PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Article in the WA Post about the suits



swimshark
August 26th, 2009, 09:20 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503048.html

Some quotes from our own members here :)

tjrpatt
August 26th, 2009, 09:46 AM
I have to agree when I wore the Tyr tracer light legskin at Indy, it really helped my bad knee stay compressed. Of course, the Jakeds and Arenas, LZRs, B70 really need to go. Swimming Records aren't to supposed to move like the stock exchange.

jim thornton
August 26th, 2009, 10:02 AM
Great article, pithy and informative. I still don't know how the manufacturers can keep going just based on a masters population, only a portion of whom compete, and only a portion of whom compete wear body suits.

John C Smith
August 26th, 2009, 12:23 PM
Apparently all our arguing about the suits for masters is getting some attention.... :-)

lefty
August 26th, 2009, 12:52 PM
Apparently all our arguing about the suits for masters is getting some attention.... :-)

This forum really is quite popular and I wouldn't be surprised at all if swim suit companies use this site for marketing research. Kind of a stretch but I noticed Aquablades have gone up in price recently. There have been a few good reviews of them in this forum including one by me. Did I contribute to the price increase?!?!

gull
August 26th, 2009, 01:29 PM
Of course, the Jakeds and Arenas, LZRs, B70 really need to go. Swimming Records aren't to supposed to move like the stock exchange.

Why must they go? The records have already been broken. Now we are talking about placing asterisks beside them. The currently available suits are not going to produce faster and faster times indefinitely. Since FINA did not step up and ban the full body suits in 2000, what they should do now is simply place restrictions on the technology.

stillwater
August 26th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Why must they go?

Cause FINA said so.

Dolphin 2
August 26th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Regarding the can of worms that "suit technology" has opened up, FINA should just TIVO back to the Mark Spitz era in the early 70s and what was legal then will be legal now -and for the foreseeable future. :agree:

Dolphin 2

thewookiee
August 26th, 2009, 01:42 PM
Cause FINA said so.

The FINA Masters Techincal group hasn't banned them for masters.

Midas
August 26th, 2009, 01:42 PM
While I fully support adhering to the same standard as "real" swimmers (of which I would like to consider myself), I suppose a full-body textile suit (with zippers) is a fair compromise for masters swimmers. I won't buy one, but I don't really feel that those suits give a significant advantage over shaving. I'm young(ish) and don't mind shaving but maybe someday I will. There are definitely older guys on my team that loathe the idea of shaving.

The big problem I see is that full-body textile suits will likely cost a fortune, as there will be a small market for them and I fear the wetsuit manufacturers (B70, Jaked, etc.) will exit the market. Also, last time I checked those suits do not last very long. In that regard it is unfortunate to lose the B70s since mine lasted for almost two years and many races and was well worth the money.

I'm probably going to plunk down the $80 for one of the new LZR Trainer briefs and use that as my big meet racing suit going forward. Even that is pretty outrageous when you think about it...

Midas
August 26th, 2009, 01:50 PM
Great article, pithy and informative. I still don't know how the manufacturers can keep going just based on a masters population, only a portion of whom compete, and only a portion of whom compete wear body suits.

As long as they're not innovating new suits (and why would they), I'm sure that Speedo could keep manufacturing existing fastskins for the masters community. Unless they were getting massive economies of scale from producing them in high quantities, I wouldn't expect them to be all that much more expensive than they are now...

Tim L
August 26th, 2009, 02:02 PM
I don't really find the "body coverage/girdle" reason for USMS allowing tech suits very compelling because surely everyone practices in traditional suits and isn't bothered by that. It seems like a lame excuse to allow them and I am surprised that anyone in the USMS hierarchy would bring that "body coverage" as a good reason to keep the tech suits. I am fine with masters swimmers continuing to wear the suits, but just come out and say we like going fast and unlike the rest of the swimming world we can't handle going backwards.

Tim

gull
August 26th, 2009, 02:10 PM
I am fine with masters swimmers continuing to wear the suits, but just come out and say we like going fast and unlike the rest of the swimming world we can't handle going backwards.

We can handle it just fine--it's called aging--but some of us just don't think the FINA decision makes much sense.

tjrpatt
August 26th, 2009, 02:51 PM
Why must they go? The records have already been broken. Now we are talking about placing asterisks beside them. The currently available suits are not going to produce faster and faster times indefinitely. Since FINA did not step up and ban the full body suits in 2000, what they should do now is simply place restrictions on the technology.

I don't have the problem with the records staying as is. There are some records that were actually broken without a JakedArenaLZRB70 suit. Of course, who knows what was broken with what suit. You can't put an asterisk if you didn't put what suit you were going to be wearing in the entry form or told it to the timer before hand.

Tim L
August 26th, 2009, 03:18 PM
We can handle it just fine--it's called aging--but some of us just don't think the FINA decision makes much sense.

Maybe "handle" isn't the right word, but I would imagine most masters swimmers would prefer to not add the time and that is the primary reason for USMS might not following suit. I just can't imagine that wearing tech suits for the slimming girdle effect or even avoiding skin cancer is the reason why USMS should keep tech suits. We can all handle aging because we have no choice and we can handle it equally as well with or without tech suits. Let's just be honest about why we want to keep them.

Tim

aquageek
August 26th, 2009, 03:51 PM
... but just come out and say we like going fast and unlike the rest of the swimming world we can't handle going backwards.

Tim

I'm not aware of any sport that chooses going backwards as its preferred go-forward plan.

gull
August 26th, 2009, 03:59 PM
I'm not aware of any sport that chooses going backwards as its preferred go-forward plan.

Sometimes the NFL teams wear their "throwback" jerseys.

Chris Stevenson
August 26th, 2009, 04:09 PM
I was pleased to see the mainstream media focus on the masters response to the suits. And a fairly balanced article too; many articles about the suit don't seem to be very complimentary to the sport but this one seemed okay.

But unlike Tom, I was surprised to see the bit about added knee stability. I've had 4 knee surgeries and this was news to me, I didn't feel any better (ie more stable) with or without the legskins. I'd love to hear different experiences from others.

Now, if they can make a suit that turns me into a great breaststroker...that's technology that I would like to see!

Update FYI: Coach Jim Miller -- who is also my doctor -- stated that none of these suits provide any joint stabilization. So I guess I won't be wearing a LZR for downhill skiing...

Tim L
August 26th, 2009, 04:23 PM
I'm not aware of any sport that chooses going backwards as its preferred go-forward plan.

...other than FINA/USS/NCAA regulated swimming. I agree with you with regard to USMS, but our leadership should just say that rather then making it sound like we want to keep the suits because we are an organization of geriatrics that needs our loose skin and flab tucked in and extra skin cancer protection, etc. If those things were true, we would wear full body suits to practice.

Tim

stillwater
August 26th, 2009, 05:42 PM
The FINA Masters Techincal group hasn't banned them for masters.

You forgot to place in the word "yet".

