Approach to teaching competitive swimming?

Hey Phil, your sound a little like Cecil Colwin: "Should a swimmer use long, slow strokes or short, fast strokes? Actually, skilled swimmers tend to use long, fast strokes." - Swimming in the 21st Century I'm not sure who started the discussion about Olympic lopsided swims, but in the same Colwin book, he points out that (at the time) there were no swimming studies involving arm dominance. He also points out the difference between rolling slightly more towards the stronger arm to get constant propulsion (which he supports), versus a lopsided gait (which is less efficient than a balanced stroke). Howdy Rain Man! I'm sorry that I have allowed myself to argue so strongly for something that, while very interesting, is not the end all and be all of swimming. Like I said, I just don't like to see something slammed for the *wrong* reasons. First off, keep in mind the two questions that led to TI: 1) What are elite swimmers doing that regular swimmers aren't? 2) Which of those differences could be taught to the less skilled swimmer? So it is a little dangerous to compare Olympic medal swimmers as an example, because they have already approached the limit of their SL. (Fractional differences could be from starting time, height, etc., rather than stroke technique.) You can contrast them to less skilled swimmers. I also think that some people are taking the "a little bit is good, so a lot must be better" approach to SL, underwater glide time, etc. When I looked through the book again, any extremes were only so (new) swimmers can notice the difference in the feeling (compared to previous habits). This is also true for SR. The method is to reduce SR so you can concentrate on good SL, then to crank the SR back up. Seems like some people are stopping at step 1. :D When I think to what prevailing theory was back in the late '80s, there is a whopping huge difference now. :) I don't know how much TI caused this, but it did seem to be one of the standard bearers. You mentioned Ervin (and later, his underwater glide). I was looking at the study of the 100 free 2000 Olympic Trials from USA swimming web site, and his SL and stroke frequency were no different from anyone else's in the finals. Why does his name keep popping up in this thread? At the Olympics, his stroke frequency for the 50 was 1.0/second (about the same as Hall). A study by Ron Johnson (1982) found "For a good college male sprinter a typical tempo is around .95 seconds (per cycle)..." So by 1982 standards, Ervin is not turning over enough! :) If you are interested in the time for underwater glide, try to find to find the University of Buffalo study for breastrokers. Good reading! (For contrast, at the next swim practice, look around to see how many people are popping to the surface, after a turn, while they are still above swimming speed.) Elsewhere, you asked about FQS. The idea is not to pause the front arm during the recovery of the other arm! (Catch-up and almost-catch-up are drills, not race strokes.) The idea is that during the most propulsive phase of the pull, the other arm should be in front to reduce the extra drag. There is still a slight overlap in the two arms pulling, and since the arm recovers faster that the other arm pulling, your arms spend more time in the "front quadrant" than the "rear quadrant". Also, despite what was misquoted elsewhere, the front arm is not (just) pausing, but "catching" the water before the pull. On pg 62 of TI: "Jerk your hand back immediately after plunging it in and you've started an exercise in futility as it slips water from one end of the stroke to the other. Bald tires on an icy road. Instead, slip your hand in, anchor it to get ready for the pull, and keep your grip as you move your arm down and back using robust body-roll muscles, not weak shoulder muscles." In the "perfect swims" analysis of the Olympic 50 Free, this was brought up about both Hall's and Ervin's stroke. Looking on the web, I found a summary of Toussaint's thesis on "Mechanics and Energetics of Swimming". He compared 6 competitive swimmers compared to 5 triathletes, both groups "at equal rates (900 W) of energy expenditure. The groups did not differ in mechanical efficiency, stroke frequency, and work per stroke. There was a difference in distance per stroke (1.28 m vs 0.99 m), and mean swimming velocity (1.11 m/s vs 0.90 m/s)." The swimmers were spending less energy moving water backwards, which meant more energy was available to overcome drag. Also found the race analysis system for The 9th FINA World Swimming Championships FUKUOKA 2001. I took the men's 100 Free, and made two groups: the eight finalists versus the 16 semi-finalists. As a group, the eight finalists had longer stroke length AND shorter stroke frequency than the semifinalists. Next, I divided them into three groups: six in A (under 49 sec), seven in B (between 49.0 - 49.5), and ten in C (between 49.5 - 50.0). Group B had the lowest stroke frequency, C the highest, so SR is muddled. However, for stroke length A had the longest, while C had the shortest, so SL has a strong correlation with speed. I'll end with quotes from Colwin's book, which I have recommended before: "Researchers report no consistent pattern with regard to stroke frequency during a swimming race... Researchers agree, however, that stroke length rather than stroke frequency is the determining factor in a swimmer's average speed... Male swimmers attain greater speed than female swimmers because they swim with a greater stroke length. However, the two sexes have very similar stroke frequencies." "Based on a season of observation of the four racing strokes in the 200 yard events, the study showed, except for backstroke, a marked correlation between average speed and stroke length. The study found no significant correlations between average speed and stroke frequency. ...the study needs to be replicated. The early indication, however, was that swimmers should concentrate on increasing their stroke length while maintaining a constant stroke frequency."

