Very unusual WR for Lenton

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Yes, that might even explain how she went so fast, but is there a rule against
it? Maybe there should be, since in normal circumstances if you break a WR you
are necessarily at the front and unable to ride such a wave, but if there isn't
then it might be unfair but it will still count. All the reports I've seen are
suggesting that pacing is the only impediment to ratification. Let's see if the
Germans kick up a fuss.

David

David W said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Yes, that might even explain how she went so fast, but is there a rule against
it? Maybe there should be, since in normal circumstances if you break a WR you
are necessarily at the front and unable to ride such a wave, but if there isn't
then it might be unfair but it will still count. All the reports I've seen are
suggesting that pacing is the only impediment to ratification. Let's see if the
Germans kick up a fuss.

Craig Lord certainly appears to be somewhat irked at the prospect, at
least judging by this rather unnecessary piece by him published on
swimnews.com.

http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?action=get&id=5236

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David W said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Yes, that might even explain how she went so fast, but is there a rule
against
it? Maybe there should be, since in normal circumstances if you break a WR
you
are necessarily at the front and unable to ride such a wave, but if there
isn't
then it might be unfair but it will still count. All the reports I've seen
are
suggesting that pacing is the only impediment to ratification. Let's see if
the
Germans kick up a fuss.

Craig Lord certainly appears to be somewhat irked at the prospect, at
least judging by this rather unnecessary piece by him published on
swimnews.com.

http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?action=get&id=5236

Yes, that was unnecessary. He seems to discount any possible influence of
Phelps's presence in the next lane on her time and uses the time alone in his
argument. Also, Lenton is a recent world-record holder in this event, so I don't
think anyone would be shocked that she was capable of that time, even without
any assistance from the next lane. Phelps broke a couple of WRs by more than a
second last week.

David

"Mark P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.

Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.

David

"David W" wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

It probably isn't even well understood
how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake.

It's called "drafting," and it is well understood.

David W said:

"Mark P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.

Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.

David

Indeed it would have stood had he set a WR, but the difference
(obviously) is that Phelps is fast enough to lead Lenton the whole way
and man enough, so to speak, not to deprive her of the female WR.
Imagine if one day scientists develop sentient motorboats who are
permitted to compete in FINA events...

While the current situation may be unprecedented and thus not outlawed
by current rules or practice, I for one would be surprised if this were
allowed to stand.

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David W" wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It probably isn't even well understood
how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake.

Quoted message said:

It's called "drafting," and it is well understood.

Note "how much assistance you get". So it can be calculated how much Lenton's
time came down by being in Phelps's wake?

David W said:

"Steve Curtis" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"David W" wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It probably isn't even well understood
how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's called "drafting," and it is well
understood.

Quoted message said:

Note "how much assistance you get".

The "assistance you get" is what "drafting" is all about. Though the
following covers triathlons, the principle applies to swimming, biking,
and running. Scroll down to drafting:

http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html

Quoted message said:

So it can be calculated how much
Lenton's time came down by being in
Phelps's wake?

An approximation certainly isn't out of the question.

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The "assistance you get" is what "drafting" is all about. Though the
following covers triathlons, the principle applies to swimming, biking,
and running. Scroll down to drafting:

Quoted message said:

http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it can be calculated how much
Lenton's time came down by being in
Phelps's wake?

Quoted message said:

An approximation certainly isn't out of the question.

Maybe not, but that's not the same as actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.

David W said:

"Steve Curtis" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "assistance you get" is what
"drafting" is all about. Though the
following covers triathlons, the principle
applies to swimming, biking, and
running. Scroll down to drafting:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So it can be calculated how much Lenton's time came down by being in
Phelps's wake?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An approximation certainly isn't out of
the question.

Quoted message said:

Maybe not, but that's not the same as
actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.

Perhaps the answer you're looking for might be found here, or not:

http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/

If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend.

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

David W said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe not, but that's not the same as
actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the answer you're looking for might be found here, or not:

Quoted message said:

http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/

Well, that's a lot to absorb, especially for a possible "or not". BTW, Lenton
was a full body length behind Phelps almost from when they hit the water, and
the distance only extended after that. I think the final margin was about 4.5s.

Quoted message said:

If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend.

Spare me the patronizing remarks.

David W said:

"Mark P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.

Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.

David

From memory he did set a world record in that swim.

Also from memory there used to be a requirement that to break a world
record you had to win the race. That would obviously be unenforceable
for the lead off swimmer in a relay, which may be why I can't find any
reference to it in the current SW12 rule regarding World Records.

The only doubt would be because of the pacing rule and whether
acceptance of this WR would cause a sudden rash of mixed relay events
with pacing in mind.

David W said:

"Steve Curtis" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"David W" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe not, but that's not the same as
actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the answer you're looking for
might be found here, or not:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/

Quoted message said:

Well, that's a lot to absorb, especially for
a possible "or not". BTW, Lenton was a
full body length behind Phelps almost
from when they hit the water, and the
distance only extended after that. I think
the final margin was about 4.5s.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you need additional info, let "Google"
be your friend.

Quoted message said:

Spare me the patronizing remarks.

