PDA

View Full Version : Bodysuits and masters swimming



GGS5T
February 7th, 2010, 10:20 AM
The following has appeared on a swim forum in the UK
_______________________________________________

Iíve been looking at recent masters results. Itís clear that swimmers are producing much slower times without bodysuits. Furthermore, many swimmers are disillusioned and are on the verge of giving up completely. It would be a travesty if these swimmers (they are mostly the over 45s) were lost to the sport altogether.

The majority of masters swimmers prefer to compete in bodysuits. Of that there is no doubt, as witnessed at masters meets up and down the country. It is a disgrace that masters swimmers have been included in the Ďnew rulesí concerning elite swimming. I find it quite sad that many swimmers are talking about cutting up their suits, taking out zips and even asking whether they are allowed Ďmodesty panelsí in their suits any more.

As always, we are getting no advice, guidance or even leadership from the toothless Masters Committee, whose gingivitic and malocclusive tendencies are attracting Big Nevís interest, but thatís to be expected.

But it doesnít have to be like this. Masters swimmers in Italy are not accepting this farce. They are still holding meets where swimmers can choose to wear bodysuits.

There was a recent questionnaire sent out to 4,000 masters swimmers in France. 2,700 swimmers replied, stating they wished to keep their bodysuits for competition.

Masters swimmers in Germany are on the verge of revolution! They accept that masters swimmers are not going to be a threat to any Olympianís records. Many have now entered masters meets in Italy where they can wear their suits if they want. Also, some meet organisers in Germany are holding similar meets.

Instead of following any directive from our anaemic and tedious Masters Committee, Iíd like to see masters swimmers in the UK make a stand against the stupidity surrounding the banning of bodysuits. It will cost me time and money but Iím prepared to organise this.

We need meet organisers in the UK to hold Ďoptional suití masters meets. Swimmers can choose whether to wear a suit or not. If they are going for a record then the suitless option is a must - but only for a while. I believe that if we boycott masters meets where suits are now allowed, meet organisers, the Masters Committee and the ASA would have to take notice. At the moment they donít give a toss. At the forefront of the ASAís mind would be the loss of revenue. Believe me, they see masters swimming as a joke anyway, they would happily let masters swim in bodysuits if it meant they could keep the revenue pouring in.

Getting meet organisers to run Ďbodysuití meets would be easy. They would be oversubscribed, every time. Not only from our swimmers but from overseas entries too. I can see one-day meets turning into weekend ones. The organisers could make a lot of money from these well-attended meets. Pulling the plug on masters meets because of low entries would be a thing of the past.

These meets would be the thin end of the wedge in bringing about a change of rules. ItĎs the boycotting of Ďnon-suití meets that would bring a change of rule overnight.

The decathlon would be meaningless because Ďsuitedí swims wouldnít count towards it - but in reality, it is a meaningless competition anyway for all but ten swimmers in the UK who have a chance of winning it.

Donít underestimate what can be done. Masters swimmers are a powerful group in swimming. The Government is putting very large amounts of money into the greasy hand of the ASA to promote health and fitness for adults. The ASA wouldnít like the kind of publicity we can give them.

If you feel you can support this initiative Iíll make a start. Masters swimmers in Italy, France and Germany are ready to come on board. Many masters swimmers in America are also willing to make a stand against their governing body. Naturally, support from suit manufacturers is there already. Iíve spoken to four of the biggest.

Allen Stark
February 7th, 2010, 11:48 AM
This is interesting.based on the passionate posts here it seems the pro suit/anti suit split is about 50/50 whereas,if this is right it is much more pro suit in Europe.

makesense
February 7th, 2010, 01:17 PM
Bravo.

Expand our sport, don't limit it.

Some fine commentary in favor here (http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/23200.asp?q=The%20Morning%20Swim%20Show,%20Jan.%20 26,%202010:%20Rob%20Butcher%20on%20Masters%20suit% 20regulations.)

"get as many adults in the water as possible"

Novaova
February 7th, 2010, 01:34 PM
I'm not going to lie, my enthusiasm is diminished by the ban.

stillwater
February 7th, 2010, 03:24 PM
GSS5T,

I'm surprised that Bill "The Whining Policeman" didn't write you a big Boo Hoo ticket.

I encourage you to fight for what you think is right, however, I disagree with your goal. Go ahead, change the rules. I will abide by the governing bodies.

Skin to win.

Lump
February 7th, 2010, 03:28 PM
There are plenty of posts for/against tech suits. This is no different.

I'm of the opinion that as long as its a level playing field I don't care what suits people wear. But being a purest, the tech suits did get out of control and I'm glad to see swimming revert back. The exorbitant cost of the tech suits is another reason why I'm glad to see them go.....not that $260 for a top tech jammer is cheap.

BigNoodler
February 7th, 2010, 04:46 PM
There are plenty of posts for/against tech suits. This is no different.

I'm of the opinion that as long as its a level playing field I don't care what suits people wear. But being a purest, the tech suits did get out of control and I'm glad to see swimming revert back. The exorbitant cost of the tech suits is another reason why I'm glad to see them go.....not that $260 for a top tech jammer is cheap.

Yeah - and try $365 for the women's version. Seems costly to me for less suit.

Is it a level playing field when I (female) am seeded next to a guy during mixed seed meets? Not even thinking about the tech suit issue here either. . . I personally enjoy swimming with the men at times, but that's not really what I'm asking.

Chris Stevenson
February 7th, 2010, 05:15 PM
I’ve been looking at recent masters results. It’s clear that swimmers are producing much slower times without bodysuits. Furthermore, many swimmers are disillusioned and are on the verge of giving up completely. It would be a travesty if these swimmers (they are mostly the over 45s) were lost to the sport altogether.

I feel a migraine coming on when I hear this kind of whining. The Brits and other Europeans need to suck it up.

And maybe swimmers who were "disillusioned and on the verge of giving up" BECAUSE of the prevalence of the suits (their lack of interest in buying one or competing against those who did so) will come back to the fold.


As always, we are getting no advice, guidance or even leadership from the toothless Masters Committee, whose gingivitic and malocclusive tendencies are attracting Big Nev’s interest, but that’s to be expected.

I have to say, this sentence was enough to redeem the entire post.

knelson
February 8th, 2010, 12:41 AM
The majority of masters swimmers prefer to compete in bodysuits. Of that there is no doubt, as witnessed at masters meets up and down the country.

The fact lots of masters swimmers swam in body suits when they were legal hardly proves that most masters swimmers want to keep the suits legal or even prefer to swim in these suits. Maybe that's the case, but I don't think it's exactly axiomatic based on this evidence. All it proves is that swimmers know body suits are faster.

I'm with Chris on this (shocking, I know). Enough with the whining already.

BigNoodler
February 8th, 2010, 06:36 AM
The fact lots of masters swimmers swam in body suits when they were legal hardly proves that most masters swimmers want to keep the suits legal or even prefer to swim in these suits. Maybe that's the case, but I don't think it's exactly axiomatic based on this evidence. All it proves is that swimmers know body suits are faster.

I'm with Chris on this (shocking, I know). Enough with the whining already.

Nice point on the suits.

I'm really enjoying the banter by the whiners who are whining about the whiners. :)

thewookiee
February 8th, 2010, 08:04 AM
The fact lots of masters swimmers swam in body suits when they were legal hardly proves that most masters swimmers want to keep the suits legal or even prefer to swim in these suits. Maybe that's the case, but I don't think it's exactly axiomatic based on this evidence. All it proves is that swimmers know body suits are faster.

I'm with Chris on this (shocking, I know). Enough with the whining already.

I gotta agree with Chris and Kirk. FINA made their decision concerning masters. Regardless if we agree or disagree with it, the decision has been made by them and usms.

Time to move forward to find something else to whine about for awhile.

The Irish Friend
February 8th, 2010, 08:12 AM
I can tell you your information on Italy is wrong - we are now 2 weeks competing without body suits and the general felling is all favourable .

The only problem is judges not accepting old textile leggings cut at the knee !

hedgehog
February 8th, 2010, 11:39 AM
Happy to hear the responses about the tech suits! what is the difference between them and swimming with fins in a race? oh yeah, the suits are WAY more expensive that a set of fins.
Keep it real and work hard! if people are not into swimming because it is too hard or they are not going fast enough that is a personal problem not a lack of fancy suit problem.

Novaova
February 8th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Keep it real and work hard!
I assure you that every tech suit is made of 100% genuine matter. Accept no substitute!

SLOmmafan
February 8th, 2010, 04:33 PM
I think people want to keep their tech suits because they probably dropped $200-$300 in the last year and wanted to get more than 1-2 uses out of them. Give it a year or two more and people will be plenty happy to be spending less.

If you said we could all compete in a floating lounge chair you might attract a few pool loungers to join masters too. That doesn't mean that whats being done is good for the sport or "pure swimming".

Betsy
February 8th, 2010, 04:59 PM
I think there is more to the original complaint from GGS5T than the ban on tech suits. Members of USMS are fortunate that we run our sport more than any other governing body. We have to function within the larger aquatic community (FINA) but we (the athletes) are in charge and are responsive to our members. I don't think this is the case in other countries. The situation is more like USMS being a subset of USA-Swimming, with rules made by people who do not participate. Consequently, there is built-up frustration over other issues.
GGS5T, correct me if I am wrong. Also, consider swimming in our yards meets this spring. Tech suits are legal for yards until the end of May.

gull
February 8th, 2010, 05:51 PM
I think people want to keep their tech suits because they probably dropped $200-$300 in the last year and wanted to get more than 1-2 uses out of them. Give it a year or two more and people will be plenty happy to be spending less.

Try $400 (for a Blue Seventy), but it's not about the cost. I joined Masters swimming in 2003, and tech suits in one form or another have been around the entire time. I will be swimming slower without one, period. What about that should make me "plenty happy"? Anyone who says that it won't bother them is not being honest.

The Fortress
February 8th, 2010, 06:50 PM
Try $400 (for a Blue Seventy), but it's not about the cost. I joined Masters swimming in 2003, and tech suits in one form or another have been around the entire time. I will be swimming slower without one, period. What about that should make me "plenty happy"? Anyone who says that it won't bother them is not being honest.

Exactly. I'd be "plenty happy" to shell out the money rather than not have the tech suit. And when someone tells me to "train harder" or "man up," I want to smack them.

Chris Stevenson
February 8th, 2010, 07:15 PM
when someone tells me to "train harder" or "man up," I want to smack them.

Once you start training a little harder, the smacks will hurt a lot more. :bolt:

The Fortress
February 8th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Once you start training a little harder, the smacks will hurt a lot more. :bolt:

I'm going to smack you next weekend! Or perhaps a good swift kick? I'm still leg pressing 400+ pounds despite my lazy sprinter training.

Herb
February 8th, 2010, 10:56 PM
This has gone beyond pathetic.

Novaova
February 8th, 2010, 11:31 PM
What do you mean?

thewookiee
February 9th, 2010, 07:44 AM
I'm going to smack you next weekend! Or perhaps a good swift kick? I'm still leg pressing 400+ pounds despite my lazy sprinter training.

Chris, don't worry, all you have to do is get beyond a 50 with fort. Once that happens, you have gone into aerobic stage of swimming for a sprinter, which means she will stop chasing... :D

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2010, 09:33 AM
Chris, don't worry, all you have to do is get beyond a 50 with fort. Once that happens, you have gone into aerobic stage of swimming for a sprinter, which means she will stop chasing... :D

Fort is in better shape than any of us. I don't think I could do her dryland routines. Just like her long-standing disparagement of breaststroke as "evil"...followed by a #1 ranking, her self-characterization as "lazy sprinter" is misleading. She will surprise us with a stellar 200 back sometime soon, I bet.

On a related note: I do think that almost all sprinters are perfectly able to put together a very nice 200 (or even longer races), but don't have the experience at proper pacing -- exactly how you should feel going out that first 100, etc -- for those events.

Yes, there are specific things you can do to train for 200s -- just like for 50s -- but I think there is more training overlap than people commonly believe. Heck, I think self-proclaimed sprint-specialist Ande (who had a #1 ranking in the 400 IM in LCM, of all things) does more endurance work than I do.

Even Jazz -- who I am pretty sure doesn't train at all :) -- put together a reasonable 500 free at Clovis last year.

Of course, 200s hurt more than 50s, and sprinters are well-known to be complete babies about pain.

thewookiee
February 9th, 2010, 09:40 AM
Fort is in better shape than any of us. I don't think I could do her dryland routines. Just like her long-standing disparagement of breaststroke as "evil"...followed by a #1 ranking, her self-characterization as "lazy sprinter" is misleading. She will surprise us with a stellar 200 back sometime soon, I bet.

On a related note: I do think that almost all sprinters are perfectly able to put together a very nice 200 (or even longer races), but don't have the experience at proper pacing -- exactly how you should feel going out that first 100, etc -- for those events.

Yes, there are specific things you can do to train for 200s -- just like for 50s -- but I think there is more training overlap than people commonly believe. Heck, I think self-proclaimed sprint-specialist Ande (who had a #1 ranking in the 400 IM in LCM, of all things) does more endurance work than I do.

Even Jazz -- who I am pretty sure doesn't train at all :) -- put together a reasonable 500 free at Clovis last year.

Of course, 200s hurt more than 50s, and sprinters are well-known to be complete babies about pain.

I'm just giving Fort hell for her well known dislike of most 100's and above distances.

She would probably kick most of our butts in any dryland routine(except for Geek) We all know that no one can beat geek at being a couch slug

Ken Classen
February 9th, 2010, 02:42 PM
The following has appeared on a swim forum in the UK
_______________________________________________

Iíve been looking at recent masters results. Itís clear that swimmers are producing much slower times without bodysuits. Furthermore, many swimmers are disillusioned and are on the verge of giving up completely. It would be a travesty if these swimmers (they are mostly the over 45s) were lost to the sport altogether.

