We have a lot of threads about the new magic suits. People are asking, do they work? How do they work? Is it cheating? Are they ruining our sport? Is it fair? What size do I get? Will I become sweaty?
So, my apologies for starting a new thread about bodysuits in the context of masters swimming. Most of this is my personal opinion and experience, but I hope other people have similar ideas.
We have to admit that masters swimming is more laid-back than elite swimming. It's competitive, sure, but I've always seen it as a social organization above all else. There's less on the line, here. We aren't going for endorsement money, Olympic berths, or anything like that. If we want to go to the big meet, we just sign up for it. There's no need to do everything possible to qualify.
Maybe this is where I differ from other masters swimmers, but I swim for myself. I compare my performance to what I've done before and what I know I can do. I don't seriously compare my performance to other people, although I'm always down for a good gridge.
With these things in mind, I've thought about what I would gain from buying, say, a nero comp. The anecdotal evidence suggests that I could drop some time in my events. But if I only compete with myself, I really wouldn't be gaining anything at all. With a time drop comes an uncertainty: did that happen because of me, or because of the suit? If the suit makes me faster, eventually I would be able to establish a new standard of fast for myself, and compete against that. But there's no net gain for me.
My current personal scale of fast times involves wearing a first-generation jammer or legskin, and shaving. I've been on this scale since high school. Thinking about why I don't want a bodysuit has also made me think about whether I should even bother shaving for big meets. This might be where I make a personal distinction about the bodysuits that has been discussed here before in an integrity-of-the-sport context.
I experience swimming as the relationship of my body to the water. When I shave down for a meet, I'm not disrupting that relationship. I'm adapting my body to be better suited for the water, which is exactly what I'm doing when I'm training. Swimming shaved is still just swimming, to me. Swimming with a bodysuit is something else. I don't expect everyone to agree with this, and maybe it's something I could even get used to with enough time. But my current feeling is this: a suit that constricts the form of my body, makes me float, and separates me from the flow of the water is a technological intrusion into my swimming experience. It's not something I want.
I can't assume anything about why you swim, but if your reasons are like mine, it might be worthwhile to ask if the latest technology in our sport will benefit you in the same way it benefits a professional athlete.
Former Member
just like for you the bodysuit is for me = cheating to myself, it'a a shortcut, just like steroids.
Last time I checked (just now!) bodysuits don't cause ball cancer. The steroid analogy doesn't hold in this case.
P.S.
I use a cap to protect my hairs from clorine and because it's mandatory in all the pools in my country.
I use the googles because my eyes don't like the clorine at all and I don't want to became blind due at swimming.
Okay, I'll try: I use a body suit because I'm too coarse and hairy to shave without getting skin infections. Or, my religion requires me to cover up...but if you use the suit for reasons other than your beliefs or your personal health, you're a cheat.
Ha! How about this:
best: adjective, superl. of good with better as compar. 1.of the highest quality, excellence, or standing
2. in swimming: the fastest. the swimmer who touches the wall first while competing within the established rules; ain't nobody faster; the individual who traversed an aquatic distance in the shortest time
One of the great things about swimming is that it's among the least subjective sports. Let's not introduce any relativism to swimming. But if we are, I'd like everyone to know that I am the BEST SWIMMER! And by "best," I mean the fastest male, premature-balding, hairy-shouldered, wore-a-legskin, had-too-many-beers-night-before, 50yd backstroker. Medal, please!
Awesome!
Lindsay:
First off, as someone who works out and does speed work with fins regularly, I am uniquely qualified to tell you that NO WAY ARE TECHNICAL SUITS EQUIVALENT TO FINS. FINS ARE WAY, WAY FASTER. I can hardly believe you'd compare them. In fact, I encourage people with fins. Save your shoulders and works out, dudes!
Swimming in a technical suit and using PEDs are not even remotely comparable. One is legal and one isn't. Wearing a technical suit and "buying" a time are likewise not remotely comparable. Where did you get that idea exactly, from Dolphin2?
I'm all for people setting personal goals, have stated as much many times, and count myself in that category. But that doesn't mean you have to be sans technical suit. I haven't worn a tank in a meet since 2006. Wear one or not, excellent. Race yourself as the highest goal, excellent. Masters must define themselves and not let others define them. That's why, if I choose to wear a technical suit, I won't let others define me as "illegal," "cheating" or whatever. I'm just pursuing what I think is fun and challenging and doable. If others choose differently, so be it and I will definitely cheer for them to do their PBs. I have never understood the "I'm morally superior, I'm swimming in a brief or tank" faction.
I thought Mirko was pretty clear, he has set a goal for himself and set his own "rules" for attaining that goal. He didn't say that anyone else had to abide by his "rules". In his case he wants to attain his performance goal without the aid of a bodysuit, seems fair enough to me.
