Approach to teaching competitive swimming?

Cynthia, I notice that since you are training by yourself, posting in the USMS forum, means connecting with like-minded swimmers. Originally posted by cinc310 Ion, I don't see any harm using a kickboard in breastroke. Its never made my kick worst. ... For Mark Schubert, coach of Erik Vendt (US) who swam the 1,500 free in 14:59.11 in the year 2000, and 15:02.24 in the year 2002, the question "What approach do you use in teaching them to convert from a two-beat to a six-beat kick? Just plenty of work on the kickboard?" brings his answer: "Yes. We do a lot of kicking.". This emphasis to kicking is prevalent in US Swimming, as it is in world class swimming programs. Originally posted by Bert Petersen ... There are, of course, certain basic skills that all swimmers must possess. After that, stroke technique should be tailored to the individual. ... In line with training individually, a coach declared about his methods: "I may develop some good swimmers who become world champions, and you might develop some world champions out of swimmers I couldn't make work.", "As they get older (i.e.: late teens) I am not going to worry too much about stroke technique because they are set in their styles. The main thing is to get in great shape. This also helps offset stroke faults which have become too ingrained to change.", and "We do make some slight changes, but we don't work a heck of a lot on stroke.". For Richard Jochums, head coach of the US team at the 2002 Pan Pacific Games -the American coach I am being told that the Australian coaches fear the most as of 2002-, training technique means "In workout, we fix technique at race speed, not in drills. I don't believe in drills.", as he is quoted in the book 'Gold in the Water' by P.H. Mullen, in page 61. Originally posted by cinc310 ... My weakness in *** has been more of the armpull. ... This applies to me also, in freestyle though: I have a fast-twitch kick and a slow-twitch armpull. In line with "This also helps offset stroke faults which have become too ingrained to change." and "...we fix technique at race speed..." which I quoted above, I am taking the path now of mainly managing to increase my arm turnover, while many other defects become lower prioritized: two months ago, I was proceeding to make fumdamental stroke corrections, Phil's way (I mean Phil Arcuni), Paul's way (I mean Paul Smith), and a majority of swimmers' way which I have seen; the arm was to enter the water bent, the arm was to stretch underwater, water-polo style except that the head was to be down; it was to replace my ingrained style of swimming with arms already stretched in the air; the result is a dismantled stroke, and a lack of fun in workouts that I enjoy doing at a certain power. The coach from another program who said to me not to worry about where I put my arms but to worry about how fast I turn them, is the coach who made me switch programs after the 2002 USMS Long Course Nationals. I will see...

