I say everyone swims nude
:mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning:
Oh that'll go over really well with the timers!
:mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning: :mooning:
Oh that'll go over really well with the timers!
Quite frankly, it's bad enough with suits.
I would stop at 1968 when I was in the first year of being on my high school swim team.
Accordingly, I feel that today’s swimmers should be allowed to benefit from all the advances that were available in my days.
Finally, someone willing to answer the question. Unfortunately, this means that none of the notable accomplishments of the Smiths would be accepted so it won't be a popular opinion. On the other hand, they might be happy as that would preclude about 99% of women swimming accomplishments if we stop in 1968.
Conversely, the change from the Duke Kahanamoku suit (forums.usms.org/showthread.php to the brief represented a greater change for men than that era's women's suit to the present ones (mostly a change in leg and arm coverage). So, as Geek asks: what era do we freeze the technology into?
I don't know, since it isn't something I'm advocating; I was just responding (somewhat tongue in cheek) to your diatribe against men.
I would prefer to update the rules to something that describes the modern swimsuit era (what Leonard describes works for me) rather than have this argument every 4 years. I'm much rather hear about swimmers and their accomplishments rather than what suit they wore (or didn't wear).
Rather than continue to listen to the incessant whining of people who want to turn back the clock on swimming, I'd prefer to know at what point/date you would desire to stop the technology advances.
Name a year, state your opinion(s) as to why. Then, after you do that, which will obviously be around the time you were relevant in swimming, please tell me why innovations that assisted you should be allowed, but not subsequent innovations.
In other words, please explain why you should be allowed to benefit from advances in your era but not today's swimmers.
Your subsequent assignment will be to explain how we would attract swimers (including boys who you allege are leaving in packs, not supported by facts) to a sport that is regressing technology, completely and totally in an opposite direction of every other sport out there.
Hey Aquageek
I would stop at 1968 when I was in the first year of being on my high school swim team.
At that time, there were no such things as “technology or innovations” in swimming (except for the rather mundane lane dividers). The “advances” at that time were hours spent in the pool, in the weight room, and practicing general fitness. We went in the pool wearing just simple and comfy briefs (which were the standard uniform issued throughout the city’s school district) and after that, it was up to the individual and their innate talent and training.
I believe that the art of swimming was at its finest in the 1960s and accordingly, I feel that today’s swimmers should be allowed to benefit from all the advances that were available at just that particular point in time.
In regard to your last statement, I would try to attract newcomers to swimming by demonstrating that it is truly the most elite (and highly admirable) of any athletic activity because it is one in which victory (and your subsequent symbol of character) is determined by nothing but the superiority of your mind, your body, and your perseverance. :applaud:
Remember “If you ain’t really gettin’ your body wet all over, you ain’t really swimin'."
Dolphin 2
How about this... FINA and the International Olympic Committee provide every swimmer at the big O's the opportunity to use the most current "new" suit (whatever "it" is at the time of the first day of competition) at no cost to all the swimmers. It would be a drop in the bucket when you think about all the expense of putting on the Olympics.
Then, the swimmer gets to decide. Also, it would get us closer to what all the naked swimming proponents seem to want... an even playing field.
Of course, this makes a mess of sponsorships, but each suit manufacturer would be working flat out to ensure they had "the" suit in hand in quantity at the start of the Olympic competition.
(By the way, I'm all for whatever advances are made legal, as long as everyone gets a shot at them!)
One more rule I would add that I thought of while swimming at lunchtime:
6) The swimware, other than any "modesty panels" and the stitching must be of uniform material composition. The "modesty panels" and stitching must conform to all other rules. (This prevents attempting to get around the neutral density rule by having the front have a density greater than water and the back be less dense than water and saying "Hey, when averaged, the swimwear is neutrally bouyant" while at the same time providing a lift in the back.)
-LBJ
Not true about all of sports. Football, basketball, and soccer in particular. This is why those are the most popular sports: because playing it is attainable by the masses. A $550 suit contibutes to the unpopularity of the sport. That is why I don't like it.
Are you kidding? Travel soccer costs the earth and 12 year old kids are running around in new $150 kangaroo skin cleats and $200 Adidas warm ups every season. Don't know a travel soccer player that hasn't had uber expensive private footskills lessons or goalie training. And then tack on the explosive performance classes they go to. Softball, baseball, and basketball have all become year round travel sports. No chance of doing a high school sport here if you haven't been on a travel team. So that just leaves football, which hogs virtually every college athletic scholarship. Running is the best for the masses. They let everyone participate in track or cross country no matter how fast or how slow.
