Criticism of TI Principles

Originally posted by gull80 I think many interpret TI's message (correctly?) as a focus on distance per stroke to the exclusion of all else, including fitness Read your TI again. (If you still can't find it, PM me in a few days, and I'll find the appropriate sections.) Laughlin points out that working on good technique can be just as good as a "regular" workout. :D I have no problem with you emphasizing that too many people lose the forest for the trees. But the problem should be correctly assigned. Originally posted by free142 Compared to elite swimmers there are two factors slowing ordinary swimmers. (1) Distance per stroke isn't as good at any stroke rate (2) Can't maintain the same stroke rate. Limitations to (1) are probably technique/strength orientated and limits to (2) are probably fitness related. Unfortunatly if people try to achieve a distance per stroke the same as an elite they are likely to end up gliding and kill their stroke rate. There have been studies where they compared elite swimmers and triathletes. (This was a while ago.) Even when the triathletes had superior conditioning and strength, they were blown away in the pool. It wasn't stroke rate.

Originally posted by gull80 ...I think many interpret TI's message (correctly?) as a focus on distance per stroke to the exclusion of all else, including fitness, which as Ion points out can only be achieved through hard work. This is what I say, indeed. Speed in the water = = Distace/Time = (Distance/Number of Strokes) x (Number of Strokes/Time) = = (Stroke Length) x (Stroke Rate) TI advises to focus on Stroke Length, and neglect Stroke Rate. But Stroke Rate doesn't develop and atrophies without training. In the excerpt I wrote above, Kizierowski is trained by Bottom to reach 210 beats per minute of heart rate, and hold 210 for close to a minute. Kizierowski is trained to have his heart pump maximum oxygen into his swimming muscles, for one minute. Kizierowski is also trained to drop from 210 beats per minute to 90 beats per minute, within one minute of rest. Otherwise known as fast recovery. If he was following TI's emphasis on Stroke Length and neglect of Stroke Rate, come competition time Kizierowski would show up with a heart rate ability atrophied, and with two minutes of rest necessary to descend from his maximum heart rate to 90 beats per minute. Otherwise known as being in bad shape. The US Swimming web site has a feature called 'The Perfect Race'. Statistics are given in Stroke Length and Stroke Rate. The idea is that everyone has a personal combo (Stroke Rate x Stroke Length), depending on their own physiology, and this combo is best suited for each individual in an event. The combo would change for the same individual in a different event. So, TI tells everybody to work mainly on Stroke Length. In contrast, Maglischo's 'Swimming Fastest' emphasises working on Stroke Rate at 60% of training. Olympians van den Hoogenband, Lezak, Karyzelburg and many more, they do that. The better than TI approach is to work on the combo, Stroke Rate -with its physical conditioning- and Stroke Length -with its technical conditioning-, looking for the perfect combo in an event, looking for: one's own Perfect Race

Originally posted by Ion Beza T.I.'s anchoring the hand in the water is physics nonsense, it's a flowery metaphor, every boat's anchor catches the ground, a swimmer's hand doesn't. Deja vu. (anchor (n.) 3- a source of stability; anchored (v. tr.) 1. To hold fast as if by an anchor). (1) Other people have already mentioned this is a description of a kinesthetic sensation. (2) I've heard of ships being anchored without being in contact with the earth, in the sense that they are not drifting with the tide. (3) If the hand is not moving (backwards) relative to the water, then it is anchored. How do you feel, when people talk about airplanes skidding or slipping? I'm not sure what the acceptable term is, for normal flight (when airplanes are not skidding or slipping), but if you want to come up with an acceptable alternative term for "anchoring", please share.

And next year some little guy 5' 2" tall is going to blow that all to h...

Originally posted by Ion Beza The better approach is to work on the combo, Stroke Rate -with its physical conditioning- and Stroke Length -with its technical conditioning-, looking for the perfect combo in an event, looking for: one's own Perfect Race You really ought to stop conflating stroke length with efficiency and stroke rate with power. That connection is pure fiction. I already pointed out that men, being stronger, take longer strokes than women. Also, during the course of a training season, swimmers will increase their distance per stroke. Both stroke rate and stroke length are affected by both efficiency and power. And I still don't think that either of them mean a darn thing. I wouldn't get too hung up on the efficiency/power dichotomy, either. Swimming fast will do well enough.

