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.
Well, I'm afraid I'm condescending, too, on this matter. My feelings are EXACTLY the same as The Geek's. It comes across loud and clear when you read the responses posted on different threads on this Forum since NO ONE has suggested going back to early 20th century swimwear.
Kirk has even developed a perfect personal rationale why we shouldn't: Because the early suits only got in the way of the swimmer and newer briefs were just getting out of the way of the swimmer. Never mind that, as is obvious to the casual viewer, The Duke's swimwear looks pretty much like a kneeskin in design. Anna Lea pointed that out. So, does that mean that the kneeskin is getting back in the way of the swimmer? Apparently. So, it must actually be a disadvantage rather than an advantage since the swimmer must go through such terrible mental agony to wear it.
It looks like future shock to me, folks. It's also interesting, to pick up on something Leslie alluded to, that women haven't yet complained once on this forum (that I've read) about the technical suits. Some prefer one and some prefer others but most seem to be in favor of the new suits.
So, here is my conundrum: Men do most of the developmental work on the new suits but seem to have the biggest problem accepting the change when it occurs. This should be reason enough to shun additional doses of testosterone, even if it weren't frowned upon by some organizations.
I admit just saying "ban all tech suits" is an untenable position. Leonard's attempt at rules for suits is a pretty good start. Maybe FINA just needs to spell out more precisely what is allowed in a suit and then make sure they are testing any new suits thoroughly.
I agree with Lindsay that the new suits blur the line between being merely a costume and being a piece of equipment, and that's my problem with them. You shouldn't compare a swimsuit to, say, a bike or a pair of skis for that reason: those are considered sports equipment, whereas a suit should be a costume.
And, yes, Geek is right, too. The problem with "turning back the clock" is where exactly do you turn it back to?
Do you know this for a fact?
No, I don't. I'm just taking historical, stereotypical demographics for workers in research and development (pure science and engineering) to be a fact in this particular case.
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.
I asked the same question to the Smiths in a topic a while back when they were complaining about rule changes (eg: dolphin kick off the wall on breaststroke) hurting the sport. That said, the one problem I do have with the LZR is that it is very expensive and thus some are left out.
Replying with further condescension. Should I have expected anything more?
No.
I'd prefer regulations against suits that go past the knee. For men, any material above the waist would also be prohibited. For women, nothing on the arm or neck. That's jammers for men and kneeskins for women.
This fits in with the "less is better" era of swim suits, except for some extra fabric on the leg if people desire more modesty (and maybe a little speed boost). Less fabric means less opportunity for performance differentiation between tech suits, and more affordable suit prices. It wouldn't be about what you're wearing quite as much as it is now.
Also, this is the outfit that Gary Hall used to win a gold medal in the 2004 Olympics. It's not slow.
About the male-female thing: it seems to me that the body suits are a more drastic change from male briefs compared to "conventional" female suits.
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?
Max Planck had a take on this for the development of Physics: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (see en.wikipedia.org/.../Paradigm_shift). We can replace 'scientific truth' in the above with the 'technological development' and have a perfectly applicable adaptation of Planck's statement.
One thing I have learned in 66 years of being alive. You simply can't win an argument one-on-one with anyone. There is too much personal ego and emotion involved. The only arguments that can be won are the purely formal ones judged by a group of supposedly neutral individuals. That's why science can develop at all and that's why our esteemed councilor from DC can win cases occasionally. Otherwise, arguing is just a waste of time.
Hmmm. Does that mean that I should find something more productive to do? But wait, it's so much fun to show everyone how smart you are and how incredibly dense the other guy is...
So where does swimming go from here? Let's say at the Olympics umpteen world records are set by LZR-wearing swimmers.
After the Olympics Speedo "invents" $800 fins that don't provide an advantage according to FINA. They just make the foot more slippery in the water and keep the foot in a super streamlined position. Again WRs are set by sponsored swimmers who wear them but not by those who do not.
Arena "invents" $1,000 hand paddles that don't provide an advantage according to FINA but WRs are set by swimmers who............
Speedo "invents" a $1,500 blow hole device so a swimmer can breathe though the thing mounted on their back without ever turning his or her head. FINA says they don't provide an advantage but WRs are set by swimmers who..............
FINA decides: who needs swimmers? We'll train dolphins to do flip turns and relays in a pool. People will bet on the animals like they do at dog races. People will adopt dolphins that can no longer race because of injuries or age.
FINA will get rich. Sounds like a idea for a Monty Python movie starring FINA --mjm
I would argue that the turning back the clock argument is a red herring and the attempts at defining the appropriate limits on the cut of suits are a side show.
The important question is what is the appropriate role of the suit/costume in swimming? Is it to cover the body or is it to enhance performance? The rules are pretty clear that suits are not supposed to enhance performance but the authorities want to have their rules and their sponsorships too.
The secondary questions seem to be whether it is practical to define and avoid performance enhancing, and whether the current system of manufacturer sponsorship is the best way to fund the sport.
I don't know if there is any practical way to avoid performance enhancement due to compression short of defining the cut. Is there a practical way to legislate away corset technology? There are various sports that mandate standard equipment so that is one viable route, and it still allows for controlled technological advancement.
On the economic impact front you could make a rule that any suit used in competition has to be available to the public for $100, or whatever cost you like.
I'd propose that the following be the rules for new suits:
1) At most, it could be have a specific density no less then 1.0 - i.e. not bouyant (sp?).
2) It could not aid in propulsion and/or aid in increasing leverage against the water - e,g, the wetsuits with the flaps at the arm pit area are out.
3) It does not fundamentally change the shape of the human body. For example, you can't wear something that makes you basically torpedo shaped, Compression is fine - one of the benefits of swim caps is compressing the hair. To this end, any swim wear used for competition may not have any part of it be more then X millimeters away from the part of the body that it is supposed to cover.
4) Swimwear is to be non-rigid and made from woven fabric that is completely permeable to water, regardless of material.
5) It may not extend above the wrists, base of the neck or below the ankles.
Other than that, have at it.
-LBJ
