General Discussion Triathlon Talk » average swim times Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2011-08-15 3:56 PM
in reply to: #3644586

Veteran
143
10025
Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: RE: average swim times

psycleridr - 2011-08-15 4:36 PM

i found that less informative as to what people were actually doing in the pool as this was more controlled conditions. Knowing other peoples AVG helps a noob like me know if it worth it to try to get to the front or just stay near the rear. Will affect how I swim? no but anyinformation is more usefull than none

Here's a comparo for me as I stand now:
In-pool: 300m in 3:40 -> 1:13/100m
In a 750m-swim tri: 1:30/100m
In a 1500-2000m-swim tri: 1:40/100m 


So I get 27s/100 slower when I go from the pool to a longer competition.



2011-08-15 4:07 PM
in reply to: #3644621

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: average swim times
GoFaster - 2011-08-15 4:48 PM
mrbbrad - 2011-08-15 2:57 PM
GoFaster - 2011-08-15 11:23 AM

Since the last three decided to ignore your question, I'll give it a try. 

 

 Since I am one of the last three I'll take the bait. I didn't ignore her question. She asked what average is good to aim for. I answered that directly; she should aim for HER average. If she doesn't know her 100 average over 1k, what good is knowing other peoples averages? She can aim for any average she wants. Hell, I'd like to aim for a 1:00 average but I'm right around 1:35.

If she wants to post her average and ask how that compares to others, fine. But she didn't. She did say she would "love to know", but she didn't ask.

She did post her average - she said she did 22min for 750M.  But that's besides the point, aiming for "Your average" makes no sense unless you're out there for giggles.  You want to compete or know how you stack up, then you need a basis of knowing what others can do.  Having an idea of what to aim for then lets you work towards something specific. 

 

22min for 750m is not an average. If she didn't want to do the math I'm sure not going to. Seemed to me she was asking what her pace goal should be for her TT. If she can't sustain a 2:00 pace over 1K TT it's pointless to know if 2:00 is average. She has to get her baseline first. One must know where one is before one can determine where one wants to go.

Maybe it's was the way the question was framed but I think several people understood the post as her asking what her target for her TT should be based on other peoples averages. When I do a TT, I don't care what other peoples averages are. I swim as fast as I can for the given distance and base MY training towards MY improvement off MY average. It's important to set SMART goals. Knowing that the best swimmers in my AG can out pace me by more than I am physically capable of doing won't help me improve.

2011-08-15 4:25 PM
in reply to: #3644567

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: average swim times
jcnipper - 2011-08-15 3:29 PM

One of the things I found helpful is to simply look at the data from the previous year's race - that should give you a pretty darn good guess how fast people are going to swim (or bike or run, for that matter) on race day.  Sure, extreme heat / wind / wave chop / etc. can change things up some, but most races are fairly consistent from year to year, at least in the middle of the pack.

Enjoy!

+1  I always look at what the people in my AG did the previous year and that's what I gun for.

2011-08-15 4:44 PM
in reply to: #3644654

User image

Master
2356
20001001001002525
Westlake Village , Ca.
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 1:56 PM

psycleridr - 2011-08-15 4:36 PM

i found that less informative as to what people were actually doing in the pool as this was more controlled conditions. Knowing other peoples AVG helps a noob like me know if it worth it to try to get to the front or just stay near the rear. Will affect how I swim? no but anyinformation is more usefull than none

Here's a comparo for me as I stand now:
In-pool: 300m in 3:40 -> 1:13/100m
In a 750m-swim tri: 1:30/100m
In a 1500-2000m-swim tri: 1:40/100m 


So I get 27s/100 slower when I go from the pool to a longer competition.

I'm not sure if you are being serious here or pointing out how different tri's can be to pool times. If you are indeed dropping 27s/100 between those distances, something is extremely wrong.

2011-08-15 4:54 PM
in reply to: #3644729

Veteran
143
10025
Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: RE: average swim times
Fastyellow - 2011-08-15 5:44 PM 

I'm not sure if you are being serious here or pointing out how different tri's can be to pool times. If you are indeed dropping 27s/100 between those distances, something is extremely wrong.