After a hiatus I've read back through a number of these threads. I find them so chock full of misinformation, conjecture and downright nonsense with respect to TI that its actually entertaining. So I'll add my, admittedly biased (I run an occasional TI clinic and get paid to do so), but also better informed, 2 cents worth... First, the notion that TI, or anyone officially connected with TI, believes or espouses the idea that the concepts taught by TI all originated from TI, or the idea that TI has the only successful method of teaching swimming, is total nonsense. Terry, and everyone else in the organization, credits a large percentage of the conceptual base of what we teach to a wide array of coaches. What and how TI teaches is constantly evolving - due largely from the input of many of the world's most successful coaches (and it is no accident that some of them also happen to be TI coaches). Herein I will refer several times to "TI concepts". This is shorthand for "concepts taught by TI" and not meant to indicate that the concepts "belong" to TI. It is my own personal belief that TI HAS hit upon a better, faster way of teaching these concepts (to groups of swimmers of ANY ability level) than anyone else in the swim clinic business. I am very well acquainted with a large percentage of the coaches that are actually certified as TI coaches - those who direct TI clinics and those who are first tier assistants. I know, intimately, from first-hand observation, how they work in a clinic setting. They faithfully teach the course material according to the paradigm assembled by Terry Laughlin in consultation with all of the senior coaching staff. That's as it should be. That's the expectation of our clients. I also know, from first-hand observation and anecdotally, that these coaches also employ the core philosophies of TI in their ongoing programs. This does not mean they expect every swimmer to adhere to one engraved-in-stone swimming style. None, not a single one, of the TI coaches I am familiar with, does that. Those who espouse the belief that TI, or TI coaches, advocate only one swimming style for all swimmers are, simply, misinformed. There are some coaches out there who call themselves "TI coaches" or indicate that they "teach TI" or say they run "TI programs", but who are not, in fact TI coaches. And there MAY even be a couple of those who do a passable job of it. However, employing TI concepts and philosophies on a day-in, day-out basis takes a combination of committment, understanding, knowledge and experience that these TI Pretenders simply do not have (I've been doing this a long time and I can tell you that I just barely have a tenuous grasp on the whole thing.) Since the dawn of swim coaching, coaches have gone to clinics, nearly always bringing something home to spring on their swimmers. That will never end. Of course, for a coach to go to a TI clinic, bring home one or two new drills, make their swimmers do those drills a few times and say "There, now we are running a TI program." is ludicrous. Yet some do that. Of course, a coach might go to a clinic, hear that Michael Klim trains 15,000 meters a day, then go home and start making his swimmers go similar distances and say "Now we're training like Michael Klim". This is equally absurd. Yet some (many) coaches do it. For an inexperienced coach (call him Coach NeoPhyte) to take some aspect of the training system employed by a successful coach (call him Coach OldVet) entirely out of context, and insert it into his own program and then wonder why it doesn't work the way he hoped it would is...alas... a very common scenario. But that certainly doesn't invalidate the system used by Coach OldVet. Also, the notion that TI, and TI concepts, are only for beginners, novices or non-competitive swimmers is utterly absurd. Such a notion can only be the result of a lack of information. Yes, we get plenty of novices in TI clinics. But we also get a goodly portion of accomplished swimmers as well. These swimmers, with rare exceptions, indicate that the clinic has been extremely beneficial to them. They make lots of progress and continue to employ the methods and concepts espoused by TI to great advantage. I've been in contact with and watched many hundreds of people that have really learned and practiced TI concepts and methods as taught by real TI coaches. The OVERWHELMING majority of those people have been very pleased with the results. I've ALSO been in contact with and watched many people who've only taken a half-hearted stab at employing TI concepts, or have taken one or two TI concepts entirely out of context, or have not given TI concepts enough practice to really learn them on a visceral level. In general, these people have not had as positive a result - as one might expect. These people are, of course, likely to have less positive (perhaps even quite negative) things to say about TI - as one might expect. However, we also find mixed results in this crowd. In some cases, even using a just a pittance of the Whole Package allows some people to make tremendous breakthroughs. Something as simple as keeping one's head down a bit lower can result in huge benefits for nearly any level of swimmer (assuming their current habit is to look forward while swimming). In fact, a goodly percentage of the email I get in the first week or two after a clinic is from swimmers who were able to immediately employ just one of the things they learned to positive effect - and how much they look forward to making ALL of the things we taught them into strongly ingrained habits. I just had to counter some of the misinformation and nonsense. I'm done now - for the moment.

I think that there a couple of points that everyone would agree on. 1. You first have to learn/be taught how to swim with proper stroke mechanics. 2. To swim faster you have to build up your strength and endurance while maintaining an effective stroke. This works fine when you are an age grouper. But how does it apply to the Masters swimmer? I am 45 and swimming as fast as when I was 13. What is the best way to improve to my age 14 times. Given my current condition...strength and endurance. But what is the point? I am swimming to get in "shape", to have fun through competition, because it is easier on my body than running, and because the water feels good. I would guess that 95% of Masters swim for the same reason regardless of whether or not their strokes are efficient or whether or not they are going fast. Since I began swimming (again) last January I have done my best to learn about all of the advances in swimming. And what has this gotten me? Basically, my stroke is like it was years ago. (with the exception of the backstroke turn) But no matter how much I improve my technique or my strength I'll never be better than a skinny little 14 year old. So, I'll have fun. Play with some technique, push myself on a set or two, and enjoy the leisurely pace of Masters Swimming.

Originally posted by Phil Arcuni After reviewing my posts on this thread, I don't think I can be accused of spreading misinformation And, as even a cursory inspection of my words will bear out, I didn't accuse you of anything. To refute misinformation by simply calling it wrong is of little utility. Which is why I added a fair quantity of my own observations made over a long of time. 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.

Please accept my apologies for clicking "Post" prematurely a few minutes ago. Originally posted by Phil Arcuni After reviewing my posts on this thread, I don't think I can be accused of spreading misinformation No need to get defensive. A reinspection of my words will show I accused you of nothing. To refute misinformation by simply calling it wrong is of little utility. Which is why I added a fair quantity of my own observations made over a long of time - which, of course, the read may take with however many grains of salt they feel appropriate. 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. While you may have inferred such a claim (though I'm not quite sure how), I did not imply such a claim. 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! I can see where such an inferrence could be drawn from my words. And you are not way off the mark. I do know that it takes a goodly amount of knowledge and experience to learn to effectively teach ANY swimming technique to a wide variety of ability levels. TI concepts are no different. That's the primary reason that there is a long internship and certification period for TI coaches. Could a coach simply study the TI books and tapes, perhaps even attend a TI clinic and then go out and immediately begin to teach TI concepts with a high degree of effectiveness? It could happen. But I would suggest that such coach would have to already be quite experienced with teaching a variety of swimming techniques to a variety of swimmers, and be very knowledgable about swimming technique in general. Could the neophyte coach do it? Highly unlikely in my opinion. Now, I HAVE witnessed untrained/inexperienced coaches that hold themselves out to be "teaching TI", make a total hash of attempts to teach TI concepts. That is, unfortunately, all to common. And especially not get defensive about criticism and questions from both the knowledgeable and less knowledgeable.! When I get defensive, I'll let you know. :)