So, there's an entirely opposite side of this argument. If you take the sport seriously, train as hard as you can given life's constraints and want to be your best, you should buy the best equipment out there to maximize your potential. Not doing so is simply cheating yourself and squandering your hard work.
The word "best" requires a definition to be meaningful. One can separate best swimmer from best swimmer/suit combination. Am I a "better" swimmer if I put fins on? One can aim to be the fastest possible under FINA/USMS rules, or aim to be the fastest they can be under some other set of constraints, whether that means a monofin and air tank for monofin racing or racing without a technical suit. I don't see any moral high ground, just different choices.
You are over intellectualizing. The word "best" in masters swimming is already clearly defined as the person with the fastest time competing with a legal stroke and legal suit in your age group (FINA rules).
Perhaps. But Jazz and Mazzy, and many others, have defined their goals in terms of time goals not ranking goals, and they have place an additional constraint on how they want to achieve their goal. In that context "buying" a time drop doesn't meet their objectives. How one achieves one's goals can legitimately be as important as the goal itself. The FINA rules are just one of many possible sets of rules to operate under. USMS has no doping rules but not many people would critically say that someone is failing to achieve their potential and be the best that they can be if they choose not to use performance enhancing drugs.
:roids:
As you have pointed out there are many many trade-offs one can make, swimming without a technical suit is no less valid than spending less than six hours per day training or not hiring a personal trainer. Why not let everyone do what suits them and not worry about what others are doing, whether that is wearing a technical suit or not wearing a technical suit?
The word "best" requires a definition to be meaningful.
Ha! How about this:
best: adjective, superl. of good with better as compar. 1.of the highest quality, excellence, or standing
2. in swimming: the fastest. the swimmer who touches the wall first while competing within the established rules; ain't nobody faster; the individual who traversed an aquatic distance in the shortest time
One of the great things about swimming is that it's among the least subjective sports. Let's not introduce any relativism to swimming. But if we are, I'd like everyone to know that I am the BEST SWIMMER! And by "best," I mean the fastest male, premature-balding, hairy-shouldered, wore-a-legskin, had-too-many-beers-night-before, 50yd backstroker. Medal, please!
You have illustrated my point exactly. If your idea of "best" is defined by USMS rules then that is perfectly valid. If someone else defines best according to some other set of rules that is also valid.
If one doesn't get any cognitive dissonance from the assertion that a person becomes a better swimmer when they don a technical suit then the thread has run its course. Using the USMS rules provides one definition of best, the fact that not everyone believes that you become a better swimmer by using better equipment is the basis for some people objecting to the way the rules are evolving.
The rules are arbitrary and one can disagree about whether a rule is good enough. If USMS decided that fins were legal in races then most people would have little difficulty understanding an argument that a swimmer with fins wasn't necessarily "a better swimmer" than another without. It's only a matter of degree.
Swimming in a technical suit and using PEDs are not even remotely comparable. One is legal and one isn't. Wearing a technical suit and "buying" a time are likewise not remotely comparable. Where did you get that idea exactly, from Dolphin2?
Leslie, I'm not sure we disagree, I have no problem with you wearing a suit, I don't consider it cheating, I may have qualms about the rules but unless the rules are changed I'm not going to make any judgments.
In this thread however Jazz gave his reasons for not using the latest suits, and I think his reasons are reasonable and valid.
As for PEDs, my understanding is that they are legal under USMS rules, am I wrong?
When I say "buying" a time I am referring to a comparison between the same swimmer with and without a suit, if the suit makes the swimmer faster then they have "bought" a time improvement. No?
I think the notions that you are buying a victory, there's some moral problem with tech suits or trying to define best are ludicrous. Defining "best" - give me a break. If you want to achieve your maximum potential you do the things necessary to do that, whether it be switch teams, train differently or invest in the technology that enables you to swim your BEST. I'm not getting into the nuances of best, that's loco mcstupid.
I also don't buy this total bunk that "purists" don't endorse tech advancements in the sport. If you claim to be a purist then you know that the most pure and truthful thing about sports is that they change over time, improvements and advancements are made. I think anyone who calls themself a purist and then fails to recognized the fluid nature of sports is probably more likely termed a foolist. The purist crowd also seems to selectively choose what items they find pure, generally the items that they don't want to buy I always find.
When I say "buying" a time I am referring to a comparison between the same swimmer with and without a suit, if the suit makes the swimmer faster then they have "bought" a time improvement. No?
No, I don't agree. Wearing a legal suit is not buying time. It's racing.
"Loco mcstupid" -- that is outstanding verbiage!