The majority of masters swimmers prefer to compete in bodysuits. Of that there is no doubt, as witnessed at masters meets up and down the country. It is a disgrace that masters swimmers have been included in the Ďnew rulesí concerning elite swimming. I find it quite sad that many swimmers are talking about cutting up their suits, taking out zips and even asking whether they are allowed Ďmodesty panelsí in their suits any more.

If you feel you can support this initiative Iíll make a start. Masters swimmers in Italy, France and Germany are ready to come on board. Many masters swimmers in America are also willing to make a stand against their governing body. Naturally, support from suit manufacturers is there already. Iíve spoken to four of the biggest.

I think this is a valid concern. In one ear I hear USMS leadership discussing ways of growing the membership and generating greater swim meet participation. However the tech suit ban may have the opposite effect especially with the prime demographic.

I believe the future may bring more of the Republic of Texas Swim Championship type events in which all suits are legal. Masters certainly donít need to bow to the FINA monopoly. Someone out there is probably cooking up the World Swimming Federation (WSF) right now; it will be the tech suit legal league or maybe it will be called the Tea Party Swim UnionÖÖ:rolleyes:

Karen Duggan
February 9th, 2010, 03:39 PM
The B70's and Jaked will be back, I think, in the nearer rather than farther future. FINA will just regulate better from now on.
They'll be back.
:chug:

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2010, 03:43 PM
I think this is a valid concern. In one ear I hear USMS leadership discussing ways of growing the membership and generating greater swim meet participation. However the tech suit ban may have the opposite effect especially with the prime demographic.

There are a minority (I think 30-40% range, and I seem to recall it is closer to the lower end of that) of masters swimmers who compete, and obviously this issue only concerns that group.

Of that group, there are certainly a fraction who prefer the tech suits, roughly 50% from what I can tell.

But of that group (at most 20% of the USMS membership, so up to 10,000 swimmers), what fraction are actually going to quit USMS over the tech suit issue? I don't know the answer; I would suspect that, while there will be a lot of grumbling, the fraction of people who feel that strongly about the suits are also the ones most committed to competition, and I predict that they would continue to participate in USMS meets. Perhaps if there is some large national rival league that DOES allow tech suits, it might siphon those people away.

USMS could of course go pretty far in satisfying the tech suit people by allowing the suits in SCY competition, as others have suggested. I would recommend that people who feel very strongly about this talk to their LMSC delegates and get them to bring it up at the national convention in the fall. My recollection is, if such a change is endorsed by the Rules Committee, a simple majority vote would pass it. If it is NOT endorsed, then the bar is a little higher (I think two-thirds).

Maybe the tech suit issue will increase OW participation. After all, they are still allowed in OW competitions, including national championships.

This is a fact that I find particularly ironic, given the furor of OW purists ("we swim naked!") over the idea that there be a separate category for wetsuit wearers at national championships.

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2010, 03:44 PM
The B70's and Jaked will be back, I think, in the nearer rather than farther future. FINA will just regulate better from now on.
They'll be back.
:chug:

Karen, they are already "back," in FINA-approved versions.

The Fortress
February 9th, 2010, 03:53 PM
I'm just giving Fort hell for her well known dislike of most 100's and above distances.



Hey now, hairball, I've done zillions of 100s. And I'm swimming, gasp, a 200 this weekend. No doubt, it will horrifically paced.

I'm not sure Ande is a sprint specialist ... He's a specialist at layering endurance with sprint training and focusing on "soft" events. :D

craig68
February 9th, 2010, 04:26 PM
I'm just one guy here, but you can count me as +1 for USMS membership due to the recent tech suit changes. I had actually quit swimming over the tech suits. I recently came back after a five month layoff and renewed my membership for 2010 when I heard FINA had put men back in textile jammers.

Sure, I have a (used from ebay) B70 and FS Pro leggings. But when the Jaked came out and appeared to trump the LZR and B70 in terms of ridiculous speed, I foresaw spending more and more $$ on the latest generation of suits and more and more time in my pre-race routine squeezing into those suits to stay competitive. It was enough (on top of the lack of meets in the mid-South) to make me give up swimming for running and adventure races.

With so little of the body covered, I think I can be competitive enough with whatever brand of jammers I can score for $40 and put on in 10 seconds. I'm hoping the suits become a non-issue at meets again, like they were 20 years ago.

Just my :2cents:, but we've heard a couple of folks saying the tech suit 'ban' might hurt USMS membership, so I thought I'd chime in.

Karen Duggan
February 9th, 2010, 04:44 PM
Karen, they are already "back," in FINA-approved versions.

I meant the ones we currently have, until June 1st.

pwb
February 9th, 2010, 04:49 PM
...while there will be a lot of grumbling, the fraction of people who feel that strongly about the suits are also the ones most committed to competition, and I predict that they would continue to participate in USMS meets...Yup. I think there's more bluster about the tech suit ban diminishing numbers than reality. Count me in as one who loved the tech suits, one who doesn't like the ban and who will wear his till the bitter end, but I'll be at USAS LCM competition the weekend after Atlanta Nationals in my jammers ready to race.


Of course, 200s hurt more than 50s, and sprinters are well-known to be complete babies about pain.200s might hurt the body more, but 50s hurt my ego more. I'm happy for the sprinters to NOT learn how to swim mid-distance to distance events and to leave us slow twitch folks alone to enjoy our sublime events.

thewookiee
February 9th, 2010, 04:53 PM
; I would suspect that, while there will be a lot of grumbling, the fraction of people who feel that strongly about the suits are also the ones most committed to competition, .

While I disagree with how far back FINA went with suit profiles(ie coverage) I don't plan on letting the new rulings dictate where I swim in meets or not..as long as jammers are still legal.

And I think Chris is right, while there is grumblings, I think the majority of pro tech suits(all kinds) wearers will continue to compete for the joy of competing.

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2010, 05:37 PM
I meant the ones we currently have, until June 1st.

I disagree, after all this hullabaloo, I don't think impermeable suits will ever be back in FINA-sanctioned pool swimming. But if they do change some rules, IMO the most likely change would be to allow equal coverage for men and women (in textile fabrics). Actually I don't even think that will happen anytime soon.

I've also heard rumblings that even jammers are enough of an aid to run afoul of the new FINA rule prohibiting swimsuits from doing just that. In which case there may be a movement back to briefs for men. I don't see that happening either.

Or maybe FINA just doesn't care much about masters swimming and will capitulate and allow them in those competitions. (To be honest, I was surprised when they included masters in the ban.)

But, by all means, people who think those thin little wetsuits will be legal again should hang onto them. Linus had his blanket too...

knelson
February 9th, 2010, 06:26 PM
I'm just one guy here, but you can count me as +1 for USMS membership due to the recent tech suit changes.

Interesting to hear. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more people like you than there are people who will quit because they can no longer wear the suits. I certainly don't see how tech suits would get lots of new people into the sport or get people competing who otherwise wouldn't. Think about it. Someone who has never done a meet before is unlikely to show up to their first meet with a $500 Speedo LZR. They will show up in briefs or a jammer, or the equivalent for women, and likely be psyched out by all the people dressed up as seals and never swim another meet again. :bolt:

LindsayNB
February 9th, 2010, 06:48 PM
Or maybe FINA just doesn't care much about masters swimming and will capitulate and allow them in those competitions. (To be honest, I was surprised when they included masters in the ban.)

It seems to me that FINA was faced with:
1) saying people could wear whatever they want in masters competition with no suit restrictions
2) establishing an entire suit specification and testing infrastructure just for masters.
3) using the same restrictions for youth/elite and Masters

I don't think option 1 is credible and I don't think they were willing to put the necessary resources into going with option 2, especially when it isn't clear that option 3 isn't just fine with most masters swimmers.

Novaova
February 9th, 2010, 06:50 PM
I certainly don't see how tech suits would get lots of new people into the sport or get people competing who otherwise wouldn't.
The tech suits got me into the sport. I won't stop swimming now that they have been curtailed, but I am disappointed.

BigNoodler
February 9th, 2010, 06:56 PM
I'm just one guy here, but you can count me as +1 for USMS membership due to the recent tech suit changes. I had actually quit swimming over the tech suits. I recently came back after a five month layoff and renewed my membership for 2010 when I heard FINA had put men back in textile jammers.



LOL! I'm the opposite. Wasn't going to renew my USMS membership except for the fact that cheat suits are legal until June 1. So I renewed (I happen to have quite a few speed suits in good condition). Otherwise count me as -1. With the USMS suit ban effective after that date AND the fact that I never know if my times will count for top 10, I will just swim USA-S in the future when the suit rules will be the same as USMS and 100% of my times count.

Since Aquageek has made it clear that he will chase me down with his AK-47 if I even think about getting on the block with an illegal cheat suit post June 1, I'll swim with the 15 year olds. Less drama. :)

Novaova
February 9th, 2010, 07:07 PM
Since Aquageek has made it clear that he will chase me down with his AK-47 if I even think about getting on the block with an illegal cheat suit post June 1, I'll swim with the 15 year olds. Less drama. :)
Wait, what? Link please. :lmao:

orca1946
February 10th, 2010, 12:30 PM
I like my FS 2 , But the cost is getting hard to justify at my age - 64 !!

Ken Classen
February 10th, 2010, 04:17 PM
There are a minority (I think 30-40% range, and I seem to recall it is closer to the lower end of that) of masters swimmers who compete, and obviously this issue only concerns that group.

Of that group, there are certainly a fraction who prefer the tech suits, roughly 50% from what I can tell.

But of that group (at most 20% of the USMS membership, so up to 10,000 swimmers), what fraction are actually going to quit USMS over the tech suit issue? I don't know the answer; I would suspect that, while there will be a lot of grumbling, the fraction of people who feel that strongly about the suits are also the ones most committed to competition, and I predict that they would continue to participate in USMS meets. Perhaps if there is some large national rival league that DOES allow tech suits, it might siphon those people away.

USMS could of course go pretty far in satisfying the tech suit people by allowing the suits in SCY competition, as others have suggested. I would recommend that people who feel very strongly about this talk to their LMSC delegates and get them to bring it up at the national convention in the fall. My recollection is, if such a change is endorsed by the Rules Committee, a simple majority vote would pass it. If it is NOT endorsed, then the bar is a little higher (I think two-thirds).

Maybe the tech suit issue will increase OW participation. After all, they are still allowed in OW competitions, including national championships.

This is a fact that I find particularly ironic, given the furor of OW purists ("we swim naked!") over the idea that there be a separate category for wetsuit wearers at national championships.

How we define the fitness swimmer? I believe some competitive masters swimmers view the fitness swimmers as someone who doesnít, hasnít or only competed at a limited level. My view of fitness swimmers is somewhat different. I personally go from fitness to competitive and back all the time. I know many masters who competed at a very high level, Division I etc., who workout 3, 4, 5Ö.times a week but havenít raced in a decade plus. These are people who love to swim for physical condition but had lost interest in the competitive side of the sport. With the advent of the tech suit, and older guys and gals swimming close to or exceeding there youthful times, my sense for some of these swimmers was a renewed interest in competition. The competitive fires started to burn once again, not only try but to become excited about it.

Along with that came the need to become USMS members where it wasnít always necessary before. One canít swim a sanctioned meet without the membership. To be honest, in years I donít compete I sometimes save the $40 USMS fee. Many of the open water events I compete in are not connected to USMS so I donít need it there.

Just an FYI - I have never worn a non-textile tech suit such as the B70, but Iím open to it as Iíd like to see what I could do in one in a pool competition. People who know me are somewhat surprised at that, as in open water side of things, my having fun at wetsuit wearerís expense is noted if not expected.

The Fortress
February 10th, 2010, 04:36 PM
I like my FS 2 , But the cost is getting hard to justify at my age - 64 !!

I don't see what bearing age could possibly have on a master's decision to purchase a tech suit.

Karen Duggan
February 10th, 2010, 04:46 PM
I still think the suits will be back. The can of worms is open, and while you can clean up the mess, there are still worms to be dealt with :lmao:

I'm looking at times in a new way, again!

I had pre-baby and post-baby times,
now I'll have pre-B70 and post B70 times.

So far I have no life best times with a B70, although I'm hoping to change that!

Chris Stevenson
February 10th, 2010, 05:12 PM
How we define the fitness swimmer? I believe some competitive masters swimmers view the fitness swimmers as someone who doesn’t, hasn’t or only competed at a limited level. My view of fitness swimmers is somewhat different....These are people who love to swim for physical condition but had lost interest in the competitive side of the sport. With the advent of the tech suit, and older guys and gals swimming close to or exceeding there youthful times, my sense for some of these swimmers was a renewed interest in competition. The competitive fires started to burn once again, not only try but to become excited about it.

Although I use it too, I don't like the term "fitness swimmer." It's just easier to say than "swimmers who like to work out but don't like to compete in meets." Since fitness is my own primary motivation for swimming, it applies to me too; it is just that competition and things like goal times help motivate me to train harder and be more fit. The presence or lack of tech suits just means an adjustment on those goals, it's just not that big a big deal.

Your argument seems to be that there are some people who competed b/c of the tech suits, and they will now let their membership lapse because they won't be motivated to compete without it. Okay, though I should say that at most of the masters practices in my town, USMS membership is required even to practice with the team( for insurance purposes). The vast majority -- at least 80% by my estimate -- of registered USMS swimmers in Richmond do not compete in any meets. Quite a few are triathletes who couldn't give a fig what the USMS tech suit rules are.

But I have often thought the same as Kirk: that the presence of tech suits is a deterrent to the newbie swimmer, certainly as far as participating in meets. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the question, "do I need one of THOSE SUITS to go to a meet?"

Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.

