I submit that swimming is one of the worst sports in terms of following fad techniques simply because someone has been successful using that technique.
I submit that talent or genetics, aerobic capacity, workout intensity as well as mental toughness play a far greater roll than mere stroke technique in the end.
Seems like the US latches on to the winner's stroke techniques all too often as the way explain success and teach kids. Front quadrant swimming like Ian Thorpe..... head down sprinting like Popoff..... these guys would be successful in their events with or without these techniques in my opinion.
Except for the latest cheating techniques...... i.e. flip turns on backstroke, underwater dolphin kick on backstroke, head under on breastroke, full body suits, and the soon to be dolphin kick on breastroke pull outs, the sport has not improved a whole lot in the last 25 years.... especially when you compare it to 25 years previous to 1980..... (1955)
Thought for the day...... :-)
John Smith
Parents
Former Member
Well..... Mr. Matt S...... I am afraid I am going to have to take issue with your points..... :-)
1." Ian Thorpe's WRs in the 200 free, matched by Hoogie.... "
This merely proves my point that swimming is a fad sport. Here we see two totally different stroke techniques battling it out at an elite level. Which one is better?..... Well, Hoogies is probably better for this event because he spends less time out front on his stroke than Ian and he is able to turn over a little faster. But we'll leave the stroke mechanics on freestyle to another thread.
2. "In 1980 only one person had EVER been under 50 in the 100m free, and it was such an unusual event that some people speculated the pool was 6 inches too short. Now, we expect anyone in the hunt for the Olympic Finals to be under 49."
Mr. Matt... surely you jest with this feeble response. By 1984 the World record in the 100M free had dropped to 49.36 (I remember quite vividly as Rowdy trounced me twice in a time trial that day in Austin when he set it). Take away the full body suit which probably corresponds to 3-4 tenths and you have a paulty 1 second differential between the early 80s and now. That's nothing compared to the improvements made in the 100 free from 1955 until the early 80's. (Again we ASSUME no drugs are being used... a big assumption but none the less we will assume it).
Take a totally different race as an example. The 200yd free at NCAAs. 21 years ago Rowdy did a 1:33.8 If you put a full body suit (probably 8 tenths advantage) on him back then his time would still place in the top 2 in that event.... i.e. a high 1:32. Again.... very little improvement over time in this event over 25 years. Hell my paultry 1:35.8 got 4th place at NCAAs in 1984. It wasnt until the last 3-4 years that that time go knocked out of the top 8.
3. "The women's butterfly races."
What exactly is your point here? That Mary T's legendary time is not competitive any more?...... Dude.... there have only been a handful of female swims in the world that have ever been faster than her, and she did it back in 1983. Again, I submit to you that in 25 years, this event has NOT improved that much. Especially if you gave Mary T a full body suit and reversed the clock. The same thing goes for Betsy Mitchell's 200m back. Almost no one can touch her even today. It's not like the whole final heat has caught up to Betsy. Hell.. they're still doing 2:13s in that event. My wife's time from 1984 trials could've finaled this year and she got second in 84 when she made the team. That's not that impressive for the girls in this event today considering they are wearing full body suits and do underwater dolphin kick with freestlye turns now, Matt. The whole final heat should be around 2:11 or faster today.
4." AND, while we're on the subject of women's swimming, the steroid slammin' East Germans kinda fouled up the results for the 70s. Consider that women today are clean and now equaling or surpassing the time of roid-monsters, and suddenly the last 25 years starts to look better."
I suggest we leave drugs out of this conversation as the US is not a totally clean nation either. But, if you want me to remind you of the greatest all-around US female swimmer of all time (Tracy Caulkins).... I think you will agree that her times are still competitive today in the final heat of nationals. Again, she is the product of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
5. "There is another hole in your hypothesis. If it was all talent and workout intensity, you would expect today's world-class swimmers to be doing more intensity and more volume than in the 70s. Actually, they are doing less."
Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt....... today's distance swimmers may be doing less than the mega yardage of the late 1970s, but the sprinters are a totally different case. I swam for Eddie in the early 80s. The good sprinting schools back then ... like Cal, Arkansas, Texas, Tennesse etc... did NOT do mega yardage back then. It was weight concentric and quality set oriented. Its not THAT much different today for them in terms of training and yardage with weights.
6. "Finally, I think that we're kidding ourselves if we think we can separate out the effects of "technique" and of "training." Anyone who has been in the sport knows you need both to have real improvement, and they are not independent of each other but in fact they interact (as anyone who has worked on fly technique while out of shape can tell you). We could go around in circles trying to figure out whether Dara Torres' successful comeback (arguably more successful than Jenny Thompson sticking with the sport during the same time) was due more to technique or training. Fact is stroke technique is different, training methods are different, and what works for one person's body and psyche may be a complete disaster for someone else."
