- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
will heyboer swim the 400IM now that ellis will be in the 100back?
patnott is not a man known for swimming athletes in different races for more points so what do you all think?
a heyboer vs. ellis 200 back could be a cool race depending on how ellis does in the event
predicted individual events for ellis:
100 back, 100fly, 200 back (maybe 100 free though)predicted individual events for heyboer:
200IM, 100back, 200 back -
None. As you stated, Patnott is not one to shift things around for the risk of a point or two here and there. Historically we have seen him train his swimmers for three events. Don’t you always find it odd that they have 50,000 guys in the 50, many of which could probably score in a stroke. Heyboer has already been 4:05 in the IM, my guess is he will swim that whether Ellis goes his 48.9 in December or his ankle falls off and he retires before the end of the season.
I would really be surprised if any coach knows where their incoming freshman will be swimming in February. Of course they probably have a pretty good idea. I would suspect Heyboer will have more focus on the 4 IM than the 100 back at this point though. But that’s just me.
AFLAC
-
I don’t think it will have any effect on what Heyboer swims based on what Patnott has done in the past. He swims the swimmers in their best events, regardless of place. He has done this for his top swimmers (which Heyboer will be) and I would assume also for all his swimmers. He is a better 400IMer than 100 backstroker… but looking at the returning swimmers, he may do better in the 100 back, depending on how he improves.
I think Ellis will be a very good 200 backstroker, but Heyboer already is, so that should be interesting. Both Fonzi and Ellis are possibilties for the 100 free, although they could both end up in other events. Ellis could even end up in the 50 with a split of 20.8 the day after state meet.
-
-
-
@Happy Madison wrote:
The Gardner kid will be a junior this year, right? It’s probably about time he goes the 100, 200 and 500 Freestyles. The following year he will probably drop the 500 and swim the 50 like Slagh did his senior year.
Hmmmm… not sure Gardner is the sprinting type!
Insufficient… where did that come from? Are you posting on the right thread? Too drunk?
-
@silentp wrote:
Insufficient… where did that come from? Are you posting on the right thread? Too drunk?
I should hope not… He posted that at 12:25 in the afternoon!
-
@Insufficient wrote:
I know how all of you believe Hope cannot/will not train a distance swimmer properly.
for me it is not a matter of Hope not training distance, but a matter of Hope excelling at training sprinters. Disagree?
Jokes about Gardner swimming the 100 are just that, jokes. Slagh DID swim the 50 at Nats as a Senior though, so like most things that are funny, there is a tiny bit of truth.
-
-
-
-
@Stevo wrote:
slagh was a hoss, no matter what distance as long as it was freestyle he was good at it. He could swim any distance well. Gardner is a little different, he has trouble turning it over for a 200, he doesn’t have those fast twitch muscles.
Most versatile freestyler in MIAA history.
-
@silentp wrote:
@Stevo wrote:
slagh was a hoss, no matter what distance as long as it was freestyle he was good at it. He could swim any distance well. Gardner is a little different, he has trouble turning it over for a 200, he doesn’t have those fast twitch muscles.
Most versatile freestyler in MIAA history.
Recent history at least.
I’d say some of the early 1990s Hope guys like Brad Genson, Kirk Assink, Steve Hope, etc. were of similar versatility. -
It’s tough to argue that a guy who has been faster than Assink in the 50, 100 and 200 and within a second of him in the 500 and the 1,000 wouldn’t be the most versatile freestyler Hope has seen. I say that only because I don’t think Assink could churn out a 21.1 or 45.5 when needed. It’s also interesting that Slagh’s 9:44’s were in dual and quad meets. Assink’s marks were from rest meets. Interesting to think what Slagh could have been in the mile.
-
-
Assink was consistently a 45 mid on relays. In 1995 he reeled in (the school record holder at the time) Paul Blowers in the 400 Medley, probably made up more than a full second. So Slagh was faster in the 100, they were even in the 200, and Assink was better in the 500. It is reasonable to assume that Slagh was faster in the 50, and Assink was better in the mile. Sounds like a wash?