And yes, there are those who simply didn't feel like buying one of those suits but also don't want to compete at a disadvantage. I've heard from those people too. They'll compete again after June 1.

I don't know which group is more numerous, but I don't think one can just assume that the recent jump in USMS membership was due to the suit, and that they'll leave after this year. But we'll see, right?

Karen, I do agree with you about one thing: it was a can of worms.:)

aquageek
February 10th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Although I use it too, I don't like the term "fitness swimmer."

Me either, I prefer "noodler." I also advise them to stay away from wookie at meets.

Novaova
February 10th, 2010, 06:13 PM
Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.
I didn't start swimming until last year. Prior to that I'd been a track and cross-country runner in high school, a competitive fencer in university, and a competitive distance runner and tennis player as an adult. Swimming has always been pretty alien and intimidating to me, so you're right about that. However, even so the tech suits piqued my interest. This, I guessed from my outsider's point of view, was a sport that was having a very exciting revolution, and I wanted to be close to that. Instead of the same old swimsuits, caps, and goggles I'd seen for decades, something really interesting and futuristic was happening, and that attracted me.

Besides, they look really cool. XD

BigNoodler
February 10th, 2010, 11:00 PM
But I have often thought the same as Kirk: that the presence of tech suits is a deterrent to the newbie swimmer, certainly as far as participating in meets. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the question, "do I need one of THOSE SUITS to go to a meet?"

Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.


I've read about this line of thinking a lot on this forum - not just from Chris. But as a *newbie* who jumped into biking and running to do triathlons (albeit not well), I sucked it up, bought the gear, completely trained myself (hell, I was in the wrong gears for 15 miles during my first tri competition) and competed. So. . . I just think that riding a bike w/ clips, shoes, aerobars and the like down huge hills at huge speed in bad weather with cars everywhere (heck, and stray animals) is much scarier than putting on a tech suit and heading to a pool. And this is coming from a gal who won't spend one night camping. Just sayin' Perhaps those people are simply not cut out for sport.

gull
February 10th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Qualifying times at Nationals are intimidating to newbies. The very name "Nationals", for that matter, is intimidating. So let's just call it a Swim Fest and eliminate qualifying times. And while we're at it, maybe some of you could stop swimming so damn fast. It's intimidating.

Novaova
February 11th, 2010, 12:08 AM
Qualifying times at Nationals are intimidating to newbies. The very name "Nationals", for that matter, is intimidating. So let's just call it a Swim Fest and eliminate qualifying times. And while we're at it, maybe some of you could stop swimming so damn fast. It's intimidating.

LOL straw man argument.

Chris Stevenson
February 11th, 2010, 08:55 AM
Perhaps those people are simply not cut out for sport.

Just to clarify, b/c I don't want to put words in your mouth: people who are put off by the idea of having to by a tech suit (or intimidated by fast swimming in general) aren't welcome in USMS?

I think competitive swimming is much more intimidating to the average person than cycling. My wife joined a club called "tri-moms" that was a females-only triathlon club for newbies (despite the name, you weren't required to be a mother to join, though the idea was originally to try to lure women back into serious training who had been out of it for awhile).

Anyway, they had a series of coaches, lectures, tutorials and training sessions for all three sports, and for the transitions and other logistics of doing triathlons. And of course group training. It was (and is) a well-done program. (I know of some people who have graduated to doing full IM triathlons from those beginnings.)

My wife reports that BY FAR the most intimidating aspect of the whole thing for newbies was the swim. It wasn't even close. This is despite the fact that they targeted sprint triathlons and that the swim leg was something like 300 yards for most of those races.

aquageek
February 11th, 2010, 09:13 AM
I don't think a tech suit discourages anyone from swimming. Most newbies don't even have meets on their radar screen when they join.

I train alongside a newbie tri group in the Summer and none have ever expressed reservation about swimming due to the suits. Most are just trying to not drown. And, if a suit is some hindrance, it sure begs the question why they will all go out and buy $2500 worth of biking and running gear.

Riding in a Cat 1 or 2 ride is not for the faint of heart, or stomach. Of course, none of them can swim, for the most part.

Chris Stevenson
February 11th, 2010, 09:47 AM
Look, my original statement was that it is not at all obvious to me that (a) tech suits are responsible even in a small way for the increase in USMS membership, and (b) banning them will result in a decrease in the sport. I have what seem to me to be plausible justifications, but opinions can differ because no one knows the truth at this point.

I know for a fact (because they complained to me) that there were at least some people -- newbies and veterans alike -- who were turned off from competitions because of the suits. I know that there were some who loved the suits and enjoyed competitions more because of them. And there are those like BN who claim they will quit USMS after the suits are gone.

I don't know how the numbers of the two groups compare; I don't think anyone knows, despite the OP's claim of massive uprisings in Europe.

But what is blindingly obvious is that the ban has increased the moaning and groaning by quite a bit, as is evidenced by the existence of this thread and quite a few others. My main fear at this point is that it will never, ever stop. Where is Dara Torres when you need her?

JimRude
February 11th, 2010, 10:04 AM
I've read about this line of thinking a lot on this forum - not just from Chris. But as a *newbie* who jumped into biking and running to do triathlons (albeit not well), I sucked it up, bought the gear, completely trained myself (hell, I was in the wrong gears for 15 miles during my first tri competition) and competed. So. . . I just think that riding a bike w/ clips, shoes, aerobars and the like down huge hills at huge speed in bad weather with cars everywhere (heck, and stray animals) is much scarier than putting on a tech suit and heading to a pool. And this is coming from a gal who won't spend one night camping. Just sayin' Perhaps those people are simply not cut out for sport.

Word.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 10:30 AM
Look, my original statement was that it is not at all obvious to me that (a) tech suits are responsible even in a small way for the increase in USMS membership, and (b) banning them will result in a decrease in the sport. I have what seem to me to be plausible justifications, but opinions can differ because no one knows the truth at this point.

I know for a fact (because they complained to me) that there were at least some people -- newbies and veterans alike -- who were turned off from competitions because of the suits. I know that there were some who loved the suits and enjoyed competitions more because of them. And there are those like BN who claim they will quit USMS after the suits are gone.

I don't know how the numbers of the two groups compare; I don't think anyone knows, despite the OP's claim of massive uprisings in Europe.

But what is blindingly obvious is that the ban has increased the moaning and groaning by quite a bit, as is evidenced by the existence of this thread and quite a few others. My main fear at this point is that it will never, ever stop. Where is Dara Torres when you need her?

Just to clarify my position, my issue with USMS is that one can attend sanctioned meets and then not have any swims from that meet count for Top 10 due to a variety of reasons including the pool not being measured; officials not knowing the rules; there is a shortage of officials; officials must leave the meet early; results not submitted in a correct form or in a timely manner or at all and the list goes on and on. This has happened to me numerous times at many meets including travel meets where I've forked over some $$$$'s to compete. This issue in and of itself is enough for one to seek an organization in which retroactive DQ's are not the norm - like at USA-S. If USMS decided to keep the suits, I would be tempted to compete even at the cost of my times never counting simply for the sake of variety and to take advantage of something that USAS does not offer currently.

For me - retroactive DQs (with NO notification to the swimmer) AND tech suit ban combined are not a very appealing combination.

AND, when I've attempted to do further investigation, I'm baffled at the mysterious period between preliminary and final Top 10 publications. Sometimes one can get times in and sometimes one cannot (I've had both instances happen to me.)
For example
Meet #1 2009 - All swims from this meet not included in Prelim T10. I let the appropriate people know immediately. Results included in Final T10.
Meet #2 2009 - All swims from this meet not included in Prelim T10. Let appropriate people know also within that same time frame. Was told it was too late to do anything.
I'm sure there must be a detailed process that published somewhere regarding how this all works from an administrative standpoint. It's not included in our regular rule book or is it? Thanks for any feedback on this.

aztimm
February 11th, 2010, 10:45 AM
I've read about this line of thinking a lot on this forum - not just from Chris. But as a *newbie* who jumped into biking and running to do triathlons (albeit not well), I sucked it up, bought the gear, completely trained myself (hell, I was in the wrong gears for 15 miles during my first tri competition) and competed. So. . . I just think that riding a bike w/ clips, shoes, aerobars and the like down huge hills at huge speed in bad weather with cars everywhere (heck, and stray animals) is much scarier than putting on a tech suit and heading to a pool. And this is coming from a gal who won't spend one night camping. Just sayin' Perhaps those people are simply not cut out for sport.

I joined a USMS team back in 1998, after finding out about it from doing some triathlons. Within 2-3 months after joining, I did my first meet. I don't remember specifically, but I do know that I wore pretty much a normal suit I would have worn for workout (perhaps a newer one), and there were few if any people there wearing whatever line of tech suits was hot then. I continued to do meets 2-3 a year for the next 3-4 years, up until my team hosted USMS SCY Nationals in 2003. I showed up in my usual newish suit, and I was definitely in the minority. My guess would be 70% or more people wore whatever tech suits were hot then. It was very discouraging and I looked very out of place, and that was the last meet I swam in.

I also bike and run, and I can safely say I don't pay $2500 for any gear. A pair of running shoes goes for about $70, and the other things (shorts/shirts) are fairly cheap. I picked up a bike in December for $900. But those things I can use many many times. A pair of running shoes usually gives me 3-400 miles. I'd hope my bike will last me a min of 2-3 years.

While I certainly could have paid for a tech suit, I just couldn't rationalize spending $200+ for something that would save me tenths of seconds (while even 5 seconds for a 100 wouldn't put me near any top 10s), with an extremely limited lifespan. I'd rather use that money for a visit to see family. Some suits had prices $4-500, and for that I've flown to Europe.

Now that the rules are changing, I am planning to swim in a meet at some point. So I'm definitely a +1 for these rules, and I personally know several others in the same category (many triathletes actually). I certainly won't shell out for the newest line of acceptable tech suits, but will use a newish normal workout suit.

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 10:51 AM
But as a *newbie* who jumped into biking and running to do triathlons (albeit not well), I sucked it up, bought the gear, completely trained myself (hell, I was in the wrong gears for 15 miles during my first tri competition) and competed.

Question for you, though. Do you believe you are typical in either athletic skill or income? You mentioned getting a new Corvette in another thread, so obviously you might be able to afford this equipment while lots of others cannot. And just to clarify, I'm not on the bandwagon that says the suits should be banned because they make the sport too expensive. I'm only bringing this up because we're discussing what factors could turn someone off from competing.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 10:52 AM
I joined a USMS team back in 1998, after finding out about it from doing some triathlons. Within 2-3 months after joining, I did my first meet. I don't remember specifically, but I do know that I wore pretty much a normal suit I would have worn for workout (perhaps a newer one), and there were few if any people there wearing whatever line of tech suits was hot then. I continued to do meets 2-3 a year for the next 3-4 years, up until my team hosted USMS SCY Nationals in 2003. I showed up in my usual newish suit, and I was definitely in the minority. My guess would be 70% or more people wore whatever tech suits were hot then. It was very discouraging and I looked very out of place, and that was the last meet I swam in.

I also bike and run, and I can safely say I don't pay $2500 for any gear. A pair of running shoes goes for about $70, and the other things (shorts/shirts) are fairly cheap. I picked up a bike in December for $900. But those things I can use many many times. A pair of running shoes usually gives me 3-400 miles. I'd hope my bike will last me a min of 2-3 years.

While I certainly could have paid for a tech suit, I just couldn't rationalize spending $200+ for something that would save me tenths of seconds (while even 5 seconds for a 100 wouldn't put me near any top 10s), with an extremely limited lifespan. I'd rather use that money for a visit to see family. Some suits had prices $4-500, and for that I've flown to Europe.

Now that the rules are changing, I am planning to swim in a meet at some point. So I'm definitely a +1 for these rules, and I personally know several others in the same category (many triathletes actually). I certainly won't shell out for the newest line of acceptable tech suits, but will use a newish normal workout suit.

Makes sense to me Tim. However, I personally found that competing in triathlon was exponentially more expensive than competing in swimming. And I did not get top of the line tri gear - not even close.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 10:57 AM
I joined a USMS team back in 1998, after finding out about it from doing some triathlons. Within 2-3 months after joining, I did my first meet. I don't remember specifically, but I do know that I wore pretty much a normal suit I would have worn for workout (perhaps a newer one), and there were few if any people there wearing whatever line of tech suits was hot then. I continued to do meets 2-3 a year for the next 3-4 years, up until my team hosted USMS SCY Nationals in 2003. I showed up in my usual newish suit, and I was definitely in the minority. My guess would be 70% or more people wore whatever tech suits were hot then. It was very discouraging and I looked very out of place, and that was the last meet I swam in.



Glad you are going to do a meet! They are quite fun!

We had very similar experiences but I guess we just processed them differently. I too wore the poly practice suits for my first few years of masters and also felt a bit out of place at nationals wearing my $30 dolphin suit while flanked on either side with girls in the latest tech suit. I had a great time with that!

aztimm
February 11th, 2010, 11:01 AM
Makes sense to me Tim. However, I personally found that competing in triathlon was exponentially more expensive than competing in swimming. And I did not get top of the line tri gear - not even close.

I can see triathlon being expensive up front, but once you have all the gear and take care of it, you really just have basic maintenance. I hope you don't get a brand new bike and shoes for every race?

A couple years ago, I looked into getting a tech suit. I took the number of events I could do in it, and the time it would save me, and came up with an average cost per tenth of second. For me, it just didn't make sense, especially considering that I still wouldn't come close to being competitive.

