2017 Speedo Grand Challenge
- Friday, May 26th – Sunday, May 28th
- 50-Meter Course
- William Woollett Junior Aquatics Center Pool (Irvine, CA)
- Meet Info
- Live Results
The 2017 Speedo Grand Challenge kicked off today in Irvine, California. Swimmers gathered to compete in the women’s 200 IM, 50 free, 100 breast, and 400 free, as well as the men’s 200 free, 100 breast, and 200 IM. Read on for highlights from today’s events.
U.S. Olympian Abbey Weitzeil went head-to-head with fellow Cal All-Americans Farida Osman and Amy Bilquist in the 50 free. Weitzeil out-touched her teammates in a very tight finish, winning in 25.35 ahead of Osman (25.49) and Bilquist (25.50). Following closely for 4th was Trojan Swim Club’s Kendyl Stewart (25.71).
The men’s 200 free saw a battle between 2 international Olympians and Trojan teammates: Cristian Quintero and Dylan Carter. Through the halfway point, they were separated by jsut a tenth, with Quintero leading in 52.72. He was able to extend his lead through the back half, touching in 1:48.77 while Carter followed in 1:49.12. Also finishing in the top 4 were Auburn’s Zach Apple (1:50.88) and NOVA’s Justin Nguyen (1:52.22).
USC All-American Riley Scott won a pair of golds on day 1. Scott got the ball rolling in the 200 IM, where she cranked out a 2:15.33 to finish 2 seconds ahead of the field. She returned shortly after that for the 100 breast, putting up a 1:08.80 to out-touch Texas A&M’s Jorie Caneta (1:09.03) and Cal’s Marina Garcia (1:09.08).
Additional Event Winners:
- Men’s 100 Breast- Connor Hoppe, Cal, 1:02.87
- Women’s 400 Free- Katie McLaughlin, Cal, 4:13.53
- Men’s 200 IM- Brock Bonetti, Texas A&M, 2:05.47
Considering Sjostrom goes a second faster than that 50 free doing butterfly, US women have their work cut out for them.
Americans are no where near rested here. Simone is also not here who is our top sprinter and goes faster than SS 50 Fly…
No worries about Simone Manuel. Even if her season last year was different because she didn’t swim in NCAA and was focused on long course so no taper meet in March like this year but it’s still interesting to compare. 24.66/53.66 in Mesa 2017 vs 24.78/53.80 in Mesa 2016 and 24.73/53.75 in Atlanta early May 2017 vs 25.21/54.11 in Atlanta mid May 2016. She was in 25.20/53.75 in Santa Clara early June last year. Then 24.33/53.52 at olympic trials and finished the season in Rio in 24.09/52.70.
Abbey Weitzeil had no NCAA championships in March last year too so maybe she is at a different point of training this year but the numbers tell us that in 25.35 she… Read more »
Sad to see such a talented swimmer fall behind. Not the first time we’ve seen this and won’t be the last. Too many hungry swimmers ready to take her spot
Have you ever changed the place and program of your training? Do you have any information on her current state of training to say for sure she is behind where she should be? Changing technique, in a different phase relative to what she used to do this time of year? “Observer” is an interesting chosen title considering you are taking this on face value with little more thought put into it, perhaps casual observer?
If it wasn’t that health issue incident at Pac-12 and the following unsuccessful tapered performance at NCAA then I would accept your arguments without any worries. What caused it wasn’t explained and therefore there is no surety that this problem is gone and has no effect on her performance any more. Her current results don’t make me confident with that. When i see her on the deck I don’t see in her that determination and confidence that i used to and that bothers me. But maybe it is just my imagination.
Its pretty clear that with the sub par performances thus far that Abbey is not close to where she was a year ago, and although not predictive, it certainly does not indicate great results are in store.
Yes, she changed programs but the adaptation should have occurred by now. I dont see her making World team.
in mid-May 2016
i dont see your point at all . Irrelevant
Completely relevant to the aforementioned comments. Sorry you cant see a perfectly explicated point.