Approach to teaching competitive swimming?

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?

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.

Let's see Mark, your last post. 1. "He is describing a drill.". No, he is not describing a drill. The page 48 reads at the top "Done right, FQS is...", and goes on with the "Enter, e-x-t-e-n-d, pause, and pull.", as this being the quintessence of the FQS to do it right. It is how one practices that one races. 2. "Catching the water is sculling with the hand to build a vortex of water around the hand.". and "...it did not occur to me that you did not understand the reference.". Catching the water well extended and with the least pause, does increase the rate. and Pseudo science, style "...the arm should be in front to reduce extra drag." by you -alike to the statement that I am making up now of 'This function reduces friction by minimizing the extra wake' which I can coin in order to 'explain' a practice-, is a pedant 'explanation', and needs to be de-bunked by common sense and physics. 3. "You keep bringing up Ervin. His stroke length in the 100 free is consistent with the field. In the 50 his stroke frequency is slower than...". Lets look at this link: www.usswim.org/.../template.pl It compares Hall (US) and Ervin (US), winners of the 50 free in the 2000 Olympics. Under "Break it Down: By the Numbers" there are two charts with their race statistics, correct? Hall has a breakout of 2.03 seconds, while Ervin has a breakout of 2.39 seconds. This means that Ervin stayed underwater after the dive an extra 0.36 seconds compared to Hall, and more than that compared to "...several others in the race." as claimed in the article. This means that Ervin had to swim freestyle less distance out of the 50 meter (i.e. 50 - 7.75), than Hall (50 - 7.5) and "...several others...". How is he swimming the smaller distance? In 39 strokes like Hall, so with a higher arm turnover rate than Hall, in order to squeeze the same 39 strokes into a smaller space. In 2.17 Distance per Cycle, a smaller length than 2.18 by Hall. Conclusion: Ervin's stroke was more rushed than Hall's, to tie him. However, the stats are close for both of them, since Mike Bottom is coaching the two with similar workouts. 4. "It is nice to know that your technique doesn't need any more improvement.". This is your claim, not mine. Good luck with your claim. My claim is that TI doesn't know what I need. 5. "You have yet to mention a reason why kicking with a board is better than the alternative." and "I gave ou a quote showing that he supports..." "...presumably the inclined (bench) press...". I did, remember? Originally posted by Ion Beza This claim is from the Total Immersion book and can go back to the book, to stay in there: there is training of calf, hamstring and quadriceps muscles by kicking with a board, an imperfect simulation since swimming uses kicking in a slightily different position, but a cross training nonetheless; of course kicking without a board and with your "...head in line with your spine and looking down...", simulates kicking for swimming better, but it can be practiced less; my own kick is leg muscles developed with a board; coaches who see me swimming long distance, praise my strong kicking all the way; for the reason of strenghtening leg muscles, US Swimming programs are doing lots of kicking with a board; in the 'Coaching' section of this Forum, there is a thread about positives from kicking with a board. and again, I re-post TI page 201, "Swim Benches" "My advice is, save your money.". Just a selective memory for you Mark? 6. Achievements as a former swimmer or as a current coach are a yardstick to determine the quality of 'what works'. 7. Race-pace recommended in the thread 'TI advice: length vs rate' to be at least one workout per week, gives you only the flavor. For a stronger flavor of this, I already wrote that Jochums, coach of the 2002 US Team at the Pan Pacific Games, states more drastically than I do the meaning of drills. "In workout, we fix technique at race speed, not in drills. I don't believe in drills.". This is mostly all race pace. 8) You superficially jump on stating that I make unsupported claims, without enough studying and recalling the posts. I reiterate my opinion: technique goes beyond TI's belief of stroke length, and stroke length itself goes beyond TI's belief of how stroke length is obtained; it seems to me that stroke length is not a goal for fast swimming, rather is a consequence of fast swimming, with the cause of fast swimming yet to be determined.