Allen Stark
August 26th, 2009, 06:02 PM
I was pleased to see the mainstream media focus on the masters response to the suits. And a fairly balanced article too; many articles about the suit don't seem to be very complimentary to the sport but this one seemed okay.

But unlike Tom, I was surprised to see the bit about added knee stability. I've had 4 knee surgeries and this was news to me, I didn't feel any better (ie more stable) with or without the legskins. I'd love to hear different experiences from others.

Now, if they can make a suit that turns me into a great breaststroker...that's technology that I would like to see!

Update FYI: Coach Jim Miller -- who is also my doctor -- stated that none of these suits provide any joint stabilization. So I guess I won't be wearing a LZR for downhill skiing...

Obviously you forgot to turn the knob on the back from "long axis" to "breaststroke before swimming.(That takes some practice to do in the middle of an IM.)After all ,these suits do swim by themselves.

The Fortress
August 26th, 2009, 06:42 PM
I was pleased to see the mainstream media focus on the masters response to the suits. And a fairly balanced article too; many articles about the suit don't seem to be very complimentary to the sport but this one seemed okay.


I thought the article was meh, though our existence is acknowledged, I guess. :) There was still some implicit anti-suit bias (e.g., we want to go faster and "don't care how" or some such phrasing). And it made us seem almost ridiculously fragile -- dislocating a shoulder putting on a suit?! What about racing? The "moral" stuff is just beyond tedious to me ...

I never realized zippers were such a hot topic for us geezers. I thought the Arena X-Glides with no zipper that, for example, Rebecca Soni wore looked just dandy.

John C Smith
August 26th, 2009, 09:36 PM
....And it made us seem almost ridiculously fragile -- dislocating a shoulder putting on a suit?! ....


Speak for yourself.

After a hip fracture, arthritis in my kneck and recent shoulder surgery I think "fragile" is probably a good description of my athleticism in recent years.


John Smith

Chris Stevenson
August 26th, 2009, 11:08 PM
There was still some implicit anti-suit bias

I don't know, they seemed to give more attention to reasons to keep the suits than not.

Maui Mike
August 27th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Suits legal (but only for masters).

Drugs not (for everyone).

Spock
August 27th, 2009, 03:48 AM
Suits legal (but only for masters).

Drugs not (for everyone).

+1

Keep them for masters. They're fun. If you don't like them, don't use them.

David Williams
August 27th, 2009, 07:26 AM
I live in the Washington area, and I cringed when I saw the article. I take a bit of pride being associated with masters swimming, but this article, and the fact that masters swimmers are debating this issue I find embarrassing.

Just to offer one more person's perspective: FINA banned the suits because they provide advantages deemed inappropriate for swimming competition - the same concept that outlaws wetsuits. To me that says it all.

It is called "Masters Swimming" - meaning (real) swimming competition for masters athletes. Its not called "Masters Aqua Games", or some other name that would acknowledge that we are really a beer league.... something separate and fundamentally different than "actual" competitive swimming.

thewookiee
August 27th, 2009, 07:57 AM
You forgot to place in the word "yet".

Nope, sure didn't forget. They may or the may not ban them. None of us know.

swimshark
August 27th, 2009, 08:02 AM
I live in the Washington area, and I cringed when I saw the article. I take a bit of pride being associated with masters swimming, but this article, and the fact that masters swimmers are debating this issue I find embarrassing.

Just to offer one more person's perspective: FINA banned the suits because they provide advantages deemed inappropriate for swimming competition - the same concept that outlaws wetsuits. To me that says it all.

It is called "Masters Swimming" - meaning (real) swimming competition for masters athletes. Its not called "Masters Aqua Games", or some other name that would acknowledge that we are really a beer league.... something separate and fundamentally different than "actual" competitive swimming.

I'm with you. I found the article to be very downward looking on us. It make us seem like a bunch of ninnies out there. The first part that got me was saying that we are "non-elite" swimmers. There is a better way of describing why our organization is called Masters. Masters just means we are over the age of 18 - simple as that. I find there are many elite Masters swimmers. The excuses the article used as to why some want to use the suits made us sounds like people who need to tuck in skin, hold joints together and worry about skin cancer. Not a good light to portray us at all.

Chris Stevenson
August 27th, 2009, 08:14 AM
Keep them for masters. They're fun. If you don't like them, don't use them.

One argument I often hear (from men) about the body suits is that they don't like to shave.

So I offer your own argument in response. Textile jammers only, like the rest of mainstream swimming. If you don't want to shave, don't do it.

Tim L
August 27th, 2009, 09:24 AM
I live in the Washington area, and I cringed when I saw the article. I take a bit of pride being associated with masters swimming, but this article, and the fact that masters swimmers are debating this issue I find embarrassing.

Just to offer one more person's perspective: FINA banned the suits because they provide advantages deemed inappropriate for swimming competition - the same concept that outlaws wetsuits. To me that says it all.

It is called "Masters Swimming" - meaning (real) swimming competition for masters athletes. Its not called "Masters Aqua Games", or some other name that would acknowledge that we are really a beer league.... something separate and fundamentally different than "actual" competitive swimming.

I cringed as well. I opened the link expecting a well reasoned article one way or the other on the issue and was met with something quite different and odd quotes from our leadership. I would also prefer that USMS follow the rules of FINA (whatever those end up being) so that our records/sport are not viewed as a beer league as you call it.

However, if USMS leadership and a vast majority of its members don't want to follow FINA suit rules, then we should be very clear that we are not following FINA's rules because we like going fast and not going backwards, we can afford it, and our organization is about people having fun and choice in how we swim. In that case, maybe we should just open it up to wetsuits and suit stacking as well. Beer leagues can be fun, but not going with FINA's rules would change USMS to something different than what it is currently. Maybe USMS can attract some of the elite swimmers to wear rubber suits at our nationals and our USMS records can be faster than existing world records (if FINA wipes out all the existing rubber suit records). Perhaps, USMS can become (or sponsor) that professional swim league that someone thought would be a good idea a few months ago and USMS can remarket itself as kind of a swimming circus sideshow.

Tim

tjrpatt
August 27th, 2009, 10:07 AM
One argument I often hear (from men) about the body suits is that they don't like to shave.

So I offer your own argument in response. Textile jammers only, like the rest of mainstream swimming. If you don't want to shave, don't do it.


I don't get that argument because alot of the elite swimmers are still doing a full shave with the new suits. With the textile suits, the hairs go through the suit so you still have to shave.

gull
August 27th, 2009, 11:04 AM
Beer leagues can be fun, but not going with FINA's rules would change USMS to something different than what it is currently.

I don't see how this would be the case. I mean, what exactly are we currently? Only a fraction of the membership compete, and those that do are not even required to show proof of qualifying times for national championships. What it would show is that we are capable of independent and progressive thinking.

resqme
August 27th, 2009, 11:06 AM
As I approach 50 years of age - I too am, and always have been VERY self conscious about my body and I do not see any issue with allowing Masters swimmers the option of a full-body suit or not - as long as they are textile. I personally don't believe the full body textile suits give ANY (or at least very little) advantage other than a mental aspect of faster swimming, but as an ever aging athlete (which we all are), I would prefer to cover up a bit more than when I was younger. In fact if I could afford to wear a full-body suit in practice, I would (not really, but it sounded good).

