Consider this year's SEC winning times vs. the NCAA record times:
400 Yard IM WomenNCAA: N 3:58.23 2/26/2010 Julia Smit, Stanford
1 Beisel, Elizabeth FR Florida-FL 4:03.27 3:58.35 (+.12)
400 Yard IM Men
NCAA: N 3:35.98 3/27/2009 Tyler Clary, Michigan
1 Solaeche Gomez, Ed Florida-FL 3:47.99 3:43.57 A (+7.59)
Hypothesis: the change in men's legal swimming suits has had a much greater effect than the change in women's legal swimming suits.
Is this true? I don't know.
However, I do think it is possible to find out.
Have any of our mathematically astute forumites yet attempted a regression analysis to see how much the change in suit technology has affected women and men swimmers, respectively?
This may be a cherry-picked example, but it looks as if the current crop of legal suits for women have resulted in virtually no change in the 400 IM.
In men, on the other hand, the change looks to be about 7.5 seconds. Granted, you can't make too many assumptions comparing NCAA records (with full body suits) vs. SEC championship times (in the new suits) in just one event.
However, it's now been two years since the B70 and other body kayak flotation devices have been illegalized for both genders, and replaced by the respective FINA approved garments we are now allowed to wear.
There have been reams of times recorded in college and masters databases, ripe for the plucking!
Surely someone out there has already been (or could be cajoled into) crunching sufficient quantities of data to come up with some rough guidelines for the impact the suit change has had!
Surely I am not the only one hoping to apportion my performance declines according to 1) the toll of years, and 2) the change in suit technology.
In my age group, here are the times in the 400 IM in 2010 (body kayaks) vs. 2011 (jammers for men; new short john legal body suits for women)--note, I highlighted in red those who made the list both years in the same age group, allowing for a better person-to-person comparison:
MEN
400 Individual Medley SCY Men 55-59 (2010)
1 Michael T Mann 55 CMS Colorado 4:28.69
2 Donald B Gilchrist 56 NCMS North Carolina 4:40.65
3 Phil L Dodson 57 IM Illinois 4:45.42
4 Bob Yant 56 IM Illinois 4:47.76
5 Jim Clemmons 59 MAM Pacific 4:48.86
6 Peter M Guadagni 55 WCM Pacific 4:49.17
7 Neil R Wasserman 55 O*H* Lake Erie 4:50.68
8 Stephen D Kevan 55 OREG Oregon 4:52.39
9 Thomas G Bliss 55 ORLM Florida 4:54.56
10 Jimmy Welborn 55 RATS Southeastern 4:54.94
400 Individual Medley SCY Men 55-59 (2011)
1 Michael T Mann 56 CMS Colorado 4:30.56
2 Rick Colella 59 PNA Pacific Northwest 4:35.84
3 Timothy M Shead 58 GOLD Florida Gold Coast 4:45.05
4 Donald B Gilchrist 57 NCMS North Carolina 4:50.58
5 Neil R Wasserman 55 O*H* Lake Erie 4:53.22
6 Peter M Guadagni 56 WCM Pacific 4:56.53
7 Paul G Karas 55 MICH Michigan 4:57.64
8 Mark Montgomery 55 NOVA Southern Pacific 4:59.58
9 Phil L Dodson 58 IM Illinois 5:02.66
10 David C Bright 58 NEM New England 5:05.44
WOMEN
400 Individual Medley SCY Women 55-59 (2010)
1 Laura B Val 58 TAM Pacific 5:03.92
2 Nancy Steadman Martin 55 GSM New Jersey 5:09.76
3 Lo D Knapp 55 UTAH Utah 5:17.95
4 Camille W Thompson 55 PNA Pacific Northwest 5:28.88
5 Shirley A Loftus-Charley 58 VMST Virginia 5:29.09
6 Charlotte M Davis 59 PNA Pacific Northwest 5:33.04
7 Nancy Kryka 55 MINN Minnesota 5:36.70
8 Catherine K Kohn 56 SLAM Ozark 5:40.95
9 Ronda S Nisman 55 MOST South Texas 5:41.99
10 Barbara Protzman 55 GOLD Florida Gold Coast 5:50.96
400 Individual Medley SCY Women 55-59 (2011)
1 Nancy Steadman Martin 56 GSM New Jersey 5:17.93
2 Shirley A Loftus-Charley 59 VMST Virginia 5:28.24
3 Elaine S Valdez 55 MOST South Texas 5:29.46
4 Pat A Sargeant 57 GOLD Florida Gold Coast 5:34.59
5 Evie S Lynch 58 PHX Arizona 5:39.49