Excuse my confusion and ignorance, but looking at what Ion posted wouldn't Ervin's distance per stroke (DPS) be greater than Hall's not less. Ervin was behind Hall both in time and in distance if I have read this right, yet both took the same number of strokes so Ervin covered more pool in the same number of strokes so his DPS should be greater not equal or less than Halls. Also the DPS arguement is fine if they were only pulling, but since they are also kicking could it possibly be that maybe one is more efficient upper body and the other is more efficient lower body ? (get your abacus out and count kicks....). Going back to a post a while back I mentioned Lance Armstrongs pedal cadence when hill climbing which is much greater than other riders - this method works for hims, Miguel Indurain was also another feared climber in the tour and he used a lower pedal cadence - that worked for him, everyone is different so you need to find out what is going to work for you BUT as this whole topic started I think TI teaches some very important core fundamentals that will help develop someone into a stronger/faster/smarter swimmer.

Again I have to roll my eyes and bite my lip. You just don't know what you are talking about, Ion. All the quotes in the world do not make a swimmer faster. Technique does. Coach Wayne mcCauley

Quote: "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." Mattson- Impressive research, however I believe this logic to be flawed. Are they faster because of their greater SL, or is their SL greater because they are faster. Now that may not make enough sense but what I mean is OF COURSE THE FASTEST SWIMMERS HAVE A BETTER SL!!! They are the faster swimmers! Now what I would argue is take two swimmers of equal talent (i.e. Bennett/Munz) and compare them. It shows that differing styles can be equally fast. Breaststroke pullout research at UB was a great piece. Too many people sacrifice speed for distance in their pullouts. Again, the main issue there is to find the point at which you are the fastest. It takes coaches with stopwatches and a lot of practice. I guarantee that unless you do the research for an individual swimmer to find what is best, their pullouts will be hurting them in a breaststroke race. Wayne- We might actually agree on something :D If I read your post correctly, you seem to prefer the grab start over the track start. As do I. We may like the grab start for differing reasons, but I don't see how a start that puts you in the water sooner and at a flatter angle with a 1-foot pushoff from the block is a faster start. JMHO. Finally... Mattson... my core technique ideas that are taught by TI that are merely a glitzy re-packaging of what has been taught all along... 1) Streamlined body position is faster. 2) Good technique is the most important aspect of swimming fast. The Stanford series put out back in the late 80's/early 90's had many of the same drills that are on the TI videos. TI has renamed them and chosen to re-word the focus of many of the drills. Example: "balance". If I hear the word "balance" one more time from the TI camp.... geez, the only way to do the drills in the Stanford series was to BE BALANCED ALREADY! TI went the step further to mention the importance of balance because it caters towards novice (or non) swimmers looking to learn some fundamentals to enable them to become effective lap swimmers. I'm not interested in effective lap swimming. You want a workout in the water? Don't learn TI, you'll probably burn 1/2 the calories in a 45 minute workout after learning TI than you did when you were a "thrasher". I've never said TI is wrong, I've simply disagreed with the TI camp's approach and attitude. I've even said I think it is a great learn-to-swim video package, an excellent drillset for age-group swimmers. I want to hear about coaching swimmers to swim FAST. Some elements of TI are necessary, in fact many are. But a coach can't stop there. TI should be incorporated as part of the larger program. Each swimmer is different. There will be swimmers who swim faster outside the paradigm of TI than they will being strictly coached "TI". I'm finished on this thread unless a response compels me to respond. Anyway, it's becoming too difficult to navigate through half the posts that should really be their own discussion. Or just not in a discussion at all. :rolleyes: -RM

