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?
If I swim in a race, complete the swim, don't get DQ'ed and wear a suit approved by FINA, then it is an official time, regardless of what suit I wear...and nothing you can say is able to take away from my swim, the effort that went into the swim, the training that went into the swim. If I play by the rules, then it is official...regardless of what you think
Absolutely! Right on, wookiee! The nice thing about swimming is your time is your time. Unambiguous! (sp?) Anyone have a problem with other people's tech suits, or anything else for that matter? Go mutter in the gutter! (Hmm...not quite the punch of Carlos F's signature phrase.)
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.
I would like to add to Chris' excellent post by saying that it is ridiculous to think that a swimsuit is the gating financial factor to youth swimming. One year rounder is going to cost you thousands of dollars in dues, practice gear, team gear, meet fees, travel costs, coach gifts. Then, there are the hours a week back and forth to the pool. Heck, most meets charge $10 for heat sheets.
As a general observations almost all the people I see in tech suits are also the fastest. This surely indicates they realize the value of hard training and the suit is merely an extension of that.
To me it would be much more akin to someone bringing their own starting block to the meet and only getting to use it themselves.
I agree. Another example would be if you could pay an extra $500 to get clear water in the lanes adjacent to you.
.
Tech suits are like steroids. It's always easier to buy a time than work for it.
Again, If you pay for a coach, pool to swim at, health club membership for weight training, cardio, pilates,etc...then you are BUYING your time. No one has said that the suits replace hard work...no one.
Once again, the suit doesn't do the swimming. If the swimmer hasn't logged the time in the pool...the time cross-training, no freaking suit will make up for lack of preparation. W
Why should men be limited to briefs? There is nothing wrong with having suits that cover the upper and lower body. You can't accept that the sport is changing and trying to progress.
Are all tech suits designed equally? I wonder why someone would choose a LZR over a B70 or a B70 over something else?
Oh I don't know...maybe it is personally preference. Why do some people like Nike vs. Reebok vs. New Balance vs. Addias? Personal preference.
I'm really getting annoyed with all this holier than thou criticism by people (except knelson) who aren't willing to invest the training time, yet focus on a swimsuit.
You take two equally talented kids, stuff one in an average year round program, stuff the other in an elite level program and the difference between those two at a meet a year later will be much different than those same kids in the same program with one wearing a LZR. I see this all the time at kid's meets.
Lefty's post did make me think and ponder, albeit briefly.
I'm not telling you how to spend your money. Spend it all day long. Look cool and feel great about your suit just don't wear it at a meet for an official time.
If I swim in a race, complete the swim, don't get DQ'ed and wear a suit approved by FINA, then it is an official time, regardless of what suit I wear...and nothing you can say is able to take away from my swim, the effort that went into the swim, the training that went into the swim. If I play by the rules, then it is official...regardless of what you think