I don't agree with the statement that if USMS has different suit rulings that it would create a scenario that we are a beer league of swimming. I think as long as we create rulings that prohibit the same materials as what FINA is proposing then we are still keeping the intent of the law intact. But I would at least like to see USMS change their rulings back to being able to wear two suits in competition, I personally get a rush when I get a good time wearing drag suits in competition.

Ken Classen
August 27th, 2009, 11:22 AM
The big problem I see is that full-body textile suits will likely cost a fortune, as there will be a small market for them and I fear the wetsuit manufacturers (B70, Jaked, etc.) will exit the market. Also, last time I checked those suits do not last very long. In that regard it is unfortunate to lose the B70s since mine lasted for almost two years and many races and was well worth the money.

If you look at the history of Blue Seventy there first market was triathletes. The Nero evolved from a swim skin for warm water triathlons where the wetsuits were not allowed. So they already had a market, competitive pool swimming became icing on the cake. I can only make an educated guess, however based on there history and if masters keep the suits legal, I believe B70 will still manufacture as between Triís and Masters it may still be enough of a market.


It is called "Masters Swimming" - meaning (real) swimming competition for masters athletes. Its not called "Masters Aqua Games", or some other name that would acknowledge that we are really a beer league.... something separate and fundamentally different than "actual" competitive swimming.

Beer league sounds good to me. :)

Tim L
August 27th, 2009, 12:23 PM
I don't see how this would be the case. I mean, what exactly are we currently? Only a fraction of the membership compete, and those that do are not even required to show proof of qualifying times for national championships. What it would show is that we are capable of independent and progressive thinking.

I think we are currently a swim organization for swimmers older than high school age that has generally adopted the rules that apply to USS and FINA. Independent and progressive thinking is great, but the difference would be pretty obvious and it would be interesting to see if it would be good or bad for USMS in the long-term. It is fine with me either way, but I would generally prefer not being a rogue swimming organization.

Tim

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 12:25 PM
If you look at the history of Blue Seventy there first market was triathletes. The Nero evolved from a swim skin for warm water triathlons where the wetsuits were not allowed. So they already had a market, competitive pool swimming became icing on the cake. I can only make an educated guess, however based on there history and if masters keep the suits legal, I believe B70 will still manufacture as between Triís and Masters it may still be enough of a market.


I agree. If the suits stay legal, they will continue to manufacture them. But if B70 was only able to manufacture textile suits for masters, I'm not sure they would bother (it's not in their "core competence"). I believe that they will continue to manufacture the pointzero3 and maybe the Nero 10K (or whatever it's called) for the triathlete community but I'm not sure it would be worth it for them to design and manufacture a textile suit just for masters swimmers. Hopefully I'm wrong because I would probably continue to support them if they do.

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 12:30 PM
+1

Keep them for masters. They're fun. If you don't like them, don't use them.

The problem with this is that if I don't like them and don't use one, while others do, I might get beat by people who wouldn't be able to beat me otherwise. Those of us that go to competitions like to race and I don't want to race against people with an advantage I don't have.

Maybe the solution is to allow them, but they don't count for records, top 10 times or even ribbons or medals at competitions. That way, the people who just want to go as "fast" as technology will allow can do that and those who just want to compete can do that.

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 12:37 PM
The thing to me that stands out is why is the the people who want the suits to stay are the ones that have to defend their position.

I haven't heard a whole lot of good reasons to ban the suits. Just a lot of complaining that that guy or girl is going faster than you think they should be or price. How is a $500 swim suit any different than a $500 driver for golf? Not all parents can buy $500 drivers for their kids, right?

Okay maybe the driver lasts a little longer but still.

A state of the art speed boat or car with the best aerodynamics still can't run without an engine. So even a swimmer in a NASA designed suit still needs something to make him/her go through the water!!

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 12:39 PM
Life is all about choices. They choose to wear the suit you didn't so at the end of the day whoever wins, wins.

Tim L
August 27th, 2009, 12:44 PM
As I approach 50 years of age - I too am, and always have been VERY self conscious about my body and I do not see any issue with allowing Masters swimmers the option of a full-body suit or not - as long as they are textile. I personally don't believe the full body textile suits give ANY (or at least very little) advantage other than a mental aspect of faster swimming, but as an ever aging athlete (which we all are), I would prefer to cover up a bit more than when I was younger. In fact if I could afford to wear a full-body suit in practice, I would (not really, but it sounded good).

I don't agree with the statement that if USMS has different suit rulings that it would create a scenario that we are a beer league of swimming. I think as long as we create rulings that prohibit the same materials as what FINA is proposing then we are still keeping the intent of the law intact. But I would at least like to see USMS change their rulings back to being able to wear two suits in competition, I personally get a rush when I get a good time wearing drag suits in competition.

I guess I don't get the cover-up issue because you can only cover-up for a short period of time and the last thing I am thinking about during the race or when I am around the blocks is how I am looking.

Beer league is a little harsh, but it would be something different than it is now and there would be potential for USMS to evolve to something very odd. If USMS uses the textile definition for suit guidelines, then maybe that is a good compromise and puts USMS back to 2007. However, I would think most people on this board would like everything available to them in the last year and a half to be legal for USMS. It would definitely be interesting to see if it would be good or bad for USMS. I wonder if the USMS by-laws provide for much flexibility for the organization to adopt rules vastly different than other swimming governing bodies? If they do, I would really like them to consider allowing flip turns for any stroke especially those transition turns in the IM.

Tim

Chris Stevenson
August 27th, 2009, 12:49 PM
The thing to me that stands out is why is the the people who want the suits to stay are the ones that have to defend their position.

I agree with you when they were universally legal. But now the rest of the swimming universe (except for masters) has banned them, so the question will naturally arise: why not?

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 12:50 PM
The thing to me that stands out is why is the the people who want the suits to stay are the ones that have to defend their position.

I haven't heard a whole lot of good reasons to ban the suits. Just a lot of complaining that that guy or girl is going faster than you think they should be or price. How is a $500 swim suit any different than a $500 driver for golf? Not all parents can buy $500 drivers for their kids, right?

Okay maybe the driver lasts a little longer but still.

A state of the art speed boat or car with the best aerodynamics still can't run without an engine. So even a swimmer in a NASA designed suit still needs something to make him/her go through the water!!

Isn't the argument that the suits make you go faster than you could naturally? Isn't the only real argument in favor of rubberized suits that people like going faster than they can naturally? (All other arguments can be resolved by sticking with purely a textile full-body suit, which I don't love but would prefer to the rubberized suits by far as a compromise.)