I'm pointing out pool->lake time differences.  To be clear, the 300m was done in a 25m pool, and the 1500m/2000m swims were done in mass starts in a lake for triathlons.  There are other differences (the 300m was a standalone effort done flat-out, while 1500m/2000m were at a Oly or HIM and were done at ~HR130), but the idea is that at least for my data point, you can expect quite a bit of slowdown between your all-out in-pool efforts compared to your best in-triathlon efforts.


2011-08-15 6:24 PM
in reply to: #3643263

User image

Master
1404
1000100100100100
Saratoga Springs, Utah
Subject: RE: average swim times

Just my opinion but personally I would not use the 750m OWS to use as a basis on how to pace your 1,000 yard tt if this is what your after. To many courses are measured incorrectly or times count in running to timing mats, etc. Plus the differences between pool and open water. How I would pace the tt would depend on what my recent interval sessions indicated I could hold for a 1k. I imagine this is your first attempt at the tt so I would start out at a pace that you feel you can hold for a little longer than a 1k and if still feeling good half way through pick up the pace. The first couple 100 yards should not be that difficult at all but the pain, at least for me, starts around 700 yards into it then it is just a matter of suffering for a bit longer. Once you do a few of them you will get a good idea of how to pace better. Most start out to fast and die ending up with a slower time.

I agree with GoFaster in that 1:45ish is somewhere around middle of the pack for a lot of people.



2011-08-15 6:33 PM
in reply to: #3644740

User image

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 5:54 PM
Fastyellow - 2011-08-15 5:44 PM 

I'm not sure if you are being serious here or pointing out how different tri's can be to pool times. If you are indeed dropping 27s/100 between those distances, something is extremely wrong.

I'm pointing out pool->lake time differences.  To be clear, the 300m was done in a 25m pool, and the 1500m/2000m swims were done in mass starts in a lake for triathlons.  There are other differences (the 300m was a standalone effort done flat-out, while 1500m/2000m were at a Oly or HIM and were done at ~HR130), but the idea is that at least for my data point, you can expect quite a bit of slowdown between your all-out in-pool efforts compared to your best in-triathlon efforts.


I haven't found this to be the case, and I think that was part of fastyellow's point too.  Personally, I have not seen a significant difference between paces at comparable distances in the pool vs. open water.

Also, your numbers don't make sense to me either, because my long course ows pace in tri's is 1:40 +/- too, but my 300m all-out pace is more like 1:25 or so, not anywhere near your 1:13.  I know everyone is different, but there still should be more correlation than that.  I'm not sure how many races you've done, but I'm guessing that you haven't done that many, and that your ows pace is actually faster than 1;40, but it's miscalculated because the course distance wasn't accurate.

2011-08-15 6:45 PM
in reply to: #3644555

User image

Master
2372
20001001001002525
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 3:23 PM

I'm pretty stunned the people are advising that is isn't useful knowing how fast your competitors are going to go when you're entering a competition.  "Go as fast as you can go" is useless, if you don't know how fast it is possible to go.

It is possible (for at least one person in here) to do 750m in under 9 minutes.

Do you really think that helps?

2011-08-15 7:11 PM
in reply to: #3644899

Veteran
143
10025
Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: RE: average swim times
sand101 - 2011-08-15 7:45 PM
AHare - 2011-08-15 3:23 PM

I'm pretty stunned the people are advising that is isn't useful knowing how fast your competitors are going to go when you're entering a competition.  "Go as fast as you can go" is useless, if you don't know how fast it is possible to go.

It is possible (for at least one person in here) to do 750m in under 9 minutes.

Do you really think that helps?

It does if you're starting out swimming and think that you're "pretty good" and don't need to train any harder once you hit 2:30/100m.  Finding out that it's possible to hit 1:12/100m like your example might convince you that there are fundamental flaws in your 2:30/100m technique or in your training approach, and you might start researching different ways to do things, like hiring a coach or joining a team.  When I start doing any new sport, the first thing I try to find out is "what is considered 'good', and what do those people do to achieve it?".  Maybe it's different strokes for different folks, but I find it's extremely useful knowledge.

