Gary Hall Jr. > Message Board > Sprinting and Distance

Part 2

I mention Mark Schubert again in this follow up, but I don't want to make this a big deal. I am simply defending the group of which I am a member. The point of the previous newsletter was that the "who's better/tougher?" attitude needs to come to an end. We need to work together to promote the sport of swimming. In the end that's what we all are, swimmers. It doesn't matter to me if you are a distance swimmer or a sprinter, or what nationality you happen to be. A contributor to the sport of swimming isn't measured by the distance they swim.

"It's just easier (to train for the sprint events)," says Schubert, who coached Goodell and Evans and who will coach the U.S. women in Athens. "As human beings we tend to drift to what's easier whether it's good for us or not. It seems to be a national disease."

Schubert, who sees in swimming "a war between the fast-food thinkers and the big-picture thinkers," would like to eliminate the 50 freestyle events from competitions and to require all young swimmers to train for race distances of 200 meters and above.

-USA TODAY

Check out the USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/olyglory/2003-06-04-distance_x.htm

This is the quote from the USA Today article. It's not a flattering portrayal of sprinters, to be sure. I understand the arguments, and I know that it is the responsibility of a coach to get as much out of their swimmers as possible, and that sometimes means a coaching mantra of "more, more, more...", but at what cost?

Jim Novakoff pointed out the shoulder subluxation epidemic in USS programs. Yet, these same clubs are being accused of not enough distance training. I cringe when I hear about a sixteen year old that has already had shoulder surgery. Instead of giving them the option to sprint some people would rather do away with the sprints and the swimmer who can't hack it, giving many a long lasting sense of failure, and bitterness towards the sport.

I don't want this to become a personal thing with Mark because I like him, and respect his ability to coach and push his athletes. He is a tough coach, everyone can admit, and his swimmers are tough. Those that can "survive" the program are guaranteed results. How many of them have shoulder problems, even his best?

People talk about the natural ability of sprinters. But I've never heard anyone talk about how the distance swimmers have freakish shoulders that can withstand 16 years of daily abuse. Isn't that natural ability, an ability that very few have?

At a certain level in distance swimming, it comes down to this, how much your shoulder can withstand, not work ethic. Ask any kid that has huge bags of ice strapped to their shoulders after every practice (there are a few on every team in USS) if they aren't breaking the world record because they aren't working hard enough. You'll see that sadness, that sense of failure.

Distance swimmers and sprinters are both swimmers first and foremost. More exposure for the sport is more exposure for everyone. (See the Baltimore Bullet/Tiger Woods comparison in the message board section). We need to work together to promote the sport. As a sport, the inability to market swimming outside of the Olympics is our greatest failure, especially when one takes into account the overwhelming popularity during the Games

What? do-we-do?

Generations of swimmers have discussed this problem and how to remedy the situation. Sitting in hotel rooms at meets discussing their frustration with the lull after Olympic bonanza? Why the stall? Everyone involved in the top level of swimming has an opinion on this. It's easy to blame the sprinters, it's easy to blame college swimming, it's easy to blame United States Swimming. Sprinters suck. College swimming is a distracting, financial safety net for coaches, offering a NCAA format that favors sprinting. And why hasn't USS provided more opportunities for swimmers in between Olympics, those small minded controllers of the sport? It's easy to pass the blame, to damn them all, those torpedoes!

The reader, if having made it this far, may expect a scathing review of United States Swimming from me, given my reputation for not going with the USS current. Though in the past I have criticized the organization in many hotel rooms across the world, I have come to the realization that United States Swimming does an excellent job at fulfilling its mantra.

This is a recent realization for me. You see, and I for many years did not see, it's not USS's responsibility to fund swimmers. It's not their responsibility to create events between Olympics and World Championships. Think of baseball, or hockey. There is United States Hockey. There is United States Baseball. These organizations are created to participate in the Olympics and the World Championships or whatever event they have. Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League are different, separate organizations, that pay their athletes.

My frustration was in trying to figure out how to change USS to a more professional organization, that would offer better support to the swimmers that have given so much to the sport. United States Basketball dominates at the Olympics, drawing their talent from the NBA, the professional organization. There doesn't need to be a competition between the two. USS does an excellent job of sending a team to the Olympics, and World Champs, and Pan Ams, Pan Pacs, and World University Games, which is what they're supposed to do. Anything that they do above and beyond is ambitious.

And I hear the echoes of those hotel conversations, "Oh, but they go out to a sponsor and get money from this sponsor and the sponsor thinks that they are doing something worthwhile because they are supporting the Olympic Dream, when in reality the are supporting a staff of close to 60, within the USS level and who knows how many at the USOC level, and Santa knows how many at the IOC level..." and " It's a trickle down theory. The IOC is supposed to give to the USOC and every other countries Olympic Committee, after skimming the top. Then the OC's are supposed to give to the National Governing Bodies, after covering their boards and committees expenses and salaries, then the NGB's have their expenses and salaries, and you're talking about every sport in every country. By the time it reaches the athlete, it's third class travel to major competitions and if you're lucky, some money. But usually the well is dry by this time. "

You know, the guy that invented the trickle down theory has admitted that it doesn't work. I know that in the pitch to an Olympic sponsor the idea of supporting the Olympic Dream of athletes is discussed with some reverence. I may be a fool, but even a fool knows that there is more to it than just this. A sponsor wants exposure. And the Olympics provide that.

According to the IOC, announced at the 2000 Games, 3.7 billion people watch the Olympic Games. Only 3.9 billion have access to television. That is some platform. Then it hit me, that is how these sponsors support the Olympic Dream, the stage. I always knew that a lot goes into the setup of an Olympic Games, the security alone!

Despite some scandal and some very pompous diplomats, the Olympic movement is grand, in every sense of the word. They do their job and we do ours. We need them as much as they need us. If we want something in addition to the Olympic Games we are going to have to create it ourselves.

It's up to us, the fast food thinkers and the fast twitch challenged, the coaches and the assistant coaches, the swimmers of tomorrow and yesterday to create our own opportunities. It's easy to sit in a hotel room and get worked up over the inefficiencies of a huge organization, or the work ethic of the lazy. What can we do? How can I help create better opportunities for swimmers?

Introducing: Race Club.