I took the same approach with purchasing a bike. Even if I only get 3,000 miles out of the bike (a very low estimate), it will cost me less than $.30/mile. To me that sounded fair, so I bought it.

pwb
February 11th, 2010, 11:06 AM
Just to clarify my position, my issue with USMS is that one can attend sanctioned meets and then not have any swims from that meet count for Top 10 due to a variety of reasons including the pool not being measured; officials not knowing the rules; there is a shortage of officials; officials must leave the meet early; results not submitted in a correct form or in a timely manner or at all and the list goes on and on. This has happened to me numerous times at many meets including travel meets where I've forked over some $$$$'s to compete. This issue in and of itself is enough for one to seek an organization in which retroactive DQ's are not the norm - like at USA-S. If USMS decided to keep the suits, I would be tempted to compete even at the cost of my times never counting simply for the sake of variety and to take advantage of something that USAS does not offer currently.

For me - retroactive DQs (with NO notification to the swimmer) AND tech suit ban combined are not a very appealing combination.
...

I've been swimming USMS meets since 2001 and haven't experienced any of this; the only absence of times appearing in T10 was from some events swum at a dually-sanctioned USAS/USMS meet (once). Granted, most of them have been in Arizona, a few in California and then Nationals, but I've always found USMS meets very well run. As far as Top 10 times, pool measurements, etc., it's certainly cool to get into the Top 10 and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't try to train to get higher, beat certain times and certain people, BUT, if my times didn't happen to get in there (e.g., my 400 LCM free and 100 LCM fly from the same USAS meet where my 200 free and 200 IM were recorded), that's no big deal. I generally race in the same pools that the USAS meets are in, so I know the courses are 'legit.' I'm also first and foremost comparing my times to my other times.


Although I use it too, I don't like the term "fitness swimmer." It's just easier to say than "swimmers who like to work out but don't like to compete in meets." Since fitness is my own primary motivation for swimming, it applies to me too; it is just that competition and things like goal times help motivate me to train harder and be more fit. The presence or lack of tech suits just means an adjustment on those goals, it's just not that big a big deal.
Agreed, though I'm trying not to even adjust goals and just train harder to go faster post-tech suit. I kind of look at the ban (though I'll race till the end in my B70) as further training motivation.


Your argument seems to be that there are some people who competed b/c of the tech suits, and they will now let their membership lapse because they won't be motivated to compete without it. Okay, though I should say that at most of the masters practices in my town, USMS membership is required even to practice with the team( for insurance purposes). The vast majority -- at least 80% by my estimate -- of registered USMS swimmers in Richmond do not compete in any meets. Quite a few are triathletes who couldn't give a fig what the USMS tech suit rules are.

But I have often thought the same as Kirk: that the presence of tech suits is a deterrent to the newbie swimmer, certainly as far as participating in meets. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the question, "do I need one of THOSE SUITS to go to a meet?"

Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.

And yes, there are those who simply didn't feel like buying one of those suits but also don't want to compete at a disadvantage. I've heard from those people too. They'll compete again after June 1.

I don't know which group is more numerous, but I don't think one can just assume that the recent jump in USMS membership was due to the suit, and that they'll leave after this year. Very true. I doubt we'll see any measurable defection because of the tech suit ban. Conversely, though, I doubt will see any measurable uptick in membership either. I think there's a heated minority of us USMS people who really actually care strongly about this.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 11:14 AM
Question for you, though. Do you believe you are typical in either athletic skill or income? You mentioned getting a new Corvette in another thread, so obviously you might be able to afford this equipment while lots of others cannot. And just to clarify, I'm not on the bandwagon that says the suits should be banned because they make the sport too expensive. I'm only bringing this up because we're discussing what factors could turn someone off from competing.

Well, re: athletic skill, I feel below average in triathlon (as I placed around average or below in my competitions). Swimming - above the average. :) Other sports - pretty questionable. My bowling is atrocious.

Just stating that for me I spent lots more $$$$'s on triathlon than on swimming. Not sure what my new car has to do with this conversation.
My point was that I don't see at all how swimming is more expensive than triathlon.

aquageek
February 11th, 2010, 11:16 AM
I can see triathlon being expensive up front, but once you have all the gear and take care of it, you really just have basic maintenance. I hope you don't get a brand new bike and shoes for every race?

First of all, who gives a crap how much it costs in tri versus swimming (well, maybe me apparently)? We all spend our money how we want. Here's a simple fact - tris cost at least double per entry over swim meets. I spend $50-$100 a month on bike gear - gear wears out, it's endless. You live in AZ so you have basically one season of attire, try three seasons of attire, maybe four.

Tech suits are for race day. Do an apples to apples comparison. Race day tri wheels cost up to thousands of dollars, for what, a couple of mph gain. A pair of race day shoes costs a few hundred. Many of the serious tris I know have a totally separate kit for race day. Heck, my tri race suit (a jammer) cost more than the B70 I just bought. How about the tri wetsuit for the once a year tri where the water is below 76? An average jersey and shorts will run you $100, a good one $200, custom $300.

I'd also like to point out that a $900 bike is the swim equivalent of a $30 drag suit. Up until the ban you could get the hottest fastest swim suit for $600 give or take. The hottest fastest race day bike is minimum $5K. This is not an insult to your bike as a $900 bike can be excellent but it is clearly not top of the line.

I can swim for 2-3 years in the same endurance suit. I can't bike for 2-3 years in the same anything.

I will agree that I also was blown away by the number of tech suits in Tempe in 2003.

And what doggone business is the price of someone's car? I've never seen so much class warfare over a silly few hundred dollar suit.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 11:18 AM
I've been swimming USMS meets since 2001 and haven't experienced any of this; the only absence of times appearing in T10 was from some events swum at a dually-sanctioned USAS/USMS meet (once). Granted, most of them have been in Arizona, a few in California and then Nationals, but I've always found USMS meets very well run. As far as Top 10 times, pool measurements, etc., it's certainly cool to get into the Top 10 and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't try to train to get higher, beat certain times and certain people, BUT, if my times didn't happen to get in there (e.g., my 400 LCM free and 100 LCM fly from the same USAS meet where my 200 free and 200 IM were recorded), that's no big deal. I generally race in the same pools that the USAS meets are in, so I know the courses are 'legit.' I'm also first and foremost comparing my times to my other times.




I agree in that it's not a big deal until it keeps happening over and over. Would you really feel the same way if 20 different swims were thrown out?

pwb
February 11th, 2010, 11:28 AM
I agree in that it's not a big deal until it keeps happening over and over. Would you really feel the same way if 20 different swims were thrown out?Yeah, I'd probably get bummed. I'd still get over it if I was beating my personal goals as my goals are always geared around racing myself / my own times.

If there are consistent meets that are not getting into the list, I'd not swim them. Else, you could become your LMSC's records person or TT person (or whoever it is that ensures results are included) and ensure that all meets get in. :)

Betsy
February 11th, 2010, 11:28 AM
The best way to be sure that a meet is officiated properly and that times are submitted correctly is to get involved. In our LMSC (Virginia) we had the problem of times not being submitted once. Since then we are very careful about who is the Top10 chair. At present, Chris Stevenson is in the role, so it's no longer a concern. Chris is pretty busy, but he took on the responsibility becuase it is important to him for it go be done correctly
I run one meet a year and make sure that I have competent officials to enforce the rules. We had times disallowed one year due to pool length. To make sure that didn't happen again at my meet, a friend and I measured the 3 pools in our city available for meets.
I missed something in this discussion. What are "retroactive DQs"?

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 11:30 AM
I agree in that it's not a big deal until it keeps happening over and over. Would you really feel the same way if 20 different swims were thrown out?

I'd be pissed. And, like you, I've had some issues getting my times to "count:" officials not knowing rules, meet directors not submitting results, meet directors or TT recorders not submitting split requests, TT recorders not submitting USAS meet results, etc. It makes me somewhat wary of what meets I'll swim in. I don't want to taper and travel for a meet and have swims disappear.

I'm generally athletic, especially when there is no ball involved. I wore a tank suit for my first USMS meet and then promptly, and happily, bought a body suit. I think I would be fairly well suited to triathlons. However, I am terrified of biking in the area where I live. It seems that bikers walk around with open wounds, slings, or other injuries. Much scarier than the thought of putting on a body suit that will actually cover up blubber.

Oh, and my first Nationals, which was only my 4th or 5th meet as a master, I didn't really focus on or notice bodysuits at all. I was way more intimidated by the fast swimming.

aquageek
February 11th, 2010, 11:42 AM
I was way more intimidated by the fast swimming.

You got that right!

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 11:42 AM
Not sure what my new car has to do with this conversation.

You did say that you "sucked it up" and bought the tri gear. I'm just suggesting this might be a slightly easier thing to 'suck up' for someone who can afford a Corvette versus someone driving a 20 year old Nissan Sentra. Cost of equipment is something that could affect whether someone chooses to compete or not, so I think it's germane.

aquageek
February 11th, 2010, 11:52 AM
You did say that you "sucked it up" and bought the tri gear. I'm just suggesting this might be a slightly easier thing to 'suck up' for someone who can afford a Corvette versus someone driving a 20 year old Nissan Sentra. Cost of equipment is something that could affect whether someone chooses to compete or not, so I think it's germane.

How someone chooses to spend their money is a matter of their personal priorities and not necessarily a reflection of their income, and certainly no one else's business.

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 12:01 PM
How someone chooses to spend their money is a matter of their personal priorities and not necessarily a reflection of their income, and certainly no one else's business.

I agree. My sole point here is that cost will be a factor in many people's decisions.

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 12:03 PM
You did say that you "sucked it up" and bought the tri gear. I'm just suggesting this might be a slightly easier thing to 'suck up' for someone who can afford a Corvette versus someone driving a 20 year old Nissan Sentra. Cost of equipment is something that could affect whether someone chooses to compete or not, so I think it's germane.

But most masters swimmers are already paying big bucks for team memberships and/or gym memberships. I would wager most could afford some kind of tech suit. (See Ande's article in Swimmer a couple issues ago). Perhaps some, like Tim, would just prefer to spend their money on other things like travel, furniture, etc. Perfectly understandable. But those same folks shouldn't then disparage a different decision/priority to spend money on gear for competing. Or argue our gear should be banned so they don't have to compete at a disadvantage and can continue spending their discretionary income on non-sports items.

aquageek
February 11th, 2010, 12:14 PM
I agree. My sole point here is that cost will be a factor in many people's decisions.

Cost is a factor in every decision, not sure why someone's car has any bearing on that. I drive an 8 year old rig that is shedding parts daily. Can I buy a tech suit? What kind of car do I have to drive to buy a suit?

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 12:19 PM
What kind of car do I have to drive to buy a suit?

A 1972 Dodge Dart.

thewookiee
February 11th, 2010, 12:34 PM
A 1972 Dodge Dart.

Geek would be better suited for a gremlin

ande
February 11th, 2010, 01:10 PM
Thanks for referencing my article, for most swimmers the choice of whether to spend 100, 2, 3, 4 or 500 on a tech suit is about priorities and principles. Though there are some super broke swimmers

ie grad students, people with low paying jobs or people with not much savings where the amount for a tech suit purchase would be a significant part of their budget. BUT everyone can use creative means to find one for much less, many USS swimmers have used tech suits they'll never use again. Some will sell them cheap, others will give or lend them.


Some of the new 2010 FINA Approved suits are pricey, but again it's a matter of priorities and principles.

2010 Approved Womens Tech Suits (http://www.swimoutlet.com/SearchResults.asp?Click=766231&Cat=279)

2010 Approved Mens Tech Suits (http://www.swimoutlet.com/SearchResults.asp?Click=766231&Cat=278)

Ande


But most masters swimmers are already paying big bucks for team memberships and/or gym memberships. I would wager most could afford some kind of tech suit. (See Ande's article in Swimmer a couple issues ago). Perhaps some, like Tim, would just prefer to spend their money on other things like travel, furniture, etc. Perfectly understandable. But those same folks shouldn't then disparage a different decision/priority to spend money on gear for competing. Or argue our gear should be banned so they don't have to compete at a disadvantage and can continue spending their discretionary income on non-sports items.

Chris Stevenson
February 11th, 2010, 01:26 PM
Just to clarify my position, my issue with USMS is that one can attend sanctioned meets and then not have any swims from that meet count for Top 10 due to a variety of reasons including the pool not being measured; officials not knowing the rules; there is a shortage of officials; officials must leave the meet early; results not submitted in a correct form or in a timely manner or at all and the list goes on and on. This has happened to me numerous times at many meets including travel meets where I've forked over some $$$$'s to compete. This issue in and of itself is enough for one to seek an organization in which retroactive DQ's are not the norm - like at USA-S. If USMS decided to keep the suits, I would be tempted to compete even at the cost of my times never counting simply for the sake of variety and to take advantage of something that USAS does not offer currently.

For me - retroactive DQs (with NO notification to the swimmer) AND tech suit ban combined are not a very appealing combination.

AND, when I've attempted to do further investigation, I'm baffled at the mysterious period between preliminary and final Top 10 publications. Sometimes one can get times in and sometimes one cannot (I've had both instances happen to me.)
For example
Meet #1 2009 - All swims from this meet not included in Prelim T10. I let the appropriate people know immediately. Results included in Final T10.
Meet #2 2009 - All swims from this meet not included in Prelim T10. Let appropriate people know also within that same time frame. Was told it was too late to do anything.
I'm sure there must be a detailed process that published somewhere regarding how this all works from an administrative standpoint. It's not included in our regular rule book or is it? Thanks for any feedback on this.

Maybe what you want is here, under "Guide to Operations."

http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/

I am sorry that this happened to you and am not sure why you've had bad luck. I know that NC has had some issues with TT recorder (3 within one year, I think) but hopefully it is straightened out now. I encourage you to try again.

I've been swimming in masters for over 20 years and it hasn't been an issue for me. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means that if it did, I didn't notice it. Then again, I don't believe I seriously paid attention to TT until 3 years ago, when I became a TT recorder.

