Ban the tech suits?

Do any guys still show up at a meet (any USMS meet) with just a plain old brief? I'm thinking of doing a meet in 2009, but I haven't done a meet since USMS Nationals was here in AZ (a few years, maybe 2003 or 2004). I don't own any swimsuits other than briefs and drag suits (or board shorts). Will I look out of place? While I understand that a tech suit will get me faster, I just can't rationalize spending the money on one....I'd rather use that for my travel budget. Yes,there are plenty of "old school" swimmers at every meet I've been to.Some of them even set WRs.

Do any guys still show up at a meet (any USMS meet) with just a plain old brief? Yes, plenty, and lots of women in ordinary tank suits. Even in the faster heats, and especially at mid-season meets.

I don't know about most masters, but these ever evolving suits have allowed me to swim times in my 50s that I am not sure I ever made in my teens and 20s. The suit makers won’t go along with this, but the most obvious and simplist solution is just to go back to the Mark Spitz days in the 1970s when plain old $20 briefs were the standard uniform and the only variables were the individual athlete’s body characteristics. Jim, the phenomenon you allude to here is EXACTLY why I think these suits are harmful. A person can't swim a certain time on their own, so they go out and buy a suit and suddenly they're a stud. I think that is just plain wrong. A similar example: You're a teacher with a kid who can't read at all. At the end of the year, they're promoted to the next grade. It is really fun to lower a basketball hoop a foot so I can dunk more than a tennis ball. But you don't see the NCAA lowering their hoop so I can play for Maryland. Don't get me wrong - it is nice to go fast in the pool. I'd love to go under 5:00 in a 500. But if someone is physically unable to perform an activity within the specified rules, we shouldn't bend those rules just so I can go 4:50. That is just plain wrong.

A similar example: You're a teacher with a kid who can't read at all. At the end of the year, they're promoted to the next grade. Just playing devil's advocate, and some may be surprised that I'd raise this argument. Not to take sides here, but if the kid wears glasses/contacts and then is able to read, does that then give him an unfair advantage? What about the kids who's parents can't afford insurance and/or the cost for glasses? Some might argue that the tech suits are simply making a level playing field for those who otherwise couldn't say read close or far items. Certainly some swimmers are at a disadvantage because of their body type/shape (some within their control, some not), and the tech suits can correct that, similar to how glasses correct vision.

In most cases I know of reading is not a competitive sport.

I voted that they should be banned because of the potential for... If I really think about it everyone should be required to have them-in response the comment that you can't ban new technology... then I think, what about the small groups that just have enough money to be involved as it is now-will it come to a point that only a select well funded groups will dominate... All these questions are going to have to be addressed. I still think a good swimmer in a fast (non tech0 suit) is the way to go. It seems to me that is how to best level the playing field for all involved.

Some might argue that the tech suits are simply making a level playing field for those who otherwise couldn't say read close or far items. Certainly some swimmers are at a disadvantage because of their body type/shape (some within their control, some not), and the tech suits can correct that, similar to how glasses correct vision. Of course, the "purpose" of the tech suits was nothing of the sort (ie, making a level playing field), but I'll play along. I don't like the analogy of swimming vs reading -- they are vastly different things -- but aside from this I also don't like the effect. IF the suits have this disproportionate effect (a big assumption), I think it is a bad thing. So you have (for example) someone who is 6'8" and has some undeniable advantages associated with that. Fine. But one DIS-advantage of being that tall is the increased weight, and you are saying here that you think it okay to negate that to some degree. Doesn't seem like it would be levelling the playing field at all. It is akin to making the best climbers in cycling wear extra weight so that the heavier sprinters would have a sporting chance in the mountains. Ridiculous. I think that, to the extent that the tech suits affect body types differently, that is a strong argument against them.

Jeff, I can see your point. However, what about what might be called the "Scissors Effect"? One of the very, very few swimming advantages I have is baldness. I also have an appendage that is extraordinarily reactive to cold water and the shrinkage factor. Then we have, on the other blocks, hirsute fellows like yourself, gifted with (what I can only assume from the female smiles you leave in your wake) the kind of apparatus that would make adult industry stars jealous. I think you will agree that wearing any kind of binding suit whatsoever, such as a conventional Speedo brief, gives you stallion-like fellows an unnatural advantage in the water. Moreover, if you were forced to swim completely swim-cap-less and au naturelle, those raven Aztec locks untrimmed for years and pointing towards the heavens like the quills on an enraged porcupine, well--I think you see where I am going with this. Here is the challenge: Throw away your scissors, razor, and other shearing apparatus. No hair cuts or shaving for the next four years. No suits of any sort whatsoever. A 100 meter freestyle sprint in early 2103. Just the hairball big-gonaded youngster vs. the bald impotent 60 year old. To give you one advantage, I will personally ask CreamPuff to administer a pre-race massage to loosen any muscles that may be tight at the humiliating prospect of losing to an old wreck. CreamPuff: spare no warming unguents! I insist! This will settle the question once and for all. And the footage of such a completely natural state of swimming competition, unaided by any form of technology or even, for that matter, modicum of decency, might actually even help drive viewers to my five-star rated VLOG! forums.usms.org/blog.php PS The loser gets to race CreamPuff under similar conditions.

Jeff? Jeff? I am still waiting to see if you have accepted my swimming challenge. I am in negotiations with CreamPuff about the unguents, too.

Jim, the phenomenon you allude to here is EXACTLY why I think these suits are harmful. A person can't swim a certain time on their own, so they go out and buy a suit and suddenly they're a stud. I think that is just plain wrong. A similar example: You're a teacher with a kid who can't read at all. At the end of the year, they're promoted to the next grade. It is really fun to lower a basketball hoop a foot so I can dunk more than a tennis ball. But you don't see the NCAA lowering their hoop so I can play for Maryland. Don't get me wrong - it is nice to go fast in the pool. I'd love to go under 5:00 in a 500. But if someone is physically unable to perform an activity within the specified rules, we shouldn't bend those rules just so I can go 4:50. That is just plain wrong. I second that, Jeff.