they post for a 5km or 10km? I’m sure their first few hundred meters would be quick, and I’m sure it wouldn’t take them long to regain most of their previous fitness.

It’s also temping to compare swimming 100m to running 100m, but that’s where we need to be careful.

15

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=3698933#3698933
.

16

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=3698933#3698933

“without fitness, your stroke will break down after a few 100m”

At which point you’re out of the water and onto the bike.

17

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=3698933#3698933

“without fitness, your stroke will break down after a few 100m”

At which point you’re out of the water and onto the bike.

Sorry, no idea who/what your quoting or what you’re referring to in your statement.

Another link that may be of interest to you, especially rule #1: http://joelfilliol.blogspot.ca/2012/01/most-popular-post-on-this-blog-is-is.html

18

Group A for sure.

I haven’t done an IM, but I swam competitively for 10 years. I simply don’t train swimming, and I still do 20:30 (1:22/100m) for olympic distance swims on bike/run training only. The people doing 3:15/100m for an IM aren’t going to get down to 1:20/100m in a year (I know I didn’t, even when I started swimming at 12 and was growing quickly), and since I’m allowed to do the biking and running training that I’m already doing, I’ll probably maintain the same speed range I already have.

19

You swim a 1:08 IM swim and your screen name is AquaMan?

I think with the 100, 400, 800, 1500m times are interesting to think about - I think you will see a relatively similar pace in all of those from either group of swimmers. I think if you’re swimming 60-70 min, or slower, you’re probably not doing sprint sets… hence the paces end up being very very close.

A person swimming 3:20/100 could training at that pace 7 times a week, have the fitness to swim for hours, but never go faster. In stead, they could spend a few sessions with an instructor, learn proper technique, and swim 2:00/100m.
… and at 2:00/100m, they could spend a few sessions with an instructor, and learn proper technique… 2:00/100 indicates a LOT of technique issues.

20

Based on my experience from being in shape and out of shape, I only lose about 0:15/100scy at most. It wouldn’t even be close.