Hey Phil, your sound a little like Cecil Colwin: "Should a swimmer use long, slow strokes or short, fast strokes? Actually, skilled swimmers tend to use long, fast strokes." - Swimming in the 21st Century I'm not sure who started the discussion about Olympic lopsided swims, but in the same Colwin book, he points out that (at the time) there were no swimming studies involving arm dominance. He also points out the difference between rolling slightly more towards the stronger arm to get constant propulsion (which he supports), versus a lopsided gait (which is less efficient than a balanced stroke). Howdy Rain Man! I'm sorry that I have allowed myself to argue so strongly for something that, while very interesting, is not the end all and be all of swimming. Like I said, I just don't like to see something slammed for the *wrong* reasons. First off, keep in mind the two questions that led to TI: 1) What are elite swimmers doing that regular swimmers aren't? 2) Which of those differences could be taught to the less skilled swimmer? So it is a little dangerous to compare Olympic medal swimmers as an example, because they have already approached the limit of their SL. (Fractional differences could be from starting time, height, etc., rather than stroke technique.) You can contrast them to less skilled swimmers. I also think that some people are taking the "a little bit is good, so a lot must be better" approach to SL, underwater glide time, etc. When I looked through the book again, any extremes were only so (new) swimmers can notice the difference in the feeling (compared to previous habits). This is also true for SR. The method is to reduce SR so you can concentrate on good SL, then to crank the SR back up. Seems like some people are stopping at step 1. :D When I think to what prevailing theory was back in the late '80s, there is a whopping huge difference now. :) I don't know how much TI caused this, but it did seem to be one of the standard bearers. You mentioned Ervin (and later, his underwater glide). I was looking at the study of the 100 free 2000 Olympic Trials from USA swimming web site, and his SL and stroke frequency were no different from anyone else's in the finals. Why does his name keep popping up in this thread? At the Olympics, his stroke frequency for the 50 was 1.0/second (about the same as Hall). A study by Ron Johnson (1982) found "For a good college male sprinter a typical tempo is around .95 seconds (per cycle)..." So by 1982 standards, Ervin is not turning over enough! :) If you are interested in the time for underwater glide, try to find to find the University of Buffalo study for breastrokers. Good reading! (For contrast, at the next swim practice, look around to see how many people are popping to the surface, after a turn, while they are still above swimming speed.) Elsewhere, you asked about FQS. The idea is not to pause the front arm during the recovery of the other arm! (Catch-up and almost-catch-up are drills, not race strokes.) The idea is that during the most propulsive phase of the pull, the other arm should be in front to reduce the extra drag. There is still a slight overlap in the two arms pulling, and since the arm recovers faster that the other arm pulling, your arms spend more time in the "front quadrant" than the "rear quadrant". Also, despite what was misquoted elsewhere, the front arm is not (just) pausing, but "catching" the water before the pull. On pg 62 of TI: "Jerk your hand back immediately after plunging it in and you've started an exercise in futility as it slips water from one end of the stroke to the other. Bald tires on an icy road. Instead, slip your hand in, anchor it to get ready for the pull, and keep your grip as you move your arm down and back using robust body-roll muscles, not weak shoulder muscles." In the "perfect swims" analysis of the Olympic 50 Free, this was brought up about both Hall's and Ervin's stroke. Looking on the web, I found a summary of Toussaint's thesis on "Mechanics and Energetics of Swimming". He compared 6 competitive swimmers compared to 5 triathletes, both groups "at equal rates (900 W) of energy expenditure. The groups did not differ in mechanical efficiency, stroke frequency, and work per stroke. There was a difference in distance per stroke (1.28 m vs 0.99 m), and mean swimming velocity (1.11 m/s vs 0.90 m/s)." The swimmers were spending less energy moving water backwards, which meant more energy was available to overcome drag. Also found the race analysis system for The 9th FINA World Swimming Championships FUKUOKA 2001. I took the men's 100 Free, and made two groups: the eight finalists versus the 16 semi-finalists. As a group, the eight finalists had longer stroke length AND shorter stroke frequency than the semifinalists. Next, I divided them into three groups: six in A (under 49 sec), seven in B (between 49.0 - 49.5), and ten in C (between 49.5 - 50.0). Group B had the lowest stroke frequency, C the highest, so SR is muddled. However, for stroke length A had the longest, while C had the shortest, so SL has a strong correlation with speed. I'll end with quotes from Colwin's book, which I have recommended before: "Researchers report no consistent pattern with regard to stroke frequency during a swimming race... Researchers agree, however, that stroke length rather than stroke frequency is the determining factor in a swimmer's average speed... Male swimmers attain greater speed than female swimmers because they swim with a greater stroke length. However, the two sexes have very similar stroke frequencies." "Based on a season of observation of the four racing strokes in the 200 yard events, the study showed, except for backstroke, a marked correlation between average speed and stroke length. The study found no significant correlations between average speed and stroke frequency. ...the study needs to be replicated. The early indication, however, was that swimmers should concentrate on increasing their stroke length while maintaining a constant stroke frequency."