WSJ: The Suit That Changes Everything

Yep -This is what a lot of people have known all along. These suits enable your average Bill or Barbara Beerbelly to swim easier and faster while having to train less. The article once again mentioned that some are proposing that these suits should be done away with. Accordingly, has the anyone in the athletic department considered investing in a heavy duty shredder? :afraid: Dolphin 2

Did you read the article? It was about top level swimming. It never mentioned training less. In fact, training wasn't even referenced. Do you think Auburn is training less because of this? You are an absolute imbecile. BTW - when are you gonna stop dodging and let us know which club you assist with? Geek, look, he doesn't belong to a team. Otherwise, he would have told you by now. Second, there is no use in fighting with a fool. He doesn't comprend anything EXPERIENCED swimmers on this thread have told him about the suits, training, etc. The little boy lives in his own world and will not admit that he knows nothing about the competitive side of the sport. Maybe he can noodle better than the rest of us but that's about it.

Oh yeah!! Flabby nationally ranked swimmers?!!:bow:

And we'll chalk it up to another example of how life isn't fair, as if that somehow makes it okay... Boy, that's really dramatic. Life being unfair doesn't make it ok, it merely is a fact. There are unfairnesses in every single sport on the planet, every league, every game, every workout, every practice. And, there's no way to legislate against it - imagine how utterly boring sports would be with a level playing field.

I'll tell you what's unfair: any team that can afford to suit up its swimmers with spanking new LZRs twice in a season!

Yeah, I don't believe it for a minute. I'm sure they've suited up for other meets this season. These days you've got to suit up to swim fast enough to qualify. They may not be getting any brand new suits for NCs, but I'm sure they've got suits. I posted this two weeks ago: it is a lot harded to get 8 of these than 1. And Aubrun needs more like 20 because anyone who does breaststroke plus any other stroke ideally wears two types. But you are right, people will simply wear old suits. And then not do as well as they could have. And we'll chalk it up to another example of how life isn't fair, as if that somehow makes it okay...

I swam a meet a couple of weeks ago with my B70 with a Nike suit underneath (as I mentioned, the B70 went on in about a minute!) However, I wished I could have taken off the suit underneath. Felt like too much suit for a race. ... Would it be legal to wear a jog bra under the B70? It's not a suit, but it would keep us more comfortable (the girls and me ; ] ) Based on this post I don't think either of those things -- extra suit or jogging bra -- are legal anymore. Just bikini briefs. (But Jim, you should wear male briefs...)

Hey thewookiee From your posts, you don't seem to know the difference between experienced competitive swimming and experienced competitive spending on swimsuits. Dolphin 2 Do you really want to go down this road? ps. Why won't you answer the question about what team you supposedly belong too?

This article appeared on the Sports page of the WSJ on Tuesday, 03/24/09. In my book that's the second best day of the week, given it's fluff news for the Monday paper and i'm ready to read some real news by Tuesday. (Weekend edition is my favorite!) It is the main article, taking up columns 2-6 of 6 columns across, and approximately 2/3 the way down the page, inclusive of the picture. Any news is great news for swimming. NYT always is my favorite for covering other interesting sports (plus swimming) now & then; so it's nice to see big articles like this for a change. And keep in mind that Futterman's got to make it INTERESTING for the general masses to read. Out of all the material he should have researched, he's only going to put the juicy bits in the article and of course use words like Flabby and Lazy!

I am not wearing a jammer as a bra! :D I do see Alhamss... (however you spell her name!) point about modesty. IMHO women could have modesty issues "up high". If you can wear a jammer, or a bikini brief, why not a jog bra? Makes no sense to me. "Wait, it's discrimination! That's what it is. I'm being discriminated against b/c I am 'chesty'. NOT FAIR. NOT FAIR. FINA did not take into consider the well endowed woman. Hmmph." Quick call a Wahhhhhhmbulance. (She's crazy!) :lmao: