Approach to teaching competitive swimming?

Originally posted by Phil Arcuni Anyway, it seems to me that the relevant number should be SL divided by something like arm span or height. That way you can normalize for size, and determine if there is any correlation between swimming style and speed at the upper levels. The USA Swimming page mentioned the same thing, measuring the difference between arm up and arm down, to give a reference number. Again, I think it is better to look at the big picture. I have the height and stroke rate to match the Olympic swimmers. Triathletes have the fitness and stroke rate to match Olympic swimmers. Why are we getting crushed by elite swimmers? Technique, which translates to stroke length. The elite guys can take their hand out of the water AHEAD of where they put it in. I'm happy if my hand isn't too far behind where I put it in (because my hand slips as I press back).

Wayne: I like the humorous signature. We'll have to agree to disagree on some things. I don't think that Anthony Ervin is a bad example at all. After reviewing turn 3 (the close-up turn on ESPN) in the 100 at NCAAs, he had a tight streamline and was up and swimming at the 5 yard mark. And a VERY fast turn. I think more age group swimmers would benefit from being told to get up and swim instead of kicking in a tight streamline for 8 yards. Most high school and younger swimmers do not have the leg strength necessary to kick faster than they can swim. I will not disagree with your view of the start. Mattson... I can appreciate your viewpoints. Discussion and disagreements are the only thing that keeps us looking to improve our coaching methods and learn more and more. If we all agreed we'd be stuck with what we have forever. I'm not so sure TI was as radical when it came out as you say, but it was clearly a change. More in philosphy and teaching method and glitzy marketing than anything but I digress :D I agree with Phil here in that I would like to see highly qualified individuals addressing some of the questions and concerns we have with TI. Maybe by a non-biased person? I'm going to add something to the SL/SR discussion as well. A while back I think it was Emmett who gave this analogy, try to swim down the pool taking as many strokes as possible, like 100 strokes. You will get a slower and slower 25y time as you do that. I remember I responded that the particular example was to the level of absurdity. For all the SL proponents, try to swim down the pool with 2 strokes. It will take you all day. Absurd as well, but no more than the other example. What it boils down to, is a good coach will find the point at which the individual swimmer has best maximized the potential of the combination of their SR and SL. Clearly Ervin is fastest for himself taking 16 strokes in a length at quite a rapid turnover. Klete Keller on the other hand will take 12-13 SPL. That works best for him. Everyone can't be lumped into the same mold. Watching Brooke Bennett and Diana Munz swim next to each other at the 2000 games, they were so radically different in their strokes but for all intents are swimmers of equal caliber. (In fact the winner, Bennett, had higher SR, lower SL, and greater SPL!) I feel like a broken record now, but my main issues are don't treat one teaching ideology as gospel, using it only, and grouping all the swimmers into it. Every swimmer is different. What works for one won't necessarily work for the other. Good coaches will draw on all the resources available to them to offer each swimmer the best training techniques and methods for them personally. -RM Certified Level... uhhh... just plain certifiable! :D

Hey guys, remember that there is a big difference between the statements "swimmers with larger DPS swim faster" and "swimmers swim faster when they swim with larger DPS" The first is verifiably true, with exceptions, and the latter is less verified, and more important to prove in a learn to swim program. If you are not sure what I mean, here is an example: a 6'6" swimmer will probably have a larger DPS than a 5'6" swimmer, and will probably be a faster swimmer, TI or no TI. But will the second swimmer become faster than before if he/she increases the DPS? Not so clear, *but*, I can say that for most of the swimmers on my team it is definitely true - they have clear stroke flaws that if improved will make them faster swimmers and incidently increase their DPS. That makes it pretty clear that DPS is a *consequence* of better swimming style, not a goal in itself. Instead, DPS is an indicator of how well someone is swimming, and for most people the better the DPS the better the swimming. But don't be proud of your 8 strokes a length, if that only happens when you are swimming easy - the trick is to train your muscles to maintain that stroke per length while you are sprinting, and that requires fast swims in practice, not long slow distance. No way is a better swimming style an excuse for not having to work as hard, and I have heard no one claim so, except to attribute similar statement to others. The choice in not between stroke form and hard work. Attention to swimming form is *additional* work. People who think the trick is cranking out the yards on tough intervals are being lazy. Mr. Obvious

One point about SL, DPS, etc. I find that having a basic working understanding of the principles involved allows me to moniter my storke in training and catch myslef "cheating". Basically if I know what my SR is for a given distance (10-11 for 200s, 11-12 for 100s, 14-15 for 50s) when training hard/fast, if it increases than I'm "slipping" and need to refocus on technique. Rather than swim "mindlessly" and not pay attention to these types of things the ideals of TI would help any level swimmer improve. For myself I've found that attempting to achieve perfect technique in hard training allows me to turn it (my mind) off in races and just go. Usually (hopefully!) I find that I maintian the same SR as in workout. My biggest concern about TI was that far two may people were reading the book and going out swimming slowly thinking they'd get faster in meets. The truth is that HARD technique work is very challenging!

