Because he misspoke about Sun Yang's kick? This seems a little severe to me.
Everyone has its standards.
He writes as a scientist, not as a blogger, not as a coach. Science should be about precision. The role of science over the history has been important to human, in the medical field for example. There, what we expect from scientists is their best possible precision in everything they do. They are revised by their peers etc....
He had 60 lengths of the pool to find out that Sun is rarely feeding on 2bk, and yet he claims that Sun did no less than the first 1400m relying on it. Now the question is why? Why? Because as always, Rushall is trying to turn his beliefs into truths. He believes (reading this text) that the 2bk pattern is not good enough to swim on pace for a world record using this.
OK. Nice statement. Nice clue. But the only problem is that the subject he uses to make his point is not even using this pattern. He's trying to make a point about a fact that is wrong! Trying to discourage swimmer to feed on a 2b, whilst very little in reality even try to do. He's one step behind, as clearly, he didn't demonstrate that he even know what a 4bk is. In fact, try to find a single occurrence of a successful male, performing a 1500m in a pool on a 2bk, other than David Davies along with a few other probable exceptions.
So this is a very severe mistake. Like I said, 4bk pattern is documented since 1980 at least, so a minimally trained eye should detect it. Moreover, the 4bk is used very extensively by most males over the 800-1500 events.
Scientists must know these things. We expect more precision from their side, than that a coach would get, as science basically is the ultimate means through which things are being analyzed. He's a scientist, I'm a coach. He keeps questioning our works, our relevance, our ability to apply evidence based practices, he can't even count up to 4. So put yourself in my shoes...
I left aside my opinion on his final conclusion, although I made a quick allusion to it: His take is that D.Swimmers overglide, and that because of that they fail at improving the world records as much as other swimmers in other distances. The only main problem with this position, is that an overglider did beat a swinger in London 2012, the proof remains in the pudding in my opinion.
I have affiliation with Swim Smooth, not with TI, so normally I should be pleased with his conclusion. Unfortunately his conclusion can't even be used, because it's based on a flawed analysis. Sad. Not sure if Paul Newsome will be tempted to use this analysis or not, but I'd recommend that he doesn't since it's flawed.
Because he misspoke about Sun Yang's kick? This seems a little severe to me.
Everyone has its standards.
He writes as a scientist, not as a blogger, not as a coach. Science should be about precision. The role of science over the history has been important to human, in the medical field for example. There, what we expect from scientists is their best possible precision in everything they do. They are revised by their peers etc....
He had 60 lengths of the pool to find out that Sun is rarely feeding on 2bk, and yet he claims that Sun did no less than the first 1400m relying on it. Now the question is why? Why? Because as always, Rushall is trying to turn his beliefs into truths. He believes (reading this text) that the 2bk pattern is not good enough to swim on pace for a world record using this.
OK. Nice statement. Nice clue. But the only problem is that the subject he uses to make his point is not even using this pattern. He's trying to make a point about a fact that is wrong! Trying to discourage swimmer to feed on a 2b, whilst very little in reality even try to do. He's one step behind, as clearly, he didn't demonstrate that he even know what a 4bk is. In fact, try to find a single occurrence of a successful male, performing a 1500m in a pool on a 2bk, other than David Davies along with a few other probable exceptions.
So this is a very severe mistake. Like I said, 4bk pattern is documented since 1980 at least, so a minimally trained eye should detect it. Moreover, the 4bk is used very extensively by most males over the 800-1500 events.
Scientists must know these things. We expect more precision from their side, than that a coach would get, as science basically is the ultimate means through which things are being analyzed. He's a scientist, I'm a coach. He keeps questioning our works, our relevance, our ability to apply evidence based practices, he can't even count up to 4. So put yourself in my shoes...
I left aside my opinion on his final conclusion, although I made a quick allusion to it: His take is that D.Swimmers overglide, and that because of that they fail at improving the world records as much as other swimmers in other distances. The only main problem with this position, is that an overglider did beat a swinger in London 2012, the proof remains in the pudding in my opinion.
I have affiliation with Swim Smooth, not with TI, so normally I should be pleased with his conclusion. Unfortunately his conclusion can't even be used, because it's based on a flawed analysis. Sad. Not sure if Paul Newsome will be tempted to use this analysis or not, but I'd recommend that he doesn't since it's flawed.