Rainman, I've stayed out of this discussion because I am a well-know TI shill, er... advocate, and most people could probably predict what I would say. However, you just said that you would like to hear about someone using TI to "coach swimmers to swim FAST." Please go to the totalimmersion.net web site (if you can do so without suffering an allergic reaction :D ). Click on Articles, and click on the newsletters, Issue 6. This is the "College Issue." In it you will find Terry's description of how he worked with the SPRINTERS at West Point; his article starts at page 10, and includes sample workouts for early, mid and late season. On page 16 there is a letter from Joe Novak, one of his West Point swimmers, that discusses how 2 years of training with Terry helped him take his 100 yard free time from 49 to 44.1 (and 43.1 from a relay start). Issue 8 is the high school issue, and you will see articles from a high school girls' coach (who also provides early, mid and late season workouts) who has some of his swimmers doing the 100 in times ranging from 53-low to 54-low. Now, I will grant you this is not the U.S. Olympic team, nor is it even a top flight Div-I program gearing up for a run at an NCAA Championship. But, how fast does FAST have to be before you admit it is more than marketing? Those times would certainly be FAST by USMS standards. You also might want to check out the web site for Emmett Hines' H2Ouston Swims masters club, which does right well with TI methods, or read his book that talks about his approach to planning work-outs for a season. TI may not work for everyone, but those of us who has made real improvements in our swimming with TI are mildly surprised by people who tell us we are all the victims of a glitzy marketing campaign. ;) Matt

Originally posted by kaelonj Excuse my confusion and ignorance, but looking at what Ion posted wouldn't Ervin's distance per stroke (DPS) be greater than Hall's not less. Ervin was behind Hall both in time and in distance if I have read this right, yet both took the same number of strokes so Ervin covered more pool in the same number of strokes so his DPS should be greater not equal or less than Halls. ... Jeff, it's simple: The statistics in the article show a breakout of 2.03 seconds and 7.5 meters for Hall, and a breakout of 2.39 seconds and 7.75 meters for Ervin. Ervin did travel underwater longer and slower, making him at his breakout to have to swim less distance out of the 50. So the distance swam by Hall is 50 meters minus 7.5 meters, which is 42.5 meters. The distance swam by Ervin is 50 minus 7.75, which is 42.25 meters. Thus Ervin swam a shorter distance than Hall. The statistics in the article show the column 'DPC', Distance per Cycle. For Hall, it lists 2.18 meters per cycle. That's 42.5 meters / 19.5 cycles. For Ervin, it lists 2.17 meters per cycle. That's 42.25 / 19.5 cycles, which is in reality 2.16 meters per cycle. So Ervin, with a faster rate (1.990 strokes per second) and smaller distance per stroke (2.16 / 2), did catch Hall (1.953 and (2.18 / 2)). (2 in (2.16 / 2) and (2.18 / 2) stands from converting cycle of 2 strokes into strokes). Wayne, when you luck on being right once, give me a ring. So far you are locked into the cliche that I post quotes and data out of context, but never did back it up with tangibles. Get over sentiments -if you can-, into these facts above.

I agree with Rainman that in breastroke sometimes the underwater pullout and not coming up sooner to stroke is overdone sometimes. I ran out of breath if I stay under too long, but maybe age is a factor. As for swimming speed both groups are probably right that it has to do with techique and conditioning. Look at Diana Munz on the short size for a woman swimmer on the elite level but one of the best middle and distance freestylers in the country. So probably conditioning and techique help her in spite of her height. And as far as times are concern, conditoning is probably a big factor. For example, William Yorzk a 2:19 in the 200 meter butterfly in 1956 and Mark Spitz a 2:00, 200 meter butterfly and current world record around 1:54. There was a much bigger drop from the earlier period than from Spitz to the present. Conditioning probably played a big role in the big time drop from the earlier period while techinque of people like Michael Phelps plays a role in the current drop from the times 30 years ago.

The following statement puzzles me again, after I called it earlier when in a similar version, pseudo-science terminology. Originally posted by mattson ... 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. ... The reason is that one pulls the body in the water by pushing the hand backward, while the hand is in the water. Thus, pulling is by pushing water back. I see any competitor's hand pushing water when the hand travels from being in front, past the hips, then out of the water. "...to "anchor' them in the water..." doesn't exist without a solid grip. A ship anchors when catching the ground underneath the water. It doesn't anchor much by having the anchor floating underwater: the water doesn't give the anchor a hard grip. Similarly, a swimmer cannot anchor much -and later on pull the body over that anchor- without catching something solid. The water doesn't give the swimmer a hard enough, stable grip. I bet this can bring me replies that are poetic 'explanations', pseudo-science, therefore 'technique'.