Before 2009 Kukors best 200 IM was 2:10.40 World class for sure, but still a cut behind the top women in the event. Today she goes a 2:06.15 and in two days shaves more than a second off the world record. I nominate this swim, just ahead of Bousquets 20.94, as the most ridiculous suited up swim of all time.
The problem with this reasoning is the assumption that the same suit will benefit every athlete equally. If swimmer A has a superior natural position in the water and rides higher than swimmer B then it stands to reason that Swimmer B will derive more benefit from these suits. Swimmer A already had good posture and technique and therefore will benefit less.
The problem with your argument is that these are already the most elite level swimmers in the world so the nitpicky parsing of differences is pretty irrelevant. If one swimmer has better body position that's a coaching and training issue, not a swimsuit issue
I do think that the suits help even elite swimmers differently. I do not hang around the ultra-elite but I do see some pretty fast age-groupers very regularly. Some of the fast men are very muscled and power through the water; others are lithe and just seem to glide over it. Some swimmers are naturally more buoyant than others, and I have heard anecdotal stories from a couple college coaches about differential effects that they attributed (rightly or wrongly) to this natural buoyancy.
Whether this effect of the suits is "unfair" or not, I can't say. Some of these differences -- diminished by the suits -- may not be the result of hard training or technique at all, but genetics. Would it be bad to nullify that? The playing field was not level before the suits; those suits may have just tilted it a little differently.
Finally, I found this fascinating article about lycra suits when they first came out:
vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/.../index.htm
The problem with this reasoning is the assumption that the same suit will benefit every athlete equally. If swimmer A has a superior natural position in the water and rides higher than swimmer B then it stands to reason that Swimmer B will derive more benefit from these suits. Swimmer A already had good posture and technique and therefore will benefit less.
The problem with your argument is that these are already the most elite level swimmers in the world so the nitpicky parsing of differences is pretty irrelevant. If one swimmer has better body position that's a coaching and training issue, not a swimsuit issue
I do think that the suits help even elite swimmers differently. I do not hang around the ultra-elite but I do see some pretty fast age-groupers very regularly. Some of the fast men are very muscled and power through the water; others are lithe and just seem to glide over it. Some swimmers are naturally more buoyant than others, and I have heard anecdotal stories from a couple college coaches about differential effects that they attributed (rightly or wrongly) to this natural buoyancy.
Whether this effect of the suits is "unfair" or not, I can't say. Some of these differences -- diminished by the suits -- may not be the result of hard training or technique at all, but genetics. Would it be bad to nullify that? The playing field was not level before the suits; those suits may have just tilted it a little differently.
Finally, I found this fascinating article about lycra suits when they first came out:
vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/.../index.htm