"longer hulls suffer less drag traveling through the water. Don't believe me? Look at modern naval architecture. I can show you modern supertankers, cargo ships, and aircraftcarriers, all with a bulge at their bows just below the water line. The ship builders added that feature because it makes the ship more efficient" Matt_s "sounds like you recommend popping up swimming immediately after you start your race, because during the glide you are decelerating" Mattson Thanks for all the posts guys. I'd just like to reply to the above quotes from Matt_s and Mattson. I think that the naval architecture analogy is wrong, except perhaps during the glide phase off the wall. Because humans present such a complex changing "hull" to the water during each stroke cycle, it is impossible accuratly compare a ship to a person. I do not think it is possible to write a mathematical equation for a persons speed through the water like can be done for a ship. I don't recomend popping up after starting a race or a turn, I'm aware that the fastest you will ever travel is off the dive or push off. Decelleration will occur during the dive/push off and the swimmers aim should be to maintain that speed by streamlining until they reach their swimming speed. What really prompted me to initially write this thread was people in my local pool struggling with TI drills. From some of your replys, I think these people may have bought the book and interpreted it themselves and never have attended any workshops or have ever been been coached. My favourite unfortunate example of a struggler is one guy who always wore fistgloves. On every stroke he still dropped his elbow, Without any coaching this guy was going to stay in the slow lane. Since this thread has turned in the direction of stroke rate vs stroke length, I would like to add a comment on this topic. Compared to elite swimmers there are two factors slowing ordinary swimmers. (1) Distance per stroke isn't as good at any stroke rate (2) Can't maintain the same stroke rate. Limitations to (1) are probably technique/strength orientated and limits to (2) are probably fitness related. Unfortunatly if people try to achieve a distance per stroke the same as an elite they are likely to end up gliding and kill their stroke rate. In running (1) is not a problem as humans are designed to run, stride length is not as huge a variable as stroke length in swimming, in running (2) (holding the stride rate) is probably the difference between ordinary ans elite. For example an elite swimmer may move at 1.7m/s and hold a stroke rate of 40cycles/min in a 400m race, They complete the distance in 3min 54secs. Their distance per stroke cycle is 2.55m. If an ordinary swimmer moves 2.55m per cycle but only holds 30cycles/min they will take 30% longer to finish (5m 14s) and move at 1.27m/s. If this person could increase their stroke rate (get fitter) and take a hit on their distance per cycle they could go faster: e.g. distance per cycle now 2.3m. Stroke rate 35cycle/min speed now 1.34m/s, 400m time 4.58. The ordinary swimmer will never match the elite swimmer even of they increase to 40cycles/min The question of course is how much distance per stroke is lost with an increase in stoke rate??

Originally posted by Ion Beza It's contrary to T.I., but T.I. hasn't produced one single Olympian. How do you figure? For example, Richard Quick contributed a fair amount to TI. He was a coach for several Olympics, a strong program at Stanford, and worked with many Olympians. I don't see how you can make a bold-faced statement like that, and expect to back it up. (If they had a single TI-style coach during their teen years, does that count as "TI produced"? It certainly excludes them from the "late blooming" list.) TI is meant to mimic the techniques that Olympic-level swimmers are doing, that make a difference in swimming speed. So in one sense, you can say that almost every Olympic swimmer is doing TI (except that is putting the tail in front of the donkey). When you mention the conditioning that current Olympians do, it supports "fitness is important". But I don't think anyone is arguing that. And it does nothing to invalidate TI. You are taking people who have outstanding technique and are already working hard. TI addresses what people who do not have good technique need to do, to swim more like the people with great technique.

Originally posted by gull80 I maintain that TI tries to reduce something that's very complex and intimately related to level of fitness to a set of drills that anyone can learn. I think that is a very fair and valid statement. But there are more steps than just "a set of drills", including the transition from drills to normal race swimming. Let me try a metaphor (you'll have to judge how accurate it is). Being a doctor is quite complicated, and can involve very specific training. But there are general classes that are needed as a foundation, before the more complicated material can be learned. There is obviously more to being a doctor than just Organic Chem I. But if someone fails to learn the basics (or learns the lessons wrong), wouldn't that make it almost impossible to become a competent doctor later (unless they were a born-genius)? My objection was you were implying that TI denies the fitness component. (He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named comes out and claims it.) (Unlike religion or politics, I don't think anyone has declared war over T.I. But I could be wrong...)

Power is included in the combo (Stroke Length) x (Stroke Rate). If it wasn't, then Speed = (Stroke Legth) x (Stroke Rate) would be false, and it isn't: physics apply to moving objects, physics apply to swimmers for example, and (50 meters free) / (24 seconds) = = speed (in physics) = = x = = (Stroke Length) x (Stroke Rate). All the big races have Stroke Length and Rate in the stats (Jim Montgomery's 1976 100 free in 49.99 has them, Felipe Magnini's 2005 Montreal World Championships 100 free in 48.12 has them, and so on), efficiency and power are not in the stats, power is included in (Stroke Length) x ( Stroke Rate). In physics -not in the street or at the pool, but in physics- where the terms are authentic, power has a rigorous definition (power = mass x acceleration x speed), and efficiency is inexistent.

Originally posted by Ion Beza Coach Mike Bottom -of the Gary Hall Jr. (U.S.) , Duje Draganja's (Cro.), Anthony Ervin's (U.S.) fame- credits the gold won in 200 back by Gordan Kozulj (Cro.) at the 2000 European Championships, to working on a much faster Stroke Rate. And of course all these swimmers are sprinters . It seems to me stroke rate is much more important for sprinters. However, once you start swimming longer races reducing drag becomes more and more important. Sprinters can take the tradeoff of greatly increased propulsive force by slightly increasing their drag. Distance swimmer cannot. I think there are a couple reasons TI is popular. One is that it produces a reasonably efficient stroke which can be sustained. This is something very enticing to triathletes or others without a swimming background who found that, before learning TI, swimming was an absolute struggle. The second is that it is written such that it's so portable. What I mean is it's pretty easy to learn the basic principles, they make sense, and this makes it easy to take on the road or write down in a book.