You can't play golf without a driver. You can swim without a suit. So there's a difference when talking about technology improvements. Also, golf is a game and swimming is a physical competition. Suits used to be for modesty and the racing was all about the swimmer. Rubberized suits change us from a sport about the purity of a person's physical ability to a sport about who has the best designed swimsuit. It turns us from a sport into a game. Beer league softball, with space-aged aluminum bats, indeed.

mctrusty
August 27th, 2009, 12:57 PM
I thought we were already a beer league :dunno:.

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Isn't the argument that the suits make you go faster than you could naturally? Isn't the only real argument in favor of rubberized suits that people like going faster than they can naturally? (All other arguments can be resolved by sticking with purely a textile full-body suit, which I don't love but would prefer to the rubberized suits by far as a compromise.)

You can't play golf without a driver. You can swim without a suit. So there's a difference when talking about technology improvements. Also, golf is a game and swimming is a physical competition. Suits used to be for modesty and the racing was all about the swimmer. Rubberized suits change us from a sport about the purity of a person's physical ability to a sport about who has the best designed swimsuit. It turns us from a sport into a game. Beer league softball, with space-aged aluminum bats, indeed.


Can't play golf without a driver? Not sure about that since I don't use mine a lot but...

While I don't necessarily agree with and want rubberized suits ( I can't afford one!) You can't say that the suit and only the suit completely changes the sport. Based on that theory you could just throw the suit in the pool and it would set a world record without a swimmer in it.

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Can't play golf without a driver? Not sure about that since I don't use mine a lot but...

While I don't necessarily agree with and want rubberized suits ( I can't afford one!) You can't say that the suit and only the suit completely changes the sport. Based on that theory you could just throw the suit in the pool and it would set a world record without a swimmer in it.

I can say that and I did. :) People obviously disagree on this point. :bitching:

I thought we took ourselves as seriously as USS/FINA/HS Swimming. I think some of us do (like me). Others obviously don't. I don't know how to reconcile everybody's views. I feel bad for USMS leadership. I'm guessing no matter how they come down, about half of the membership (that compete) are going to be unhappy with their decision.

I really do think the compromise is full body textile suits. Maybe this is something we can all get behind?

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 01:12 PM
I can say that and I did. :) People obviously disagree on this point. :bitching:

I thought we took ourselves as seriously as USS/FINA/HS Swimming. I think some of us do (like me). Others obviously don't. I don't know how to reconcile everybody's views. I feel bad for USMS leadership. I'm guessing no matter how they come down, about half of the membership (that compete) are going to be unhappy with their decision.

I really do think the compromise is full body textile suits. Maybe this is something we can all get behind?

I agree I think the common ground needs to be the full body textile suits.

As far as taking ourselves as seriously as USS/FINA/HS, I believe we need to go back to the way it was when Spitz sawm and not allow sponsored athletes. So I would consider that I take the purity and tradition of the sport pretty serious.

How is the weather in the Bay Area? I moved from there 2 years ago.

Spock
August 27th, 2009, 01:17 PM
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one in point downhill skiing, manufacturers came out with full body aerodynamic body suits. Skiers wearing the suits went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one point in competitive swimming, manufacturers came out with swim caps. Long haired people with caps went faster, and pool filters were happier. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

My 2Ę

knelson
August 27th, 2009, 01:19 PM
You can't say that the suit and only the suit completely changes the sport. Based on that theory you could just throw the suit in the pool and it would set a world record without a swimmer in it.

Come on, this is ridiculous. The same swimmer expending the same amount of effort will swim faster in a Jaked versus briefs. Thus the high tech suits do change the sport, just as high tech clubs change the sport of golf.

The USGA has very specific rules on club design. Shouldn't FINA do the same thing for swimsuits? That's exactly what they've done. They've stated how much of the body can be covered by a suit and what material the suits can be made of.

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 01:19 PM
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one in point downhill skiing, manufacturers came out with full body aerodynamic body suits. Skiers wearing the suits went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one point in competitive swimming, manufacturers came out with swim caps. Long haired people with caps went faster, and pool filters were happier. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

My 2Ę


:applaud:

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 01:21 PM
How is the weather in the Bay Area? I moved from there 2 years ago.

The weather in the Bay Area is perfect (as I'm sure you remember)! I can't imagine moving away. Hopefully you can make it back out here some day.

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Come on, this is ridiculous. The same swimmer expending the same amount of effort will swim faster in a Jaked versus briefs. Thus the high tech suits do change the sport, just as high tech clubs change the sport of golf.

The USGA has very specific rules on club design. Shouldn't FINA do the same thing for swimsuits? That's exactly what they've done. They've stated how much of the body can be covered by a suit and what material the suits can be made of.

Based on previous posts from you I understand you to be a fellow MSU Grad so I will leave it at that.

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 01:26 PM
The weather in the Bay Area is perfect (as I'm sure you remember)! I can't imagine moving away. Hopefully you can make it back out here some day.

Wished I didn't have to leave but my career took me in a different direction. Some day I hope. Still have plenty of friends living there, though they have started to move out near Pittsburg?

Chris Stevenson
August 27th, 2009, 02:25 PM
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one in point downhill skiing, manufacturers came out with full body aerodynamic body suits. Skiers wearing the suits went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

At one point in competitive swimming, manufacturers came out with swim caps. Long haired people with caps went faster, and pool filters were happier. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

My 2Ę

Fine, but you are arguing a lost cause. The suits have been banned already by FINA, USA-S, NCAA and high school. Why shouldn't masters follow? Because of creaky knees, skin cancer, and beer guts? Or because "it's just masters" so it doesn't matter?

In other words, we can't handle "naked" swimming like the rest of the world. How is that not demeaning to us?

Spock
August 27th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Fine, but you are arguing a lost cause. The suits have been banned already by FINA, USA-S, NCAA and high school. Why shouldn't masters follow? Because of creaky knees, skin cancer, and beer guts? Or because "it's just masters" so it doesn't matter?

In other words, we can't handle "naked" swimming like the rest of the world. How is that not demeaning to us?

Simply because other agencies made a bad decision does not necessitate our following suit (no pun intended). We disagree Chris. That's okay.

pwolf66
August 27th, 2009, 03:03 PM
You can't play golf without a driver.

Actually, yes you can. Heck, you can play 18 holes with a single club, I've done it with a 7 iron.

pwolf66
August 27th, 2009, 03:06 PM
Come on, this is ridiculous. The same swimmer expending the same amount of effort will swim faster in a Jaked versus briefs. Thus the high tech suits do change the sport, just as high tech clubs change the sport of golf.

The USGA has very specific rules on club design. Shouldn't FINA do the same thing for swimsuits? That's exactly what they've done. They've stated how much of the body can be covered by a suit and what material the suits can be made of.

Sure, you can say that's EXACTLY what FINA has done. 12 years too late. To put in prespective, it would be like the USGA announcing today that clubheads could be no larger than they were back in 1997. How well would THAT go over?