Spare me the ignorance with a statement like: "It probably isn't even
well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake."

The "science" was presented. Do your homework.

On 5 Apr,

(Steve Curtis) said:

David W said:

"Steve Curtis" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "assistance you get" is what
"drafting" is all about. Though the
following covers triathlons, the principle
applies to swimming, biking, and
running. Scroll down to drafting:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So it can be calculated how much Lenton's time came down by being in
>Phelps's wake?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An approximation certainly isn't out of
the question.

Quoted message said:

Maybe not, but that's not the same as
actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.

Perhaps the answer you're looking for might be found here, or not:

http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/

An anti wave lane rope should take out a lot of the effect of lateral
drafting.
--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

David W said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David W said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
> swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
> Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, that might even explain how she went so fast, but is there a rule
against
it? Maybe there should be, since in normal circumstances if you break a WR
you
are necessarily at the front and unable to ride such a wave, but if there
isn't
then it might be unfair but it will still count. All the reports I've seen
are
suggesting that pacing is the only impediment to ratification. Let's see if
the
Germans kick up a fuss.

Quoted message said:

Craig Lord certainly appears to be somewhat irked at the prospect, at
least judging by this rather unnecessary piece by him published on
swimnews.com.

Quoted message said:

http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?action=get&id=5236

Yes, that was unnecessary. He seems to discount any possible influence of
Phelps's presence in the next lane on her time and uses the time alone in his
argument. Also, Lenton is a recent world-record holder in this event, so I don't
think anyone would be shocked that she was capable of that time, even without
any assistance from the next lane. Phelps broke a couple of WRs by more than a
second last week.

For what it's worth, and I'm certainly no expert, I wouldn't count
Lenton's swim as a WR because of the fact that there is always going
to be a question as to how much assistance she got from Phelps. These
doubts, whether they are valid or not, detract from the credibility of
a record, which is not good, particularly if such a record were to
last for a considerable period of time.

As for the article by Craig Lord, a bit of a rant is to follow, so
please ignore if you want.

Anyone who has been reading Lord's reports on swimnews.com will
probably be aware that he has quite a bee in his bonnet regarding
Britta Steffen and the alleged unfair insinuations from rivals, and
sections of the media, in response to her recent performances, which
included a 100 WR of course. In one particular article Lord even
provides a list of Steffen's 100M times since 1998 as a rebuttal to
suggestions that her recent times showed a spectacular rate of
improvement. All well and good, I've no problem with that. Except that
when he now describes Lenton as "a woman who has gone from over 54sec
to under 53sec like a knife through hot butter", I can't help but
notice the contradiction, and so wonder about his impartiality with
respect to this entire matter.

It seems to me that Lord has gotten a little over emotional regarding
this issue. I'm not sure why. It's all very well to pontificate along
the lines of how unfair it would be to single out Lenton for suspicion
because of her "astonishing" performance, and then proceed to do the
exact same thing that you claim to deplore. That is exactly what Lord
has done. He may claim to have been misinterpreted, but on the
evidence of past things he has written, I don't believe him. The
article in question is little more than a [censored]-for-tat retaliation for
the supposed unfair scrutiny that Lord believes Steffen was subjected
to, which for some unknown reason Lord appears to have taken
personally.

Just to verify the nonsense of Lord's claim, I checked the rankings
section of the swimnews.com website. Seems to be technical problems
with years prior to 2004, but in that year Lenton was ranked second
over 100m (53.66). Which appears to put the lie to Lord's claim about
Lenton's overly quick progression from over 54 sec to under 53 sec,
presuming that is what he meant, and I can't see what else he could
have been implying by the comment. Incidentally in that same year
Steffen was ranked 19th (55.05). Now I don't want to knock the guy
because I reckon he does a mostly good job in reporting on a sport
that does not get a lot of coverage in the general media outside of
World Champs and Olympics, but I also believe Lord needs to be more
honest with himself concerning his own motivation for writing this
particular article.

Tony Bryant said:

David W said:

"Mark P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
> swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
> Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.
>
Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.

Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.

David

From memory he did set a world record in that swim.

Also from memory there used to be a requirement that to break a world
record you had to win the race.

I'd like a refernece for this - you are quoting form memory; ok, but should
anyone be able to confirm this it would be very interesting to see the
actual language and the date

Quoted message said:

That would obviously be unenforceable
for the lead off swimmer in a relay, which may be why I can't find any
reference to it in the current SW12 rule regarding World Records.

Mann set the 100 Back WR in Tokyo leading off the 4x100 Medley, so unless
there has been a pair of rules changes of which I am unaware since then,
any such "must win" requirement that also eliminated lead-off swims must
pre-date this.

Quoted message said:

The only doubt would be because of the pacing rule and whether
acceptance of this WR would cause a sudden rash of mixed relay events
with pacing in mind.

If allowed, why not.

Be a good way for the girls to make some dosh.

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Spare me the patronizing remarks.

Quoted message said:

Spare me the ignorance with a statement like: "It probably isn't even
well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake."

The key here is "how much". You'll have demonstrated my ignorance when you give
me a number. After four posts on the subject I'm still waiting.