If the full body rubber suits do end up getting banned, why should USMS follow their lead on this issue? (i.e. assuming the suits would continue to be manufactured).
Isn't Masters mostly for each individual to pursue what they want and the level they want out of the sport?
If the full body suit is preferred by many USMS participants, why not satisfy the base by keeping it available?
What's really the point of forcing old USMS swimmers out of their girdles if FINA bans them?
John Smith
Parents
Former Member
I think swimming in briefs vs. someone in a Jaked is sort of like playing tennis where you must hit into the singles court but your opponent gets to hit into the alleys. Yeah, if you're really good you will still win, but it's a hell of an advantage for your opponent.
No. It's like someone playing with a state of the art graphite tennis racket against someone who plays with a wooden racket (perhaps because he feels that the new fangled rackets have ruined the sport). Same court, same measurements, etc. but different equipment. I like the new equipment (tech suits) and don't quite grasp why some folks think it's almost immoral to wear them, that they have "ruined" the sport, etc. (I remember last year how Phelps was praising how great the LZR felt coming off the wall...they were all behind them then). I think folks find swimming more interesting now than they ever have. Much of that has to do with Phelps but some of it has to do with the excitement generated by the new suits and the speed. BTW, I think that even if Masters allow tech suits the manufacturers will stop making them if they are banned from international competition and from college athletics (for economic reasons as L. Jansen explained).
As to competition, seriousness, etc., what we ought to remember is that if we don't "try" to win and come prepared to do our best then it is less fun. When we get beat we praise the winner because s/he won the race. If we win or set a record we feel stoked. It's supposed to be fun. It IS fun. That's how I understand the Smiths "beer league" statement; it may be fun, a beer league, whatever, but that doesn't mean I won't train my ass off and try to swim as fast as I can. The work is what makes it fun!
I think swimming in briefs vs. someone in a Jaked is sort of like playing tennis where you must hit into the singles court but your opponent gets to hit into the alleys. Yeah, if you're really good you will still win, but it's a hell of an advantage for your opponent.
No. It's like someone playing with a state of the art graphite tennis racket against someone who plays with a wooden racket (perhaps because he feels that the new fangled rackets have ruined the sport). Same court, same measurements, etc. but different equipment. I like the new equipment (tech suits) and don't quite grasp why some folks think it's almost immoral to wear them, that they have "ruined" the sport, etc. (I remember last year how Phelps was praising how great the LZR felt coming off the wall...they were all behind them then). I think folks find swimming more interesting now than they ever have. Much of that has to do with Phelps but some of it has to do with the excitement generated by the new suits and the speed. BTW, I think that even if Masters allow tech suits the manufacturers will stop making them if they are banned from international competition and from college athletics (for economic reasons as L. Jansen explained).
As to competition, seriousness, etc., what we ought to remember is that if we don't "try" to win and come prepared to do our best then it is less fun. When we get beat we praise the winner because s/he won the race. If we win or set a record we feel stoked. It's supposed to be fun. It IS fun. That's how I understand the Smiths "beer league" statement; it may be fun, a beer league, whatever, but that doesn't mean I won't train my ass off and try to swim as fast as I can. The work is what makes it fun!