Tim L
August 27th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Fine, but you are arguing a lost cause. The suits have been banned already by FINA, USA-S, NCAA and high school. Why shouldn't masters follow? Because of creaky knees, skin cancer, and beer guts? Or because "it's just masters" so it doesn't matter?

In other words, we can't handle "naked" swimming like the rest of the world. How is that not demeaning to us?

Exactly. However, don't use the word "handle" because most forumites can "handle" anything that we encounter in life and will take exception. We prefer to say that we just like to go fast and not go backwards from a suit/technology perspective.

Tim

knelson
August 27th, 2009, 03:43 PM
Sure, you can say that's EXACTLY what FINA has done. 12 years too late.

No argument on that, but I don't think the fact that the horse has left the barn is a good reason to not push him back in :)

shouldyswimmer
August 27th, 2009, 05:01 PM
I purpose all nude swimming then there will be nothing to discuss!!

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Actually, yes you can. Heck, you can play 18 holes with a single club, I've done it with a 7 iron.

You know what I meant. ;) You can't play golf without clubs. Is that better? Same point, of course!

Midas
August 27th, 2009, 05:38 PM
Sure, you can say that's EXACTLY what FINA has done. 12 years too late. To put in prespective, it would be like the USGA announcing today that clubheads could be no larger than they were back in 1997. How well would THAT go over?

You say you don't want to swim in the "1997 suits" because that's "going backwards".

I say I don't want to allow these "cheater suits" because they allowed people to "go faster" than they could naturally.

You say po-tay-to; I say po-tah-to. It's all a matter of perspective. :D

Again, good luck to our leadership. People just don't see eye to eye on this.

Ken Classen
August 27th, 2009, 06:53 PM
Was the debate in Cycling this intense?

Technology has made today's racing bicycles a far cry from the 1970's. Know one seems to be complaining.

Swimmy83843
August 27th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Was the debate in Cycling this intense?

Technology has made today's racing bicycles a far cry from the 1970's. Know one seems to be complaining.

Ken, you need to look at the one hour record and the controversy around that in the early '90s before you use cycling as an example. The UCI also does not allow riders to use the fastest posible bikes or equiptment available. Wouldn't riders in a road race be able to go faster with aero-bars, disk wheels, and all the other fancy equiptment? There is also a minimum weight allowed for a bike durring a race, again, not being able to use the latest technology.

Allen Stark
August 27th, 2009, 08:33 PM
If FINA continues to say the suit rules don't apply to Masters,then I think that USMS should take the lead in proposing rules to all other Masters groups.Then I believe there should be a global masters standard.My preference for that would be the FINA/USA-S proposal as I don't want us marginalized nor different rules for combined meets vs Masters only meets.That is just my preference,I'd be OK with just about any GLOBAL standard,but I don't want to be at a disadvantage compared to Masters swimmers elsewhere.

aquageek
August 27th, 2009, 08:53 PM
There is also a minimum weight allowed for a bike durring a race, again, not being able to use the latest technology.

Claiming cycling hasn't adopted and even embraced technology is absurd. Did you watch the TDF? Do you follow cycling? Maybe they haven't adopted every single nit picky breakthrough but that's a far cry from turning back the sport as swimming is doing.

Swimmy83843
August 27th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Claiming cycling hasn't adopted and even embraced technology is absurd. Did you watch the TDF? Do you follow cycling? Maybe they haven't adopted every single nit picky breakthrough but that's a far cry from turning back the sport as swimming is doing.

I do follow cycling, and I never said cycling does not embrace technology. what I'm saying is they have rules that are followed about what technology is allowed. Also in the one hour record they have completely turned back. I was just pointing out that the example was not a very good one. Also showing a bike you buy at a department store compared to a specialty time trial bike was also a little misleading. I was not arguing for or against tech suits. But thanks for speaking for me.

scyfreestyler
August 27th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Time trial bike versus a decades old Schwinn? It must be comedy hour.

Herb
August 27th, 2009, 11:05 PM
In golf, tennis, biking, etc. technology has always been a major part of the sport. Not so in swimming until now. Now we are fundamentally changing the nature of the sport.

Sure its not fair at all if a kid has to play golf with a $50 set from Walmart against rich kids with $400 drivers. Swimming doesn't have to be that way unless we want to make it that way. It used to always be in swimming that with a $20 suit and a pair of goggles it was a level playing field.

chaos
August 27th, 2009, 11:31 PM
is fina going to allow rubber in open water? ......i'm willing to offer a compromise: wear anything you want in the pool (lzr's, b-70's, fins, water wings, what ever) but keep it clean outside "the box".

everybody happy now?

orca1946
August 28th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Fina - H S - college- - what does that leave ? OH YEAH ! US:badday:

aquageek
August 28th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Sure its not fair at all if a kid has to play golf with a $50 set from Walmart against rich kids with $400 drivers. Swimming doesn't have to be that way unless we want to make it that way. It used to always be in swimming that with a $20 suit and a pair of goggles it was a level playing field.

When all decent arguments on this subject are exhausted we see the old class warfare card played. And, here it is again.

The only argument more loco mcstupider is when a biker tells me that swimming should limit technology.

pwolf66
August 28th, 2009, 11:21 AM
No argument on that, but I don't think the fact that the horse has left the barn is a good reason to not push him back in :)


I would agree if that's what FINA did but in this case they just shot it.

pwolf66
August 28th, 2009, 11:35 AM
OK, here are my views on this:

1) Full body suits should be allowed but they must conform to strict specifications with regards to content (textiles only), permeability and bouyancy.
2) FINA should have drawn the line in the sand using what was legal in 2007 (a tip of the hat to Wookiee on that one, I happen to agree with him)
3) Jammers and tanks are the required swimming apparel for all swimmers 12&U. Other approved swim wear may be used by swimmers 13-18 but only in Open and/or National level championship meets

But in the end, I will swim in whatever is determined to be the current legal swim wear.

Heck, I was only off my PB in 50 back at LCM Nats by .10 and that was in a brief.

I just happen to believe that FINA is being way too draconian in hitting the reset button and will inflict both short term and lasting long term damage on the sport of swimming. I also feel that FINA has been sorely remiss in it's actions, especially with the economic challenges that swimming continues to face.

knelson
August 28th, 2009, 12:20 PM
1) Full body suits should be allowed but they must conform to strict specifications with regards to content (textiles only), permeability and bouyancy.

My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.

shouldyswimmer
August 28th, 2009, 12:47 PM
I would agree if that's what FINA did but in this case they just shot it.

Hahaha. That was good.

shouldyswimmer
August 28th, 2009, 12:54 PM
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.

The problem is no one can/could agree on the material restrictions.

While I get everyone's feelings that FINA, USA and HS have already made their decisions so why not follow, maybe this is an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail and USMS can actually put some thought into a ruling rather than just making a snap decision to end the drama. Which is basically what FINA did.

The information and decisions out of USMS could be used to help create proper rules and regulations for FINA to keep this from ever being an issue again.