The time between preliminary and final TT is to give people time to find errors. It happens all the time. I don't know the answer to your question about why an overlooked meet is accepted one time but not another, but I am trying to find out the policy about that. Deadlines are strictly enforced for TT submissions because Mary Beth's job is hard enough as it is without having to deal with late submissions.

I will say, though, that USA-S has its own share of inanities that I've experienced as both swimmer and parent. Including a situation where the swims from an entire LSC were "wiped out" retroactively, even though they were legit swims. Or delaying a meet for 5 minutes in order to explain to a crying child why she needed to be DQ'ed because she didn't step up to the blocks quite fast enough (ie, the meet was delayed while she was DQ'ed for delay of meet. I don't ever see that happening in USMS meets.)

I have a dozen such stories and although I can bitch and moan about specific issues like anyone else, I'm grateful to the organization and the many volunteers that help run it. They do a fine job; so does USMS.

By the way, if you swim in USA-S meets you can still get those times submitted for USMS TT, as long as the pool length has been measured at some point, as you note. (If there is a bulkhead, then it needs to be re-measured at the meet.) And, of course, as long as you are a USMS member. It is up to you to make sure your TT recorder is aware of the meet, though.

Getting USMS times submitted to SWIMS is easily as much of a hassle as that.

Chris Stevenson
February 11th, 2010, 01:35 PM
But those same folks shouldn't then disparage a different decision/priority to spend money on gear for competing. Or argue our gear should be banned so they don't have to compete at a disadvantage and can continue spending their discretionary income on non-sports items.

I can only speak for myself, but I have always thought the money argument against tech suits was weak. I thought USA-S did a good thing in regulating the use of the suits for younger swimmers, which also blunted the argument that the suits were a barrier for poor kids to the sport. I was a little sympathetic to the argument that college programs might be cut because of the extra cost of the suits (I know for a fact that they could be a significant budget item for smaller swim programs).

In fact I don't believe cost was the main reason the suits were banned, though I'm not sure that FINA has really explained the rationale of its rulings in any detail.

Dolphin 2
February 11th, 2010, 01:44 PM
Since the subject of tech suits seems to just grind on and on, has anyone ever noted that the increase in speed contributed by using one of these suits not really that significant?

Proponents of tech suits have even claimed that they make the sport more attractive to the TV viewing audience because they want to watch people swim faster.

However the minor increase in speed because of tech suits is a lot like making snail racing faster– You’re not going to see much of a difference. :confused:

D2

http://www.snailracing.net/

YouTube- Snail race

Novaova
February 11th, 2010, 01:49 PM
My car? 1996 Toyota Tacoma compact pickup. It's rusty, the bumper sits at a funny angle, and it's got almost 200,000 miles on it. However it runs when I turn the key and the insurance and taxes are cheap.

My tech suit? Yingfa-- $35 on eBay, and it came in an envelope festooned with pretty stamps from China. Is it faster than my practice suit? Oh hell yes. It was immediately obvious the first time I hit the water in it. Is it as fast as a $400 suit? Without a lottery win, I'll never know. But you know what? I don't care. I'm having fun, they're having fun, it's all good.

(This carries over into other sports I compete in, too. Take tennis-- there's some seriously wealthy *&%#s playing tennis, with their expensive club memberships, husbands who own airplanes, top-of-the line racquets, private lessons from a pro, expensive Adidas outfits, etc. I go out there on the tournament court in my practice shorts and tank top with my last-year's-style racquet and shoes with a hole in the toe and work my tail off to beat them, and it feels GREAT! Sure they drive home to their half-million-dollar McMansion in a 2010 BMW and I drive to a little apartment in a crappy worn-out industrial town in my trusty old pickup, but my point is that a seasoned scrounger and bargain-shopper can make do with 2nd tier equipment.)

Point is, it's not about the money. People who have less will find a way to level the playing field-- work harder, second-hand gear, bargain shopping, what have you. It's all good if it's all fun.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 01:57 PM
Yeah, I'd probably get bummed. I'd still get over it if I was beating my personal goals as my goals are always geared around racing myself / my own times.

If there are consistent meets that are not getting into the list, I'd not swim them. Else, you could become your LMSC's records person or TT person (or whoever it is that ensures results are included) and ensure that all meets get in. :)

This has happened at completely different meets. Had I noticed a pattern, believe me, I'd avoid the meets. Now another issue is that our state only holds say one SCM meet a year. And, at times there is a problem with that meet. Then you travel out of state to attend another meet only to have those times not count as well. Think I'm better off moving out of Dixie Zone. Also, the meets not counting do not always fall on the shoulders of the TT person! For example, if I travel to Alabama and the meet director fails to measure the pool, my TT person will not be able to fix that one. But I agree with you in that becoming the TT person could help!

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 02:11 PM
I missed something in this discussion. What are "retroactive DQs"?

My friends and I coined this term.

For example, you swim in what you think is a sanctioned USMS meet.

Your times may or may not be entered into the "Event Rankings." If the times are entered into Event Rankings, say, for example, you are listed as #2 in your age group in a particular event. Prelim Top 10 comes out and all of a sudden your swim and all the swims from the meet are not listed. You are not notified of this fact (other than you see the missing swims) nor are you told why the swims disappeared. It's as if you never did the swim and the meet never existed. In essence, you are disqualified months after the meet taking place and you are disqualified from Top10 without being told how or why.

Now, if you want to take the initiative, you can pester people about the missing meet and you may be given a reason as to why the meet ended up not counting.

I always thought it would be very useful to see data as it pertains to the percentage of meets that end up not counting for Top 10.

BigNoodler
February 11th, 2010, 02:20 PM
I agree. My sole point here is that cost will be a factor in many people's decisions.

Kirk, basic Econ 101 - regardless of income (and certainly regardless of what they drive - I mean, that's beyond laughable), many people, wealthy or otherwise, consider cost a factor.

Stevepowell
February 11th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Well I just broke down and bought a B70 thanks to the now low price. (Thanks for the heads up Ande). But I'm not sure iI can wear it. It is a M32 size:

6'1"+ (me 6'),
w33 (I wear 34 jeans but sometimes my waist looks kinda like a bear gut),
chest 41 (me 42),
weight 215+ (me 175).

Any way I need help to zip it up and all this dough looking stuff spills out where my lats are and my belly looks a snake that just ate a rat. (round bulge).

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 02:44 PM
Well I just broke down and bought a B70 thanks to the now low price. (Thanks for the heads up Ande). But I'm not sure iI can wear it. It is a M32 size

I thought for sure you were going to say it was way too big. I'm not far off your size and I have a 28 that fits great!

I think if you got it zipped up and you're able to move your arms through a full range of motion you'll be fine.

Stevepowell
February 11th, 2010, 03:06 PM
Thanks Knelson;
Yeah full range of motion. Just kinda worried that I'll look foolish. Once in the water I won't care. Maybe I just expected that I'd look like an age 22 elite swimmer in the suit....

knelson
February 11th, 2010, 03:28 PM
Don't sweat it. I'm sure you'll be fine!

__steve__
February 11th, 2010, 03:37 PM
If you wear it fresh for your first heat, be careful not to underestimate the turn.

Stevepowell
February 11th, 2010, 04:46 PM
Yep, I'm going to wear it for warm up.
I don't want to "pull a Phelps" and swim thru the deck to the parking lot!

pwb
February 11th, 2010, 04:55 PM
Well I just broke down and bought a B70 thanks to the now low price. (Thanks for the heads up Ande). But I'm not sure iI can wear it. It is a M32 size:

6'1"+ (me 6'),
w33 (I wear 34 jeans but sometimes my waist looks kinda like a bear gut),
chest 41 (me 42),
weight 215+ (me 175).

Any way I need help to zip it up and all this dough looking stuff spills out where my lats are and my belly looks a snake that just ate a rat. (round bulge).

This should be fine. The B70 fabric is very conforming. I wear the size 32, but I'm taller (6'4" and 190lbs). It definitely does accentuate the bulges, unfortunately, but it feels great in the water.


Yep, I'm going to wear it for warm up.
I don't want to "pull a Phelps" and swim thru the deck to the parking lot!The first time I wore one, I swam my normal warmup in a drag suit, then dried off and slipped the B70 on for about 100. It felt fabulous. By now, I prefer to race with a dry suit, if at all possible.

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 05:22 PM
Think I'm better off moving out of Dixie Zone.

Yes, they were rather bad last year. I'm only attending Nationals in the Dixie Zone this year as a result, and will stick close to PV where we are very fortunate to have an extremely conscientious TT guru and meet directors. :bow:

I think Geek stole my car.

Oh, and I agree with Chris on the cost issue -- it's largely a red herring, though I have no objection to kids (not adults or elites) being regulated.

Herb
February 11th, 2010, 07:26 PM
I've read about this line of thinking a lot on this forum - not just from Chris. But as a *newbie* who jumped into biking and running to do triathlons (albeit not well), I sucked it up, bought the gear, completely trained myself (hell, I was in the wrong gears for 15 miles during my first tri competition) and competed. So. . . I just think that riding a bike w/ clips, shoes, aerobars and the like down huge hills at huge speed in bad weather with cars everywhere (heck, and stray animals) is much scarier than putting on a tech suit and heading to a pool. And this is coming from a gal who won't spend one night camping. Just sayin' Perhaps those people are simply not cut out for sport.

I bought all this stuff to do a couple of triathlons (not very well). Swimming is the only sport I had any real background or relative ability in, yet since I started competing in Masters a year ago I have had zero interest in buying a tech suit. Of course I am not at any kind of nationally competitive level.

I was out of swimming so long that I didnt even know there were such things until I went to a meet. I thought the concept was ridiculous (I still do), but I could care less what anyone else is wearing since I am mostly competing against myself. Whether I get beat by 10 seconds or 12 seconds in the 100 free because of a tech suit is no matter.

Lump
February 11th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Well I just broke down and bought a B70 thanks to the now low price. (Thanks for the heads up Ande). But I'm not sure iI can wear it. It is a M32 size:

6'1"+ (me 6'),
w33 (I wear 34 jeans but sometimes my waist looks kinda like a bear gut),
chest 41 (me 42),
weight 215+ (me 175).

Any way I need help to zip it up and all this dough looking stuff spills out where my lats are and my belly looks a snake that just ate a rat. (round bulge).

Me too. I ordered today. I'm 6'1 and about 225 right now and ordered a 32. I wear 36 jeans and a 36 Endurance suit in practice. I'm pretty sure I can fit in it. I even get into a 32 FS Pro Jammer and a 32 LZR Elite is even a little big.

Plus, I plan to drop 15 lbs by Nationals.

Herb
February 11th, 2010, 08:34 PM
Proponents of tech suits have even claimed that they make the sport more attractive to the TV viewing audience because they want to watch people swim faster.


I would think the tv audience would want to see less suit and more skin.

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 08:37 PM
I could care less what anyone else is wearing since I am mostly competing against myself. Whether I get beat by 10 seconds or 12 seconds in the 100 free because of a tech suit is no matter.

Perhaps this statement is why the prior "pathetic" comment was somewhat confusing. Surely we're not "pathetic" for wearing racing gear to compete?

Herb
February 11th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Perhaps this statement is why the prior "pathetic" comment was somewhat confusing. Surely we're not "pathetic" for wearing racing gear to compete?

No, but it is pathetic to quit swimming because you can't wear a banned suit. Or to try and start a new organization outside of Masters to wear them is pathetic.

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 09:37 PM
No, but it is pathetic to quit swimming because you can't wear a banned suit. Or to try and start a new organization outside of Masters to wear them is pathetic.

Awfully judgmental. If someone wants to pursue another sport where gear is allowed or have a different venue for swimming in tech suits (like the Texas meet or some other specialty meet or OW), I don't see a problem. We're all free agents as adults.

It's likely more "pathetic" to watch a sport based on skin coverage or tell people they're "pathetic" or "ridiculous" based on their choice of suit.

Novaova
February 11th, 2010, 09:50 PM
It's likely more "pathetic" to watch a sport based on skin coverage or tell people they're "pathetic" or "ridiculous" based on their choice of suit.
Well said.

Chris Stevenson
February 11th, 2010, 09:52 PM
My friends and I coined this term.

For example, you swim in what you think is a sanctioned USMS meet.

Your times may or may not be entered into the "Event Rankings." If the times are entered into Event Rankings, say, for example, you are listed as #2 in your age group in a particular event. Prelim Top 10 comes out and all of a sudden your swim and all the swims from the meet are not listed. You are not notified of this fact (other than you see the missing swims) nor are you told why the swims disappeared. It's as if you never did the swim and the meet never existed. In essence, you are disqualified months after the meet taking place and you are disqualified from Top10 without being told how or why.

Now, if you want to take the initiative, you can pester people about the missing meet and you may be given a reason as to why the meet ended up not counting.

I always thought it would be very useful to see data as it pertains to the percentage of meets that end up not counting for Top 10.

Based on what I hear, I think the number is small and you've been unlucky.

Responding to both your and Fort's disparagement of the Dixie Zone...I have swum in (by my count) 4 meets in NC in the last few years, all of which were submitted to both the Meet Results database and to TT. No problems there. I also had no problems when I lived in Florida, though that was quite some time ago. In fact I can still find some of my old times from that era.

Sanctioning is done at the LMSC level, so I can only tell you what happens in Virginia. But when a meet is sanctioned the meet director agrees to take care of pool measurements and to submit the results on the TT recorder in a timely manner in electronic form. Failure to do these things can result in not being granted a sanction in the future. Measurements are not an issue so much here b/c all our main meets are in pools with walls (not bulkheads) so they don't need to be remeasured for each meet.

