I am just back from the SPMA meet where all the top finisher were wearing the latest generation tech suits,mostly B-70s(or were named Jeff Commings.)I have here to for been in favor of the suits,but now I am not so sure.First,they eliminate the old bench marks.I went my fastest 100m BR in 5 yr in my LZR,but it was only .3 sec faster than I did untapered 5 wk earlier in my first swim in the LZR.So was my swim good or not,I'm not sure.Also,instead of focusing on technique or pace I found myself ruminating over aspects of the suits,how many more swims did the suit have,is it the right size,was the reason I didn't get better results from my B-70 because it was too big?etc.The B-70 has somewhat mitigated the "too expensive,not durable" problem,but for how long.
Lets say a company comes up with a suit that is much faster,say 4 sec/100.Further that it is very expensive(say $1000) lasts 4 swims and is very hard to make so that quantities are always limited and the fastest way to get one is to bid up to $3000 on ebay. Now lets say your nemesis has one,or that getting one is your best chance to get TT or AA or a ZR or WR,or that your child is close to making JO cuts,or finally beating his/her nemesis etc. Is it worth it and where does it stop?
Parents
Former Member
Although no one is more of a Luddite than I am, I just don't see the problem here.
1) The idea that swimming or any sport is truly egalitarian is, at best, a fantasy. There is no equality in swimming. People with more money generally get better facilities, coaches, etc and it's the same in most sports. If you want an egalitarian sport, try racewalking - all you need is basic shoes (I know a guy who made 2 Olympic teams wearing Hush Puppies), shorts, sox, and a t-shirt.
2) Tech suits offer no mechanical leverage advantage (as do, say hand paddles). They are passive in that they reduce drag; not add propulsion.
3) Almost all sports have embraced technological change that has allowed them to change in fundamental ways. Why should swimming be different?
4) You have a choice not to participate by getting a tech suit. For example, I swim lots of open water races and will NOT wear a wetsuit. My choice and if I miss a medal because of it, so what? I've got a crate of them anyway. Besides, it allows me to wallow in my moral superiority and general studliness.
Thought experiment: Suppose that a swim suit is developed that is the ULTIMATE in passive technology - i.e. it reduces drag and enhances compression as far as it can go without adding any mechanical leverage advantages. Furthermore, suppose that it costs about as much as the average pair of lycra jammers. This means that most people can afford one and no one has a technological advantage. At this point it comes back to who wants it the most, trains the hardest and competes the hardest. Admittedly, this assumes that there is an ultimate point, but the historical reality is that this is exactly what has happened to a lesser (non-ultimate)degree with the intoduction of briefs, lycra, etc. Therefore, the introduction of improved tech suits is merely a more advanced part of the curve that has been happening all along.
And for the record, people who wear wetsuits are in the same category as those who beat their dogs and don't brush their teeth. :afraid:
-LBJ
Although no one is more of a Luddite than I am, I just don't see the problem here.
1) The idea that swimming or any sport is truly egalitarian is, at best, a fantasy. There is no equality in swimming. People with more money generally get better facilities, coaches, etc and it's the same in most sports. If you want an egalitarian sport, try racewalking - all you need is basic shoes (I know a guy who made 2 Olympic teams wearing Hush Puppies), shorts, sox, and a t-shirt.
2) Tech suits offer no mechanical leverage advantage (as do, say hand paddles). They are passive in that they reduce drag; not add propulsion.
3) Almost all sports have embraced technological change that has allowed them to change in fundamental ways. Why should swimming be different?
4) You have a choice not to participate by getting a tech suit. For example, I swim lots of open water races and will NOT wear a wetsuit. My choice and if I miss a medal because of it, so what? I've got a crate of them anyway. Besides, it allows me to wallow in my moral superiority and general studliness.
Thought experiment: Suppose that a swim suit is developed that is the ULTIMATE in passive technology - i.e. it reduces drag and enhances compression as far as it can go without adding any mechanical leverage advantages. Furthermore, suppose that it costs about as much as the average pair of lycra jammers. This means that most people can afford one and no one has a technological advantage. At this point it comes back to who wants it the most, trains the hardest and competes the hardest. Admittedly, this assumes that there is an ultimate point, but the historical reality is that this is exactly what has happened to a lesser (non-ultimate)degree with the intoduction of briefs, lycra, etc. Therefore, the introduction of improved tech suits is merely a more advanced part of the curve that has been happening all along.
And for the record, people who wear wetsuits are in the same category as those who beat their dogs and don't brush their teeth. :afraid:
-LBJ
