Now that I've gone through the hassle of signing up as a member of this dicussion group, this gets more and more fun. Maybe I'll get fired from my job :)
Anyway... I'm sure that ALL Masters level swimmers have heard of Total Immersion (from now on referred to as TI) swimming, correct? What are everyone's opinions about TI swimming? I am most curious because as a coach of age group swimmers, I was looking for training videos for our kids. I happened upon TI and liked what I saw... at first.
Here's some background for my experience with TI... very well put together, most of what they teach has been in existence for some time anyway, and they certainly are good for teaching novice/beginner swimmers the basic technique for swimming.
However, when looking to swim fast, and I mean fast, not lap swim quality, but truly competitively, I thing TI has missed to boat completely. Yes, smooth and efficient swimming is nice, but did anyone see the NCAA's? There are 20 year old men swimming 9 strokes per length in breaststroke! We have a number of age group coaches in my area teaching their kids how to swim breaststroke at 6 or 7 strokes a length!!! What gives? Extended glide is one thing, but when you slow down your stroke to such an extent just to achieve long and fluid strokes you sacrifice speed tremendously.
Hey, if you can swim 9 strokes a length at 1 second per stroke that is WAY better than 6 strokes a length at 2 seconds per stroke. Simple math.
Anthony Ervin of Cal swam the 100 free in the follwing SPL... 12 (start)/15/16/16. I could be off but that's what I was able to get from the (ahem- PALTRY) ESPN coverage. Now TI has goal SPL's of 12/13! Hello, if the BEST sprinter in history takes 8 cycles, shouldn't that tell us something? Turnover is very important. Same with streamlining, yes streamlines are nice and quite important but A.E. pops up after 5 yards MAX out of each turn. You only serve yourself well if your streamline is faster than you can swim, most age group swimmers would be well-served to explode out of the turn and swim within 3-4 yards.
Alas, it's been a slow day finishing my work for the week. Just looking to start a nice discussion. It's been my experience that a lot of Masters level swimmers are also engaged in coaching age group swimming at some level, and therefore I feel we can get some good dialogue going on this issue.
Now I've just used TI as an example because that's what I've had my experience with, but more general is what keys do you all stress when trying to mold competitive swimmers?
Au revoir,
-Rain Man
Parents
Former Member
After reviewing my posts on this thread, I don't think I can be accused of spreading misinformation - I am generally supportive of the stroke mechanics that the TI system teaches, and never accused it of taking credit for things that are not unique to it. To ask questions is not to spread misinformation.
While I have nothing but the highest respect for Emmett, I am disappointed by his post. To refute misinformation by simply calling it wrong is of little utility. Of even less value is the implied claim that only those who are fully experienced and trained in the TI method are capable of criticizing it. If that were true it would require a near total commitment to decide if the whole program was worthwhile to commit to. A person must decide that a program is worthwhile to learn before learning it! It also implies that only the most experienced trainers have the knowledge to support the method - I don't think Terry or Emmett would agree with that!
One refuted claim is that TI teaches only one method. I don't believe that it does, but I would be interested in a discussion about some of the better swimmers with 'odd' strokes and how their strokes are not contrary to TI principles. For example, where does 'lope' (strong left-right asymmetry, many olympic or world record holders have it) fit into the TI principles? Would a learning swimmer be discouraged from this technique, or for some swimmers would it be recommended, and how would the instructor know to recommend it?
Other swimmers, particularly female distance swimmers, do not have the extended glide that seems to be recommended in TI. An example would be Brooke Bennett. Since this kind of stroke seems to be typical of certain physiologies, why is that? When should it be taught?
I still have problems with the 'rotation initiated from the hip' TI paradigm. Contrary to this theory, others have made the observation that certain good swimmers - Thorp and DeBruin are examples, have minimum hip rotation, but quite a lot of shoulder rotation. In addition, careful examination of tapes shows me, at least, that often the shoulders rotate before the hips. It looks like the shoulder rotation drags the hips around because of limited rotational flexibility between the hips and the shoulders. Am I wrong? Why? Why is it that when fins are put on good swimmers have even less hip rotation than they do with no fins? Isn't the kick stronger with fins, causing more rotation?