-
Cheadle your last posts begs the question, if the two are a wash, who would you rather have? The answer is Brian Slagh.
21.1 vs ?
45.6 vs 45 mid on a relay
140.5 vs 140.8
433.0 vs 432.0
944 vs 943There is greater value to a swimmer that swims shorter distances. Not to mention the fact that Slagh’s impressive 1,000, like noted before, came from an inseason swim, unlike Assink’s rested out in the mile.
-
@Happy Madison wrote:
Cheadle your last posts begs the question, if the two are a wash, who would you rather have? The answer is Brian Slagh.
21.1 vs ?
45.6 vs 45 mid on a relay
140.5 vs 140.8
433.0 vs 432.0
944 vs 943There is greater value to a swimmer that swims shorter distances. Not to mention the fact that Slagh’s impressive 1,000, like noted before, came from an inseason swim, unlike Assink’s rested out in the mile.
I agree I would rather have Slagh. BUT, Assink swam 8 years before Slagh. He wore paper suits, there was no such thing as protein bars and creatine (not saying that Slagh used either, I have no idea). Assink was one of the top 10 swimmers in D3 at his time. How much do you factor that in?
-
@DonCheadle wrote:
Assink was one of the top 10 swimmers in D3 at his time. How much do you factor that in?
I factor it in hugely.
“Who was faster” only works for people that swam at the same time.
Otherwise I’m a better breaststroker than the olympic champions of the 1950s (and I’m not).
-
@miller wrote:
Otherwise I’m a better breaststroker than the olympic champions of the 1950s (and I’m not).
Yes you are.
-
-
@Derek wrote:
He is, but who would you rather meet? (With all due respect to miller, who is really cool.)
Miller
-
Performance at Nationals
Freshman:
Assink – 9th Mile; 11th 500 free
Slagh
Sophomore:
Assink – 5th 200 free; 6th 500 free
Slagh – 7th 200 free; 11th 500 free; 13th 500 freeJunior:
Assink – 2nd 200 free; 4th 500 free; 9th mile
Slagh – 5th 100 free; 7th 200 free; 16th MileSenior:
Assink – 4th 200 free; 4th 500 free; 4th Mile
Slagh – 8th 200 free; 14th 50 free; 15th 100 freeWho would you rather have?
-
-
-
@Monkey Boy wrote:
Performance at Nationals
Freshman:
Assink – 9th Mile; 11th 500 free
Slagh
Sophomore:
Assink – 5th 200 free; 6th 500 free
Slagh – 7th 200 free; 11th 500 free; 13th 500 freeJunior:
Assink – 2nd 200 free; 4th 500 free; 9th mile
Slagh – 5th 100 free; 7th 200 free; 16th MileSenior:
Assink – 4th 200 free; 4th 500 free; 4th Mile
Slagh – 8th 200 free; 14th 50 free; 15th 100 freeWho would you rather have?
While both very impressive, the numbers would show Assink by quite a ways, but it must be remembered that in the days of Assink, the majority of D1 and D2 schools still had teams, and D3 wasn’t what it is today… just my perspective.
-
@silentp wrote:
@Monkey Boy wrote:
Performance at Nationals
Freshman:
Assink – 9th Mile; 11th 500 free
Slagh
Sophomore:
Assink – 5th 200 free; 6th 500 free
Slagh – 7th 200 free; 11th 500 free; 13th 500 freeJunior:
Assink – 2nd 200 free; 4th 500 free; 9th mile
Slagh – 5th 100 free; 7th 200 free; 16th MileSenior:
Assink – 4th 200 free; 4th 500 free; 4th Mile
Slagh – 8th 200 free; 14th 50 free; 15th 100 freeWho would you rather have?
