Yes - one more time it's about the suit:
Here is a comparison to 2004 and what it took to make top 16 (top 8 for the 400) over the first 7 events:
2004 listed first then 2008 then the approx. % drop
400 IM - 4:24.8 to 4:21.0 1.5%
100 Fly - 1:01.29 to 59.97 2%
400 Free - 3:55.0 to 3:51.4 1.6%
400 IM - 4:49.57 to 4:43.2 2.3%
100 Br - 1:04.0 to 1:02.36 2.5%
100 Bk - 1:04.12 to 1:02.31 2.6%
200 Free - 1:51.1 to 1:48.76 2.2%
Ok - to be fair, people are getting faster, but I would guess at least a 1.5% drop across the board for the suit -- that is net time !
Parents
Former Member
Chris is the stats expert and perhaps he'll chip in on this but I don't think it is valid to say that because some people have bad swims in an LZR that the LZR cannot be partially responsible for other people having good swims.
Yes! Logic, statistics, and empirical methods. That's right, examples of bad swims in LZRs do not alone refute the hypothesis that LZRs could have a statistically significant positive impact on swim times. But these examples do illustrate that other factors are at play (e.g., conditioning, athlete's mental state, 10K screaming fans, a deeper pool than in 2004). These factors are in play in "good" swims as well as in "bad" swims.
Also recognize that unless you control for these other variables at play you can't attribute a "1-2% improvement" to any one of them. The "Whitten/Lord Study" as it's now being called (like it's a seminal paper on hydrodynamics) is well-intentioned but is ultimately anecdotal.
Chris is the stats expert and perhaps he'll chip in on this but I don't think it is valid to say that because some people have bad swims in an LZR that the LZR cannot be partially responsible for other people having good swims.
Yes! Logic, statistics, and empirical methods. That's right, examples of bad swims in LZRs do not alone refute the hypothesis that LZRs could have a statistically significant positive impact on swim times. But these examples do illustrate that other factors are at play (e.g., conditioning, athlete's mental state, 10K screaming fans, a deeper pool than in 2004). These factors are in play in "good" swims as well as in "bad" swims.
Also recognize that unless you control for these other variables at play you can't attribute a "1-2% improvement" to any one of them. The "Whitten/Lord Study" as it's now being called (like it's a seminal paper on hydrodynamics) is well-intentioned but is ultimately anecdotal.
