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?
Did you read this. If you did was it fair she was not able to have the same suit as her competitors?
Here is (for me) the relevant quote:
"The petite Galvez, an Olympic and world championships finalist in the 200m butterfly, tested the new suit with her Australian Institute of Sport teammates but could not find one to her liking.
"I was racing in the knee-length and open back version of the previous Speedo suit and I wanted an LZR the same," she said. "But the smallest size they had, it filled with water and was way too big for me, and I wasn't about to jump into a zip-up suit when I had never competed in it."
Galvez decided to go with what she knew, rather than compete in an unfamiliar zippered suit."
Galvez made what was in retrospect a poor decision and paid for it. Someone else gambled on the "unfamiliar suit" and beat her. Greg Lemond did the same kind of thing once to win the TdF.
This was not an issue about fairness or lack of access to the technology. "Sure thing" swimmers miss out on Olympic roster spots every four years; blaming it on tech suits is wrong. The saying, "it's a poor craftsman who blames his/her tools" applies here as far as I'm concerned.
Price matters especially to parents, athletic programs, and most everyone I know. Why price people out of swimming?
There is a simple solution to this for men anyway. Go back to briefs only.
I have heard here two arguments against tech suits. One is based on the issue of "buying time" and I have yet to hear a reason why this is any different than using better pools, lane lines, blocks, goggles, etc.
Not to mention paying more to train with an elite program, perhaps even leaving or relocating the familiy to do so. This happens all the time in swimming and you are in effect "buying time." Why should these things be allowed but not tech suits? I've never heard a very good answer...probably because it is a silly argument to make.
The other argument is about the impact of the added expense of tech suits on the sport. I have some sympathy with this view and am concerned about it also. But even though going to briefs for men may sound like the simplest solution, that doesn't mean that it is the best one. It may not even be the simplest solution either (eg, where does that leave women?).
Plus, after watching the younger kids practice -- my son just turned 10 -- I can tell you that briefs are not going to win out here. The vast vast majority of the boys wear jammers in both practice and meets.
Many LSCs are banning tech suits -- even legskins -- for the younger age groupers, or for all ages except championship meets. I'm sure the NCAA is looking closely at the tech suit issue wrt impact on college swim programs. (BTW, even LZRs do not cost college programs $500 per suit b/c they are bought in bulk).
I will tell you one thing: talent + training are obvious, tech suit or no. I just don't understand why the anti-tech people seem to think the suit is some instant ticket to fast swimming at the elite level. Michael Phelps can beat pretty much everyone in the world no matter what suit he is wearing.
When age-groupers are coming up in the ranks, it is very obvious who the most promising ones are, and it doesn't depend at all what suit they wear. Once they get to the elite level, I guarantee you that they will have access to the best technology.
Did you read this. If you did was it fair she was not able to have the same suit as her competitors?
Here is (for me) the relevant quote:
"The petite Galvez, an Olympic and world championships finalist in the 200m butterfly, tested the new suit with her Australian Institute of Sport teammates but could not find one to her liking.
"I was racing in the knee-length and open back version of the previous Speedo suit and I wanted an LZR the same," she said. "But the smallest size they had, it filled with water and was way too big for me, and I wasn't about to jump into a zip-up suit when I had never competed in it."
Galvez decided to go with what she knew, rather than compete in an unfamiliar zippered suit."
Galvez made what was in retrospect a poor decision and paid for it. Someone else gambled on the "unfamiliar suit" and beat her. Greg Lemond did the same kind of thing once to win the TdF.
This was not an issue about fairness or lack of access to the technology. "Sure thing" swimmers miss out on Olympic roster spots every four years; blaming it on tech suits is wrong. The saying, "it's a poor craftsman who blames his/her tools" applies here as far as I'm concerned.
Price matters especially to parents, athletic programs, and most everyone I know. Why price people out of swimming?
There is a simple solution to this for men anyway. Go back to briefs only.
I have heard here two arguments against tech suits. One is based on the issue of "buying time" and I have yet to hear a reason why this is any different than using better pools, lane lines, blocks, goggles, etc.
Not to mention paying more to train with an elite program, perhaps even leaving or relocating the familiy to do so. This happens all the time in swimming and you are in effect "buying time." Why should these things be allowed but not tech suits? I've never heard a very good answer...probably because it is a silly argument to make.
The other argument is about the impact of the added expense of tech suits on the sport. I have some sympathy with this view and am concerned about it also. But even though going to briefs for men may sound like the simplest solution, that doesn't mean that it is the best one. It may not even be the simplest solution either (eg, where does that leave women?).
Plus, after watching the younger kids practice -- my son just turned 10 -- I can tell you that briefs are not going to win out here. The vast vast majority of the boys wear jammers in both practice and meets.
Many LSCs are banning tech suits -- even legskins -- for the younger age groupers, or for all ages except championship meets. I'm sure the NCAA is looking closely at the tech suit issue wrt impact on college swim programs. (BTW, even LZRs do not cost college programs $500 per suit b/c they are bought in bulk).
I will tell you one thing: talent + training are obvious, tech suit or no. I just don't understand why the anti-tech people seem to think the suit is some instant ticket to fast swimming at the elite level. Michael Phelps can beat pretty much everyone in the world no matter what suit he is wearing.
When age-groupers are coming up in the ranks, it is very obvious who the most promising ones are, and it doesn't depend at all what suit they wear. Once they get to the elite level, I guarantee you that they will have access to the best technology.