I agree that training and technique are intertwined and related closely. Howver, once you get to a USS Nationals level it is much more beneficial to have the "talent" (i.e. genetics) and hard "training" as your weapons of choice than to rely on incremental fad stroke techniques of the winners.
John Smith
Well..... Mr. Matt S...... I am afraid I am going to have to take issue with your points..... :-)
1." Ian Thorpe's WRs in the 200 free, matched by Hoogie.... "
This merely proves my point that swimming is a fad sport. Here we see two totally different stroke techniques battling it out at an elite level. Which one is better?..... Well, Hoogies is probably better for this event because he spends less time out front on his stroke than Ian and he is able to turn over a little faster. But we'll leave the stroke mechanics on freestyle to another thread.
2. "In 1980 only one person had EVER been under 50 in the 100m free, and it was such an unusual event that some people speculated the pool was 6 inches too short. Now, we expect anyone in the hunt for the Olympic Finals to be under 49."
Mr. Matt... surely you jest with this feeble response. By 1984 the World record in the 100M free had dropped to 49.36 (I remember quite vividly as Rowdy trounced me twice in a time trial that day in Austin when he set it). Take away the full body suit which probably corresponds to 3-4 tenths and you have a paulty 1 second differential between the early 80s and now. That's nothing compared to the improvements made in the 100 free from 1955 until the early 80's. (Again we ASSUME no drugs are being used... a big assumption but none the less we will assume it).
Take a totally different race as an example. The 200yd free at NCAAs. 21 years ago Rowdy did a 1:33.8 If you put a full body suit (probably 8 tenths advantage) on him back then his time would still place in the top 2 in that event.... i.e. a high 1:32. Again.... very little improvement over time in this event over 25 years. Hell my paultry 1:35.8 got 4th place at NCAAs in 1984. It wasnt until the last 3-4 years that that time go knocked out of the top 8.
3. "The women's butterfly races."
What exactly is your point here? That Mary T's legendary time is not competitive any more?...... Dude.... there have only been a handful of female swims in the world that have ever been faster than her, and she did it back in 1983. Again, I submit to you that in 25 years, this event has NOT improved that much. Especially if you gave Mary T a full body suit and reversed the clock. The same thing goes for Betsy Mitchell's 200m back. Almost no one can touch her even today. It's not like the whole final heat has caught up to Betsy. Hell.. they're still doing 2:13s in that event. My wife's time from 1984 trials could've finaled this year and she got second in 84 when she made the team. That's not that impressive for the girls in this event today considering they are wearing full body suits and do underwater dolphin kick with freestlye turns now, Matt. The whole final heat should be around 2:11 or faster today.
4." AND, while we're on the subject of women's swimming, the steroid slammin' East Germans kinda fouled up the results for the 70s. Consider that women today are clean and now equaling or surpassing the time of roid-monsters, and suddenly the last 25 years starts to look better."
I suggest we leave drugs out of this conversation as the US is not a totally clean nation either. But, if you want me to remind you of the greatest all-around US female swimmer of all time (Tracy Caulkins).... I think you will agree that her times are still competitive today in the final heat of nationals. Again, she is the product of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
5. "There is another hole in your hypothesis. If it was all talent and workout intensity, you would expect today's world-class swimmers to be doing more intensity and more volume than in the 70s. Actually, they are doing less."
Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt....... today's distance swimmers may be doing less than the mega yardage of the late 1970s, but the sprinters are a totally different case. I swam for Eddie in the early 80s. The good sprinting schools back then ... like Cal, Arkansas, Texas, Tennesse etc... did NOT do mega yardage back then. It was weight concentric and quality set oriented. Its not THAT much different today for them in terms of training and yardage with weights.
6. "Finally, I think that we're kidding ourselves if we think we can separate out the effects of "technique" and of "training." Anyone who has been in the sport knows you need both to have real improvement, and they are not independent of each other but in fact they interact (as anyone who has worked on fly technique while out of shape can tell you). We could go around in circles trying to figure out whether Dara Torres' successful comeback (arguably more successful than Jenny Thompson sticking with the sport during the same time) was due more to technique or training. Fact is stroke technique is different, training methods are different, and what works for one person's body and psyche may be a complete disaster for someone else."
I agree that training and technique are intertwined and related closely. Howver, once you get to a USS Nationals level it is much more beneficial to have the "talent" (i.e. genetics) and hard "training" as your weapons of choice than to rely on incremental fad stroke techniques of the winners.
John Smith
