Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

sports.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 344 posts

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#331

Post by nullandvoid »

jjulius wrote: post #290
glitcher wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting a new world record is part of making history, and many are not broken at every Olympics. Consider this example - the men's 100m sprint world record was last broken by Usain Bolt 15 years ago! Now if you're not into that particular sport then maybe that doesn't mean much to you, fair enough. But wow, when someone comes along who is able to break that record it will really be something special.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. The way this talks about "impeding world records" makes it sound like they're expected to be broken frequently. If that's the case, to me, it kinda cheapens world records - that's to say, if they're broken so often, it doesn't seem as big of a deal. But when someone like Usain sets a record that lasts for a while, it does make sense to me that the breaking of that record is s…

Sure, but I think you're missing the point.

The point is that many athletes are only at their peak for one or two Olympics. How rubbish for them that they're not able to get a fair shot at the record like others have had in the past.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#332

Post by trashface »

meling wrote: post #188

There was a pretty strong world record tonight in the men’s 100 m freestyle of 46.40. Actually more than a second faster than the second place and beating the previous wr by 0.4 seconds.

I haven't been watching but I presume its a 50m pool. So the 100M would just have one turn, and so the swimmers would only be going through the "wall of chop" they generate once. In other words I'd expect shorter distance events to be less affected by pool depth and whatever turbulence effect that has. Also free might be less affected vs something like breaststroke due to the angle of the body in the water. (Without good technique breaststroke is really draggy, even amateurs can notice)

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#333

Post by eru »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #308
eru wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could get almost perfect fairness in any kind of Olypmic-style race by just letting competitors all use exactly the same lane, one after another. In earlier times, measuring equipment wasn't accurate enough, so races had to be done in parallel with people starting at the same time. Today, that's no longer necessary. In fact, people racing one after another is exactly how we hand out world records. Of course, the…

There's something to be said for racing _someone_ and not just the clock, for the swimmers/racers, not even thinking about the audience. Additionally, it would make races take 8x to 10x amount of time.

> There's something to be said for racing _someone_ and not just the clock, for the swimmers/racers, not even thinking about the audience.

Yes, it's more fun.

> Additionally, it would make races take 8x to 10x amount of time.

Well, that's not a problem, they can run different events in parallel. Eg swimming and running shouldn't interfere at all with each other.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#334

Post by water-data-dude »

renewiltord wrote: post #141
etempleton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, those on the outside will have choppier waters as the water bounces off the sides of the pools. The modern competition pools do a pretty good job of reducing this effect, but it is always there.

Could probably increase fairness by doubling the width and throwing away the last few lanes (leaving them empty). But would that incentivize the edges? I don't know.

Alternately: a swimming pool on the interior of a cylinder - rotated to provide artificial gravity.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#335

Post by djtango »

sswezey wrote: post #299
djtango wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The water cube was such an epic pool - extremely deep and the level perfectly flat rather than elliptical. I still have dreams of swimming in it

What do you mean the level was perfectly flat vs elliptical? The surface of the pool? I'm confused

I had the memory that race pools were deeper in the middle but I think that may have changed especially as I haven't competed since 2008

Here is a source from 2012 which shows pool depths weren't always uniform but it seems more modern pools are

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/olympic-pools-whe...

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#336

Post by viraptor »

mschuster91 wrote: post #261
viraptor wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Audible difference from an OPTICAL cable not corroding at ends? One where the gold plated parts are only the frame that holds it in the socket?

Well, there is always an ADC and amplifier stage involved, at some point you have to cross to the analog domain - and there's an absolutely wild difference between a central, decent and expensive ADC/amplifier and whatever crap ships in "active" loudspeakers that bring their own ADC/amplifier.

Ok. That's not what we're talking about here.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#337

Post by rurban »

xanderlewis wrote: post #264
rurban wrote: post #260

Of course it's slower. CFD simulations would also prove that. But maybe they wanted not to be too many world records be broken, to damage control the apparent doping problem. You can easily see on TV now, who is doped and who's not. All the dopers do have dark purple faces after the swim, usually the middle swimmers from the US, GB, AUS, Ireland, F, China, whilst the non-dopers keep their usual skin color. Italy, Hun…

So you’re claiming the American, British, Australian, Irish, French and Chinese swimmers are all on drugs? And that everyone apart from you is unaware of that fact? Right.

Are you claiming that all swimming medal winners are not on drugs? That's highly ridiculous. They are just not caught.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#338

Post by nl »

LargeWu wrote: post #321
nl wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really the case. You need a fast pool and good competition. The Titmus vs Sanders vs Ledecky 400m could have been a world record race in another pool, but there's a pretty good chance we'll never see the three of them race each other again.

Counterpoint: Ledecky has never had anybody even close to her level in the 1500 and she has broken her own WR half a dozen times. I think good competition can help, but that effect is likely far less than pool conditions.

Yes, this is absolutely true.

In Ledecky's case the clock is the only competition, and she's just so much better than anyone else it's currently impossible for someone to race her.

In Athletics at non-Championship meets they have pacemakers who provide a pace for the eventual winners to chase when they are going for fast times.

It'd be interesting to see what Ledecky could do if she swam (for example) with male pacemakers as competition.

Or maybe Summer Sanders will move up to the 1500m and we'll see a real race before Ledecky retires.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#339

Post by Kon-Peki »

aldonius wrote: post #234
Kon-Peki wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All major competitions will be in temporary pools from now on. It’s a major spectator sport with growing popularity, but as seen in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc purpose-built facilities for that crowd size are failures. Paris is swimming in a rugby stadium. It is loud and exciting. The US trials this year were in a temporary pool at the NFL stadium in Indianapolis with 60,000 seats filled! LA 2028 has already announced that…

> Brisbane 2032 The current plan is a temporary pool in a new inner-city arena (15k seats) for the major swimming events, with diving, artistic swim and water polo prelims at an existing (to be refurbished) sports centre.

Thanks - it makes perfect sense. There is nothing wrong with a temporary pool, and as we've seen in Paris there are records being set.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#340

Post by jimktrains2 »

eru wrote: post #333
jimktrains2 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something to be said for racing _someone_ and not just the clock, for the swimmers/racers, not even thinking about the audience. Additionally, it would make races take 8x to 10x amount of time.

> There's something to be said for racing _someone_ and not just the clock, for the swimmers/racers, not even thinking about the audience. Yes, it's more fun. > Additionally, it would make races take 8x to 10x amount of time. Well, that's not a problem, they can run different events in parallel. Eg swimming and running shouldn't interfere at all with each other.

It's not just about the fun; having someone next to you can make you push a little harder.

They already run events in parallel.

Post reply on HN