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.
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.
That is probably the main reason why the suits have to go because you don't know with absolute certainty if it is the athlete or a suit change that produced the result. It is sad that Kukors had two fantastic swims and even hardcore swimmers are essentially dismissing the swims. It is very possible Kukors wore the same suit at nationals that she wore at worlds. Does anyone know? What else could contribute to a 4 second drop in less than a month? I believe Rice and Kukors were both wearing the same suit at worlds and Kukors won so you have to give Kukors a lot of credit for the swim regardless of the suit.
The suit debate should get really interesting if Phelps gets taken down tomorrow night and Biedermann posts a new WR.
Tim
I don't think letting the old records stand is the main reason. It's more about having a level playing field. Kukors is a good example. I believe she wore a TYR suit at Trials and finished third. She puts on a Jaked in Rome and destroys the world record. Now, I'm sure part of it was just having a poor swim in Indy, but the suit HAD to play some part. Now, you can certainly argue that everyone has equal access to the suits, but I don't think making sure you choose the fastest suit should be a major factor in who wins a race.
I disagree with the ban of the suits. Why stop advances in technology so that old records can stand. It makes no sense to me. Should runners no longer be able to wear shoes, cyclists go back to using bikes they used 20 years ago, pole vaulters start using bamboo poles again (the list goes on and on)?
When is the last time you heard in track or cycling that a particular athlete won only because they used a particular shoe or bike component? That is all we have heard since early 2008 in swimming.
I think FINA either needs to do a much better job regulating what tech suits can be worn or go back in time. I guess the recent decision by FINA was just an admission that they are unable to regulate the suits adequately for fair competition.
Tim
What else could contribute to a 4 second drop in less than a month?
My first year swimming high school, my 500 Free time improved by 30 seconds in less than 2 months. Combination of harder swim workouts and more dryland training. Maybe Kukors benefitted from being around the Olympians and Nationals veterans, people to measure against and to get advice on being efficient with time outside the pool.
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.
So was Kukors the only person in the finals with the tech suit? If they all had them why didn't they all get records?
I cannot believe a swimmer could be swimming in the World Championships and NOT have access to a tech suit. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.
Why ban the suits? To level the playing field. To have athletes compete against each other without the aid of technology giving one athlete an advantage. It gives one athlete an advantage over the other. Each suit is different, and not every athlete has the means to obtain these faster suits. So, if you ban the suits, you rule out the "unknown" (suit technology) and you have swimmers competing against each other on a more level playing field.
What makes it wrong is, you can have two identical athletes, same abilities, same heart and desire to win, and if one has an advantage because of the special suit they are wearing, I don't think that makes it fair. This trickles down into youth leagues as well. Now it becomes a social and economic issue, where some athletes can afford these suits, while others cannot. If this continues, those athletes who cannot afford the suits, might not be fast enough to earn scholarships compared to other athletes. You see where this is going?
It is simple to level the playing field by banning the suits.
If you want to level the playing field why stop at the suits?
There are far more expensive pieces of training technology that some people have access to. I don't hear announcers talking about how Johnny got to go and do a bunch of swimmetrics sessions at 100-500 a pop while Billy didn't. The suits are just an obvious thing to point to and discuss because it's what people see. It's the tip of the technology iceberg. But we should probably just standardize all training equipment and decide upon a per swimmer budget ceiling for all swim clubs so that technology doesn't give one swimmer an advantage over another.
Some people can afford to move to Baltimore and join the NBAC, some can't. I grew up with a pal who went to Florida to train with Bolles for a summer. No way I got to do that. He came back a lot faster. Is that fair? It hardly kept the playing field, as defined by the resources available in our fairly isolated geographic area, level. Should we stop allowing people to move to join better programs? That would hardly be an issue if there were appropriate controls in place. I'd like to request a standard coaching program be heretoforth decided upon and administered uniformly in all swimming programs.
It's not fair that Phelps is 6' 4" and I'm only 6' tall. I think I should get extenders to make my effective length and wingspan comparable, or he should have to swim with one leg weighted down and a restrictor plate on his mouth to level his O2 intake.
And yea shall we go on into the 102nd year of our Ford. Slip, slip, slippery sliding on down to this metaphysical unreality of a level playing field.
I don't think that we should just go nuts with the suits, and I think that the best idea put forth in these forums is to establish a better control process on them. But I don't at all buy the idea of there ever being a level playing field.
There are far more expensive pieces of training technology that some people have access to.
Personally I would separate training from racing. When the swimmers step onto the blocks I want to find out who's the best swimmer. This means who's got the talent, the guts--and, yes--who trained the smartest and hardest. I just think this is totally different than who is wearing the faster suit.
This is just silly. Comparing a first year swimmer with a 30 second drop to a world class athlete and a 4 second drop.
That was not my first year swimming, just my first year swimming high school. I was a long time age-grouper. Don't be silly yourself.
My point was to raise the possibility (but not the certainty) that putting someone talented, in an environment where they can grow, can produce impressive results. To make a baseball analogy, maybe she was practicing with the Triple-A club before, and is thriving after being moved to the Majors.
Edit: Just noticed this, which could tie in with hanging around other athletes with outstanding training habits.
In her interview after smashing the WR, she says she focused on the small things, getting off the walls faster, lifting more, etc.
I suppose there is theory #2 as well: maybe she did a partial taper for qualifiers, and a full taper for Worlds. I don't have any idea if that is true or not, but it could account for the time drop.
Let me begin with, I have swam competitively throughout my youth (reached All-American status), coached a USS progam and a college program as well. For the past fifteen years I have not swam or coached in the past ten but I follow swimming at every opportunity whether it is on tv or online. I have been disheartened by the past year with respect to the new suits and records that have been obliterated. To see swimmers like bederman, kukors etc . . drops lierally 5-10 seconds due to technology is absurd. Thank goodness for the rule change otherwise swimming just lost another life long fan whether I am in the pool or not.
Lets go back to the old briefs and let everyone compete on an equal playing field. As for the masters swimmers who state they hope FINA's ruling does not affect swimming on a club or masters level I say deal with it. If you are swimming literally seconds faster due to a suit than suck it up, realize you will go slower but your times will be an actual reflection on your swimming ability.
Let me begin with, I have swam competitively throughout my youth (reached All-American status), coached a USS progam and a college program as well. For the past fifteen years I have not swam or coached in the paswt ten but I follow swimming at every opportunity whether it is on tv or online. I have been disheartened by the past year with respect to the new suits and records that have been obliterated. To see swimmers like bederman, kukors etc . . drops lierally 5-10 seconds due to technology is absurd. Thank goodness for the rule change otherwise swimming just lost another life long fan whether I am in the pool or not.
Lets go back to the old briefs and let everyone compete on an equal playing field. As for the masters swimmers who state they hope FINA's ruling does not affect swimming on a club or masters level I say deal with it. If you are swimming literally seconds faster due to a suit than suck it up, realize you will go slower but your times will be an actual reflection on your swimming ability.
This "deal with it" mentality makes a lot of sense to me. I sort of like it b/c I think the playing field will be equalized AND I will spend soooo much less money on the tech toys. HOWEVER, dang! I feel like the biggest curmudgeon-y fuddy-duddy who refuses to embrace advancement and technology. Just call me Ms. Cranky Crankerson :bitching::bitching:
