Slow swim pace (2:00/100) and IM preparedness/safety

I think there is a significant difference between "poor" swimmer and "slow" swimmer.

I have a good friend who has done 6 IMs over the last few years.  She is regularly in the water for 1:45-2:00 but it isn't because she is struggling.  She could swim that pace all day and chooses to spend her training time focusing on b/r.

I would also note that I don't think 2:00/100 is THAT slow... but I'm not all that much faster than that so maybe I'm biased.

I think the St George course this year really showed where some level of proficiency above just making it should be attempted for. Whether that's 2:00/100 or not, I don't know. It's not a bad target at least.

It's a bit simplistic to use only that in a pool swim though. As many said there (and at least 1 so far here), some slower than that are actually more safe than others faster because they have better open water experience. In less than ideal circumstances too. They can make speed in much worse conditions.

I tend to look at that more as a good example of why you train hard for the swim. It's necessary to be prepared for less than ideal conditions. Things just go wrong. What if conditions were such that people were being blown out away from shore? You have to both be to handle the conditions to stay up and be strong enough to overcome them to get yourself to shore. I don't think counting on rescue is a good idea here.

The question

"Do you think that there is a relation between slow swimming and "poor" swimming (for instance, not being able to swim in the brutal IMSG conditions seen last weekend)?"

The answer

"it depends".  You can be a 1:15 per 100 pool swimmer and get your a$$ kicked by those conditions.  You could be a 2:00/100 open water swimmer and get through just fine.  The 2:20 cutoff actually equates to a 3:19/100 yds.  So a 2:00/100 isn't necessarily "struggling" to finish

The swim DNF numbers were high, but the huge majority of swimmers made the cutoff

Ultimately, whether you can swim a 1:15 or 2:00, this is the sentence I agree with:  "I think that you should look very closely and harshly at your own ability before racing an IM. Fully assess your athletic ability before jumping in heads first at a difficult endurance event."  If you swim in a pool only, or in a calm lake, I don't think you are necessarily qualified to swim a 1-2 mile swim off of California beaches without some experience, even if you swim fast.  Sand Hollow is well known for potential of race-canceling wind.  I know that sitting here in So Cal without ever having a desire to race there.   Wonder how many people actually bothered to figure that out before signing up for St G? 

It's like scuba.  You have 100 dives in the calm 80 placid Caribbean and are proficient.  You are not ready for a 50 degree beach dive through surf in California.

Speed is not the only metric.  It's one of many

IMHO - Typical elitist BS from ST.

Now change that the title to 3:00/100 and Ironman you may have a valid argument as that gets close to the IM cutoff.  2:00/100 doesn't make you a bad or unsafe swimmer, it makes you a slow swimmer. 

x2

I got tired of the elitist BS too. IMHO, choosing your race smartly and wisely is just as important a part of your preperation as the s/b/r.

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and even I know after a quick bit of research that there are some races I'm not gonna touch with a 10 ft pole right now! I've spent alot of time in the pool, sharpening my swim, and I've improved lots. I'm trying to prepare as best I can for my races but I still choose races that I'm comfortable with after doing ample research about the race.

But then that's why there are kayaks and swim support teams on the water!

15step - 2012-05-16 1:51 PM

bhc - 2012-05-16 2:35 PM I followed that discussion on ST but soon tired of the elitist jerks on ST.  I agree that safety is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed and that a lot of swimmers, sprint thru IM, come completely unprepared.  But the idea that a specific time like 2:00 per hundred is some kind of magical number is rubbish IMO, when everyone knows that it's 1:47.463/ 100.  :0)

I do think it is silly to place an arbitrary number on something with so many variables that play in on raceday. I think the original poster was basically trying to say that if you are a slow swimmer in good conditions (a 25m pool, for example) you might want to rethink racing a 2.4mile ocean swim, otherwise you place yourself and others around you at risk. While I don't think that ST guys are 'elitist jerks', it is a place for different and more critical discussions than the BT 'feel-good' fest here

To add to that, I also think that the OP on ST was trying to DNS some poor SOB's!!!

Ha, actually, what I got out of what the OP was trying to say was that in his opinion, a 2:00/100 swimmer who thinks they're prepared for a 2.4 mile swim, is probly gonna get a rude awakening when some external environmental factors are thrown into the mix (wicked wind) and that they should work on they're swim more or do smaller/less dangerous races. (???) I don't necessarily disagree with that but I think the 2:00/100 metric was a bit elitist for him to use. Regardless of swim speed, I think a person's overall ability and comfort level in the water come more into play here than the 2:00/100 metric.

