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?
There would be a level playing field in swim suits if all men were required to use briefs.
But are all male swim briefs created equal? There's nylon, lycra, the old paper style, and I'm sure there are far more than I know.
I've gotten suits for as little as $5, and as much as $25. I do notice the difference when I wear my Aquablade brief -v- a nylon brief.
I'm assuming you could require that all buy the exact brand/style/color/material....that would be the only way to achieve a, "level playing field," that I can think of.
when a sport prices it self out of a demographic you either lose the demographic (I guess that is what you support?!?!) or you do something about the pricing.
As I said earlier, something is already being done, it just doesn't seem to be to your liking.
I've been to a lot of age group meets for younger kids. I haven't seen a tech suit yet, so the problem you refer to doesn't seem to exist here (or at least it isn't caused by tech suits, which I believe aren't even made in kids sizes anyway). The Virginia LSC bans them for swimmers 12 and under.
If you are saying that tech suits are changing -- or going to change -- the demographics of swimming, it might be helpful if you can provide some support for that argument. Perhaps in the form of some actual data, rather than mere conjecture.
It's very strange that in order for someone else to enjoy the sport of swimming they have to take something away from me because they don't train hard enough, don't chose to live near good facilities and don't chose to spend their money on the sport. Can someone explain the fairness aspect of that? To me, it's just whining.
Paying for elite clubs...what does it matter when the improvements come? Those with money have access to the means to swim faster than those without. Nothing new about that, and it isn't just swimming either.
That's right, there is nothing new about that. But in order to have broader appeal MLB, for example, sponsors urban baseball initiatives. IE: when a sport prices it self out of a demographic you either lose the demographic (I guess that is what you support?!?!) or you do something about the pricing.
Tech suits are like steroids. It's always easier to buy a time than work for it.
"How much for a 46.00 100y freestyle, please? What do you mean it's not for sale? I have to train hard for weeks on end, improving my technique, driving myself to the edge of exhaustion day after day? I have to kick? I thought I could just buy a suit and that's the end of it. Hmm, that sucks."
Yeah, buy a time. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:
And your comment proves you're clueless about the affects of steroids too. Steroids don't _give_ you more muscle mass, they just enhance the bodies ability to build more muscle mass, faster. The actual work still needs to be done. Injecting steroids and sitting on your butt on the couch will _not_ increase your muscle mass, neither will buying a tech suit and never swimming a single lap make you a faster swimmer.
I believe the "fairness card" is a bit silly. I personally don't think it's fair that I have to compete against other swimmers who got to swim on age group teams, who are taller than me, built more streamlined, have bigger hands/feet, train harder, train smarter, have better genetics, have better technique, have a better astrological sign…
:bliss:
That's right, there is nothing new about that. But in order to have broader appeal MLB, for example, sponsors urban baseball initiatives. IE: when a sport prices it self out of a demographic you either lose the demographic (I guess that is what you support?!?!) or you do something about the pricing.
I don't think that the sport is pricing itself out of a demographic. Look at Cullen Jones and his success with the Make A Splash program. Individuals who would otherwise not be introduced to the sport of swimming are finding that they enjoy it and benefit from it (and not just to save their life, but for health). People will swim regardless of what suit they wear.
A biomechanics professor in college told me that there will always be new technology in sports that will effect the sport in some way that can enhance performance, but even with fast shoes, fast pools, or fast suits, those who have excellent technique and speed will always win.
Charged,
Like I said before. Adult sports are not fair. If you play golf, chances are good that somebody can afford clubs you can't. And they do make a difference. If you race bicycles, somebody has access to a bike that you can only dream of. It makes a difference. We swim and compete because it's fun and because the exercise is good for us. So, get over it and stop trying to impose your version of swimming morality on the rest of us!