While both very impressive, the numbers would show Assink by quite a ways, but it must be remembered that in the days of Assink, the majority of D1 and D2 schools still had teams, and D3 wasn’t what it is today… just my perspective.
I think the best D3 swimmers of Assink’s era (early 1990s) were roughly equivalent to the best D3 swimmers of today’s era if you compared their times to D1 times.
The mere fact that there have been Senior National cuts at D3 at roughly the same pace for the past 10 years supports my theory.
The names change, the times keep getting faster, but I don’t think D3 has changed that much (as compared to D1) since Assink swam.
10 years ago (or was it 9?) we had Brett Robbins with an olympic trial cut in the 100 fly and he got third in his event. That’s not that different than a Boss vs. Cole showdown in the 100 breast where 2 guys are at a senior-cut level in their events a few years ago or the current day.
My point is the only fair way to rank swimmers from mulitple periods of time is by how well they competed against their peers at that time.
-
@miller wrote:
My point is the only fair way to rank swimmers from mulitple periods of time is by how well they competed against their peers at that time.
agreed, but i would argue that though it may not be faster at the top, d3 is deeper than it used to be. you’re always going to have studs at the top who go really fast, but the events have gotten much harder to consol in recent years.
-
@miller wrote:
My point is the only fair way to rank swimmers from mulitple periods of time is by how well they competed against their peers at that time.
Perhaps some sort of deathmatch (in a cage or other exciting apparatus)would work?
-
Yeah there was a time when if you manged to get selected for the meet and maybe went within 2 tenths of your time in say the 100 breast you were going to score. Not so much anymore. The depth is really amazing now. In 2004 there were maybe three guys that went 20 point in the 50, this year we had what about 19 of them. Remarkable.
-
About Slagh’s versatility and so forth. I also know that he missed the wall on his finish when he went 21.19. He would have easily broken 21.
Of course, I had a coach that used to say, “could woulda shoulda” when someone would boast a hypothetical time like that but somehow I don’t doubt Slagh coulda shoulda woulda been well under 21 that year.
I bet you guys didn’t know Chris Sabo went to your swim meets.
-
@Chris Sabo wrote:
About Slagh’s versatility and so forth. I also know that he missed the wall on his finish when he went 21.19. He would have easily broken 21.
Of course, I had a coach that used to say, “could woulda shoulda” when someone would boast a hypothetical time like that but somehow I don’t doubt Slagh coulda shoulda woulda been well under 21 that year.
I bet you guys didn’t know Chris Sabo went to your swim meets.
I am with your coach, i hate coulda shoulda woulda crap.
-
Miller wrote:
My point is the only fair way to rank swimmers from mulitple periods of time is by how well they competed against their peers at that time.
Obviously there are going to be flaws in this as well. There is not a way that everyone will agree on that works when comparing swimmers of yesteryear to swimmers of today. Or even swimmers from different eras. The funny thing about this particular debate is that had Slagh been a year younger (theoretically he would have moved down in terms of placement at NCAAs a year later with the same times) his placing would have been significantly better than when he swam. His times would have placed him 2nd in the 100 Free, 3rd in the 200 Free and 4th in the 500 Free at the 2004 NCAA meet. Instead, he was a year older and happened to face better competition a year earlier and thus is being knocked down a peg because of it. If he were a year younger and his places at Nats mirrored those of Assink and then you take into consideration he scored in more events than Assink without actually swimming the mile (where one can easily debate he would have scored and scored quite well) then one may Sway back towards Slagh as a more versatile freestyler.
“Who was faster” only works for people that swam at the same time.
I also have to disagree with that statement. We have clocks and timing systems to determine who is faster. I would agree with that statement had the word ‘better’ been in place of ‘faster.’
-
@facenorth wrote:
“Who was faster” only works for people that swam at the same time.
I also have to disagree with that statement. We have clocks and timing systems to determine who is faster. I would agree with that statement had the word ‘better’ been in place of ‘faster.’
Darn good point. I agree.
-
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.