6 Nancy Kryka 56 MINN Minnesota 5:47.26
7 Mary M Welsh 57 TCAM Pacific 5:54.69
8 Margaret Hair 55 HMS Inland Northwest 5:59.80
9 Barbara Protzman 56 GOLD Florida Gold Coast 6:02.14
10 Karen Bierwert 58 NEM New England 6:06.35
I concede this does little to prove or disprove my hypothesis. If I am looking at the times correctly, only one 55-59 TT swimmer improved times between 2010 and 2011--Shirley.
The variation in declines shown by all the others of both genders was quite large, from Michael Mann's less than 2 seconds, to Phil Dodson's over 17. All sorts of non-swimming-related factors can play a role here, which is why to get meaningful results, lots and lots of results have to be subjected to what I think Chris Stevenson called a "regression analysis" to draw even quasi-reliable inferences.
Is there someone out there, perhaps a retired math professor with a touch of Asperger's who shares my fascination with this dead-horse-beaten topic, who would be willing to perform just such a regression analysis and share the results on this thread?
I am tempted to add a poll so that we can each vote according to what we want to believe, only to have this subjected to the cold hard reality of scientific inquiry!
Oh, hell. I will add such a poll, at the considerable risk of being drubbed off these forums for the foreseeable future for the sin of trollish monotony.
...Jim regardless none of this will make you any faster...have you added weights and plyos to your training regimen yet?
:bump:
No, but I have added quite a bit in the way of garbage yards!
This may be a cherry-picked example, but it looks as if the current crop of legal suits for women have resulted in virtually no change in the 400 IM.
It's definitely a cherry-picked example and it should also be noted that the current women's record was set after the new suit rules went into effect. Not that that would do anything to disprove your hypothesis.
Just as a guess, I'd say at the highest levels the suit changes have affected men slightly more than women, but not by much. In masters the changes has affected men much more. I also agree with what Keith said, above. Not to mention we aren't competing against women, so I'm not sure why it should matter that they get to wear suits with more coverage.
I don't think either gender has been handicapped. Both had been temporarily artificially assisted by the body suits and we're now back to normal.
Ah, but is not the removal of artificial assistance, once one has gotten used to it, a form of handicapping?
Consider the plight of the wintry chickadee, used to its daily smorgasbord of seeds at the garden bird feeder. Then suddenly, the estate owners leave for a trip to the Bahamas, and our poor chickadee is left to starve!
Also, the question is more akin to this: from which gender has more artificial assistance been removed? I think you would be correct if we were all forced to swim naked and without the benefit of shaving and hair cuts of any sort. But artificial assistance has not been entirely removed, and my hypothesis suggests that we men have fared worse! Perhaps USMS should sponsor a Naturist Games to settle the question once and for all?
It's definitely a cherry-picked example and it should also be noted that the current women's record was set after the new suit rules went into effect. Not that that would do anything to disprove your hypothesis.
Just as a guess, I'd say at the highest levels the suit changes have affected men slightly more than women, but not by much. In masters the changes has affected men much more. I also agree with what Keith said, above. Not to mention we aren't competing against women, so I'm not sure why it should matter that they get to wear suits with more coverage.