Tim L
August 28th, 2009, 12:57 PM
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.

I agree. I also wonder how expensive it was getting to do the testing, defend challenges from the manufacturers when their suits were left off the list, and just the general hassle and distraction. I would imagine that the additional testing and legal expenses might have influenced the decision a bit too. So, if no other organization allows tech suits other than masters swimming, who takes on the testing and approval burden? Or because it is only masters are we just going to trust the manufacturers and participants that their suits meet whatever guidelines USMS were to come up with? It just seems like you end up with allowing anything goes or following FINA.

Tim

ande
August 28th, 2009, 02:10 PM
shouldn't the article read:

"Masters Swimmers Split Full-Body Suits"

selkie
August 29th, 2009, 12:44 AM
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.


And then facilities managers discovered that long track spikes tended to shred typical composite tracks, and it became common to tightly regulate spike length in order to preserve the track surface. The place my high school team usually competed at had a standard that the spike couldn't protrude from the shoe more than two quarters taped together and placed flat against the sole.

The $500 golf club will last for years, and can frequently be found on the secondary market for a reduced price. (Same with many other high ticket sporting equipment items. Play it Again Sports survives in many areas by recycling youth hockey gear) The same cannot be said for a suit you'll be lucky to get through a meet without tearing.

And cycling commonly rolls back UCI bike construction rules to more conservative standards. They've effectively killed the beam bike in the last five years.

__steve__
August 29th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Swimwear is pretty much the last straw for swimming technology, or allowing you to synthetically go faster otherwise. They're racing against each other just as they did 100 years ago. Imagine the Tour de France with teams issued mandatory 37lb Huffy's to complete the tour so times can be comparable on some classic stages as they did 50 years ago. But again imagine swimming competitors wearing a torpedo shaped suits allowing them to coast 25 meters from the start.

No matter how you look at it, a happy medium needs to be made

Chris Stevenson
August 29th, 2009, 09:06 AM
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.

I hear the "swimmers can choose not to wear them" a lot, and I have followed that advice just fine in the past, wearing both briefs and jammers to season-ending meets in the past two years. I have also worn the tech-suits on many occasions.

But pro-tech people who make this argument are trying to imply an assymetry to the sides that isn't there. As in: allow the suits and you satisfy everybody -- though that is manifestly not the case, hence the many threads devoted to the topic -- because those who like them can buy and wear them, and those who don't like them can compete in old-style suits.

But to anyone who is the least bit competitive but doesn't like the suits, the situation of "anything goes" lessens their enjoyment of the sport a little bit. I would argue that it does so to a roughly comparable extent as the situation where the pro-techies were forced to give up their suits and wear older suits. I know of at least one person who told me (unprompted) that she wasn't going to nationals this year because she didn't want to buy one of the suits but her competitors would all be wearing them.

It does no good to pooh-pooh this person as a luddite or an "overly serious" swimmer who should just get over it. You can make similar rebuttals to tech-suit lovers as people who just want to just buy their speed and tell them they are "overly serious" and should just get over it. Both arguments have some elements of truth but are largely unfair.

IMO if you ignore the pricing issue there is no moral certitude here, just personal preference.

I've heard of three basic choices at this point:

(1) Follow FINA and USS to the letter.
(2) Anything goes
(3) Some compromise, eg textile materials but with increased coverage, such as allowing men the same coverage as women. (As an aside, it still makes me smile to think of this. For many years women were at a disadvantage b/c their suits were more expensive and slowed them down more than men's suits. Now all of a sudden men want what women got, but without having to experience labor/delivery pains...)

Certainly there will be implementation issues with each potential choice (eg, the matter of enforcement, or the fact that manufacturers might not continue to make the suits even if we choose "anything goes).

So currently -- aside from my personal preference -- I am at the point where

-- I wonder which choice will be most beneficial to USMS in the long term, in the sense of increasing participation and maximizing enjoyment of meets (pure utilitarian reasoning).

-- I have to think that, for "purity of sport reasons" that there has to be reasonably strong arguments in favor of the suits for USMS to go its own way (throwing in an element of Kant here).

swimshark
August 30th, 2009, 07:57 AM
But to anyone who is the least bit competitive but doesn't like the suits, the situation of "anything goes" lessens their enjoyment of the sport a little bit. I would argue that it does so to a roughly comparable extent as the situation where the pro-techies were forced to give up their suits and wear older suits.

Very well said, Chris. And as a person who doesn't like the newest in tech suits you said what I've been thinking for a while.

JimRude
August 30th, 2009, 02:20 PM
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.

I think you grossly overestimate the foresight and thinking of FINA.

Allen Stark
August 30th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Just a question,anyone out there who was against wetsuits for OW but OK with tech suits for pool?If so what is your rational?

Allen Stark
August 30th, 2009, 09:23 PM
I was just wondering,if USMS OKs full body suits,but fabric only so no current B-70 etc. who is going to make them?B-70s last a long time but lycra suits don't.In 07 I saw a guy at a meet in a full body suit so old it was nearly transparent in the wrong spots.I'd hate to see a situation where lots of swimmers were trying to get "one last swim " out of their irreplaceable suit.It could get ugly.

stillwater
August 31st, 2009, 12:03 AM
Just a question,anyone out there who was against wetsuits for OW but OK with tech suits for pool?If so what is your rational?

I am pro-wetsuit for open water races. My reasoning is selfish, I don't like being in cold water. My threshold is 67 degrees. Even then I don't relish the thought of dipping my little toe in the water. I understand the advantage given by the rubber. I accept that I am in a different classification due to my choice. I even understand the name calling by the stout he-men who choose to mock me. I have been called worse names by some here. Alas.

I am anti-tech suit for pool racers. Two divisions in the pool would suit (sorry) me fine. It seems that the two groups are cut from a, ahem, different cloth.

hornHead
August 31st, 2009, 10:53 AM
-- I have to think that, for "purity of sport reasons" that there has to be reasonably strong arguments in favor of the suits for USMS to go its own way (throwing in an element of Kant here).


Chris

How "pure" is our sport?

Ken Classen
August 31st, 2009, 11:30 AM
Just a question,anyone out there who was against wetsuits for OW but OK with tech suits for pool?If so what is your rational?

Iím anti-wetsuit for USMS open water national championship swims because Iím just a retro stout he-man who likes to mock those who wear them :) Now-a-dayís most good open water events have dual divisions (wetsuit and non wetsuit). Since there are so many variables in open-water there are no time records to be broken and you can't really be sure it was a personal best. So swimming with a conventional suit is just fine, and with race feeís going up I donít really want to cough up more for a suit. So letís keep it cheap and retro for the OW and let the tech suit wearers swim in the wetsuit division.

As far as pool swims go I donít really care what happens other then having fun posting bicycle pictures; however I have to admit the prospect of a personal best at age 48 is an attraction.

orca1946
August 31st, 2009, 12:44 PM
I never thought about the joint thing ? That makes sense.