I asked Mary Beth Windrath about meets that are submitted after the deadline. Here was her response:

"Normally adding swims, especially an entire meet, is not done. If a TT recorder realizes they accidentally omitted a meet, I usually take it, but that is only because we try to support our TT recorders. In the case that the meet director did not send the meet results to the TT person, then we do not accept it. Or if the top ten person submits late, we do not accept it, regardless of how many meets were involved. Just to clarify, as long as the top ten person has made an attempt to submit by the deadline, even if there is some issue with it such as a bad format, then I accept it. That mostly happens with new recorders who are figuring things out. In the case where we have an accidentally missed meet and we do accept it, I usually ask the TT person to just give me the swims that make top ten, rather than the entire meet. When a swimmer emails one of us and says, my results didn't show up, I find out why. Usually it is one of the two cases I mentioned and we go from there."

Mary Beth is not obligated to accept new swims after the deadline but she will sometimes go out of her way to do so. When I first started out as a TT recorder, I didn't realize until after the deadline that we were responsible for submitting times from our swimmers in foreign meets. I quickly pored over the meet, compared it to the preliminary TT, and pulled those times that would make the list and submitted them. Since I was new and had done most of her work for her, she took pity on me and accepted them. She often does the same for others, but her job requires a LOT of time and we shouldn't abuse her kindness. Hence the need for strict deadlines.

The Fortress
February 11th, 2010, 09:59 PM
I have personally found Mary Beth to be incredibly diligent and helpful.

LindsayNB
February 11th, 2010, 10:32 PM
Out of curiosity, what are the main causes for divergence between the top ten and the top ten times that could be calculated automatically from the meet results database?

Chris Stevenson
February 12th, 2010, 09:31 AM
Out of curiosity, what are the main causes for divergence between the top ten and the top ten times that could be calculated automatically from the meet results database?

Two main causes:

-- not all meets are submitted to the meet results database (MRDB). Though encouraged, meet directors and TT recorders are not required to submit to this database.

-- swims in the MRDB are not subjected to quite the same level of verification as submissions to the national TT list. For example, there are sometimes swims by non-members included in the MRDB, swims that occur in pools whose lengths were not certified, and sometimes you have duplicate names that differ slightly (eg by including a middle initial in one instance but not another)

The gap between the two is shrinking, particularly due to the latter reason because there is a project underway to essentially merge the two databases. The main difficulties are (a) debugging online verification tools; (b) training TT Recorders to use them; and (c) getting people to submit all their meets as they occur. It will take some time to get all that fixed, it is essentially in beta-testing now.

Rich Abrahams
February 12th, 2010, 11:12 AM
Two main causes:

-- not all meets are submitted to the meet results database (MRDB). Though encouraged, meet directors and TT recorders are not required to submit to this database.

-- swims in the MRDB are not subjected to quite the same level of verification as submissions to the national TT list. For example, there are sometimes swims by non-members included in the MRDB, swims that occur in pools whose lengths were not certified, and sometimes you have duplicate names that differ slightly (eg by including a middle initial in one instance but not another)

The gap between the two is shrinking, particularly due to the latter reason because there is a project underway to essentially merge the two databases. The main difficulties are (a) debugging online verification tools; (b) training TT Recorders to use them; and (c) getting people to submit all their meets as they occur. It will take some time to get all that fixed, it is essentially in beta-testing now.

I can think of a third reason. Meet directors sometimes forget to submit split requests.

Glenn, sorry about your losing that top time in the 100 free....not really.

Rich

no200fly
February 12th, 2010, 12:20 PM
As far as Top 10 times, pool measurements, etc., it's certainly cool to get into the Top 10 and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't try to train to get higher, beat certain times and certain people, BUT, if my times didn't happen to get in there (e.g., my 400 LCM free and 100 LCM fly from the same USAS meet where my 200 free and 200 IM were recorded), that's no big deal.


I agree, top 10 is a goal to work for but if it does not get recorded, it is no big deal. All in all, I think they do a pretty good job keeping up with all of the info. I figure there are 50 people who were my contemporaries in college who could, without working out, put on a suit and beat my top 10 times - so it does not seem like something to worry too much about if one gets missed. I swam a relay a couple of years ago that would have been the fastest time for the year but was not recorded. It really has not changed my life, one way or the other.

knelson
February 12th, 2010, 01:21 PM
Yeah, a race or two not getting into the top ten would be a little annoying, but easy to forget about. However, having your results from multiple meets thrown out is another story. I'd be very ticked off too. And I think BigNoodler's point was she usually swims USA Swimming meets, but entered a few USMS meets because she figured that would be the easiest way to get into the rankings. She made the commitment to travel to these meets only to see her swims basically struck from the record. Since the suit rules are now (or will be) the same as USA-S, and her times never seem to count anyway she sees little point in even being a member of USMS. Certainly understandable.

Chris Stevenson
February 12th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Since the suit rules are now (or will be) the same as USA-S, and her times never seem to count anyway she sees little point in even being a member of USMS. Certainly understandable.

While I agree that BN's experience would be very frustrating for most people, your conclusion depends entirely on one's reasons for joining USMS. If the sole purpose is to make TT, then I agree with you.

knelson
February 12th, 2010, 02:37 PM
your conclusion depends entirely on one's reasons for joining USMS.

Right, I'm only talking about her case. She trains with a USA Swimming club and primarily swims USAS meets. For her (IMO, of course) there is little reason to be a member of USMS other than qualifying for things like top tens, records, etc.

aquageek
February 12th, 2010, 02:46 PM
...there is little reason to be a member of USMS other than qualifying for things like top tens, records, etc.

Um, you are forgetting the prime reason - to host the best Atlanta Nationals party where she will take you for a spin in her Corvette.

BigNoodler
February 12th, 2010, 04:07 PM
I agree, top 10 is a goal to work for but if it does not get recorded, it is no big deal. All in all, I think they do a pretty good job keeping up with all of the info. I figure there are 50 people who were my contemporaries in college who could, without working out, put on a suit and beat my top 10 times - so it does not seem like something to worry too much about if one gets missed. I swam a relay a couple of years ago that would have been the fastest time for the year but was not recorded. It really has not changed my life, one way or the other.

I was expecting Nike to knock at my door after qualifying for Top 10! Drats!

BigNoodler
February 12th, 2010, 04:10 PM
Um, you are forgetting the prime reason - to host the best Atlanta Nationals party where she will take you for a spin in her Corvette.

LOL! I'll be out of town for this event! Ironically, I'll be doing the Warrior Dash - mud, barbed wire and fire.

BigNoodler
February 12th, 2010, 04:34 PM
Maybe what you want is here, under "Guide to Operations."

http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/

I am sorry that this happened to you and am not sure why you've had bad luck. I know that NC has had some issues with TT recorder (3 within one year, I think) but hopefully it is straightened out now. I encourage you to try again.

I've been swimming in masters for over 20 years and it hasn't been an issue for me. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means that if it did, I didn't notice it. Then again, I don't believe I seriously paid attention to TT until 3 years ago, when I became a TT recorder.

The time between preliminary and final TT is to give people time to find errors. It happens all the time. I don't know the answer to your question about why an overlooked meet is accepted one time but not another, but I am trying to find out the policy about that. Deadlines are strictly enforced for TT submissions because Mary Beth's job is hard enough as it is without having to deal with late submissions.

I will say, though, that USA-S has its own share of inanities that I've experienced as both swimmer and parent. Including a situation where the swims from an entire LSC were "wiped out" retroactively, even though they were legit swims. Or delaying a meet for 5 minutes in order to explain to a crying child why she needed to be DQ'ed because she didn't step up to the blocks quite fast enough (ie, the meet was delayed while she was DQ'ed for delay of meet. I don't ever see that happening in USMS meets.)

I have a dozen such stories and although I can bitch and moan about specific issues like anyone else, I'm grateful to the organization and the many volunteers that help run it. They do a fine job; so does USMS.

By the way, if you swim in USA-S meets you can still get those times submitted for USMS TT, as long as the pool length has been measured at some point, as you note. (If there is a bulkhead, then it needs to be re-measured at the meet.) And, of course, as long as you are a USMS member. It is up to you to make sure your TT recorder is aware of the meet, though.

Getting USMS times submitted to SWIMS is easily as much of a hassle as that.

Is Mary Beth open to having volunteers help her or does she prefer to handle Top 10 solo? Just keep reading that she's got a lot on her plate.

aquageek
February 12th, 2010, 04:35 PM
LOL! I'll be out of town for this event! Ironically, I'll be doing the Warrior Dash - mud, barbed wire and fire.

Leave key under doormat.

knelson
February 12th, 2010, 04:41 PM
LOL! I'll be out of town for this event!

I'm beginning to think BigNoodler doesn't really exist. Has anyone on these forums ever met her? First, all of her times magically disappear and then she ducks out of the big meet in her backyard where lots of forumites could possibly meet her. I think BigNoodler is really just Jim Thornton's female alter ego. :)

JimRude
February 12th, 2010, 04:47 PM
I'm beginning to think BigNoodler doesn't really exist. Has anyone on these forums ever met her? First, all of her times magically disappear and then she ducks out of the big meet in her backyard where lots of forumites could possibly meet her. I think BigNoodler is really just Jim Thornton's female alter ego. :)

I think Fortress and BN are one and the same.

Chris Stevenson
February 12th, 2010, 04:49 PM
Is Mary Beth open to having volunteers help her or does she prefer to handle Top 10 solo? Just keep reading that she's got a lot on her plate.

I think the preferred term is "minions," not volunteers.:)

You can ask: topten AT usms DOT org.

JimRude
February 12th, 2010, 04:52 PM
Leave key under doormat.

LOL

Glenn
February 12th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Rich,

No shame in losing a top ten time to you!!

Glenn

no200fly
February 12th, 2010, 07:10 PM
I was expecting Nike to knock at my door after qualifying for Top 10! Drats!

The Hawaiian Tropic models didn't deliver your certificate and check? Maybe that's just for the guys.

Allen Stark
February 12th, 2010, 09:01 PM
I was expecting Nike to knock at my door after qualifying for Top 10! Drats!

No you have to be on the West Coast for a Nike commercial.

GGS5T
February 13th, 2010, 05:21 AM
Many older ladies in the UK have now had enough of the bodysuit debacle and have decided to leave the sport once and for all. Unlike your system in the US, we in Britain are 'guided' by a masters committee - which is under constant criticism from masters swimmers. They are giving us no lead. In fact they interpret the new rules in their own way, but openly admit they too are confused. Our governing body doesn't give a toss about masters swimming, except when registration fees are due, then they grab the cash with open hands.

Many of our older swimmers feel comfortable in their bodysuits. There are people here who go on about wanting a level playing field. These swimmers are hardly going to be a threat to Michael Phelps or any other elite Olympian. If bodysuits were allowed in masters swimming then the playing field would be level, as it was before. Remember, all swimming rules in masters are not the same as in elite swimming anyway.

If we really want to consign masters swimming to the scrap heap, marginalising some of our better (and often older) swimmers, then banning bodysuits is a great way of going about it.

BigNoodler
February 13th, 2010, 09:32 AM
The Hawaiian Tropic models didn't deliver your certificate and check? Maybe that's just for the guys.

Women with corvettes are really discriminated against! We can't take cost into consideration AND we are shunned by the Hawaiian Tropic models! I need to change my demographic asap!:)

BigNoodler
February 13th, 2010, 09:38 AM
I'm beginning to think BigNoodler doesn't really exist. Has anyone on these forums ever met her? First, all of her times magically disappear and then she ducks out of the big meet in her backyard where lots of forumites could possibly meet her. I think BigNoodler is really just Jim Thornton's female alter ego. :)

LOL! I did attend Savannah masters nationals in my $30 dolphin suit a few years ago. And I'm at a masters meet as I type this! Being the sick person that I am, what an honor it is to be called JT's female alter ego. Although if you saw me in a Jaked, you WOULD mistake me for JT's MALE alter ego. :badday:

The Fortress
February 13th, 2010, 09:40 AM
I think Fortress and BN are one and the same.

I'm at a masters meet too. :angel:

Allen Stark
February 13th, 2010, 12:08 PM
what an honor it is to be called JT's female alter ego. Although if you saw me in a Jaked, you WOULD mistake me for JT's MALE alter ego. :badday:

That's only fair since JT wants to wear the women's suits.

Herb
February 13th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Awfully judgmental. If someone wants to pursue another sport where gear is allowed or have a different venue for swimming in tech suits (like the Texas meet or some other specialty meet or OW), I don't see a problem. We're all free agents as adults.

It's likely more "pathetic" to watch a sport based on skin coverage or tell people they're "pathetic" or "ridiculous" based on their choice of suit.

I don't mean to tell people they are pathetic based on their suit. I suppose I might even be wearing one myself if I was any good. But as it is, I am not emotionally attached to the issue. Like I said, it has no affect on me what others are doing. But yeah, I view the whole tech suit saga as pretty much ridiculous.

makesense
February 15th, 2010, 08:49 AM
What am I missing?

Rule 102.14.6 states, "Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or
endurance during a race..."

Manufacturers claim that many of the 'approved' suits decrease drag (surface effect and compression effect) and more than imply that these suits will increase performance, ie speed/pace/endurance. Isn't that why we often buy one brand/style over another, the one that will give us an speed advantage?

actually, don't all suits do this, especially jammers etc since Mark Spitz? Actually, even his 1972 suit probably decreased drag compared to no suit at all?

(I may have an answer to my own question. Earlier, this rule number included the words "any device or substance or swimsuit...". The current language may exclude suits as devices. Apparently, whatever suit that FINA thinks is not too performance enhancing will be ok, a rather gray line.)

BigNoodler
February 15th, 2010, 09:38 AM
I'm beginning to think BigNoodler doesn't really exist. Has anyone on these forums ever met her? First, all of her times magically disappear and then she ducks out of the big meet in her backyard where lots of forumites could possibly meet her. I think BigNoodler is really just Jim Thornton's female alter ego. :)

The way my swims disappear from Top 10, I too am starting to wonder if I exist! :bolt: Hope to move from lowly, self consumed worm to 1/100th the enlightened athlete (prob won't happen) like all the boys who don't care if their swims disappear - although perhaps their daily blogging to the entire modern world assists them in forgetting about a measly lost time. :angel:

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2010, 09:44 AM
What am I missing?