Good catch, Kurt! I forgot that we masters had our 2010 spring meets grandfathered in.
As far as not competing against women, this is true, technically. But what I am seeking is not only justification to tell, say, Leslie The Fortress Livingston that she might not have beaten me quite so badly had the playing field been level.
Rather it is in competition with myself that I am having trouble making the adjustment.
For example, in what has proven to be my most reliable chance to make the Top 10:
200 Freestyle SCY Men 55-59 (2010)--B70 Aided
1 Michael T Mann 55 CMS Colorado 1:48.79
2 Jack R Groselle 55 O*H* Lake Erie 1:49.76
3 Brad Horner 56 WMAC Wisconsin 1:51.71
3 Phil L Dodson 57 IM Illinois 1:51.71
5 Paul G Karas 55 MICH Michigan 1:52.01
6 Jim Mc Conica 59 VCM Southern Pacific 1:52.32
7 Larry B Krauser 56 HMS Inland Northwest 1:54.03
8 Larry W Wood 56 TXLA South Texas 1:54.48
9 Donald B Gilchrist 56 NCMS North Carolina 1:54.73
10 James Thornton 57 TPIT Allegheny Mountain 1:54.89
200 Freestyle SCY Men 55-59 (2011)--Bejammerd!
1 Rick E Abbott 56 AKMS Alaska 1:49.56
2 Michael T Mann 56 CMS Colorado 1:50.19
3 Jack R Groselle 56 SYSM Florida 1:53.43
4 Tom Hickcox 58 ARIZ Arizona 1:56.54
5 Michael J Blatt 55 VCM Southern Pacific 1:57.02
6 James Thornton 58 1776 Delaware Valley 1:57.75
7 Paul G Karas 55 MICH Michigan 1:58.20
8 Loren Druz 55 WCM Pacific 1:58.66
9 Rick Colella 59 PNA Pacific Northwest 1:59.27
10 Phil L Dodson 58 IM Illinois 1:59.71
It looks like everyone who repeated the 200 in these years slowed down. Interestingly, I went from 10th place with a body suit, having swum my lifetime best in this event, to 6th place with a jammer, with a time that was almost 3 seconds slower.
Only 3 of the TT times in jammers would have even made the TT list during the body suit era.
I suppose I should just tell myself that it's "okay" to subtract about 3 seconds from my times today to get a fair approximation of what I would have done in the 200 while wearing a B70.
But for whatever reason, I am having trouble doing this, which I know is ridiculous.
Case in point: yesterday, at one of our little local meets, I swam a 2:00.07 in the 200. It was in a 5-lane pool, and not what you would call ideal circumstances. If I could tell myself it is perfectly acceptable to subtract about 3 seconds from this time to see what I would have done two years ago under similar conditions, I would be thrilled!
Alas, I can't quite bring myself to do this. A lot of my times are right on the cusp of various threshholds that have meaning, at least to me. Breaking 2 minutes in the 200, say, or 55 in the 100, or even 25 in the 50 were all times I had grown accustomed to being able to do without exorbitant effort.
But now there's been this jump, and it coincides with me soon to age up to the next age group (I am already FINA 60, though 59 for yards).
Anyhow, this one two punch of getting older and times taking a bit of a beating because of the suit change have conspired to make me want to find a universal Coefficient of Suit Change Fudge Factoring that allows me to compare apples to oranges as easily as yards to meters times.
That's all. We all hope to hang on to our times for as long as possible, and by so doing, elude the Reaper just a wee bit longer.
I am hoping to bolster my effort through math.
Also, the question is more akin to this: from which gender has more artificial assistance been removed?
As far as not competing against women, this is true, technically. But what I am seeking is not only justification to tell, say, Leslie The Fortress Livingston that she might not have beaten me quite so badly had the playing field been level.
Rather it is in competition with myself that I am having trouble making the adjustment.
