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,
I ran a quick analysis of some Men's NCAA D-I finals. There are some problems in doing this so I limited the data to the consolation round only. That should give a fairly consistent dataset of very good swimmers giving their all without having to average in the genetic anomaly that pops up and blows everyone away regardless of what he is wearing. The biggest problem is that while the data is available, it isn't really in a format ready for use. Compiling the data is a pain in the neck and I don't see myself being patient enough to run more data for more events... or even for women. Well... maybe... if there's enough interest beyond what I found so far.
For each year, I have 16 datapoints: 8 consolation swims and 8 prelimnary swims for the swimmers that made the consolation. The only exception is 2008 where I couldn't readily find the prelim data. 2008 only uses the consolation data. I averaged the swims for each year and then compared the years. Here's what I found:
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)
Some notes:
* I didn't use a lot of datapoints - error could be off the charts
* Error would be even worse for masters swimmers for reasons too numerous to get into
Hope this helps. I know it isn't comprehensive enough to answer the gender question or address the bulging waistline effect.
You crack me up, Jim.
I miss the suits. It was nice going 21.2 again. But, like Fort, I move on.
Your moving on, by my analysis, requires more psychological adjustment, Mr. Spock, than Leslie's moving on.
Let us compare your respective best events--50 free for you, 50 back for the Fortress.
2011 Short Course Yards--jammers
2 M45-49 50 Free Spock 46 WMAC Wisconsin 21.91
2010 Short Course Yards--body suit
2 M45-49 50 Free Spock 45 WMAC Wisconsin 21.24
differential: +.67
You slowed down fairly substantially; I would argue, however, if your jammer time had crept up into the 22's, you would have been more distressed. You benefit from whole integer integrity, i.e., you are still swimming 21s! Believe me, the calculus changes when the whole integers change!
2011 Short Course Yards--current legal women's suits, which don't seem like much of a change, if any, to me!
4 W45-49 50 Back Leslie C Livingston 49 GMUP Potomac Valley 28.19
2010 Short Course Yards--full body suit
3 W45-49 50 Back Fortress 48 GMUP Potomac Valley 28.29
Differential: -.10
Leslie actually improved by .10 in her 50 back with the new suit! I must say it is a lot easier to move on when the change not only doesn't slow you down, but you improve!
Q.E.D.
--Jim Thornton, former Stanford acceptee (who opted not to go because my parents would not pay for me to come home for Christmas vacations.)
Proposal so that the rest of us can move on:
Given the preeminence of Mr. Spock and the lovely Fortress as swimming gods in our sport, I suggest that forevermore (or at least till someone will do my much prayed for regression analysis) that all men can legitimately subtract the Spock Coefficient of .67 per 50 from their jammer times to get an approximation of what the same time would have been in a body suit.
Thus my recent 2:00.07 200 free would benefit by subtracting 4 x .67, or 2.68 seconds, giving me an apples to apples comparison time of 1:57.39, which is cause for some personal celebration, I must say!
Now we simply factor in the American and Finnish formulae for age grading to compare a 1:57.39 at age 59 to what it would have been last year when I was a year younger:
1:56.04 ( 1:56.28) Note: Finnish formula in parentheses.
Women, on the other hand, should use instead the Fortress Coefficient of Negative .10 per 50.
Leslie's 2011 50 backstroke, once one factors in this, was therefore chronologically identical to her previous year's performance.
However, she also has aged a year, so let us factor in the same American and Finnish formulae that have helped me swim so magnificently through mathematics:
0:27.98 ( 0:28.00) Thus Leslie's 28.19 done at age 49 actually does represent an American and Finnish formulae improvement of sorts, this representing a 27.98 or 28.00 had she swum it identically in the same newly legalized cheating suit but one year of bodily decay earlier!
Thus, a win-win for us all, though perhaps a wee bit more of a win for men since the Spock Coefficient actually complements the Finnish formulae, whereas the Fortress Coefficient works mildly at a cross purposes.
My work here, as a former Stanford University acceptee, is done.