Phil A has some relly interesting questions. I would love to see answers or at least a discussion on some of them. The more we understand the benefits of each swimming style, the better we can each decide to ignore or overcome "faults" or even to refine them into assets. Fascinating.

Phil A, Thanks for the scientific perspective. I'm definitely more in your camp. With anything, I have never believed that one shoe fits all. With swimming there are many variables to consider, strength, flexibility, drag, metabolism, physiology, body type, etc. Where TI may help some, it may not have the same effect on others. I have almost no ankle flexibility, my range is about 40 degrees, whereas the highly flexible have a range closer to 180 degrees. For this reason, I only waste energy and create more drag by using the flutter kick. Through the years I have learned that I'm not a 50 Freestyle sprinter and probably never will be. I minimize my kick and focus on my pulling. I have found that trying to use TI and the hip rotation was detrimental to my stroke, because it magnified my ankle flexibility issues. I tend use teaching methods and paradigms as tools rather than as belief systems. I incorporate a wide variety and tweak them until they fit the given situation.

Originally posted by kaelonj Ion, ... 'We fix technique at race speed, not in drills...' I believe is his comment in regards to which swimmers, Grote, Torres et al, those swimmers who have years of experience not ones learning how to swim. ... I have seen and heard of other world class swimmers workouts and they do drills, Popov would do drills based on stroke count ... ... At many USMS swimmers' level and mine too, in workouts incorporating technique sets, there are years of ingrained swimming; these years did develop efficiencies empirically, no matter the perceived good swimming technique, the academic swimming. An approach to correct a perceived faulty technique, would be to dismantle the stroke and want to rebuild it. In practice, there is little guarantee that dismantling the stroke is going to bring speed increase after rebuilding it, because along the way one swims slower than before, for longtime, until new muscles and brain conditioning develop, if they develop again. Instead of dismantling a style, I choose to believe in this approach to teaching changes in technique -for which Gennadi Touretski, coach of sprinter Alex Popov (Rus) is quoted in SWIMNEWS magazine of May 1998-: "...without making excessive changes such that swimmers lose their technique and feel for the water.". It is less drastic than the Jochums' quote -"In workout, we fix technique at race speed, not in drills. I don't believe in drills."- since Popov and Touretski are doing drills, however it is in the same vein of respect of the individual's style. By this token, priorities for a faster freestyle in my case, are: 1. increase arm turnover, such that speed increses; (in the past, this increse in arm turnover with no other modification in my training, did bring me personal bests); such increse requires better conditioning than what I have now; 2. have fun in workouts by swimming fast with the existing defects; do what I do best, so that an optimistic swimming environment, a feel for being in a 'zone' is created; emphasize positives of the existing style; for example, my straight-arm recovery, discredited in Total Immersion, makes Touretski see pros which are quoted in the same SWIMNEWS article: "...Michael Klim's technique..." incorporates "...the old-fashioned straight-arm recovery. The longer recovery seems to lenghten the stroke.". 3. correct small defects only, with supporting the existing style in mind.

I understand about sometimes others telling you to change your stroke Ion and its hard to do. As a kid a couple of coaches at my high school complain about my having a one beat kick in the butterfly rather than two. I try to change that but I had difficulty doing it. Granted, for me the *** and the butterfly were the only strokes I made AA in age group times and I think I once made AAA in breastroke. My free was usually b and I think at 18 years old I made a couple of A times. And my back went from B down to C again after the age of 14 years old. So, even a one-beat kick I was doing butterfly as fast as freestyle mainly in 50 yards and almost as fast in the 100 yards. Now most of my strokes need endurance and probably the styles are a little worst.

Phil M is right most of us in the 45 to 49 are similar to 11 to 12 year olds for the women and 13 to 14 years old for the men. Us women are more similar to the 11 to 12 years old because young girls develop earlier. In many states the 11 to 12 year old BB or A category is similar to the national masters qualifying standard for 45 to 49 year women. And the 13 to 14 BB or A standard is similar to the national qualifying standard for men 45 to 49. But each age group as we get older is similar to a younger age group until the 75 plus groups that are similar to 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 age groups.