Swimming goals? (Page 2)

I have read enough of your posts to know your pragmatism, and it serves you well with advice on biking and to a degree, running........but I watched a young man learn to swim pretty fast, and he did it by swimming with 8-10 year olds while he was a 6 foot tall 14 year old.  He floated on his back, he floated on his stomach, he floated on his side.  He swam with one arm, no arms, and kicked hundreds of thousands of yards.  He was not allowed to race with his team for an entire year....there was not a single lap that was timed. 

Three years later he swam a 100 in :49.  A 200 in 1:46.  A 200 BUTTERFLY in 2:03.  A 500 in 4:48.  He has a loooong way to go to reach his goals...those are just time posts along a longer path....not that fast in his world.

I have watched countless kids learn to swim fast in the same program. 

Learning to swim faster is a process.  There is no short cutting it and it's not biking or running. Swimming fast is learning to swim.  The "fitness" comes in the learning for beginners. The real trick is to find someone who can teach, and then be patient enough to learn.  Fast swimmers don't really understand the rest of us....it's not because they don't think you know what it takes....it's because they don't know why you aren't willing to do it.

How would you go about such a thing? Measurement in swimming is mostly from splits. I have no idea how to really measure much of anything to do with technique using some sort of unit, but we all know it has to improve to get better. I don't know if it was intended, but this has a feeling of not paying as much attention to things one can not quantify with measured data.

Could be misunderstanding this, but speed is a result of form, not a separate category. You swim better and you'll get faster. Attaching specific times to goals, however, can cause the focus to drift some. You want things that help you with the process. Like getting to the pool in #1. That's good. Working towards executing sets like in #2 & 3 work too. Doing stuff that will lead to progress. I don't think the 2:30 is necessary, but rather doing the set with about X amount of rest and figure out the leave time when you do the set. I don't know how to quantify #4 very well either, but you're always doing it. At least always trying to swim well. Can the coaches help to figure sets to execute? Swimming has so much feel and has a lot of art to it, so you want a process that will allow this. Having some longer term time goals to achieve isn't necessarily bad, but I wouldn't put a fixed date on them, even though what you have isn't necessarily aggressive.

Originally posted by Left Brain Learn to swim programs have absolutely no problem quantifying improvement from one level to another. It's not rocket science, its just that the process and tediousness of the learning seems to be beneath most big bad triathletes.

By quantify here I mean give a numerical measurement. A swim coach on deck can look to see some of these things though not really in a numeric form. Or did the kids have something like improved EVF by 5 inches, or reduced amount of leg splay in the kick by 8"? The action to do is in line with what you're saying to do, but adds in a physical measurement that goes too far. That's the art form a skilled eye can see, but we can't really say to improve by a quantifiable amount. These things need to be worked on and are a goal to improve, so is there a way you've seen in quantifying this besides the eye test of the coach? Have they been quantified by swim times? In the context of this thread, how should the OP put such form improvements down as a goal? And with the process goals I brought up before, what can be said along those lines regarding form?

I'm agreeing with much, so the question might be more clear if I ask what is being looked for in going from the first to the second quote. No problems quantifying improvement, so what are they doing since they're not timing anything? I don't think anything is wrong or contradictory, just highlighting things as my earlier posts may not have been that coherent.

Originally posted by Left Brain Learn to swim programs have absolutely no problem quantifying improvement from one level to another. It's not rocket science, its just that the process and tediousness of the learning seems to be beneath most big bad triathletes.

Makes it a good answer in more ways than one!

Originally posted by mike761

Originally posted by Left Brain Learn to swim programs have absolutely no problem quantifying improvement from one level to another. It's not rocket science, its just that the process and tediousness of the learning seems to be beneath most big bad triathletes.

^^Absolutely- triathletes keep wanting to build the 10th floor before they build the foundations and first 9 floors. No wonder they keep falling.

It's partly that, but also not realizing about building a foundation. A bigger step back in that is looking at how many just keep going from one race build into another. Never looking at the year round training, becoming very focused on the upcoming race. Then only doing things they need for that more immediate race. It can seem fine at first, but it'll catch up down the line. Next season, or another year or two in. Learning the difference between a race build and getting better all around. Though I think this is what the OP is starting to try and understand.