Misty Hyman at Nationals

Misty Hyman at Nationals

Post by John L. Mage » Fri, 16 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>     Furthering her swims from this summer at the Speedo Grand Prix in
> Phoenix, at Ft. Lauderdale Nationals, Misty Hyman won the 200 Fly in
> 2:10.95. Does anyone know if she is tapered? Lenny Krazelburg won the
> 200 back in 1:59.35, and so far, other than that, more or less the
> times at Nationals have been slow. Wonder why Steve West didn't swim
> the 200 *** at Seniors? Tom Wilkens won the men's 200 *** in
> 2:15, and Annemieke McReynolds won the women's in 2:29. It will be
> interesting to see how Misty does in the 100 fly. Would be interesting
> to see if she beats the medal times from the Olympics.
> ----Josh----

Lea Loveless went 2:11 something in prelims, 2:12 in finals (200 back).  Both
would have gotton silver in Atlanta.  (Sorry I don't remember the hundreths
and the USS website is down at the moment).  The 100 back was historically her
better event ... look for it.  She is 25 this year, but Angel M. has shown us
that 29 is not too old!  (Like Jenny Thompson, her meet at trials was one of her
worst ever.  But somehow she got NO mention as a former Olympian who missed out
this year (1992, bronze in 100 back, gold in medley relay setting still current
American record of 100.82)).

Regards,

Valerie Magee

 
 
 

Misty Hyman at Nationals

Post by Josh Jeffre » Fri, 16 Aug 1996 04:00:00

    Furthering her swims from this summer at the Speedo Grand Prix in
Phoenix, at Ft. Lauderdale Nationals, Misty Hyman won the 200 Fly in
2:10.95. Does anyone know if she is tapered? Lenny Krazelburg won the
200 back in 1:59.35, and so far, other than that, more or less the
times at Nationals have been slow. Wonder why Steve West didn't swim
the 200 *** at Seniors? Tom Wilkens won the men's 200 *** in
2:15, and Annemieke McReynolds won the women's in 2:29. It will be
interesting to see how Misty does in the 100 fly. Would be interesting
to see if she beats the medal times from the Olympics.
----Josh----

 
 
 

Misty Hyman at Nationals

Post by Brent S. Rusha » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>>     Furthering her swims from this summer at the Speedo Grand Prix
in
>> Phoenix, at Ft. Lauderdale Nationals, Misty Hyman won the 200 Fly
in
>> 2:10.95. Does anyone know if she is tapered? Lenny Krazelburg won
the
>> 200 back in 1:59.35, and so far, other than that, more or less the
>> times at Nationals have been slow. Wonder why Steve West didn't
swim
>> the 200 *** at Seniors? Tom Wilkens won the men's 200 *** in
>> 2:15, and Annemieke McReynolds won the women's in 2:29. It will be
>> interesting to see how Misty does in the 100 fly. Would be
interesting
>> to see if she beats the medal times from the Olympics.
>> ----Josh----

>Lea Loveless went 2:11 something in prelims, 2:12 in finals (200
back).  Both
>would have gotton silver in Atlanta.  (Sorry I don't remember the
hundreths
>and the USS website is down at the moment).  The 100 back was
historically her
>better event ... look for it.  She is 25 this year, but Angel M. has
shown us
>that 29 is not too old!  (Like Jenny Thompson, her meet at trials was
one of her
>worst ever.  But somehow she got NO mention as a former Olympian who
missed out
>this year (1992, bronze in 100 back, gold in medley relay setting
still current
>American record of 100.82)).

>Regards,

>Valerie Magee

=====================================================

There are some positive things coming out of the US Nationals at this
time.

The depth of quality in a considerable number of events, particularly
among the women, is very encouraging.  For example, at the Olympics 13
of 16 finalists went under 4:50 for 400 IM.  At the nationals 7 of 8
finalists performed similarly.

Since those swimming at nationals are essentially the remainder of US
swimmers, that is the second stringers, there still are times being
posted which would have made Olympic finals.  Anyone care to do the
comparative calculations of where the US National's finals' swimmers'
times would have placed if they had been performed in the Olympics?

Internationally, there is some stirring and discussion about allowing
three per nation to compete again in the Olympics provided VERY SEVERE
qualifying times are met.  Some of the US Nationals results could be
used to show that the Olympics did not showcase the cream of the
world's swimmers.

With regard to the Olympics, if my memory serves me correctly, this is
the slowest Olympics in the post-WWII era.  Fewer world and Olympic
records were set than in any previous Olympics of the era.  Some
champions repeated as winners in 1996 with times slower than were swum
in 1992.

Strange things are happening across the world to slow swimmers down.  
Might the chemists have an answer?