Is Swimming Still An Athletic Activity Or Is It Now A Mechanized Sport?
Former Member
Yeah, I know I’m going to get a lot of really negative comments on this one, but I ran across this article on the mechanical engineering techniques (computational hydrodynamic analysis) involved in the design of the FastSkin II suits:
www.fluent.com/.../pr69.htm
I can see where this “suit technology” approach can be of great advantage if you’re into some kind of commercial swimming or diving work, or in a military application that requires personnel swimmers involved in amphibious operations (such as the Navy Seals or the Marines).
And maybe, the Olympics and FINA should have a “RoboSwimmer” division (something similar to NASCAR) where all the latest speed enhancing/drag reducing and flotation assisting gadgets and gimmicks can be shown off.
Hey -eventually, the writers at MAD Magazine will catch onto this suit technology craze and come up with some ideas of their own such as “bubble wrap” skin (for enhanced buoyancy), a built in snorkel (no more hassle of timed breathing you had to learn back in Swimming 101-A), and of course -body fins- (to produce wake turbulence) and “wipe out” anyone who might be catching up in the adjacent lanes behind you!
I’m not kidding either - this issue is becoming hotly debated by swimming coaches too:
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/.../table.htm
But seriously, FastSkin II just amounts to another commercial product that anyone can go out and buy for the money. But in the end, the person with the real competitive edge is going to be one who has true athletic ability and has spent the more time practicing in the pool than anyone else in the race.
I would hope that we can stay with the traditional athletic approach instead of who's the most technology advanced.
Happy Swimming
Dolphin 2
:D
Parents
Former Member
All things considered - very few sports don't have some piece of required equipment. Swimming has none per se (as you point out) that is required to play the game. No rackets, clubs, balls, skis, bicycles, etc.). Perhaps running is comparable because shoes aren't required but are definitely useful.
Some say that the new larger tennis rackets have changed the game because they shorten the court and make serves too important. I don't know since I don't play tennis.
But just because a piece of equipment is required (like bikes) doesn't mean the athletic performance is less significant. In cycling the best athlete usually wins.
In swimming - does anyone here believe that the best athlete doesn't usually win? No one is going to beat Phelps or Lochte because of a better suit. Until the suit becomes something that unreasonably differentiates one athlete from another it is still athletic achievement. Organizing bodies like FINA have a job to do and so far they have done it.
I think a far richer area to discuss and be concerned with is physiological enhancements......
All things considered - very few sports don't have some piece of required equipment. Swimming has none per se (as you point out) that is required to play the game. No rackets, clubs, balls, skis, bicycles, etc.). Perhaps running is comparable because shoes aren't required but are definitely useful.
Some say that the new larger tennis rackets have changed the game because they shorten the court and make serves too important. I don't know since I don't play tennis.
But just because a piece of equipment is required (like bikes) doesn't mean the athletic performance is less significant. In cycling the best athlete usually wins.
In swimming - does anyone here believe that the best athlete doesn't usually win? No one is going to beat Phelps or Lochte because of a better suit. Until the suit becomes something that unreasonably differentiates one athlete from another it is still athletic achievement. Organizing bodies like FINA have a job to do and so far they have done it.
I think a far richer area to discuss and be concerned with is physiological enhancements......
