I think we can all be certain that the suits are here to stay -- love them, hate them, it does not really matter -- Speedo, TYR and the others will not allow the suits to all over sudden disappear.
But, we as Masters swimmers have to make a decision about our own reasoning to compete -- why do we compete in swim meets ?
There are many reasons - social, participating in a sport beats the hell out of watching one on TV and so on --- but for me, 2 of the main reasons are the competition aspects. We obviously compete against other swimmers --- but more than maybe many other sports, we compete against ourselves. I can tell you my best 100 Free from every season over the last 30 years (10 of which I did not compete).
I have used most of the suits and did very well -- I set some personal bests and also achieved some record swims, but I have no idea how my times really compare to other seasons. I can keep telling myself that all that speedwork and lifting paid off - but I just don't know.
I like to give a golf comparison -- let's say you have a home course and you always shoot in the low 90s going from the Blue Tees --- well guess what, if you are going from the white tees you will probably average high 80s and going from the red you may get down to the mid to low 80s. But you are not a better player because of it. The LZR seems to be the "white tees" and the new Jaked suit may be the "red tees".
I think we really have to make a decision now to what matters more -- your personal records and history of swimming or the competition against other swimmers ? For me, this may change from meet to meet - but I must be able to stay honest with myself and be able to compare my times -- I do not want to be cheating myself.
Old generations suits (Fastskin Pro) only for: all major Masters meets (individual swims) except for Worlds. That means, I am ok to lose a few places in a meet, in order to know what my time really means. I could just go really old school -- but I think the older generation suits are pretty equal to shaving -- and they allow you to be "shaved" and swim fast in season, which is a huge plus.
LZR / Blue70 for: relays, Worlds and maybe some USS meets, if I am going for a time standard. I want to give any relay my fastest time possible - I swimming Worlds to win the title, so if others use the suits, I will have to do the same - if I go to USS meets, I may use them to get into the finals or to make a time standard for a big meet.
It may take some adjustments - but I think it will work --
Who is with me ?
Interesting thread and, FWIW, I don't think Erik was trying to insult anyone.
But I think his idea of voluntary self-policing is a non-starter, for the usual "Tragedy of the Commons" types of reasons. That's why we have regulatory bodies like FINA and USMS.
The article Erik posted -- which I finally got around to reading -- is interesting. The last sentence is particularly relevant to this discussion, and states what I have been feeling about this whole thing:
"The progression in times, however, will again slow as swimmers continue to approach the inescapable limits of equipment aided human performance."
So I think this whole thing about self-comparisons, as well as comparisons between competitors, is mostly a red herring. We are in a transition phase and things will settle down at some point (though it may take years). Jaked is a flash in the pan that will become irrelevant after Jan 1.
As an aside, I do think it interesting that, previously, superlative performances elicited the response of "what drugs is s/he using?" Now it is "which suit?" (I do still worry about PEDs...male sprinters just seem huge nowadays, compared to the sleek Popovs/Biondis of yore.)
So if there is some sort of "levelling off" effect with the suits, combined with regulations that the ones FINA has already passed, it seems that we are almost where we were before, but with faster records. Except:
-- the sport is more expensive
-- the suits may aid some body types more than others
-- "purists" may be offended (I don't mean to be derogatory by using the term; feel free to substitute another)
If these combination of things prove to be too much, then by all means agitate for a change in rules. You have a case.
As an aside, the data analysis part of Erik's article is interesting too, in particular the "Japanese" expt and the comparison of predicted vs actual times at the Olympics. (A similar study was done for US Olympic Trials, with similar results.) Conclusions:
-- the times in 2008 were 1-2% faster than they should have been
-- men were affected more than women
-- sprints were affected more than distance events
Based on the Olympics data and across all events, I calculated an average of 1.66% improvement for the men and 1.19% for the women. For the men, the events which were NOT significantly faster than the normal progression would indicate were: 200/400/1500 free; for the women, it was the 400/800 free, both breaststroke events, the 100 fly, and the 400 IM.
