31–40 of 344 posts
I was a college swimmer, qualified for Olympic Trials in 2012 and 2016. There are absolutely slow and fast pools. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The depth - which is only 7ft in Paris, unusually shallow for a competition pool. 2. The sides. Does the water spill over the sides into the gutters, or smash into a wall and bounce back, creating more chop. A trained eye can see all the swimmers in Paris struggli…
>A lot of this is perception vs. reality,” he said. “If you were to talk to many very accomplished coaches, they would say the pool has to be a minimum 3 meters deep. Most of our research shows that anything over 2 meters is frivolous. … Obviously, some depth is very important. But after a certain point, it's diminishing return. Maybe it's just the swimmers and not the pool as such
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a lot of the swimmers themselves are not able to go anywhere near their personal bests: this is a sharp reversal from past Olympics, where many athletes reached new personal records. Plus, they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming. Definitely I would be more interested in their evaluation of a swimming pool rather than trust "research results" from the company that built the pool in question…
Being good at swimming doesn’t mean you can evaluate the pool performance better than everyone else. I trust someone running a CFD analysis of a pool more than a competitive Olympic swimmer when it comes to the effect of pool depth. It’s very hard to make accurate statistical assessments from intuition. Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear: I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. B…
The gold standard would be an empirical randomized controlled trial to compare two pools, assuming you could hide “which pool” from the participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a lot of the swimmers themselves are not able to go anywhere near their personal bests: this is a sharp reversal from past Olympics, where many athletes reached new personal records. Plus, they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming. Definitely I would be more interested in their evaluation of a swimming pool rather than trust "research results" from the company that built the pool in question…
Being good at swimming doesn’t mean you can evaluate the pool performance better than everyone else. I trust someone running a CFD analysis of a pool more than a competitive Olympic swimmer when it comes to the effect of pool depth. It’s very hard to make accurate statistical assessments from intuition. Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear: I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. B…
It will get you a fair amount of the way there, but at some point you have to go and actually do the thing to validate your model.
[flagged]
Gorillas are vegan and they have a ton of muscle.
Few gorillas were seen distributing pamphlets and letting their local community know of their superior dietary philosophy.
Animals are classified as herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores.
Gorillas are omnivores with a predominantly plant-based diet.
Can gorillas become vegan?
Good question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a lot of the swimmers themselves are not able to go anywhere near their personal bests: this is a sharp reversal from past Olympics, where many athletes reached new personal records. Plus, they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming. Definitely I would be more interested in their evaluation of a swimming pool rather than trust "research results" from the company that built the pool in question…
Being good at swimming doesn’t mean you can evaluate the pool performance better than everyone else. I trust someone running a CFD analysis of a pool more than a competitive Olympic swimmer when it comes to the effect of pool depth. It’s very hard to make accurate statistical assessments from intuition. Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear: I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. B…
Australia, as one example, took swimming (and a few other sports) next level with a plethora of studies on all things performance related.
Any theorectical results from, say, CFD, would be parallel tested in real conditions and|or modelled in a scale pool (like a wind tunnel for water).
Those who competed at that level in sport in the larger countries almost certainly heard first hand bleeding edge results from cutting edge sport science.
I was a college swimmer, qualified for Olympic Trials in 2012 and 2016. There are absolutely slow and fast pools. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The depth - which is only 7ft in Paris, unusually shallow for a competition pool. 2. The sides. Does the water spill over the sides into the gutters, or smash into a wall and bounce back, creating more chop. A trained eye can see all the swimmers in Paris struggli…
Would the swimmers in the center lanes have any advantage by being furthest away from the wall-induced chop?
Putting the faster qualifiers in the middle lanes is also a better view for the spectators on both sides of the pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being good at swimming doesn’t mean you can evaluate the pool performance better than everyone else. I trust someone running a CFD analysis of a pool more than a competitive Olympic swimmer when it comes to the effect of pool depth. It’s very hard to make accurate statistical assessments from intuition. Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear: I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. B…
You don't necessarily need to do an in depth study of the pool when every Olympic swimmer in it fails to meet their own personal records. A study may be useful to understand why depth still matters beyond the 2m point, but a study isn't needed to show that swimmer performance is impacted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being good at swimming doesn’t mean you can evaluate the pool performance better than everyone else. I trust someone running a CFD analysis of a pool more than a competitive Olympic swimmer when it comes to the effect of pool depth. It’s very hard to make accurate statistical assessments from intuition. Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear: I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. B…
Even CFD analysis is a model though, with all that implies. Would a large, blind empirical study be more trustworthy?