Ban the tech suits?

What does this prove? Maybe the fact that swimming was one of the exceptions to this rule was one of things some of us liked about the sport. I certainly don't think the tech suits are somehow "ruining" the sport. I just don't think they are adding anything other than additional expense for swimmers. In a time when, for example, college athletic departments are looking for ways to trim budgets, tacking on thousands of extra dollars to buy suits isn't helping. I completely agree with this statement. I enjoyed it when I could buy a suit to race in that cost less than my running shoes. Buying a tech suit is starting to remind me of a girl buying an expensive prom dress. How much wear are you going to get out of it for the money you put into it? It is, however, a matter of priorities. Tech suits really aren't that expensive if you cut in other places. My priority right now would be to buy some racing wheels for my bike instead. I'm hoping to buy a Renn disc (if he still is making them) and a tri-spoke. I can probably get these new for about a total of $650. I guess this is about $100 more than a LZR, but in the past, I've gotten more mileage out of these things than I could ever hope to get out of the LZR.

What does this prove? Maybe the fact that swimming was one of the exceptions to this rule was one of things some of us liked about the sport. It doesn't prove anything. But just because people don't like change is no reason to ban a technological improvement from the sport! Look, chances are pretty good that I'll never buy one of these suits, so I don't really have a vested interest in whether or not they are banned. But we're not getting paid to swim, so beyond a little bit of pride, what do I care whether or not I get beat by somebody wearing a $300 suit. If you're wearing one and you beat me by just a slim margin, I know that chances are good I can compete with you sans suit or if we both have a suit. And I do know how good it feels to beat somebody with far superior equipment. It feels good. So, I'll continue to work hard and if I keep improving, I'll beat somebody one of these days!

What does this prove? Maybe the fact that swimming was one of the exceptions to this rule was one of things some of us liked about the sport. I'm really happy I don't have to suffer with this elitist mentality with anyone on my team. There's nothing quite as boring as sport that is mired in the past.

The purchase of speed is a tired argument. In virtually any sport that we can play as adults (and there are many), you can buy better equipment that WILL improve your game or performance. What does this prove? Maybe the fact that swimming was one of the exceptions to this rule was one of things some of us liked about the sport. I certainly don't think the tech suits are somehow "ruining" the sport. I just don't think they are adding anything other than additional expense for swimmers. In a time when, for example, college athletic departments are looking for ways to trim budgets, tacking on thousands of extra dollars to buy suits isn't helping.

I was 9 years old in 1972 and had been swimming for about a year when Spitz won his 7 gold medals. As well as I can remember, he wasn’t wearing a suit that I couldn’t also wear as a kid. In fact, I have a picture of me wearing that same iconic Stars and Stripes suit that he wore in the famous photo. There were no discussions about the "have’s and have not’s", "are you old enough or not", "are you good enough or not", regarding swimsuits. I guess I just have this general uneasiness with the suits that I can’t quite express. That somehow it’s not the “pure” sport that it was, and I don't think that's good. I guess I’m now officially old. :cane: We are about the same age, but I never DID like that suit... Nostalgia is great, but not necessarily as a basis for policy. Because I am sure there are people out there who would prefer we emulate Johnny Weismuller, or do the old backstroke turns of John Nabor, or think we should use wooden blocks or lane ropes. And I'm sure there are little kids today who are vowing to train hard and are visualizing themselves on the blocks wearing the same suit as Michael Phelps. Times change.

Guilty as charged! Now if everyone would get in-line behind me... (how I would normally respond) -OR- This is really the fault of title 9 (how a Smith would respond) -OR- You holier-than-though Liberals are so dim you cannot catch hypocracy when it stares you in the face. (Geek) -OR- In 1956 I was swimming against Bert O'Connor in a cash race accross the Amazon when an Aligator tore off my suit. I won the race, but was afraid I would be disqualified for failure to compete in the required uniform. An exception was made considering the circumstances but the event organizers left everyone stranded in Sao Palo without planetickets and without delivering my prize money because they had some financial issues. (G Park) as one who excelled in class-clownery i can tell you most sincerely: this post is a comedic gem!

So, to put it right out there, I don’t like the tech suits. Since I’ve never worn one and I don’t compete anymore, that point is probably moot. What I don’t understand though is, if there’s nothing wrong with the suits, and they’re good for the sport, and the costs aren’t really a big deal, then why ban them for kids? By saying they are only okay for certain swimmers (whether it's based on age, time standards, meets, etc.) are people then admitting there’s “something” wrong with them without really admitting it? I was 9 years old in 1972 and had been swimming for about a year when Spitz won his 7 gold medals. As well as I can remember, he wasn’t wearing a suit that I couldn’t also wear as a kid. In fact, I have a picture of me wearing that same iconic Stars and Stripes suit that he wore in the famous photo. There were no discussions about the "have’s and have not’s", "are you old enough or not", "are you good enough or not", regarding swimsuits. I guess I just have this general uneasiness with the suits that I can’t quite express. That somehow it’s not the “pure” sport that it was, and I don't think that's good. I guess I’m now officially old. :cane:

Perhaps in the form of some actual data, rather than mere conjecture. Guilty as charged! Now if everyone would get in-line behind me... (how I would normally respond) -OR- This is really the fault of title 9 (how a Smith would respond) -OR- You holier-than-though Liberals are so dim you cannot catch hypocracy when it stares you in the face. (Geek) -OR- In 1956 I was swimming against Bert O'Connor in a cash race accross the Amazon when an Aligator tore off my suit. I won the race, but was afraid I would be disqualified for failure to compete in the required uniform. An exception was made considering the circumstances but the event organizers left everyone stranded in Sao Palo without planetickets and without delivering my prize money because they had some financial issues. (G Park)

So, to put it right out there, I don’t like the tech suits. Since I’ve never worn one and I don’t compete anymore, that point is probably moot. What I don’t understand though is, if there’s nothing wrong with the suits, and they’re good for the sport, and the costs aren’t really a big deal, then why ban them for kids? By saying they are only okay for certain swimmers (whether it's based on age, time standards, meets, etc.) are people then admitting there’s “something” wrong with them without really admitting it? I was 9 years old in 1972 and had been swimming for about a year when Spitz won his 7 gold medals. As well as I can remember, he wasn’t wearing a suit that I couldn’t also wear as a kid. In fact, I have a picture of me wearing that same iconic Stars and Stripes suit that he wore in the famous photo. There were no discussions about the "have’s and have not’s", "are you old enough or not", "are you good enough or not", regarding swimsuits. I guess I just have this general uneasiness with the suits that I can’t quite express. That somehow it’s not the “pure” sport that it was, and I don't think that's good. I guess I’m now officially old. :cane: Other sports do this as well. Some ski leagues, for example, ban speed suits for kids under a certain age. It's a gesture to help keep costs down initially, thereby attracting more folks to try the sport. As a parent, I appreciate the effort to keep equipment costs under control for kids who may be dabbling or growing so quickly that the life of a piece of equipment can be measured in weeks. I don't think an age limitation in any way implies a swimmer isn't "good enough," and I support the rule.

Lefty's post did make me think The biggest lie ever told on this forum...