Reply To: Ran a little experiment
Not sure how “scientific” we were? Two old guys with stopwatches.But it is what each one of us faces on a daily basis at practice.
I agree I don’t think that the swimmers intentionally are cheating. Just that the ability to judge time can be rough for some and then each has a “fudge” factor they add in. i.e. my guys I’ve noticed will give themselves .05, and still call that a make. We time to the 100th so, 31.29 is read as 129, so if they hear 134 they consider it a make.
I also agree with asking them their time and then presenting them with what you got. If you stop and think about it that time represents a lot of information. The more consistent that time is the higher degree of better or more reliable turn speeds, underwater work and breakouts, etc. And they need to know that.
The reason I did it was coaches are trying to apply USRPT to race performance, which they should. But just be aware of the “self-timing” that is prescribed in the bulletins have some draw backs in accuracy. You think when they report makes/misses it’s from a say 31.1 and they really have been in the 31.6 range and now they just went from 2:04 to a 2:06 in the 200, might need to develop a “fudge” factor for coaches with regards to predicting race performances and USRPT sets.
We start when they drop under or roughly when feet leave the wall and have used this for over 20+ years. The kids get all over lanes that drop early. The key is being consistent.
"Only in America. Dream in red, white and blue"