Rule 102.14.6 states, "Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or
endurance during a race..."

Manufacturers claim that many of the 'approved' suits decrease drag (surface effect and compression effect) and more than imply that these suits will increase performance, ie speed/pace/endurance. Isn't that why we often buy one brand/style over another, the one that will give us an speed advantage?

actually, don't all suits do this, especially jammers etc since Mark Spitz? Actually, even his 1972 suit probably decreased drag compared to no suit at all?

(I may have an answer to my own question. Earlier, this rule number included the words "any device or substance or swimsuit...". The current language may exclude suits as devices. Apparently, whatever suit that FINA thinks is not too performance enhancing will be ok, a rather gray line.)

Well, a suit is required by the rules for modesty reasons (I forget which one and I'm too lazy to look it up right now; Kathy C is probably shuddering :)). I would argue that, since SOME suit is required, that suit should not inhibit performance. For example, drag suits shouldn't be our baseline of comparison, saying any suit that is better is a performance aid.

IMO, the tricky part is when coverage exceeds what modesty proscribes. There are some believe that jammers are more than necessary. And since "modesty" is culture-specific, it is kind of a mess. But now FINA's specifications say what coverage is allowed, so I guess that issue is avoided to a certain degree. (USMS does allow exceptions, eg for religious beliefs. Maybe tech-lovers will start their own cult and claim exceptions?:))

The rule number never included "...or swimsuit..." It was mistakenly included in an early post on the USMS website but then corrected. The "swimsuit" term IS explicitly in the corresponding USA-S rule but was taken out before being adopted at the USMS Convention.

The interesting part is, I asked about this decision and the answer at the time was that the Rules Committee interprets the "swimsuit" part to be implicit in the other language. I would argue that recent history suggests otherwise, but oh well. I'll be curious to see if "swimsuit" is put back in at the next fall convention, after the FINA rules have been adopted for all courses. It doesn't really need to be, since there are other rules that explicitly cover swimsuits; 102.14.4 for example states that the suit must be FINA-approved.

Some time ago, FINA used to argue that a swimsuit is a "costume" and not a "device" and so was not covered by a rule such as the one you mention.

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 09:58 AM
But as it is, I am not emotionally attached to the issue. Like I said, it has no affect on me what others are doing. But yeah, I view the whole tech suit saga as pretty much ridiculous.

If you're not emotionally attached to the issue, how can you work up to an extreme opinion of ridiculous and pathetic? And, uh, that has been our sport for over a decade, dude. It wasn't a saga or some quickie dramatic act. It was the norm.

To my knowledge, suits have never been considered "devices." I don't think it's legal defensible to assert that it's implied in that existing language either.

And the relevance of "modesty" in formulating a rule on racing suits escapes me (beyond the basic of not being see through, etc.)

makesense
February 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM
Agree.

The erroneous suit rule confused me.

Seems clear that suits and devices are separate.

Must be interesting meetings with lots of slides used to wrangle over how much a suit can cover and not cover.

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2010, 10:19 AM
And the relevance of "modesty" in formulating a rule on racing suits escapes me (beyond the basic of not being see through, etc.)

Perhaps in a nutshell, the difference between pro-tech people and anti-tech is the role that they believe the suit should play in swimming. The anti-tech people think that the main purpose is modesty; the pro-tech people think the suit should also make you faster. I'm not really sure there is a way to reconcile these two views.


Must be interesting meetings with lots of slides used to wrangle over how much a suit can cover and not cover.

LOL. But in the case of masters swimmers, it might not be as pleasurable a job as you might think... :)

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 10:31 AM
Perhaps in a nutshell, the difference between pro-tech people and anti-tech is the role that they believe the suit should play in swimming. The anti-tech people think that the main purpose is modesty; the pro-tech people think the suit should also make you faster. I'm not really sure there is a way to reconcile these two views.


Perhaps not. I can't think of another sport where modesty is relevant to racing though. Modesty is relevant to school dress codes and pubic indecency laws. Speed is relevant to racing. Maybe I'll become a speed skater since speed swimming is outlawed.

rtodd
February 15th, 2010, 10:53 AM
Speed skating is very cool. I would have loved to try that. How much are their speedsuits and how many "skates" do they get out of them?

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Perhaps not. I can't think of another sport where modesty is relevant to racing though. Modesty is relevant to school dress codes and pubic indecency laws. Speed is relevant to racing. Maybe I'll become a speed skater since speed swimming is outlawed.

I don't understand your riff against modesty. Tech-lovers generally want more coverage, not less.

One of the earliest "speed suit" controversies was women's use of skirt-less racing suits. Until about 15 years ago, getting a faster suit was about less coverage, and modesty was maybe more relevant. (I still remember a college teammate who would buy briefs in size 24 for conference champs. Believe me, modesty was an issue. :))

I only brought up modesty since makesense talked about a suit improving over wearing no suit at all, which isn't an option. SOME suit coverage is necessary and it doesn't make sense to have it create unnecessary drag.

LindsayNB
February 15th, 2010, 11:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finswimming

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 11:34 AM
I don't understand your riff against modesty. Tech-lovers generally want more coverage, not less.


I dislike that modesty is now resurrected as an excuse/rationale to ban body suits. Who decided that the only purpose of a swimsuit in competition is modesty?! Why are we all harking back to this only now? Modesty is misplaced in determining what gear to race in. We are racing, not in finishing school.

stillwater
February 15th, 2010, 11:39 AM
Who decided that the only purpose of a swimsuit in competition is modesty?!

I did.

Sorry, I've put on a couple of pounds and, well, you know, I just figured that it would be best for all if I covered up.

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2010, 11:46 AM
Who decided that the only purpose of a swimsuit in competition is modesty?!

I'm not trying to be smug about it, but I suppose FINA did, under pressure from others (including USA-S).

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 11:50 AM
I'm not trying to be smug about it, but I suppose FINA did, under pressure from others (including USA-S).


I wouldn't be too smug about invoking schizophrenic FINA.

My point is that the "swimsuits are only for modesty" seems like a conveniently and recently trumped up excuse. As for USA-S, I've always said it was arguably appropriate to regulate kids, just not elites and adults.

I think the new version of purism is a fun sucker. That's just me. Swimming needs to be more fun. See, e.g., interview with Peter Marshall in Splash magazine. And I'm just feeling cranky about being told how to pursue my hobby and passion. (So please excuse my Monday morning b*tchiness. lol)

stillwater
February 15th, 2010, 03:04 PM
Swimming needs to be more fun

Fortress,

Your swimming deeds are famous, your passion for the sport is second to none, and your quest for fun is one we all chase.

Tech suits have taken away a great deal of the fun in competition for me.

I like to compete, and I like to win. There is an annoying chap I train with, and we are pretty close in time and age. In the past, I could always take him in competitions due to fact that I am a faster swimmer. Now, he buys the newest tech suits, I don't. In competition, he wins.

I don't like that. Boo-Hoo.

I am a faster swimmer, he bought a faster suit.

What is fun for you may not be fun for others.

aquageek
February 15th, 2010, 03:20 PM
I am a faster swimmer, he bought a faster suit.

What is fun for you may not be fun for others.

No, he's faster than you. You have the option to swim as fast as him but chose not to.

The fun police won, we've accepted that. Allow us our last four months please.

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 03:28 PM
What is fun for you may not be fun for others.

In my fun sucking comment, I did say that it "was just me." So I obviously got this point.

aquageek
February 15th, 2010, 03:35 PM
Why is someone else's fun level dependent on me having less fun? That's a fun-bummer.

thewookiee
February 15th, 2010, 03:37 PM
Why is someone else's fun level dependent on me having less fun? That's a fun-bummer.

It's become a trend in society...if someone else isn't having fun, then the rest of us can't either.

stillwater
February 15th, 2010, 03:58 PM
Allow us our last four months please.

Knock yourself out with all the fun your having.


Remember the asterisk.

pwb
February 15th, 2010, 04:05 PM
Remember the asterisk.

There are none. Perfectly legal. Perfectly asterisk-less.

aquageek
February 15th, 2010, 04:06 PM
Remember the asterisk.

No need for me to remember, you'll remind me. Apparently putting others' accomplishments down is fun, simply for the legal attire they chose to wear.

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Remember the asterisk.

Do you remind your teammate of this on a daily basis too?

Sounds like you're having enough fun beating him in practice, calling yourself a faster swimmer, and claiming we're all owed asterisks.

No more fun for you!

no200fly
February 15th, 2010, 04:16 PM
I like to compete, and I like to win. There is an annoying chap I train with, and we are pretty close in time and age. In the past, I could always take him in competitions due to fact that I am a faster swimmer. Now, he buys the newest tech suits, I don't. In competition, he wins.

I don't like that. Boo-Hoo.

I am a faster swimmer, he bought a faster suit.

What is fun for you may not be fun for others.

It will really be annoying if he beats you after June 1.

orca1946
February 15th, 2010, 04:20 PM
NOW NOW Swimmers, be nice !

thewookiee
February 15th, 2010, 04:40 PM
It will really be annoying if he beats you after June 1.

Or fun.

thewookiee
February 15th, 2010, 04:43 PM
Remember the asterisk.

These are used by people that don't want to see things advance in sport. They feel the need to degrade accomplishments of current athletes following the rules because they don't like seeing their heroes replaced in the record books. They feel that their records should always remain and never be broken by the next generations of athletes to come.

stillwater
February 15th, 2010, 05:55 PM
There are none. Perfectly legal. Perfectly asterisk-less.

You are correct. As I have stated all records should stand. But, the comparisons won't be from only me.


Do you remind your teammate of this on a daily basis too?
Sounds like you're having enough fun beating him in practice, calling yourself a faster swimmer, and claiming we're all owed asterisks.

No. I never claimed you are all owed asterisks. You earned them.


It will really be annoying if he beats you after June 1.

True. I could become czar of USMS swimming also. The probabilities are about the same.


These are used by people that don't want to see things advance in sport. They feel the need to degrade accomplishments of current athletes following the rules because they don't like seeing their heroes replaced in the record books. They feel that their records should always remain and never be broken by the next generations of athletes to come.

Sit wookie. Stop humping Bill's leg or I'll be rolling up the newspaper. I know that's why you have a distorted perspective of the facts.

The Fortress
February 15th, 2010, 06:08 PM
But, the comparisons won't be from only me.

No. I never claimed you are all owed asterisks. You earned them.



Of course people have been comparing or possibly calculating what they might have swum in unasterisked legal tech suits that they chose not to buy for whatever reason. I just don't give a rat's ass.

Happy to have earned my times. I think 99% of my competitors earned theirs too. And I didn't hear too much b*tching and moaning about it either. Good god, they must have been having fun swimming fast.

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2010, 06:22 PM
Fun science: fun is a conserved property, fun can neither be created nor destroyed.

Very obviously the fun sucked out of the swimming pool by the techsuit ban has been deposited directly into these fora, and largely into this very thread.

But there are so many fun-sucking activities in the world: committee meetings, root canals, pro baseball, talk radio. One would think that fun-generating activities would balance these out, but the world seems to be getting more and more dreary. Just WHERE is all that fun going?

It was a rhetorical fun question, because I'm pretty sure I know the fun answer: Jim Thornton's vlog, where absolutely nothing can be taken seriously. I'm heading there now for some fun...:bolt:

Note added post-vlog. Okay, some fun was leached out of Jim's latest vlog by circumstance...but it was definitely FUNny. And his thoughts on speedsuits are far more witty than anything I could come up with.

GGS5T
February 16th, 2010, 05:38 AM
The erroneous suit rule confused me.


The rules are confusing us in the UK too. This was posted by a lawyer (and masters swimmer) on a British swim forum:
_____________

The problem stems from the FINA rules and the fact that the rules are most probably the result of a committee discussion rather than any prior legal analysis as to whether the rules are enforceable. This means that the rules are often amended piecemeal rather than considering the effect of any amendment on other rules and regulations. There is also the problem that, daft as it may sound, the use of everyday language in the wording of the rule may not be the most appropriate as such language may be more open to ambiguity and multiple interpretations.

There is therefore conflict within the FINA rules regarding swimwear. For example:

Rule GR 5.4 provides
Before any swimwear of new design, construction or material is used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimwear must submit the swimwear to FINA and obtain approval of FINA.

The rule is not limited to FINA or Olympic competitions but would appear to cover only "new" designs etc. Thus this rule would not prevent the use of the space age suits we saw last year.

The next ambiguity comes in relation to By-law 8. Is it to be construed as a whole or is it actually 3 distinct by-laws? If it is construed as a whole, the by-law only applies to FINA and Olympic competitions and thus bodysuits are not banned. Even if the by-laws are distinct laws, BL8.3 is ambiguous as regards the material. "Textile Material" is wide enough to cover the materials used in the super suits. The requirements for swimwear approval are expressly stated to apply only to FINA and Olympic Games and so cannot be used to interpret BL8.3 restrictively. The only qualification on this is that FINA will not recognise World Records in other competitions unless "approved swimwear" is used. This is the subject of an express rule in the Swimming Rules which refers to a FINA approved swimsuit (12.7). However, the reference to world records in rule 12.7 is clearly a reference to the world records contemplated by the rest of Rule 12 and the Masters World Records are the subject of their own rules which do not expressly impose the same requirement of a FINA approved swimsuit.

While rule 12.7 is obviously designed to meet the problem of elite swimmers breaking world records in unapproved "textile" suits outside the world championships or Olympic Games, it is less clear that the intention behind the rule was that Masters World Records would be subject to the same requirements.

