I've noticed at lot of dicsussion in recent threads about TI principles,
As you can see from my location, I'm on the other side of the atlantic and TI has started to make an impact over here.
I've come across a lot of people in my local University pool who seem to have been mesmerised by the TI message and it is now common for me to see people swimming on their sides with one outstreached arm and a submerged head.
When the time comes to breath these guys have their heads so deep from pressing their bouy that they end up lifting it so high that they loose whatever alignment they had in the first place.
From talking to them, none of them seem to want to develop a proper kick and build up endurance so they can develop
good form.
I have decided to post a list of TI priciples and my own critism of these, feel free to add to the list or post a TI defence!
TI PRINCIPLE 1
Side to Side Rotation
to get into Low Drag Fish-like Position
Criticism
Rotation is good to get extentsion and
a good catch + power into the stroke,
Excessive rotation slows down the stroke.
TI PRINCIPLE 2
Swim DownHill
Press your Bouy
Criticism:
Holding head too deep creates drag
Makes breathing Difficult
TI PRINCIPLE 3
No Kicking
Criticism
Kicking essential to fast swimming
+ to maintain good form particularly
for male swimmers.
TI PRINCIPLE 4
Front Quadrant Swimming/
Distance per stroke,
Criticism
A reasonably high Stroke rate is necessay for
fast swimming,
Unless you have a very strong kick a glide
phase in your stroke will cause decelleration
TI PRINCIPLE 5
Drills will make you a better swimmer
Criticism
Drills are important, but there is no
substitute for good quality fast training.
Originally posted by Jazz Hands
Why do you think stroke length is about drag and stroke rate is about propulsion?
I don't think I ever said any such thing. I think a longer stroke can increase both propulsion (since the arms are applying force for a longer time) and reduce drag (by putting the body into a more aerodynamic profile). I think sprinters make the tradeoff of slightly reducing the propulsion they can achieve per stroke by shortening their strokes and turning over faster. At the same time they probably take a hit on drag because they aren't in as favorable a position. However, the total amount of force they apply against the water over the course of a race is increased because they're taking more strokes.
More specifically, in swimming:
Total Power = Force x Arm Speed (ignoring the kick)
Effective Power = Force x Body Speed
Efficiency can mean a lot of things. Huub Toussaint writes about propelling efficiency, which is the ratio of the effective power to total power.
Propelling Efficiency = Effective Power / Total Power = Body Speed / Arm Speed
When you talk about physical conditioning, you are talking about total power. Overall effiency isn't inexistant as you claim. We can make a definition for it by putting it in an equation with body speed and total power.
Efficiency = Body Speed / Total Power
There! We have a variable that measures how effectively a swimmer uses their power for speed.
What I don't see in any of this is a relationship between stroke rate and power, or stroke length and efficiency.
When I talk about physical conditioning, I talk about power with everything, including kick.
Your Efficiency, a ratio between the swimmer's speed and the swimmer's arm power without kick, I don't get it.
I see a relation between Stroke Length and Power:
Power = Mass x Acceleration x Speed =
= Mass x Acceleration x (Distance/Time).
Stroke Length = (Distance) / (Number of Strokes) =
= (Power x Time) / ((Number of Strokes) x Mass x Acceleration)
I see a relation between Stroke Rate and Power, also:
higher physical power, for example stronger triceps, allows for a stronger Stroke Rate of the arm turnover.
I don't know about your definition of efficiency, it seems meaningless to me.
My definition of efficiency isn't really important, but it does show that the concept of "efficiency" can be defined and used mathematically. What does efficiency mean to you? Actually, you were talking about "technical conditioning" when I brought this up. Is that different from efficiency? What is its relationship to speed? You would be contradicting yourself to say you don't know, because you have claimed that stroke length is a direct measure of "technical conditioning."
Originally posted by Ion Beza
... Stroke Rate -with its physical conditioning- and Stroke Length -with its technical conditioning- ...
Again. Why does physical conditioning belong to stroke rate and why does technical conditioning belong to stroke length?