Ion, I used the rolling eyes, because I thought it would be overkill to use my next choice. I'll use it now. :mad: (If you want the last word, I promise not to respond further. I think we would agree that this side-thread is dying out.) Originally posted by Ion Beza There is no mistake in the TI book, in page 48, about what 'pause' is: "Leave your hand extended before starting to pull back." Yeah, but there is a problem when you take it out of context. Reread that section. He is talking to Rear-Quadrant swimmers, who do not know how it feels to be a FQS. He is describing a drill. He mentions "pause" as part of a mantra to think of, only if the person starts pulling back before having a grip on the water. That is why I included the quote, later in the lessons, about anchoring your hands. Presumably, the swimmer is now comfortable with FQS, and is informed what to do while the arm is extended. "Catching" the water is sculling with the hand to build a vortex of water around the hand. The sensation is pressure on the palm of the hand. It is a common enough expression on these boards, it did not occur to me that you did not understand the reference. 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 the average college swimmer back in 1982. I don't see how he supports your argument. (His stoke length is much longer that the "average" swimmer, but he has a comparable SR.) You mention a single swim that you had. Way to give something different a fair chance. And as I mentioned, if you are pausing as long as I suspect, then you are not doing it right. I have found other studies, besides Laughlin and Colwin, that support SL being more important than SR for getting faster, in general. If that doesn't work for you, or some people, fine. It is nice to know that your technique doesn't need any more improvement. But that doesn't discount the fact that it is true for most people. (Most people, as it shows up in the studies.) Originally posted by Ion Beza The sections discrediting cross training benefits of kicking with a board, pulling with paddles, dry land training -for example on an inclined bench-, are naive. Let's take these in order: So lot's of people use boards. So what! (Didn't your mother ever ask you if everyone was going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?) The question was not whether kicking with boards is better than not kicking at all. Laughlin mentioned a disadvantage to using boards, and suggested kicking without. You have yet to mention a reason why the use of a board is better than the alternative. (Laughlin likes fist gloves, I don't. So what! He is not forcing me to use them. I'm not forcing him not to.) You said that L. discredits using paddles. I gave you a quote showing that he supports using paddles. Why did you go off on a tangent about tubes, when we were talking about paddles? You said that L. discredits dryland training, including the incline bench. I gave you a quote showing that he supports dryland training, free weights, and presumably the incline (bench) press. You then fail to admit your error, and go off about swim benches. Why do you keep using someone's swimming speed as a measure of the quality of their ideas? Does that mean that anyone less than the world record holder should be discounted as a quack? The best swimmers don't necessarily make the best coaches, and vice versa. The only question is how well the method maximizes your potential. I'm sure you have read enough quotes about people in their middle years swimming faster than they did in high school, after trying TI. (That didn't work for you or people you know, fine. Just don't discount that it does work for a lot of people.) You talked about someone's race-speed workout being necessary 1+ times a week. (Sorry, I don't have the quote handy.) That's somewhere around 15-20% of the weekly swimming, right? I look back to the TI section on workouts, and lo and behold, he suggests between 0-30% of the workout should be sprint/race speed. There is nothing in TI that contradicts swimming with fast speed (as long as you are not letting your stroke go to hell). In closing, the problem I have had with your arguments is that when I go back to the source material, the "problems" are not there. If you want to argue that some/many people are misinterpreting TI, or not following all of the steps (like increasing the SR after working on SL, like Laughlin *explicitly* states), I'm all in agreement. If you want to point out which key steps they are missing, great. But make sure you have the right reasons!

This portion of the quote, focuses on the discussion about 'pause' in TI, between Mark and myself: Originally posted by mattson ... 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. ... I am familiar with all this terminology, and the 'Perfect Swims' serie of articles in www.usswim.org,, describing in one istance Hall and Ervin in the 50 meter finals at the 2000 Olympics. However, the portion of the post I quote from you Mark, is just that: terminology. It speaks about something, without addressing it, then it claims in conclusion that it did solve it. There is no mistake in the TI book, in page 48, about what 'pause' is: "Leave your hand extended before starting to pull back." This "Leave your hand...", that's the 'pause', an idle state of one arm decreasing the overall rate of swimming. Is the length increasing so that it compensates for the rate decrease? Not in my experience: I got slower. As for this being practice, as opposed to racing, it is how one practices that one races, including practicing the 'pause'. I could address other points by Mark in his post, but I clarify this for now.