Of course the natural tendency is to attribute the difference to the suits, mostly the LZR (although both Jakeds and B70s were also in evidence). The authors are, of course, careful to say that this isn't proven by the data alone -- correlation/causation and all that -- but it is strongly suggested, and that no alternative cause has been determined.
Neither the 2000 nor 2004 Olympics were any faster than predicted, so those suits were not significantly more effective than shaving (and certainly much less effective than the current generation of suits). Interestingly, the 1996 games were collectively significantly slower than expected, largely on the women's side.
Assuming the suits are the cause, the data makes one wonder about the mechanism by which they work. The authors basically said, "we have no idea." I have heard 3 types of mechanisms proposed:
-- buoyancy
-- effects of compression on fatigue
-- hydrodyamics
Of course, all three can be involved to some degree. The fact that sprints (higher speeds) were more greatly affected is a clue, as is the fact that men (higher speeds, larger cross-sectional area, more muscle mass) are more affected than women.
I'll go back to lurking now...pls continue... :)
Interesting thread and, FWIW, I don't think Erik was trying to insult anyone.
But I think his idea of voluntary self-policing is a non-starter, for the usual "Tragedy of the Commons" types of reasons. That's why we have regulatory bodies like FINA and USMS.
The article Erik posted -- which I finally got around to reading -- is interesting. The last sentence is particularly relevant to this discussion, and states what I have been feeling about this whole thing:
"The progression in times, however, will again slow as swimmers continue to approach the inescapable limits of equipment aided human performance."
So I think this whole thing about self-comparisons, as well as comparisons between competitors, is mostly a red herring. We are in a transition phase and things will settle down at some point (though it may take years). Jaked is a flash in the pan that will become irrelevant after Jan 1.
As an aside, I do think it interesting that, previously, superlative performances elicited the response of "what drugs is s/he using?" Now it is "which suit?" (I do still worry about PEDs...male sprinters just seem huge nowadays, compared to the sleek Popovs/Biondis of yore.)
So if there is some sort of "levelling off" effect with the suits, combined with regulations that the ones FINA has already passed, it seems that we are almost where we were before, but with faster records. Except:
-- the sport is more expensive
-- the suits may aid some body types more than others
-- "purists" may be offended (I don't mean to be derogatory by using the term; feel free to substitute another)
If these combination of things prove to be too much, then by all means agitate for a change in rules. You have a case.
As an aside, the data analysis part of Erik's article is interesting too, in particular the "Japanese" expt and the comparison of predicted vs actual times at the Olympics. (A similar study was done for US Olympic Trials, with similar results.) Conclusions:
-- the times in 2008 were 1-2% faster than they should have been
-- men were affected more than women
-- sprints were affected more than distance events
Based on the Olympics data and across all events, I calculated an average of 1.66% improvement for the men and 1.19% for the women. For the men, the events which were NOT significantly faster than the normal progression would indicate were: 200/400/1500 free; for the women, it was the 400/800 free, both breaststroke events, the 100 fly, and the 400 IM.
Of course the natural tendency is to attribute the difference to the suits, mostly the LZR (although both Jakeds and B70s were also in evidence). The authors are, of course, careful to say that this isn't proven by the data alone -- correlation/causation and all that -- but it is strongly suggested, and that no alternative cause has been determined.
Neither the 2000 nor 2004 Olympics were any faster than predicted, so those suits were not significantly more effective than shaving (and certainly much less effective than the current generation of suits). Interestingly, the 1996 games were collectively significantly slower than expected, largely on the women's side.
Assuming the suits are the cause, the data makes one wonder about the mechanism by which they work. The authors basically said, "we have no idea." I have heard 3 types of mechanisms proposed:
-- buoyancy
-- effects of compression on fatigue
-- hydrodyamics
Of course, all three can be involved to some degree. The fact that sprints (higher speeds) were more greatly affected is a clue, as is the fact that men (higher speeds, larger cross-sectional area, more muscle mass) are more affected than women.
I'll go back to lurking now...pls continue... :)
