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 !
Former Member
If you look across the globe so far this year to compare:
1) Previous Olympic Years to this one
2) Previous rates of improvement between Olympics.
... It definitely indicates that it's not just improved training, knowledge, etc. Those variables always exist. But they haven't varied to this extent in ages. The suits are having a substantial impact. Go ahead and rail against the "hype" but there is no doubt in my mind there is a big technology input at work.
So - let's move 6 month ahead from today :
- all WR will be on average 2% faster than pre LZR
- all top 8 / top 16 times at the olympics will be 2% faster compared to 4 years ago
- improvements in the last 3 Olympic cycles are only about 0.5%
- all the top 25 / 50 or 100 times in the World are 2% faster than last year
You guys can figure out some science experiment -- the clock never lies.
It's not just the world record breakers it is across the board improvements beyond anything seen in the last three decades. The camp that chooses to pitch the "other variables" argument (e.g. better training, nutrition, etc.) cannot articulate specifically why those variables would lead to such abberant stats now and not before. So they throw out that speed bump in the knowledge that one can't disprove a negative. Fine it's a theory. But it's has much more support than anything else. There has been extensive study done by Whitten/Lord analyzing the data that came up with 1.9-2.2% improvement on aggregate.
Oh, a peer-reviewed extensive study in a reputable journal? Citation, please.
I saw the USA Today article last week showing WRs in Olympic events in Olympic years. I don't have it handy, but I remember thinking that there have been similar bumps in the past 3 decades (1984 seems to stick in my brain, as well as 2000). But this year isn't over yet, either.
I haven't seen the Whitten/Lord data analysis. But everything I have seen cannot be used to assign specific amounts to different causes. That's because no attempt has been made to control any variables either through clever sample selection or in controlled experiments. In the absence of such, suit-lovers sometimes seem to want to assign ANY and ALL improvement to the suit.
Tonight no ARs or WRs were set, despite the fact that LZRs were everywhere. So I guess the US really stunk it up tonight, since without the LZRs we would have been more than 2% slower than we have been in the past.
Let's take the simple statement that "the LZR improves times by 1.9-2.2%." But there isn't even a single LZR suit. I saw many breaststrokers and backstrokers wearing LZR legskins tonight. Are they just as effective as the full body suit? If they are, why stop there? I cannot believe that covering calves is really that critical, so why not go with the LZR jammers?
I wouldn't think these suits are equally effective, at least by any mechanism that I can imagine. But if the full body LZRs are (say) worth 2% and the legskins only 1%, why does anyone wear the legskins?
It also seemed to me that the female suits expose a lot more skin on the back then the male suit. Or maybe I just noticed it more. :) Why? Wouldn't you want to cover as much on the females as the males?
Or maybe just TOUCHING a LZR suit, or glancing at one of their ads, before a race is good for 0.2%, no matter what you are wearing.
Bottom line: please note that I am NOT saying these suits are ineffective. (Outrageously overpriced and prone to failure, perhaps.) But as far as I can tell this 2% number is a guesstimate, pure and simple.
But on the positive side, no one is talking about PEDs anymore. Kudos to Speedo for taking THAT minor little "other variable" out of the picture.
The first six months of 2004 prior to trials only one WR was broken. This year over the same period prior to the U.S. trials 20 WR's have been broken. 19 of those by swimmers wearing a LZR. Why such a massive discrepancy? It's not just the world record breakers it is across the board improvements beyond anything seen in the last three decades. The camp that chooses to pitch the "other variables" argument (e.g. better training, nutrition, etc.) cannot articulate specifically why those variables would lead to such abberant stats now and not before. So they throw out that speed bump in the knowledge that one can't disprove a negative. Fine it's a theory. But it's has much more support than anything else. There has been extensive study done by Whitten/Lord analyzing the data that came up with 1.9-2.2% improvement on aggregate.
Reason - In my day there maybe 10 swimmers within 2 seconds of breaking world records.
Now there are maybe 300 or more.
Now guys are making money.
Before you hand to be an amatuer.
It is easy to say it is a swim suit.
But I think there are more and more fast swimmers.
You're right that the numbers don't lie because there are no numbers. The only people that have any real scientific data to date are the people at NASA and Speedo that did the testing. If you'll notice, they haven't released any of their data or analyses. I have to believe that if they really succeeded in improving performance that much, they would be presenting their research to journals or at conferences.
Presuming that a commercial company really had a strong interest in publishing in journals or at conferences, doing so would still interfere with FINA's ability to state that there was no scientific proof that the suits enhanced performance (and could therefore be considered illegal).
You guys can figure out some science experiment -- the clock never lies.
Oh man. Science, schmience. I guess if I feel in my gut the suit is responsible then it must be. Jeez, "some science experiment," like that would be a cockamamy way to figure out causes and effects of things.
No one is arguing whether the clock is lying. Look, the suit very likely makes a measurable difference. I have said that before; "it's a reasonable hypothesis," I've said. But it is irresponsible and inaccurate to claim that each time a swimmer dons a LZR (in any form? full body only? legs?) there will be a 1-2 second difference in time. I think Chris made a good point about the non-record-breaking performances: good think Hansen had a LZR on tonight or he'd have been 1:01--yikes. Why didn't Hoff or Ziegler crush the AR tonight? Probably nothing to do with the suit they wore--so why is it the only factor brought up when records ARE broken.
Why did Lochte improve his PR so much more than Phelps? They both had on LZRs! Wait, but Phelps was faster--maybe he's just more LZR-y. Obviously, PVK and Jensen beat Vendt because they're bigger and get more LZR coverage--oh wait, but Keller's bigger than all of them. I'll bet he had on the wrong size LZR.
what is most interesting is that I am not seeing many blue70's at the meet. considering that it seems to provide more buoyancy than the lzr, it's puzzling that i am not seeing anyone wearing them. i think a big part of suit choice is psychological-everyone seems to be taking speedo's handouts, so people don't want to go against what everyone in the crowd is doing.
As I understand it, Speedo is giving every swimmer at trials a free LZR, and I'm guessing outside of sponsored athletes (are there any?) blueseventy isn't giving their $400 suit away for free. That's probably a HUGE factor in why everyone is wearing LZRs. Also, if everyone wears the same suit, it sort of evens the playing field in that respect so it makes sense for most people to choose to wear one. The Tyr suit or the blueseventy suits may be faster and they may be slower. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of that answer so wearing the LZR like everybody else (at no cost) removes that as a factor.
phdude, it looks like you took out your reference to Jimmy Feigen, but it is true he broke the national HS record in the 50 wearing briefs. His time was 19.65. He went the 19.49 at the Texas state meet wearing a legskin (1% faster).
I can think of a lot of reasons a talented high school swimmer drops 16/100ths in a 50 at state champs vs. a few weeks prior. The suit could be one of them.
Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting the suit made the difference, just commenting on what suit he wore for these swims. Neither swim was with the LZR, by the way.