You are cherry picking again!
My best time in the suits is actually 27.9 in 50 back SCY; I just swam 28.2 last October. But my 50 back appears to be impacted less than any other 50 or stroke.
If you want to cherry pick 50s, I was a whopping 1.9 seconds slower in the 50 fly in LCM last summer than with the suits. And even in backstroke, my 50 time was .6 slower than with the suits (31.9 vs. 32.55). My 50 free was an abysmal 1.2 seconds slower last summer. Perhaps LCM is more effected by the suits, and perhaps I just had a crappy meet (true). But (and cherry picking again) even if you look at SCY, my 50 free goes from 24.9 to 25.7, another .8 -- which is worse than Spock. So your coefficient needs correcting, Stanford acceptee!
In fact, my times have been worse without the suits in every single event in every single course except the 50 and 100 back SCM, which were the result of one day where everything went perfectly. Women are definitely effected by the rule change. Best not to dwell on it and just worry about jammer/kneeskin times.
Potentially proving true idiocy, but I am waiting for the tech suit advantages to "older swimmers" (women with boobs) such as myself to get the QTs for nationals to be a bit slower.
I am assuming that this year's SCY nationals QT times are still much faster than they were when I was dreaming of being old enough to actually qualify, pre-tech suits.
I may be terribly, terribly wrong, because there are so many more very fast women racing now. At any rate, I had anticipated qualifying in distance events, only to see the times are at least a minute (and sometimes more) faster than they were a few years ago.
I do not wish to disclose my age. I did say today at the Store 24 that I remembered when President's Day was actually on G. Washington's B-day, and switched around, like the 4th of July. This of course caused the clerk to ask me, if I didn't mind her asking, how old I was.
I answered, of course, that I was 90.
The sad thing is that she sort of believed me, though wondered what insane amount of work I had had done to look under 50.
I like telling people I am 90 but I don't like the fact that they consider it a possibility, with plastic surgery.
Main point, I am hoping the times for the somewhat older women swimmers, for distance in particular, are still being skewed toward fastness as a result of the averaging in of the years tech suits made a difference.
Which I do believe they did, for the distance events.
Now it appears I may qualify for the 50 and 100 *** sprints, which I have never raced. TBD. I know I can enter without qualifying, but I want to qualify in my distance events, and had looked forward to qualifying when looking ahead a few years ago.
Oh well. I still have my ballet career to work on. It's coming along rather nicely.
When I get feedback from my editor (digression re other post on moisturizers) and article is either deemed insane or funny and is either printed or ditched, I will post it on that thread. Great stuff, guys. Please ignore this paragraph and continue debating tech suit time differences.
I never wore a tech suit. Not worthy of one. Not of that caliber swimmer. I have no pride. I can admit this. I still like to race.
Where other sports, especially cycling
To me you've stated the crux of the matter right there. The sport is called cycling. It involves propelling a bicycle. Obviously you want the fastest bicycle possible. Swimming, on the other hand, is all about the swimmer propelling himself through the water with no mechanical contraption for assistance. In swimming the suit is considered a costume, not a piece of equipment.
The bodysuit was worth 8 seconds per 100m to me.
What annoyed me most about the ban was that it also applied to masters swimmers. We are hardly going to pose a threat to Phelps and Lochte's records.
I tend to go along with the thinking that if we don't see many (or even any) world records at the London Olympics, worldwide interest in swimming will decrease dramatically. This could even result in the reintroduction of the suits.
Where other sports, especially cycling, embraces technology by accepting... aero-dynamically designed frames, one-piece skin suits, helmets, handle-bars, disc wheels, spokes, smooth nylon socks, taped over shoe laces. Not forgetting filling the front tire gap at the rim - what can swimming offer? A lack of desire to move the sport forward.
I answered, of course, that I was 90.
The sad thing is that she sort of believed me,
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 answered, of course, that I was 90.
The sad thing is that she sort of believed me,
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 answered, of course, that I was 90.
The sad thing is that she sort of believed me,
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?")