But for whatever reason, I am having trouble doing this, which I know is ridiculous.
1. Who cares?
2. Why compare times with me? Unlike you, I'm a chick, I'm a sprinter and I'm not a freestyler.
3 & 4. I am not sure why you can't just let the B70 times go. There was surely no one more addicted to or in love with the tech suits than me. I wore them every single swim in every single meet. I hated to see them go. Yet, when they did, poof, I moved on and immediately forgot all my previous times. Or, if not forgot, just consigned them to a long past era. And despite being a whiney sprint diva, I really have engaged in almost zilch complaining and hand wringing on this issue.
At bottom, you are simply still aggravated by the fact that women have boobs which must be covered up by law. You wish that exposure of your belly would likewise be deemed obscene. Alas, it is not.
My take on the suits is that they helped large (tall & overweight) swimmers more than skinny swimmers, poor kickers more than good kickers, short axis strokes more than long axis strokes and (possibly) distances more than sprints.
Your poll is missing the answer I would choose: "Don't know or (much) care."
While I might be slightly interested from an academic perspective, it has been a messy divorce...
At bottom, you are simply still aggravated by the fact that women have boobs which must be covered up by law.
Perhaps Jim (like many of our gender) has mixed emotions: joy about their existence, disappointment that fickle convention dictates that they must be covered.
Unlike you, I'm a chick...At bottom, you are simply still aggravated by the fact that women have boobs which must be covered up by law. You wish that exposure of your belly would likewise be deemed obscene. Alas, it is not.
My take on the suits is that helped large swimmers more than skinny swimmers, poor kickers more than good kickers, short axis strokes more than long axis strokes and (possibly) distances more than sprints.
Points acknowledged and taken, if not well taken.
1. The truth is that our respective hormones levels are starting to converge, dearest mither. What is good for the post-menopausal goose is good for the caponated gander.
2. I would be happy to have a moob-boob off with many of my female swimming counterparts, though artificial enhancement types cannot join the competition. (When I asked my cosmetic surgeon about giving me some double Ds, he insisted on a psychiatric evaluation first.)
3. Oh, my belly is deemed obscene, all right. Just not officially.
4. By large, do you mean heavy? I will agree with you there. But I am a bad kicker, and my distance swims have actually improved with the new suits, though the sprints have gotten worse.
Your poll is missing the answer I would choose: "Don't know or (much) care."
While I might be slightly interested from an academic perspective, it has been a messy divorce...
Very sorry to hear that Mrs. Stevenson has given you the boot. (Note: I am assuming this has not actually happened, but if it has, I am so, so seriously sorry and sympathetic, Christ. Honestly, she didn't deserve you.)
Perhaps Jim (like many of our gender) has mixed emotions: joy about their existence, disappointment that fickle convention dictates that they must be covered.
Perhaps your obsession with breasts, which is something that we males with female levels of testosterone can understand only from memory, if that, figured in your divorce?
In any event, remember the words of Bertrand Russell in his epic The Conquest of Happiness: "All misery can be eliminated by concentration on extremely arcane mathematical formulae including, but not limited to, those necessary to perform regression analyses in swimming times with various materials used in the swimming costumes."
It is an exact quote, and one, I must say, is prescient.
Thanks, Chris, for getting started immediately and proving that Leslie, the sole voter to date that suggests the new suits hurt women more than men, is incorrect and can be proven so by Science!
4. By large, do you mean heavy? I will agree with you there.
But I am a bad kicker, and my distance swims have actually improved with the new suits, though the sprints have gotten worse.
Yes, full body B70s were kind to those with extra poundage. I really don't feel that you're in that category, Jimby.
That's why I said possibly. I don't pay too much attention to masters distance times and so cannot really opine. Kicking is likely of less import in distance events as well.
I wonder if there is less effect on people who fret less about the loss of the suits? :) Is there not some solace in blaming the suits for any time gains instead of age?