Is cause being confused with effect? That is, hips rotate in good swimmers, so it must be the cause of good swimming? Perhaps they rotate because of the limited flexibility - if the swimmers were to keep the hips flat, the shoulders could not rotate as far? That would mean that the hips should just 'get out of the way' rather than starting the rotation.
I would like a clear distinction between things taught as learning aids, and what is really happening physiologically. If hips should be free to rotate to allow sufficient shoulder rotation, it may be useful to teach learners to rotate from the hip, because it helps them let the hips rotate. But it does not make it true that rotation is really initiated from the hips. When I took ballet, we were told a lot of things that may have been useful for visualization, but had little physical validity. They were good for training, but what really happens?
Given the history of 'swimming style' instruction, we should all be skeptical of the latest theories (before my generation, they taught that the most force was transferred to the water with straight arms (more distance for the hands to travel through (and thus push) the water), in my generation we were taught the 'S' pull, and now they teach . . ). Even more important, the people that sell the theories (literally and figuratively) should be willing to back up their claims and theories with extensive scientific and case studies.
And especially not get defensive about criticism and questions from both the knowledgeable and less knowledgeable.
I'm done now - for the moment.
After reviewing my posts on this thread, I don't think I can be accused of spreading misinformation - I am generally supportive of the stroke mechanics that the TI system teaches, and never accused it of taking credit for things that are not unique to it. To ask questions is not to spread misinformation.
While I have nothing but the highest respect for Emmett, I am disappointed by his post. To refute misinformation by simply calling it wrong is of little utility. Of even less value is the implied claim that only those who are fully experienced and trained in the TI method are capable of criticizing it. If that were true it would require a near total commitment to decide if the whole program was worthwhile to commit to. A person must decide that a program is worthwhile to learn before learning it! It also implies that only the most experienced trainers have the knowledge to support the method - I don't think Terry or Emmett would agree with that!
One refuted claim is that TI teaches only one method. I don't believe that it does, but I would be interested in a discussion about some of the better swimmers with 'odd' strokes and how their strokes are not contrary to TI principles. For example, where does 'lope' (strong left-right asymmetry, many olympic or world record holders have it) fit into the TI principles? Would a learning swimmer be discouraged from this technique, or for some swimmers would it be recommended, and how would the instructor know to recommend it?
Other swimmers, particularly female distance swimmers, do not have the extended glide that seems to be recommended in TI. An example would be Brooke Bennett. Since this kind of stroke seems to be typical of certain physiologies, why is that? When should it be taught?
I still have problems with the 'rotation initiated from the hip' TI paradigm. Contrary to this theory, others have made the observation that certain good swimmers - Thorp and DeBruin are examples, have minimum hip rotation, but quite a lot of shoulder rotation. In addition, careful examination of tapes shows me, at least, that often the shoulders rotate before the hips. It looks like the shoulder rotation drags the hips around because of limited rotational flexibility between the hips and the shoulders. Am I wrong? Why? Why is it that when fins are put on good swimmers have even less hip rotation than they do with no fins? Isn't the kick stronger with fins, causing more rotation?
Is cause being confused with effect? That is, hips rotate in good swimmers, so it must be the cause of good swimming? Perhaps they rotate because of the limited flexibility - if the swimmers were to keep the hips flat, the shoulders could not rotate as far? That would mean that the hips should just 'get out of the way' rather than starting the rotation.
I would like a clear distinction between things taught as learning aids, and what is really happening physiologically. If hips should be free to rotate to allow sufficient shoulder rotation, it may be useful to teach learners to rotate from the hip, because it helps them let the hips rotate. But it does not make it true that rotation is really initiated from the hips. When I took ballet, we were told a lot of things that may have been useful for visualization, but had little physical validity. They were good for training, but what really happens?
Given the history of 'swimming style' instruction, we should all be skeptical of the latest theories (before my generation, they taught that the most force was transferred to the water with straight arms (more distance for the hands to travel through (and thus push) the water), in my generation we were taught the 'S' pull, and now they teach . . ). Even more important, the people that sell the theories (literally and figuratively) should be willing to back up their claims and theories with extensive scientific and case studies.
And especially not get defensive about criticism and questions from both the knowledgeable and less knowledgeable.
I'm done now - for the moment.
