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.
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.)
I appreciate the sympathy (and unintended reverence) but I am indeed still happily married...the divorce I refer to is between masters swimming and the tech suits. Though I am sure that some would hope it is only a temporary separation!
Men's NCAA D-I finals.
50 Free (Average over 5 years - 19.53s)
2007 - 19.63s (.51% Slower)
2008 - 19.65s (.61% Slower)
2009 - 19.26s (1.38% Faster)
2010 - 19.58s (.26% Slower)
2011 - 19.53s (.00% Slaster)
500 Free (Average over 5 years - 258.7s)
2007 - 259.6 (.35% Slower)
2008 - 259.1 (.15% Slower)
2009 - 256.4 (.89% Faster)
2010 - 259.0 (.12% Slower)
2011 - 259.4 (.27% Slower)
NCAA D-I women:
50 Free (Average over 5 years - 22.38s)
2007 - 22.51s (.57% Slower)
2008 - 22.42s (.17% Slower)
2009 - 22.25s (.59% Faster)
2010 - 22.42s (.17% Slower)
2011 - 22.31s (.32% Faster)
500 Free (Average over 5 years - 258.7s)
2007 - 284.0s (.80% Slower)
2008 - 283.0s (.45% Slower)
2009 - 280.7s (.37% Faster)
2010 - 281.4s (.12% Faster)
2011 - 279.6s (.76% Faster)
Pete, correct me if I am wrong, and especially correct Leslie if she is wrong, but it looks like these comparisons show pretty strong evidence for my hypothesis.
2009 was the last year where floaty body suits were legal for both genders in NCAAs, right?
Before 2009, most of the swimmers probably used some kind of body suit, though I am not sure floaty ones predominated then.
It looks like men were definitely a lot faster with floaty suits, and since then their times have dropped off significantly from the 5-year average.
Women also were helped a lot by the floaty suits, but since then their times in the 50 and 500 have still been lower than the 5 year average with the exception of 2010 in the 50.
Can you please let Leslie know that Science at this point seems to be very much on the side of the Stanford acceptee (and rejectee), and appears to offer almost zero consolation to those who would like to extend anecdotal evidence into the realm of truthiness.
P.S. Thanks very much for doing these analyses! I realize this is preliminary and heavily codiciled, but it does add something significant to our discussion!
Sorry, Leslie. Science doesn't lie.
Pete, correct me if I am wrong, and especially correct Leslie if she is wrong, but it looks like these comparisons show pretty strong evidence for my hypothesis.
I wish this were more than just throwing some fuel on the fire. 40 data points doesn't make much of a scientific discovery (though I've seen scientists get a lot of mileage out of a few flimsy data points). I'd feel better about it if the same results turned up in DII and DIII. Maybe if the trend held through additional strokes as well. Unfortunately, grant money for this type of work seems pretty dry. Anyway, here are the some problems with my analysis:
* There's no way to know who was/wasn't wearing what kind of suit at these events. Sure, the floaty suits were prevalent but it isn't a given that everyone had them.
* As mentioned before, lack of data points along with no error analysis.
* It is very possible that the crop of 2009 women just wasn't up to par with the other years... or perhaps the 2009 men were exceptional.
I will say that when I ran the numbers for women, I expected the same trend that I saw for the men... especially with the longer distance events. I'm not fully convinced but it has got me thinking that perhaps flotation was not the only assistance that the suits offered.
Pete, correct me if I am wrong, and especially correct Leslie if she is wrong, but it looks like these comparisons show pretty strong evidence for my hypothesis.
Can you please let Leslie know that Science at this point seems to be very much on the side of the Stanford acceptee (and rejectee), and appears to offer almost zero consolation to those who would like to extend anecdotal evidence into the realm of truthiness.
Sorry, Leslie. Science doesn't lie.
I'm not sure NCAA swimmer data can be extrapolated to masters. However, assuming you are correct -- and I haven't said you weren't -- does this data not give you some solace? Now you have something concrete to blame when your times inflate more than the oh so lucky female gender.
Bottom line: I've had a slew of personal worsts, and I've happily ignored them. So can you! Can't you just focus on your rankings instead? Wasn't there an example above where you were doing relatively better than others in the post tech suit era?
There are, I concede, some events where I am quite close to tech suit PRs. I wonder whether there might be some carry over from my prior suit obsession, e.g., maybe my body position is better or the suits helped improve (or caused me to focus on) my underwaters? For masters, there are just so many factors besides suits that contribute to meet times ...
And, Kirk, a suit IS equipment. Has been for some time.
Let me assure you that, on the internet, you don't look like you're 90.
On the internet, you look the same way everyone else on the internet does - like a 47 year-old dude living in his mother's basement. ("Hi! I'm Mandy! Do you like 8th grade?")
I've got to put my computer out of my dog's reach. He keeps posting so many things without my permission! The amount of stuff he orders! Geez!
He preferred the tech suits, though. Hasn't swum in a meet since they were banned. (He did order a ton of them on sale, so if anyone wants to reintroduce them in a tech-specific meet, give him a shout.)
Okay. Uncle.
I am over it.
Pretty much over it.
But here's the thing. The last thing. Or maybe the penultimate thing.
I thought the entire rationale for getting rid of the suits was that swimming, not swimming costumes, should determine the best performers.
Check out these two links:
forums.usms.org/picture.php
forums.usms.org/picture.php
The suit for women costs $595! The one for men a slightly less, but still ludicrous, $395.
Leaving aside whether these Speedo offerings are better than their competitors' equivalent models, is this just marketing gone mad?
Why doesn't FINA go whole hog and demand we all swim in suits made of the same material (say polyester or nylon) with no weird seam technology, etc. etc.?
To me, it just looks like the suit marketing wars continue unabated. Were there any suits that cost $595 back in the heyday?
Absolutely absurd. Sorry to Speedo, our benevolent sponsor, but you are the company who got this whole thing started, and your star protegee Michael Phelps didn't like the fact that Beederman had a better suit, and the bubble burst.
At $595 a suit, I suspect another bubble is even now inflating to supramaximal elastic volumes. I wouldn't be surprised in Speedo tries to sell us $200 goggles to protect our eyes from the shards when this one bursts, too.