I haven't found this to be the case, and I think that was part of fastyellow's point too.  Personally, I have not seen a significant difference between paces at comparable distances in the pool vs. open water.

Interesting.  I have a swimming background (my PB for 300m was ~3:16, the 3:40 is my untrained time nowadays), so maybe I have a bit more sprinting ability?  I also don't wear a wetsuit, so that'll lose me 3-4s/100m over the average triathlete.  It's also likely the courses were long, as you suggest: both >1500m tris had about a minute-long run to transition, so that'd be another 2-3s/100m.  Finally, I take my triathlon swims really easy, so it is possible there's a difference in effort level as well.  That's cool though - I was always kind of surprised at how slow my OW times were compared to my pool times, maybe now knowing that it's not totally normal I can look into why.

Edit: I may have figured it out - is your 1:25/100m using flips and underwater pushes?  I wouldn't be surprised if those gave a 6+ seconds per 100m.



Edited by AHare 2011-08-15 7:19 PM
2011-08-15 7:52 PM
in reply to: #3644933

User image

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 7:11 PM 

It does if you're starting out swimming and think that you're "pretty good" and don't need to train any harder once you hit 2:30/100m.  

You've said something similar to this several times.

Who stops training hard when they hit some arbitrary number?

2011-08-15 8:02 PM
in reply to: #3644933

User image

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 3:23 PM

I may have figured it out - is your 1:25/100m using flips and underwater pushes?  I wouldn't be surprised if those gave a 6+ seconds per 100m.

Yes, I come from a swimming background too, so any all-out effort in a pool includes flip turns and hard push offs with tight streamlines off the walls. It sounds like the issue is comparing apples and oranges. You're using an old PR for your shorter swim when you were in peak swimming condition and comparing it to a less-fit current you with runs to timing mats included.

Edited by TriMyBest 2011-08-15 8:04 PM


2011-08-15 9:30 PM
in reply to: #3644966

Veteran
143
10025
Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: RE: average swim times
DerekL - 2011-08-15 8:52 PM 

You've said something similar to this several times.

Who stops training hard when they hit some arbitrary number?

When they've got 2 other sports to train?  When you've only got n hours of training time per week to spend?  Nobody explicitly says "ok, I got to this arbitrary number, no more training of that", but you implicitly have to say that when you're choosing where your training hours will go.

On that note, I essentially have said that with regards to swimming.  My maintenance of 30 minutes a week keeps me fast enough, I know pretty much exactly how fast I can ever go (with 12 hours/wk training), and I spend my time cycling and running, where my weaknesses lie.

 It sounds like the issue is comparing apples and oranges. You're using an old PR for your shorter swim when you were in peak swimming condition and comparing it to a less-fit current you with runs to timing mats included.

The 3:40 for 300m was last year, when I was in worse shape than I am now, so it's not quite that.  In any case, I'm not terribly worried about the gap - there are lots of reasons for it: pacing, (lack of a) wetsuit, aging tri top, mismeasured courses, sighting, bumping, currents, winds, etc.  You're probably just a better distance swimmer than I am



Edited by AHare 2011-08-15 9:31 PM
2011-08-16 7:27 AM
in reply to: #3645074

User image

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: average swim times
AHare - 2011-08-15 9:30 PM
DerekL - 2011-08-15 8:52 PM 

You've said something similar to this several times.

Who stops training hard when they hit some arbitrary number?

When they've got 2 other sports to train?  When you've only got n hours of training time per week to spend?  Nobody explicitly says "ok, I got to this arbitrary number, no more training of that", but you implicitly have to say that when you're choosing where your training hours will go.

Nice strawman.  What you said was that if somebody hit an arbitrary number that was "good" then they wouldn't train "hard" anymore.

And your argument still doesn't hold any water.   Continued training in a discipline to improve doesn't always entail progressively more hours spent doing that.  Rarely is anybody in maintenance mode other than the truly elite at one discipline.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » average swim times Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2