Chris Stevenson
August 31st, 2009, 01:32 PM
Chris

How "pure" is our sport?

Just using a shorhand for "adopting rules consistent with every other major swimming federation."

chaos
August 31st, 2009, 09:51 PM
Just a question,anyone out there who was against wetsuits for OW but OK with tech suits for pool?If so what is your rational?

two thumbs down from me, but more so for wetsuits which dramatically change the nature of the sport

The Fortress
August 31st, 2009, 11:14 PM
I know of at least one person who told me (unprompted) that she wasn't going to nationals this year because she didn't want to buy one of the suits but her competitors would all be wearing them.

It does no good to pooh-pooh this person as a luddite or an "overly serious" swimmer who should just get over it. You can make similar rebuttals to tech-suit lovers as people who just want to just buy their speed and tell them they are "overly serious" and should just get over it. Both arguments have some elements of truth but are largely unfair.

-- I have to think that, for "purity of sport reasons" that there has to be reasonably strong arguments in favor of the suits for USMS to go its own way (throwing in an element of Kant here).

I wouldn't necessarily think the swimmer who skipped nationals was a luddite, though that could be the case I suppose. She sounds like a poor sport. There were plenty of people at nationals who didn't wear what you anti-tech suit types like to refer to as "rubber" suits. National champions even -- e.g., Michelina. Going to nationals isn't just about wearing the fastest suit. It's more of an overall "swim experience." At least for me. I could wear my fast suit and possibly swim a faster time staying home and swimming at a fast local pool.

I had a chance to do some wetsuit shopping on vacation, BTW. I don't see how a B70 swim skin bears any resemblance to those suckers. Wetsuits that are 5 mm thick don't look or feel even remotely the same.

I hate Kant. :)

swimike
August 31st, 2009, 11:49 PM
two thumbs down from me, but more so for wetsuits which dramatically change the nature of the sport

OW swimming and the wet suit issue are just as heated as the tech suit issue in the pool it seems. The wet suit issue can easily be solved based on the temperature reading at the time of competition. At the recent World Police and Fire Games in Vancouver, wet suits were mandatory if the water was below 70 degrees. I think that 70 is too high for wet suits personally, but you get the idea. Maybe under 62 degrees for USMS OW events. Anything above; wet suits come off. ?? The WP article brought about some good points I hadn't considered. But for now, I say thumbs down too.

Take speed skating, the klap-skates have created a record breaking revolution on ice much the way the tech suits have in the pool. Klap skates are here to stay but they have not created less drag the way the tech suits have for swimmers. Many of the same arguments against the tech suits are echoing the arguments against the klap skates. Just a little sports trivia for you....

aquageek
September 1st, 2009, 07:51 AM
Just a question,anyone out there who was against wetsuits for OW but OK with tech suits for pool?If so what is your rational?

I'm against wetsuits because triathletes have ruined the OW events by obsessing about the water temp and whether they will wear the wetsuits. Universally, wetsuit or not, they are all beaten by us swimmers in our ratty lake suits. The type of person that wears a wetsuit in an OW event is typically not the same calibre of swimmer that wears a tech suit at a pool meet. This year and last I did start to notice some tech suits at OW events.

djacks
September 1st, 2009, 08:55 AM
I'm against wetsuits because triathletes have ruined the OW events by obsessing about the water temp and whether they will wear the wetsuits.

They haven't ruined them for me. I don't own a wetsuit and compete in a fair number of OW events. I welcome the wetsuiters as it increases attendance and thus awareness of this sport. Where's the harm in that?

Also, triathletes obsess about everything, not just water temps. It's in their DNA. :)

knelson
September 1st, 2009, 03:51 PM
Jon Urbanchek on the suits:

Q: Is the suit issue behind us?
Jon: It is starting to be, and will continue to be more behind us as we move in the right direction. We will remember 2009 as basically the suit and exuberance. Remember how we had the stock market and housing bubble exuberances? They all crashed eventually. We had that with the suits, and they crashed too. And I knew it would. This year, there are going to be a lot of ocean waves about this – 60 footers – going around, but next year, it will calm down, and soon after that it will be no longer be an issue. We have an “order” in swimming, and that order was upset by the suits. The number one thing in the order was the suit, the talent was number two, and training was number three. Now we got back to the talent being number one, the training being number two – and the suit is no longer an issue because we will all have the same suit on. It should start to become case-closed on this. By the time the next Olympic rolls around, we should be back to normal. The only problem we have right now is this world record mess. My recommendation is to turn world records back to December 2007, before the first high-tech suit came out from Speedo, and use that as a base. What I envision is having the “world’s fastest time” set with these suits, and the world records themselves, set outside of the period from 2007 to the end of this World Championships. What does a world record mean anymore with this suit issue? They have no meaning any longer. But the suit issue will die down. We’re back on the right track now.

http://www.swimnetwork.com/blogs/blog/20090901/20_question_tuesday_with_jon_urbanchek-5625.html

stillwater
September 1st, 2009, 04:05 PM
Werd.

gull
September 1st, 2009, 04:24 PM
Paragraph.

stillwater
September 1st, 2009, 05:39 PM
Paragraph

Thanks, made me laugh.

I couldn't resist the "word". Made me think I would feel young, like a hep-cat dude.

Woe is me, my image in the mirror didn't change.

scyfreestyler
September 1st, 2009, 06:07 PM
Try it as "werd" instead of "word", then check in the mirror again. :)

Chris Stevenson
September 1st, 2009, 06:24 PM
Jon Urbanchek on the suits:
http://www.swimnetwork.com/blogs/blog/20090901/20_question_tuesday_with_jon_urbanchek-5625.html

Well, I am not a fan of the suits, though I was willing to grin and bear it while they were legal in mainstream swimming.

But I'll play devil's advocate on this one: I think the suit furor would have died down regardless, as the technology standardized. I see nothing inherently "out of order" with them.

I do think we will settle in a better place (though with slower times and far fewer suit malfunctions) without them than with them, though that's just my personal opinion.

funkyfish
September 1st, 2009, 06:24 PM
Try it as "werd" instead of "word", then check in the mirror again. :)
Tru dat.

gull
September 1st, 2009, 06:27 PM
I think the suit furor would have died down regardless, as the technology standardized.

Only if Speedo were dominating the market with the fastest suit.

knelson
September 1st, 2009, 06:56 PM
But I'll play devil's advocate on this one: I think the suit furor would have died down regardless, as the technology standardized.

Agreed. Fabric innovations couldn't continue forever. Eventually all the suit makers would have similar suits and everyone would have the same advantage because of them.

stillwater
September 1st, 2009, 06:57 PM
Try it as "werd" instead of "word", then check in the mirror again.

Shizbiddle, nothing seems to change. Thanks for the help though, it was rad.

orca1946
September 1st, 2009, 07:54 PM
The next bash phrase will be GOGGLES !