Originally posted by Jazz Hands
...you have claimed that stroke length is a direct measure of "technical conditioning."
...
Again. Why does physical conditioning belong to stroke rate and why does technical conditioning belong to stroke length?
Stroke Length is a measure of technical conditioning in the example that some swimmers use bent arms, like the letter V, others use longer reaches in straight arms.
There are other examples of different aspects of technical conditioning affecting Stroke Length.
Stroke Length is also a measure of physical conditioning based on the power of the pull.
Physical conditioning affects stroke rate in the way the heart is trained to sustain a higher arm Rate.
Swimming muscles also sustain a higher Rate than the Rate of a physically unconditioned swimmer, because the arm turnover is facilitated by the fitness of the muscles.
No doubt technical conditioning can affect stroke length and physical conditioning can affect stroke rate. But those relationships are not exclusive. I have made major technique changes a few times in my swimming career that increased my stroke rate. And here's the biggest counter example, up for its third mention by me in this argument: Men take longer strokes than women at the same level of technical proficiency! The gap between men and women is almost 3 seconds in the 50 freestyle at the highest levels. That's huge, and it comes from a strength gap, manifest in stroke length.
Originally posted by newmastersswimmer
Correct me if I'm wrong....but doesn't Ion Thorpe pretty much follow the principles of TI with his long (almost catch up style) form of freestyle?...and he was a successful Olympian (of a sorts right?)
Newmastersswimmer
Yes, Thorpe looks like TI.
I think Thorpe's front quadrant is the instinctive long distance swimmer's self defense to distance.
With two arms in front, some of the mass of the swimmer is shifted in front, the swimmer's center of gravity moves up.
Then the long distance swimmer can pull the body easier.
Not faster, but easier to last long distance.
I have this instinctive self defense too.
But Thorpe trains hard in kicking with a board.
In 2000, he was doing 5 x 100 Long Course with a kickboard, leaving every 5:00, and coming in 1:01.
TI says no to do this.
Thorpe pulls with paddles and buoy.
TI says not to do this.
Thorpe shortened his stroke for the 2004 Athens Olympics.
In 2001, when he battled Hackett in the 800 free in Fukoaka, Thorpe and Hackett both used not the front quadrant, but the rotary style because they were very fit to use it in long distance.
(Ask me for Colwin's quote describing this race, it's in Swim magazine)
I agree with free142's assessment. 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.
Originally posted by Jazz Hands
No doubt technical conditioning can affect stroke length and physical conditioning can affect stroke rate. But those relationships are not exclusive.
...
These relationships are not exclusive in the sense that:
.) Length is not 100% ascribed to technique,
and
.) Rate is not 100% ascribed to physical conditioning.
In my previous quote I ascribed this for obvious illustration, but it's not a one on one mapping at 100%, technique and conditioning they overlap contributing to Length and technique and conditioning they overlap contributing to Rate.
However Length and Rate, together they cover Speed at 100%.
Originally posted by knelson
I don't think I ever said any such thing. I think a longer stroke can increase both propulsion (since the arms are applying force for a longer time) and reduce drag (by putting the body into a more aerodynamic profile). I think sprinters make the tradeoff of slightly reducing the propulsion they can achieve per stroke by shortening their strokes and turning over faster. At the same time they probably take a hit on drag because they aren't in as favorable a position. However, the total amount of force they apply against the water over the course of a race is increased because they're taking more strokes.
I think what you have said is correct, but instead
of thinking of a "longer stroke" should we not
always be thinking of a more propulsive stroke?
Elite swimmers have a combination of high distance per
stroke and a high stroke rate. A high distance per
stroke doesn't mean that the stroke has to actually take a long time to execute.
The elite swimmer can move more water back or pull themselves
through the water, more efficiently than everone else. By pushing
water back with hand, forearm and possibly even upper arm
they can generate much more force than an ordinary swimmer
who for example must let their arm go very deep before they can catch, because they lack the shoulder stength to make a high elbow catch.
