In the “Readers Ask” section on page 11 of the latest issue of USMS Swimmer (as shown on the home page of this site), there is a question about the use of paddles.
The reply (from Randy Nutt of the Boca and Gold Coast Masters) says something to the effect that “……..Paddles increase distance per stroke and enable the swimmer to achieve some very fast speeds in a work out”.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the main problem in swimming is how to get more propulsion –not reduce drag- and paddles and flippers provide the most drastic improvement in speed.
So here’s the $64,000 question: If FINA allows the use of so called tech suits which increase speed by purportedly reducing drag, why aren’t paddles and flippers (which increase speed through enhanced propulsion) also allowed? :confused:
Dolphin 2
Quote from Bareblar02
“Suits are intended to increase the hydrodynamic characteristics of your body's shape, cutting out sharp edges and such to reduce drag, effectively just altering your body's form. Flippers and Paddles are both extensions, they are not alterations of an existing area of the body (excluding calling them feet and hands), they are longer and wider than any human hand”.
The above quote shows how the debate over paddles & flippers VS tech suits is an example of a “Making distinctions without differences” and "Slicing & dicing and bending the rules".
If paddles and flippers are considered an addition to the swimmer’s body, then a tech suit is also an addition –just with a different function of reducing drag by altering and modifying the swimmer’s personal body form and also increasing bouyancy. This concept could (and already is) also being carried to its illogical extreme.
In the process of "pushing the envelope" by allowing the use of suits with enhanced streamlining and bouyancy characteristics, there is the risk that world's records could be nullified or voided because of all the variables involved.
As I’ve said until I’m blue in the face, FINA should have never "twisted and contorted the rules like a pretzel" against the use of ANY “personally applied devices or substances” and this huge tornado of a debate would have never developed. :agree:
Dolphin 2
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme (not a very long journey), all suits should be banned, including briefs, because they are all "additions."
(BTW, I am no faster with paddles than without. The increase in DPS is almost exactly compensated by the decrease in turnover.)
Quote from Bareblar02
“Suits are intended to increase the hydrodynamic characteristics of your body's shape, cutting out sharp edges and such to reduce drag, effectively just altering your body's form. Flippers and Paddles are both extensions, they are not alterations of an existing area of the body (excluding calling them feet and hands), they are longer and wider than any human hand”.
The above quote shows how the debate over paddles & flippers VS tech suits is an example of a “Making distinctions without differences” and "Slicing & dicing and bending the rules".
If paddles and flippers are considered an addition to the swimmer’s body, then a tech suit is also an addition –just with a different function of reducing drag by altering and modifying the swimmer’s personal body form and also increasing bouyancy. This concept could (and already is) also being carried to its illogical extreme.
In the process of "pushing the envelope" by allowing the use of suits with enhanced streamlining and bouyancy characteristics, there is the risk that world's records could be nullified or voided because of all the variables involved.
As I’ve said until I’m blue in the face, FINA should have never "twisted and contorted the rules like a pretzel" against the use of ANY “personally applied devices or substances” and this huge tornado of a debate would have never developed. :agree:
Dolphin 2
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme (not a very long journey), all suits should be banned, including briefs, because they are all "additions."
(BTW, I am no faster with paddles than without. The increase in DPS is almost exactly compensated by the decrease in turnover.)