Mattson, your post makes me very happy! I love the detail. That Colwin quote is perfect! Anyway, it seems to me that the relevant number should be SL divided by something like arm span or height. That way you can normalize for size, and determine if there is any correlation between swimming style and speed at the upper levels. I suspect that if you compared the height of the finals heat with the semifinals heat, you would find that on average the guys in the finals were taller.

n?#?]Originally posted by cinc310 I was wondering is Misty Hyman turns allowed in masters swimming. I assume you mean is Misty's kicking dolphin on her side off the turn permitted in Masters swimming? Yes, her turns and dolphin kick on the side are permitted in butterfly, as long as the shoulders are at or past the vertical toward the ***. From the beginning of the first arm pull the body must be on the ***. Same rule applies in USA Swimming and Masters. Mary

I disagree with almost everything Ion has said. :rolleyes: First off, you mentioned pg 47, where the book talks about keeping the hand in front longer. YOU used the word "pause", which I think it wrong. The hand is in front doing two things: active streamlining (while the other arm is pulling), and "catching" the water (to get a powerful stroke). If all you are doing is letting your hand hang in front, no wonder you did not see any improvement. You accused Laughlin of excessive marketing. He is being a cheerleader at times, which is needed for people new to swimming. I think it deliberately sabotages its own marketing. The book describes what they are teaching in the classes. The purpose of the book is to give the swimmer the skills to be their own coach. After reading the book, I have yet to attend a class, and don't plan to. You mentioned how TI didn't work for you. Besides the fact that a single swim is hardly going to tell you anything, if your friends noticed that much of a SR change, then I would say you weren't doing it right. The goal is not to minimize SR, it is to keep a long SL as you pick up your SR. pg 30: "As you begin to approach the upper limits of how quickly you can move your arms, you can usually speed them up even more only by decreasing your stroke length... Increase one and decrease the other by the same amount and your product - velocity - doesn't budge." pg 33: "First, you have to learn how to position your body so it moves as far as it possibly can with each stroke (SL); then you have to get fit enough to take those strokes at a high rate (SR)... They always make their most dramatic improvements when they give up a bit of their SR in order to gain a lot of SL." Reducing your SR is *NOT* the same as TI. Laughlin states this quite clearly on pg. 107: "It's possible to get too carried away with this business of eliminating strokes when you're down to such a triumphantly tiny number of strokes that you're taking forever to get to the other end." You mention Anthony Ervin, I'll mention Popov. You talked about the hundreds of people in this thread; I doubt that there are even twenty people posting in this thread, and the views have been varied. You have failed to address pg 31. Studies from the 1984 US Olympic Swimming Trials and the 1988 Olympics: "Over and over, what they found was that long event or short, the fastest swimmers took the fewest strokes." You accused the program as trying to be a short cut for physical training. If you are concerned about speed, then reread pg 26: "We now know that while conditioning matters, it doesn't matter nearly as much as we've been told. In fact, the world's top researchers estimate that champion swimmers owe about 70 percent of their great performance to perfect stroke mechanics and only around 30 percent to their fitness..." You also state that TI discredits kicking with a board, pulling with paddles, and dryland training. For kicking with a board, yeah he doesn't like them. But are boards *necessary* to get a good (or better) kicking workout? On pg 197, he suggests using fins instead of boards for the kicking sets. (Myself, I like boards, because they stretch out my lats.) On pg 199, Laughlin seems fine with paddles: "... you can get a fine (aerobic workout) wearing buoys and paddles." "...Add paddles to your hands and a tube around your ankles to the buoy between your legs. That will both increase the resistance and add some muscle to your pull." (versus using a pull buoy alone) He also seems to support dryland training. The only caveat was on pg 220. "(In the early stages of a swimming-strength-training program that you may be starting, use) your own body for resistance - bodyweight exercises." pg 222 "Eventually, of course, your muscles will need more than bodyweight to continue growing stronger... begin mixing in... free weights or machines in equal amounts." Look, if TI doesn't work for everyone, fine. If you are concerned that TI has passed from "groundbreaking new idea" to "established dogma stiffling further innovation" (my quotes), then there are better ways of saying that. But from the tone of some of your messages, it sounds like you have a vendetta against Laughlin. If you reread Emmett's messages, his concern is that people take a single idea from TI (such as reducing SR during inital practices), misapply it, and think that the entire TI program is garbage. From the misinterpretations and misinformation that you have posted, it would seem that you fall into this category.

The books are aim at trying to make the general public faster. Most swimmers are not 6"3" and above for men and 5'10" and above for women. I image that most age groupers and master swimmers are near average height. Many people that write on this forum are tall. I'm one of those near average height and have a better understanding of what normal size swimmers go up against tall ones.