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
That means that it's all a gray area, so just open it up and get rid of the rat's nest of technicalities that we seem to be setting up for ourselves. As a bonus, a wetsuit is cheaper than the $500 tech suits, is fast and lasts a long time.
Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc). If the USTA had adopted that approach, we would still be playing with wooden rackets (which were quite cheap, by the way).
I have worn my Blue Seventy in three meets thus far, and it is holding up very well. Whether is was worth the cost (my wife would say no, but then I don't agree with all of her purchases) is an individual value judgment.
That means that it's all a gray area, so just open it up and get rid of the rat's nest of technicalities that we seem to be setting up for ourselves. As a bonus, a wetsuit is cheaper than the $500 tech suits, is fast and lasts a long time.
Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc). If the USTA had adopted that approach, we would still be playing with wooden rackets (which were quite cheap, by the way).
I have worn my Blue Seventy in three meets thus far, and it is holding up very well. Whether is was worth the cost (my wife would say no, but then I don't agree with all of her purchases) is an individual value judgment.