A 2:00/100 equals a 1:25 swim.  My friend swam that at CdA last year and earned a Kona slot in her 40/45 age group.  How is that slow????

For triathletes that is not slow.  For swimmers, it is.  Good thing we are triathletes 

Honestly, the ST OP could have been stated better, but he has a point.  Which is, I think, triathletes need to prepare better for the swim.  To make a very general statement, I agree.  We often see threads here about minimizing swim training, it's only X% of the race so who cares about it, more gains on bike/run training, I've been swimming a week can I do a HIM next month...  etc.  Thankfully, the consensus here agrees in general that we should not shortchange the swim.  But people do it all the time.

As someone else mentioned, using a time standard as a black/white determination is not the best way to go about it

I've been a swimmer all my life, I've done 4+ hour ocean swims, I also have a shoulder I messed up in college and crawl is hard, I do breaststroke for my long duration stroke. For me it is much much more restful... I'm just slow, big waves, big wind, currents don't phase me I relax in the water and am really comfortable there, In college I used to teach lifesaving and my favorite water sport is to act as  the panicked rescue dummy this usually led to a good water wrestle as would be lifeguards with bad technique...tried to resuce me.  (Evil grin) I am however really slow I think that there are other measures other than speed related to safety... 

Well put.  I'm in the 2:00/100 range for OWS and a bit faster in the pool....but really wanted to post on ST, "Whew! I'm glad I can swim 1:59/100!" 

I do think people who are going to do a tri need to really know how to swim. Not necessarily fast, but be comfortable with the water.  I hate that one of our local women's tris has gone to where noodles are allowed. If you can't do the distance, you shouldn't be out there at all.   And I don't like to see those who think they need to jump straight into Ironman or a half with little to no previous races.  Race experience is important, not just for the swim.  But people want it all right now these days.

In fairness, though, Chris, as a couple posters have already implied, it's very easy to waste a lot of time in the pool as a triathlete.  I've made this point many times over the last few years, but the fact is a lot of triathletes just kind of fall into a routine of masters class training that is really designed to optimize competitive pool swimming and don't do enough OWS and endurance swimming.  And I think that's precisely the sort of preparation that is really relevant to the issue at hand here:  Capabilities in the OW over long distance and in adverse conditions.

Where I think everyone's in agreement is that the whole "2:00/100" thing is a red herring.  The issue is having a sound understanding of your preparation.  Frankly, I don't think there are any more underprepared IM swimmers than there are completely undertrained runners.  The difference being, of course, that when the swim goes south, you get pulled.  When you can't run 26.2 miles, you just walk, so the fact of undertraining on the swim is more exposed in a more dramatic (and dangerous) manner on race day. 

I couldn't make it through more than a few pages of the ST thread (at 19 pages today).

For me, to hold up the IMSG swim and point out that people going into IM swims unprepared is a big problem is missing the mark. From what I've read, and I believe it, is that if the winds would have started up 15-30 minutes earlier the swim would have been canceled. It's pretty understandable that the swim course DNF rate was high in what may have been the most dangerous IM swim ever. It's a testament to the fitness level and experience of the field that there were no deaths IMO.

In a more normal IM swim, if there is such a thing ,I would assume the swim DNF rate is much lower and not an issue that presents a significant problem.

So really for me it boils down to something that's totally beyond my control and not worth spending a whole lot of time worrying about--whether "other people" go into the swim what "I believe" is underprepared.

Oh yeah, and I think the 2m/100 benchmark is totally arbitrary and not very useful.

I'm guessing the IM races wouldn't be so popular without the "slower" folks, like myself.  I'm guessing the $600 race fees wouldn't exist without us or the packed finishing chute at midnight.  I swam 1:20 in IMWI last year and was probably in the top 30% to 40%, so 2/3 of the racers are slow and should re-evaluate whether or not they belong there??  Good logic!!

Apparently you have never set any goals for yourself that may or may not be attainable.  As an athlete, father, coach, and member of society, I could never bring myself to tell someone who doesn't belong.  As long as they have the guts to try, that is what is important to me.  Kona wouldn't even be televised if it weren't for the special interest stories.  How do you tell that person who finished IMWI last year at 17:01 that she doesn't belong there.....not me.....I'm guessing she got more cheers at the finish line than you did.