This still leaves the question of what is meant by a FINA approved suit? Is it the simply the new suits caught by GR 5.4? or have the rules for swimwear approval been incorporated into the FINA rules despite expressly stating that they apply only to FINA competitions?

If it is the latter, then zips are banned as this is expressly stated in the swimwear approval rules.

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 08:04 AM
Sit wookie. Stop humping Bill's leg or I'll be rolling up the newspaper. I know that's why you have a distorted perspective of the facts.


I have nothing distorted about facts and I certainly woudn't hump Geek's leg. He would have to have a leg for any creature to hump firt.

And go ahead with the rolled up newspaper. There are reasons why wookiee's have been known to rip arm's out of sockets.

stillwater
February 16th, 2010, 12:50 PM
I have nothing distorted about facts and I certainly woudn't hump Geek's leg. He would have to have a leg for any creature to hump firt.

And go ahead with the rolled up newspaper. There are reasons why wookiee's have been known to rip arm's out of sockets.

Your spelling and punctuation are second only to your eloquent use of the English language.

I am in the early stages of writing a book and I was wondering if you would help with the editing. It would also be real special if you would allow me to use some of your lines.

The book is a buddy adventure with two guys as the main characters, only, (and here's the kicker) one of them is a talking donkey. They will go on the road doing all kinds of zany stuff yet a lesson will be learned in each chapter, and the talking donkey will kind of sum up the lesson. That's where your wit and wisdom will come in to play. I can visulize the donkey saying such gems as, "We all know that no one can beat geek at being a couch slug." or "Geek would be better suited for a gremlin." Great stuff like that!

Anyway, let me know what you think. Spell checkers don't catch a lot of the errors I am prone to make. I'm sure that a talent like you doesn't come cheap, but I would be willing to part with some of the profits.

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 01:14 PM
a talking donkey. . [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

A talking jackass. Interesting idea. Must be based on you and d2's love affair. You must be who the jackass is based on.

Karen Duggan
February 16th, 2010, 01:23 PM
In the words of a very famous jackass, "I think there's going to be a hurricane." -Eeyore

(I think I'll just click to other threads) :bolt:

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Your spelling and punctuation are second only to your eloquent use of the English language.

I am in the early stages of writing a book and I was wondering if you would help with the editing. It would also be real special if you would allow me to use some of your lines.

The book is a buddy adventure with two guys as the main characters, only, (and here's the kicker) one of them is a talking donkey. They will go on the road doing all kinds of zany stuff yet a lesson will be learned in each chapter, and the talking donkey will kind of sum up the lesson. That's where your wit and wisdom will come in to play. I can visulize the donkey saying such gems as, "We all know that no one can beat geek at being a couch slug." or "Geek would be better suited for a gremlin." Great stuff like that!

Anyway, let me know what you think. Spell checkers don't catch a lot of the errors I am prone to make. I'm sure that a talent like you doesn't come cheap, but I would be willing to part with some of the profits.


Gee, tanhks for pontiing out taht I ani't the bset spller in the wrold. Myabe one day I wlil be gdooer at it lkie you are.

stillwater
February 16th, 2010, 01:38 PM
A talking jackass. Interesting idea. Must be based on you and d2's love affair. You must be who the jackass is based on.

and


Gee, tanhks for pontiing out taht I ani't the bset spller in the wrold. Myabe one day I wlil be gdooer at it lkie you are.

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Brilliant. If only I could bottle and sell your mighty skill.

We could change the donkey to a monkey if that helps your creative juices flow. I'm thinking a little monkey with really bad breath. (I'm sure you could come up with some great ones for that) Really the options are quite endless.

Since we seem to be partners now I was wondering if I could borrow some start-up money for our project? I'm pretty good with numbers and stuff so you can trust me.

Thanks wook,

Your pal

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 01:48 PM
and



See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Brilliant. If only I could bottle and sell your mighty skill.



I just figured out your problem. You are jealous of other people. You want to have friends but you are all alone.

You wish you could have close bonds with others. You are jealous of the friendships, like what geek, fort, myself and others on this forum have developed.

You are saddened that you have no one to crack jokes, give some ribbing too.

Don't worry Mrs. Ninny, maybe one day you will be able to develop a friendship with someone in your life.


PS. If you don't like the comments that Geek and I throw at each other, don't read our posts.


PSS. Yes, I know my grammer and spelling skills suck. We all can't be perfect like you though.

aquageek
February 16th, 2010, 02:11 PM
Anyway, let me know what you think.

I finally have my first stalker, and he wants to do unnatural things to my leg. Watch out wookie, this guy/gal is trouble!

stillwater
February 16th, 2010, 02:14 PM
Wook,


PSS. Yes, I know my grammer and spelling skills suck. We all can't be perfect like you though.

You don't need to whisper.


I'll consider those comments as comming from an talented yet troubled artist. I can take it, after all isn't that what friends and business partners do?

Your insight into my personality is stunning. (Why would I have thought otherwise) Are you a psychiatrist? If not you should be. In our brief friendship you have correctly identified my problem. It is indeed a strong bond like you and Bill have, that I crave. I can now move on with my life (and writing our book).

Speaking of our book, what would be the best way for you to give me the money you promised? I'm kind of short on cash right now.

Your Pal

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 02:29 PM
Wook,



You don't need to whisper.


I'll consider those comments as comming from an talented yet troubled artist. I can take it, after all isn't that what friends and business partners do?

Your insight into my personality is stunning. (Why would I have thought otherwise) Are you a psychiatrist? If not you should be. In our brief friendship you have correctly identified my problem. It is indeed a strong bond like you and Bill have, that I crave. I can now move on with my life (and writing our book).

Speaking of our book, what would be the best way for you to give me the money you promised? I'm kind of short on cash right now.

Your Pal

I suggest you talk to one of your banks in cali about getting a loan to start on your epic saga. They will be able to justify the loan for a great american novel.

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 02:31 PM
I finally have my first stalker, and he wants to do unnatural things to my leg. Watch out wookie, this guy/gal is trouble!

Geek, I suggest you talk to Fort about getting a restraining order issued.

aquageek
February 16th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Geek, I suggest you talk to Fort about getting a restraining order issued.

Fort is nowhere to be found, last I heard she was in the woods crying and cuddling her B70s. When she comes back from her walkabout, I'll have her draft our restraining order.

stillwater
February 16th, 2010, 02:45 PM
My ex-pal Wook,

I'm saddened that you are backing out of our deal. I can't blame you, I can only blame my hubris. It was foolish of me to think that you would stoop so low as to work with me when you have Bill and your mighty brain.

I will keep working on our, oops, my book. I know that there will be some errors in the book that would have been caught by your keen editing skills. I also know that without your delightful quips it won't be the best seller we both dreamed about.

I will trudge along in my grey world. Alone. Sad.

Your ex-pal

The Fontress
February 16th, 2010, 03:15 PM
Wow!

I thought I would find some wistful or angry whining about the evil FINA and what they are taking away from the masters community, but no.

Instead, there are several pinheads in a playground war of, "no you won't, yes I will." All three of you can't find something better to do? Or isn't recess over yet?

You all must be wearing helmets in class because if you were any good at this, you would all have threatened each other with laser guided weapons and got this thread shut down. then you could all go play with your mentor, Ion. Quit wasting good bandwidth.

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 03:34 PM
Wow!

I thought I would find some wistful or angry whining about the evil FINA and what they are taking away from the masters community, but no.

Instead, there are several pinheads in a playground war of, "no you won't, yes I will." All three of you can't find something better to do? Or isn't recess over yet?

You all must be wearing helmets in class because if you were any good at this, you would all have threatened each other with laser guided weapons and got this thread shut down. then you could all go play with your mentor, Ion. Quit wasting good bandwidth.

1) Who is Ion?

2) Is there a problem that we can help you resolve? Or have you just had a bad day and feel the need to vent.

The Fortress
February 16th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Fort is nowhere to be found, last I heard she was in the woods crying and cuddling her B70s.

I was sobbing and despairing on my walkabout. But, luckily, I did temporarily avoid a pinhead-helmet wearing-alias loving-photo smearing-bandwidth wasting jack*ss.

Karen Duggan
February 16th, 2010, 04:39 PM
Fort-
You could put them on a mannequin, and display them in your entry hall. Just like the knights with their shining armor!

(BTW, the above refers to your B70s, not the pinheads)

scyfreestyler
February 16th, 2010, 04:42 PM
:snore: This thread is childs play to Ion.

thewookiee
February 16th, 2010, 04:50 PM
:snore: This thread is childs play to Ion.

Who is Ion and where did he/she go?

scyfreestyler
February 16th, 2010, 05:41 PM
Ion is one of the more memorable USMS forum personalities I've conversed with. I don't know where he went, or if he will ever return.

BillS
February 16th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Who is Ion and where did he/she go?


Ion is one of the more memorable USMS forum personalities I've conversed with. I don't know where he went, or if he will ever return.

I believe that Ion was banned from the forum, maybe for life. Here's a random sample of the legacy he left behind:

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?t=4567&highlight=beza

aquageek
February 16th, 2010, 06:44 PM
I believe that Ion was banned from the forum, maybe for life. Here's a random sample of the legacy he left behind:

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?t=4567&highlight=beza

Makes me miss Tom Ellison.

stillwater
February 16th, 2010, 06:56 PM
not the pinheads

I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. Even though the wookster and I are ex-pals (temporarly I hope) I must protest. It is unfair for you to call wook and Bill pinheads.

Well, Bill I understand, but not my ex-pal. He is everything but a pinhead.

If you continue this bashing of my ex-pal I'll consult with an out of work lawyer. That should straighten you out.

Karen Duggan
February 17th, 2010, 12:41 PM
I wasn't calling them pinheads. Guess I used the plural too liberally.
:lmao:

Anybody heard from Mr. Moose lately?

stillwater
February 17th, 2010, 01:14 PM
I wasn't calling them pinheads. Guess I used the plural too liberally.


You are jealous of the friendships, like what geek, fort, myself and others on this forum have developed.


Please Ms. Duggan. The Fortress has been taking some heat by that scallywag who has no sense of decorum. It would be nice if you didn't dog-pile on her too.

thewookiee
February 17th, 2010, 01:26 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. Even though the wookster and I are ex-pals (temporarly I hope) I must protest. It is unfair for you to call wook and Bill pinheads.

Well, Bill I understand, but not my ex-pal. He is everything but a pinhead.

If you continue this bashing of my ex-pal I'll consult with an out of work lawyer. That should straighten you out.

You are the third pinhead that was being referenced.

Karen Duggan
February 17th, 2010, 02:03 PM
Puh-leeeze.
It's Mrs. Duggan.

(Geek and Wookie- you are many things, pinhead isn't one of them)

thewookiee
February 17th, 2010, 02:15 PM
Puh-leeeze.
It's Mrs. Duggan.

(Geek and Wookie- you are many things, pinhead isn't one of them)

Mrs. Duggan, if I go to nationals, I would be honored to by you a drink(I would actually get the bill put onto Geek's bill though)

stillwater
February 17th, 2010, 06:06 PM
You are the third pinhead that was being referenced.


WHAT?

Hold on. My friend sold me a cool helmet that allows me to go back and check posts out from the past. It is kind of like a time machine only different. I'll see if I can buy you one. I think they come in super-extra-smalls. Don't worry about the cost, I'll just put it on your bill.

I'll be right back. I'm going back in time.

OK, I'm back.
Holy smokes wook, you're right again, I think she was refering to me.

Man, what a true pal you turned out to be, I would have gone on forever (unless I wore the helmet) thinking Ms. Duggan thought you and Bill were pinheads.

Thanks pal

stillwater
February 17th, 2010, 06:30 PM
Puh-leeeze.
It's Mrs. Duggan.

I am so sorry I dropped an r. Rs are very important in our beautiful language. I couldn't suvive without an r. I can feel your angst.

The simple please would never convey the anguish I caused you. Thank goodness you didn't need to resort to five eees, as I would have been really ashamed at my mistake. I am sorry.

But really Mrs. Duggan, isn't there a different reason for your hurt? It's the book isn't it. I have journied long and hard these past few seconds (time travel) and found a solution that I think you will like:

Chapter II,

When the talking donkey(or monkey, if you prefer) and his buddy come down from the mountain after a really cold night filled with cowboy antics, they find a beautiful maiden. (that would be you, Mrs. Duggan) I can't tell you the rest due to fear of intellectual theft.

So, Mrs. Duggan I have included you in wook's and my book. Your sorrow should be lifted and you should have a song in your heart.

stillwater
February 17th, 2010, 06:39 PM
Mrs. Duggan, if I go to nationals, I would be honored to by you a drink

Wook, great idea (how many times can I say that?).

Submit the claim. We'll take it from the advances.

Your pal

Karen Duggan
February 18th, 2010, 01:39 PM
Stillwater, you crack me up.
:D

I think it's spelled "journeyed".

stillwater
February 18th, 2010, 02:14 PM
I think it's spelled "journeyed".


Mrs. Duggan,

That is why I need the wookster.

I feel like the little boy chasing Alan Ladd on horseback shouting, "Shane, come back, Shane, come back."

Like Shane, wook will return also. The good cowboys always do.

Karen Duggan
February 18th, 2010, 02:47 PM
Yee-haw, and perhaps it's time to ride off into the sunset.

stillwater
February 18th, 2010, 03:00 PM
Yee-haw, and perhaps it's time to ride off into the sunset.

Mrs. Duggin,

I understand. I don't have a horse but if wook ever should choose to return, I'll be here.

Plus, he owes me money.

Karen Duggan
February 18th, 2010, 03:38 PM
I meant ME riding off into the sunset.
Sheesh.

stillwater
February 18th, 2010, 03:47 PM
Oops.

I'll try to fix this issue with the helmet.

(Boy I hope this gizmo doesn't get banned by USMS.)