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
Hey Rain Man, before you go, I *think* that I have an explanation, now that I know that we were looking in (slightly) different directions. If you can stomach going through to the end of my post :), I think you'll be happy.
You mentioned Stanford tapes, which I haven't seen. But it is not surprising that TI is like that. Laughlin freely credits Boomer, Quick, and others with the ideas that led to TI. His contribution was to find a way to teach it to the "common" person. (I won't argue about how successful he was.) So while it was "repackaging", most people had not heard it, and would not have heard of the ideas unless he came up with TI. (Oops, sorry about the argument. :D )
OF COURSE THE FASTEST SWIMMERS HAVE A BETTER SL!!!
Eh... maybe not so obvious. In the 1920s, crawlstrokers were taught to spin their arms as fast as possible. They would have argued that the fastest swimmers had the fastest turnover. (I would argue that there are people who still feel this way.)
... re-packaging of what has been taught all along... 1) Streamlined body position is faster.
Again, yes and no. I remember being taught to streamline off of turns. But the importance of streamlining *during* the stroke, while mentioned, was never emphasized.
2) Good technique is the most important aspect of swimming fast.
*THAT* is the 20000 dollar question! :D What makes good technique? I will give you my perception of what has changed. Others may have had different experiences, but I *think* mine was fairly common.
During my age group years (80s), we were taught that pushing water back was how you moved through the water. (Obvious, right? Like a jet rocket.) The consequences of this theory are: you can go faster by pushing more water back per stroke, and by increasing your stroke rate. Another prediction is that Olympians are so much faster than mere mortals, because they are stroking faster and pushing more water back.
Well, research showed that stroke rate was uncorrelated with speed. (It is highly correlated with stroke length.) Research also showed that elite swimmers were pushing back *less* water than ordinary swimmers. (For an example, on the web is a summary of Toussaint's thesis on "Mechanics and Energetics of Swimming".)
So you see the problem, right? You had a group of swimmers who could be *much* faster than others, with less fitness, slower stroke rate, and less water pushed back. So that was revolutionary idea number one: if you have an average swimmers, they will make much, much better speed gains if you give them Olympic technique, compared to Olympic-level fitness.
The next great idea is, we understand what Olympic swimmers are doing different. I would suggest looking at Colwin's "Swimming in the 21st Century" for a great explanation. (It is even in TI, if you keep your eyes open.) The short version is to scull with your hands to "anchor" them in the water. You then pull your body past your hands, instead of pushing water back. (It may not feel like this from your perspective, but it can be seen from the deck by a coach.) More of your energy goes into moving you forward, less goes into water going back. The emphasis on streamlining also creeps in at this point.
The last great idea is that ordinary people could learn to swim like this. I think this last point is why Laughlin sounds like a marketeer. People will complain, "I can't swim like Ervin/Biondi/whoever!". Laughlin is trying to convince these people that, while they may never swim as fast as an Olympian, you can find great speed gains by swimming more like them.
I think that is about it. Rain Man, I hope this helps clear up the situation. :) It also explains why you can't compare Olympians when arguing about TI. They are already swimming in this different style (not "pushing water"), so the huge speed gain is no longer there. They are at the point where style is on the same footing as fitness, strength, genetics (height), etc.
Hey Rain Man, before you go, I *think* that I have an explanation, now that I know that we were looking in (slightly) different directions. If you can stomach going through to the end of my post :), I think you'll be happy.
You mentioned Stanford tapes, which I haven't seen. But it is not surprising that TI is like that. Laughlin freely credits Boomer, Quick, and others with the ideas that led to TI. His contribution was to find a way to teach it to the "common" person. (I won't argue about how successful he was.) So while it was "repackaging", most people had not heard it, and would not have heard of the ideas unless he came up with TI. (Oops, sorry about the argument. :D )
OF COURSE THE FASTEST SWIMMERS HAVE A BETTER SL!!!
Eh... maybe not so obvious. In the 1920s, crawlstrokers were taught to spin their arms as fast as possible. They would have argued that the fastest swimmers had the fastest turnover. (I would argue that there are people who still feel this way.)
... re-packaging of what has been taught all along... 1) Streamlined body position is faster.
Again, yes and no. I remember being taught to streamline off of turns. But the importance of streamlining *during* the stroke, while mentioned, was never emphasized.
2) Good technique is the most important aspect of swimming fast.
*THAT* is the 20000 dollar question! :D What makes good technique? I will give you my perception of what has changed. Others may have had different experiences, but I *think* mine was fairly common.
During my age group years (80s), we were taught that pushing water back was how you moved through the water. (Obvious, right? Like a jet rocket.) The consequences of this theory are: you can go faster by pushing more water back per stroke, and by increasing your stroke rate. Another prediction is that Olympians are so much faster than mere mortals, because they are stroking faster and pushing more water back.
Well, research showed that stroke rate was uncorrelated with speed. (It is highly correlated with stroke length.) Research also showed that elite swimmers were pushing back *less* water than ordinary swimmers. (For an example, on the web is a summary of Toussaint's thesis on "Mechanics and Energetics of Swimming".)
So you see the problem, right? You had a group of swimmers who could be *much* faster than others, with less fitness, slower stroke rate, and less water pushed back. So that was revolutionary idea number one: if you have an average swimmers, they will make much, much better speed gains if you give them Olympic technique, compared to Olympic-level fitness.
The next great idea is, we understand what Olympic swimmers are doing different. I would suggest looking at Colwin's "Swimming in the 21st Century" for a great explanation. (It is even in TI, if you keep your eyes open.) The short version is to scull with your hands to "anchor" them in the water. You then pull your body past your hands, instead of pushing water back. (It may not feel like this from your perspective, but it can be seen from the deck by a coach.) More of your energy goes into moving you forward, less goes into water going back. The emphasis on streamlining also creeps in at this point.
The last great idea is that ordinary people could learn to swim like this. I think this last point is why Laughlin sounds like a marketeer. People will complain, "I can't swim like Ervin/Biondi/whoever!". Laughlin is trying to convince these people that, while they may never swim as fast as an Olympian, you can find great speed gains by swimming more like them.
I think that is about it. Rain Man, I hope this helps clear up the situation. :) It also explains why you can't compare Olympians when arguing about TI. They are already swimming in this different style (not "pushing water"), so the huge speed gain is no longer there. They are at the point where style is on the same footing as fitness, strength, genetics (height), etc.
