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
Originally posted by breastroker
...
For instance the quote on Ervins' breakout, Here is the actual quote "and he carried less starting velocity into the swim portion of the race. Anthony broke the surface in 2.39 seconds, behind Gary and several others in the race."
What part of BEHIND do you not understand ION? I say again, Anthony Ervin and Gary Hall are BAD examples to follow for most of their races.
...
Coach Wayne McCauley
Always learning and listening
:rolleyes:
Wayne,
let me re-explain this, very simply for you.
Ervin stayed 2.39 seconds underwater after the start, longer than others like Hall who stayed 2.03 seconds underwater.
The underwater choice by Ervin put him behind "...Gary and several others in the race.", who were already swimming free when Ervin broke the water surface.
The final time for both Hall and Ervin, 21.98 seconds minus the time spent underwater, 2.39 for Ervin and 2.03 for Hall, is the time they spent on swimming.
So, Ervin swam for 19.59 seconds and Hall swam for 19.96 seconds.
During these 19.59 seconds, Ervin had a Cycle Count of 19.5, or 39 strokes, with a length of 2.17 meters Distance per Cycle.
During his 19.96 seconds of swim, longer time than Ervin's, Hall had a Cycle Count of 19.5, or 39 strokes like Ervin, and a length of 2.18 meters per Cycle.
These numbers come from the statistics of the article.
So, Ervin did outrush Hall during the swim part, after Ervin's initial handicap of start with more underwater:
rate for Ervin is 39 strokes / 19.59 seconds = 1.990 strokes per second;
rate for Hall is 39 strokes / 19.96 = 1.953.
The rate by Ervin, (1.990) is greater than the rate by Hall, (1.953), "...in spite of an extremely fast cycle for someone 6 feet, 6 inches tall." as Hall fast turnover and height are descibed.
During this swim part of 19.96 seconds for Hall and 19.59 seconds by Ervin, the distance per stroke for Hall is 2.18 meters per Cycle, and for Ervin is 2.17 meters per Cycle.
So, when Ervin had a higher arm turnover than Hall, he also had a smaller length per stroke than Hall.
It did allow Ervin to catch up with Hall at the end of the 50, since after breakout Ervin was "...behind Gary and several others in the race.".
Those are the swimmers of a 21.98 seconds for 50 meter free, a rare up to now instance of sub 22 seconds.
So they are very fast, considering what humans know so far.
Got it?
Originally posted by breastroker
...
For instance the quote on Ervins' breakout, Here is the actual quote "and he carried less starting velocity into the swim portion of the race. Anthony broke the surface in 2.39 seconds, behind Gary and several others in the race."
What part of BEHIND do you not understand ION? I say again, Anthony Ervin and Gary Hall are BAD examples to follow for most of their races.
...
Coach Wayne McCauley
Always learning and listening
:rolleyes:
Wayne,
let me re-explain this, very simply for you.
Ervin stayed 2.39 seconds underwater after the start, longer than others like Hall who stayed 2.03 seconds underwater.
The underwater choice by Ervin put him behind "...Gary and several others in the race.", who were already swimming free when Ervin broke the water surface.
The final time for both Hall and Ervin, 21.98 seconds minus the time spent underwater, 2.39 for Ervin and 2.03 for Hall, is the time they spent on swimming.
So, Ervin swam for 19.59 seconds and Hall swam for 19.96 seconds.
During these 19.59 seconds, Ervin had a Cycle Count of 19.5, or 39 strokes, with a length of 2.17 meters Distance per Cycle.
During his 19.96 seconds of swim, longer time than Ervin's, Hall had a Cycle Count of 19.5, or 39 strokes like Ervin, and a length of 2.18 meters per Cycle.
These numbers come from the statistics of the article.
So, Ervin did outrush Hall during the swim part, after Ervin's initial handicap of start with more underwater:
rate for Ervin is 39 strokes / 19.59 seconds = 1.990 strokes per second;
rate for Hall is 39 strokes / 19.96 = 1.953.
The rate by Ervin, (1.990) is greater than the rate by Hall, (1.953), "...in spite of an extremely fast cycle for someone 6 feet, 6 inches tall." as Hall fast turnover and height are descibed.
During this swim part of 19.96 seconds for Hall and 19.59 seconds by Ervin, the distance per stroke for Hall is 2.18 meters per Cycle, and for Ervin is 2.17 meters per Cycle.
So, when Ervin had a higher arm turnover than Hall, he also had a smaller length per stroke than Hall.
It did allow Ervin to catch up with Hall at the end of the 50, since after breakout Ervin was "...behind Gary and several others in the race.".
Those are the swimmers of a 21.98 seconds for 50 meter free, a rare up to now instance of sub 22 seconds.
So they are very fast, considering what humans know so far.
Got it?