Herb
September 1st, 2009, 11:29 PM
When all decent arguments on this subject are exhausted we see the old class warfare card played. And, here it is again.

The only argument more loco mcstupider is when a biker tells me that swimming should limit technology.

I was just trying to apply some common sense to the issue, but just call me "Loco Mc Stupid" if you thought I was idiotic enough to think economics was a part of swimming or sports.

analazy
September 3rd, 2009, 04:00 AM
Most of us will accept any decision as long as it is AVAILABLE and CLEAR to everybody. Master swimming is different from the elite, we have specific rules why not one more?
Both choices have advantagesÖ Just put all associations together and do a surveyÖ

__steve__
September 4th, 2009, 11:41 AM
The next bash phrase will be GOGGLES ! Yeah, tech-googles with a LED display showing a heart rate guage (with redline warning), stroke per 50M guage, a 25, 50M timer, and a guage which does all the calcultating for you letting you know when to slow down, speed up, or maintain. Everything will be visible 3D and would appear as if it was 3' in front of you

Midas
September 4th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Yeah, tech-googles with a LED display showing a heart rate guage (with redline warning), stroke per 50M guage, a 25, 50M timer, and a guage which does all the calcultating for you letting you know when to slow down, speed up, or maintain. Everything will be visible 3D and would appear as if it was 3' in front of you

This actually sounds like it will be possible in the not-to-distant future. And it would be cool!

jim thornton
September 4th, 2009, 10:11 PM
Yeah, tech-googles with a LED display showing a heart rate guage (with redline warning), stroke per 50M guage, a 25, 50M timer, and a guage which does all the calcultating for you letting you know when to slow down, speed up, or maintain. Everything will be visible 3D and would appear as if it was 3' in front of you

One of my teammates from a few years back had goggles somewhat like this. They had a stopwatch kind of gizmo in them, and somehow by the way they were designed, your eyes somehow projected the display out and you could read it while you swam, allowing you to know exactly how fast/slow you were going.

He said he got these goggles at least 10-20 years ago, and that they were illegal to use in meets, but he used them in practice all the time.

Has anyone else ever heard of these gizmos? My friend let me try them once, and it was kind of interesting to see the time as you swim along...beats trying to sneak a glance at the pace clock and do math in your head.

__steve__
September 4th, 2009, 11:14 PM
One of my teammates from a few years back had goggles somewhat like this. They had a stopwatch kind of gizmo in them, and somehow by the way they were designed, your eyes somehow projected the display out and you could read it while you swam, allowing you to know exactly how fast/slow you were going.

He said he got these goggles at least 10-20 years ago, and that they were illegal to use in meets, but he used them in practice all the time.

Has anyone else ever heard of these gizmos? My friend let me try them once, and it was kind of interesting to see the time as you swim along...beats trying to sneak a glance at the pace clock and do math in your head.
They've got to be available somewhere.


Sorry for straying of topic, but are one-way communication devices allowed, such as an earpiece?

jim thornton
September 5th, 2009, 10:28 AM
I don't think anything that helps you figure out pace, etc. is legal in competition.

gull
September 5th, 2009, 02:04 PM
Here is the solution to the tech suit controversy for Masters. Allow the suits to be worn in competition. Those that oppose them, wishing to preserve the purity of the sport, may wear a Speedo brief and, win or lose, leave happy and secure in the knowledge that they swam unaided, their times are legitimate, and they are morally superior to those swimmers who wore tech suits. The rest of us can continue to wear our expensive rubber suits, swim beyond our capabilities, and celebrate our (relatively) fast--but morally reprehensible!--times over a cold beer after the meet. A win-win situation.

scyfreestyler
September 5th, 2009, 02:32 PM
Here is the solution to the tech suit controversy for Masters. Allow the suits to be worn in competition. Those that oppose them, wishing to preserve the purity of the sport, may wear a Speedo brief and, win or lose, leave happy and secure in the knowledge that they swam unaided, their times are legitimate, and they are morally superior to those swimmers who wore tech suits. The rest of us can continue to wear our expensive rubber suits, swim beyond our capabilities, and celebrate our (relatively) fast--but morally reprehensible!--times over a cold beer after the meet. A win-win situation.

Will those who wear briefs (or non-tech jammers) be permitted to attend the beer drinking festivities?

Chris Stevenson
September 5th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Here is the solution to the tech suit controversy for Masters. Allow the suits to be worn in competition. Those that oppose them, wishing to preserve the purity of the sport, may wear a Speedo brief and, win or lose, leave happy and secure in the knowledge that they swam unaided, their times are legitimate, and they are morally superior to those swimmers who wore tech suits. The rest of us can continue to wear our expensive rubber suits, swim beyond our capabilities, and celebrate our (relatively) fast--but morally reprehensible!--times over a cold beer after the meet. A win-win situation.

My own counter-proposal is identical to yours in all respects, except for one minor one: times done using non-FINA suits are not official. Hey, its just masters, right? It shouldn't matter: the exhibition swims are still just as much to be celebrated over beer after the meet is done.

gull
September 5th, 2009, 02:56 PM
My own counter-proposal is identical to yours in all respects, except for one minor one: times done using non-FINA suits are not official. Hey, its just masters, right? It shouldn't matter: the exhibition swims are still just as much to be celebrated over beer after the meet is done.

FINA has said that the ban does not apply to Masters, therefore the rubber suits cannot be labeled "non-FINA".

I thought that conceding moral superiority would be enough. Do we still get our participation ribbons?

Chris Stevenson
September 5th, 2009, 03:27 PM
FINA has said that the ban does not apply to Masters, therefore the rubber suits cannot be labeled "non-FINA".

I thought that conceding moral superiority would be enough. Do we still get our participation ribbons?

"Non-FINA suits" = those not approved for use by real swimmers.

My newly-assumed moral superiority now entitles me to adopt a haughty, superior tone; it does kind of feel nice! :)

And are you actually counting on that FINA statement to protect you? What was that, something like 4 months ago? In normal human time I think that is about 5 years.

gull
September 5th, 2009, 05:30 PM
All times shall be "official", but swimmers competing in a 70s style Speedo brief will be considered morally superior and have access to a separate hospitality tent located on a high road somewhere.

pwolf66
September 5th, 2009, 10:13 PM
All times shall be "official", but swimmers competing in a 70s style Speedo brief will be considered morally superior and have access to a separate hospitality tent located on a high road somewhere.

But will be required to drink thier beer from a tea cup while pinky finger is raised.

Ken Classen
September 6th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Wore my six year old TYR fabric to my ankles body suit at a 3-mile openwater swim today. I've been going in briefs all summer long but wanted to give it try today to see if it made a difference. I Don't believe I received a lot of speed benefit however I did notice I did not get any leg cramping which I had been getting especially in the last mile. I was able to keep a strong kick going which helped me maintain my stoke count. I'm thinking having my legs encased in nylon might have helped. So I hope Masters at the very least votes to keep fabric body suits as there are several benefits, no shaving and possibly less leg cramps.