End of Controversy - No catch-up or straight arm catch
Former Member
I know everyone has been watching the Olympics and if anyone sees someone (in any stroke and at any distance) not showing an Early Vertical Forearm (EVF) stroke please point it out to me. In the men’s 400 Fr Relay, Lezak’s better EVF stroke helped him touch the wall before Bernard who dropped his elbows in the last few strokes. These Olympic Games should put to rest the controversy of the catch-up stroke (never once performed by any freestyler in these Olympics). So what you see someone do in a drill (catch-up) is not done in competitive swims when it counts!! The high elbow at the front quadrant of every stroke is so pronounced that every lay-on-a-straight-arm proponent has to become a convert (I know it’s not ever going to happen). I’m anxious to hear the rationalizations and support from the opposition. If you’re watching with your eyes open, there’s no catch-up and no straight-arm catch - PERIOD!!!
If you want to make significant gains in your swimming focus on improving your Early Vertical Forearm technique. Improving your EVF should take about 6 to 8 weeks and when that becomes better you should focus on improving a good streamlined position by spending as much time as possible on your side while making sure that your catch begins early. Of course athleticism goes hand in hand with improvement. But you get my drift. Nuff-said.
What an expert you have become since your first post July 4th, 2008, 03:48 PM. Where did all of your expertise come from.
Your point is valid for a short race. That is why there is a much higher stroke rate in the 50. However, your argument doesn't take into account the energy used to maintain a rotary stroke/higher stroke rate. The front quadrant stroke is much more efficient, and in 100m or longer races pays off.
What an expert you have become since your first post July 4th, 2008, 03:48 PM. Where did all of your expertise come from.
I guess there's a hierarchy of opinions here, my apologies for offending the experts.
It will be a never ending story.
I don't think so, we are rapidly approaching the point where we can get an accurate three dimensional model of a swimmer's stroke, when we get there we can close the loop and test our theories against empirical evidence instead of just arguing. I.e. we can start being scientific. The facilities already exist for this in a few places but the cost will start to come down very rapidly in the near future.
Hydrodynamics will change drastically. Will we use gene therapy to change the physical body to make the swimmers body genetically better for speed.
Improve the wingspan, grow bigger feet. The loop will change many times. Growth hormones will be given to super sized babies to make super dooper sized babies.
I don't think so, we are rapidly approaching the point where we can get an accurate three dimensional model of a swimmer's stroke, when we get there we can close the loop and test our theories against empirical evidence instead of just arguing. I.e. we can start being scientific. The facilities already exist for this in a few places but the cost will start to come down very rapidly in the near future.
I am sorry, I did not mean you are wrong and actually many of the things you say are pretty good. I am truly amazed how fast you have picked up a lot of stuff that has been said.
It is good to question every ones theories. Tom has his thoughts and I do like what he says most of the time.
I guess there's a hierarchy of opinions here, my apologies for offending the experts.
I am sorry, I did not mean you are wrong and actually many of the things you say are pretty good. I am truly amazed how fast you have picked up a lot of stuff that has been said.
It is good to question every ones theories. Tom has his thoughts and I do like what he says most of the time.
No problem. I also appreciate a lot of what Tom says, heck, I bought the tech paddles and have seen his YouTube videos.
I don't think so, we are rapidly approaching the point where we can get an accurate three dimensional model of a swimmer's stroke, when we get there we can close the loop and test our theories against empirical evidence instead of just arguing. I.e. we can start being scientific. The facilities already exist for this in a few places but the cost will start to come down very rapidly in the near future.
That's an exciting prospect. I hope I'm around to try it out.
I believe that their can be no other way to physically swim faster other than by timing your stroke where the opposing hand sets-up to enter the power phase of the stroke while the other is moving out of it. I don't think that's front quadrant swimming it's simply the way it must be. The best kick in the world can only reduce the loss of inertia and until someone's kick creates more power than their pull, than will never change. In the women's 1500 during the last World Games both the Gold and Silver winners showed one hand entering and setting up with an awesome EVF while the other hand was in and leaving the power phase. On the opposite extreme, the French swimmer Bernard overcame a poor but still present EVF by applying more drag force than his competitiors. Bernards example is not unique and merely shows that athleticism can overcome idiosycrcies or imperfect stroke mechanics. When you're tall and strong your appendages can create more drag force but I believe he could be even faster if he set up his stroke with a more efficient EVF.
To answer your question-
Most of us say one stroke timing is more catchup or more front quadrant than another, what is your preference? I believe that --
If catchup is opposite of mirror image than I believe mirror image or the attempt at achieving constant inertia by staying in the power phase as long and as often as possible - I'm a mirror image believer.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY --- AMEN BROTHERS!!!
Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in the craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.
Your point is valid for a short race. That is why there is a much higher stroke rate in the 50. However, your argument doesn't take into account the energy used to maintain a rotary stroke/higher stroke rate. The front quadrant stroke is much more efficient, and in 100m or longer races pays off.
