Swimming - a sport of fads

I can't believe tht we even question tht swimmign is a fd. the nly conclusion is ues. Unfortunately, so few peole follow it that it doesn't matter.

GoodSmith, anything more than a jammer might do you harm in a 100 IM. You wouldn't want your knees to be restricted during the *** or your upper body during the fly and back.

I disagree with the claim that swimming is one of the worst sports to follow fads, i.e. the stroke technique of whoever's on top at the moment. Fencing, which has far fewer technique restrictions in the rule book than swimming, is practically all about copying the world's best. In the 1970s and earlier, blade technique was the big thing. If you could clash your foil/epee/saber better than your opponent, creating ever-more complex moves, you were likely to score more points. That all changed starting around the mid-1990s, when the world's elite fencers found they could win better with superior footwork and simple attacks (one movement from the attacker to the target: his/her opponent, avoiding the other blade if possible). This took no time at all to trickle down to the salles and fencing clubs around the country, and soon every coach/maitre was teaching footwork over bladework. As I said, there are no technique rules in fencing; a simple attack is a simple attack, whether or not your elbow is straight, whether your back hand is up a la Eroll Flynn or dragging behind you. One former coach of mine said that proper technique is whatever the world's best fencers are doing at the moment. This is a longwinded (sorry) way of saying that swimming is not alone in this phenomenon. One more point, which is sort of an aside but also relevant, is that both swimming and fencing lend themselves to the most efficient movement possible. At the elite levels, the top athletes have figured out more efficient ways of getting to their target, whether it's the finish wall or the opponent's chest. So I see nothing wrong with trying to emulate either. Adam

I think swimming is a very mature sport, so the records are not likely to make much progress going forward (but they will continue to drop over time). But OMG, look at the depth! Things have definitely gotten fater if you look at the depth at, say, NCAAs. I don't have hard data, but whole heats of mens 200 free relays (consolation and championship finals) with virtually every single split under 20 is a lot of depth. And look at the depth in the 100 free... I am still waiting for someone to break 1:40 in the 200 back and get beat, but it will happen. I think a comparison of the top 100 times in the US or world would show a tremendous difference from 25 years ago. This would seem to indicate more about the advances in the sport than individual talents/efforts. I think these days coaching technique has gotten to the point where they can produce lots of fast people. Probably a combination of psychology (you know someone else can go that fast, so you chase higher goals) and training programs/techniques.

Some of us got our feel for the water by lots of yardage as 10 or 12 year olds. For them water is a natural environment and they naturally know how to move through it. The best swimmers two generations ago were the ones that had the natural feel for the water. They got it by lots of early yardage and natural ability. However, if the right way can be taught because now we know how to swim, it should be, rather than relying on natural ability to figure it out. That is why there is so much more depth now, because the right way to swim is taught. I am very impressed by the quality of the strokes and overall technique that I see in youth USSwimming; it is far better than it was back in the seventies, and the kids are faster. What little stroke advice we got was often wrong. I carefully followed the advice to move my hands in an 'S' shape, while the most natural swimmers swam in a way that felt to them the best and fastest way to swim. Only now do I think that my freestyle is starting to feel like freestyle should feel. So today we were asked to swim a 100 back in fewer than 55 strokes. I did it in 28, most everyone else struggled to make it. There is still a lot of room for improved technique, and it would be a waste to tell these swimmers that all they needed to do is to work harder.

Originally posted by TheGoodSmith Anyway...... stick with the conventional suits Jeff and I'll use the cheatin' full body suits on the 100 IM. I need the extra half second.... :-) Full body suits? Now that's a fad! Bob

Uh... Ian Thorpe's WRs in the 200 free, matched by Hoogie. 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. The women's butterfly races. 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 toss out all these examples because I believe these races are free of the "cheating technique" issue you previously cited. There is another whole 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. 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. And don't get me started on the "Like Mike" training fallacy. Matt

Originally posted by Matt S ... There is another whole 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 Magischo in 'Swimming Fastest' emphasizes training 60% of the mileage in anaerobic threshold. 100 meter free Word Record Pieter van den Hoogenband (Ned.) and many other Olympians (Dave Salo's Lezak, Piersol, Beard, Stitts, Krayzelburg between 2002 and 2004) they train less than in the 70s, but much more intense, 60% of their mileage is in breathtaking anaerobic threshold.

Swimming scientist Huub Toussaint has done research on propelling efficiency, which is a major indicator of swimming ability, as shown in this experiment. The competitive swimmers tested had about 40% better propelling efficiency than the triathletes. Most simply, propelling efficiency is better when a greater force is being applied to the water, and worse when the propelling surface (hand) is moving faster. What causes one's propelling efficiency to be good or bad? Another experiment shows that propelling efficiency increases by 8% with hand paddles, so it helps to have big hands. There must also be an element of stroke technique. This element is often called "natural talent," but I think it can just as well be the result of "hard work," or spending a lot of time swimming fast. When people talk about "technique," they are often talking about superficial things like head position and arm recovery style. Therefore, if someone mimicks the look of Ian Thorpe, they get praised for having "perfect technique," and it's assumed that they need to either improve their aerobic capacity or that they have maximized their swimming potential. But such people don't have perfect technique. As you said, they are just following a fad. Their propelling efficiency is lacking, maybe along with a few other hidden technique elements. They are moving their hands through the water too quickly without applying enough force to it, and that can be fixed with proper training focus. Also, I think Thorpe's front quandrant style actually is an important element of his technique. It allows him to emphasize his kick by pausing in a low drag position at the start of each arm stroke.

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer p.s. The entire set of 30 x 1000's is longer than swimming the English Channel BTW Not quite, but close. Isn't the shortest distance across the Channel something like 21 miles? That's about 37,000 yards. I like Vendt's quote about one of those sets "isn't so challenging." There can't be more than a handful of swimmers in the world who could actually claim that with a straight face.