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
Former Member
Because it is just Masters swimming. Because FINA doesn't care. Because nobody in the world outside of Masters swimming will care one way or the other. Why are Masters world records recognized for arbitrary five year age groups?
Hate to say this Gull, but no one but swimmers care about swimming in the end. It's just a fact.
We can allow anything for yards meets, because nobody outside the US really understands or cares and we follow FINA for the real swimming.
Precisely. Suits allowed for yards. Yes.
On the other hand...Meters meets, where FINA rankings count, should be swum according to FINA guidelines.
Unless there is specifically a meet disclaimer saying that it's an American style meters meet where rooting and tooting is welcome, and so in turn are the outlaw suits.
Yippee Eye Oh Kie A.
Cows Rule
...
I would disagree in a big way -- let's say the NCAAs would be Long-course meters for the next 20 years (I know that's not possible - but just go with it) - do you really think that would be a bad thing for US success in the Olympics ??? How would the training change at Texas and Auburn ?
...
If NCAA's went to LCM, even more colleges would have an excuse to hack swimming from their programs and divert the funds to other sports. A great many high schools would follow suit, since their venues would be out-dated. I think this would really kill swimming in the USA for quite a while!
It's simple, we apply for federal stimulus funds to build 50 meter pools at every college and high school in the country.
Swimming's version of the cash-for-clunkers?
Personally, I would be far more embarrassed wearing a tech suit trying to break 1:00 in the 100 free than I would be by letting my beer gut hang out. In this case, I guess I have the fortune of being a mediocre Masters swimmer that has missed out on the last 25 years of competitive swimming. The whole idea of spending $500 on a tech suit for Masters seems completely ridiculous to me, but I suppose if I was trying to break records I would have done the same thing. As it is I am completely unaffected by the suit issue at my level.
I'm afraid it makes the most sense in the long run to get rid of them. Why take a simple sport and create a division? The advantage is so great that it would eventually become a standard piece of equipment at the age group level on up. Big picture, the suits have to go. It may hurt in the short run but will be better for swimming overall.
I'm joining this conversation late, but I've noticed an omission in the postings that I thought I might raise:
Our current USMS administration has tried very hard to bridge the gap between USAS and USMS. The dual sanction concept is the biggest way they are doing that. If USMS says "anything goes" regarding the swimsuits, no Masters swimmer will want to attend a dual sanction meet because they cannot wear the rubber suits (USA Swimming rules prevail in dual sanction meets). Thus, the dual sanction concept becomes meaningless because Masters swimmers will be afraid to race in jammers, or know that they can swim a Masters-only meet and go faster and get a higher top 10 placing or even contend for records. And all the work Rob and others have done so far will go out the window. I have loved the chance to compete in a USA Swimming meet for the racing opportunities they continue to offer, and have my times count for Masters records, both world and national. I've taken advantage of that for the past three years and love it every time.
I have my own thoughts about the high-tech suits and I won't elaborate fully on them here, but rules are rules. I will wear my high-tech suit once more in December, to see if I can swim faster high-tech suit times this year than I did last year in the same suit (apples to apples). Then, I'll put that suit away in storage. At my first competition in 2010, I'll make sure the pair of jammers I got in 2006 are not frayed or loose-fitting, then train just as hard or harder in the pool with the time I have available so I can attempt in 2010 to swim faster than I did in 2009. Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It'll be fun to try.
Tangent: In between the release of the first list of approved suits and the release of the final list, I shaved and tapered for a meet and didn't swim well. I blamed it on the way I had been training, not the fact that I couldn't wear by B70 and was "relegated" to my TYR jammers. Next summer, I look forward to swimming much faster because I'll be smarter about my training and not thinking about what could have been if I had been able to "suit up."
If FINA and USMS say that high-tech suits will be allowed in 2010, I'm not sure what my response will be.
Yes, "it's just Masters," but if you're a competitive swimmer, you do not choose to do so thinking laziness will get you to the goals you wanted to achieve. Should we be allowed to wear what we want because some people are too lazy to train like they know they should or are embarrassed by their beer guts? I teach swim lessons to adults who want to swim like the best swimmers in the world. And they mean Rebecca Soni, Michael Phelps and Ous Mellouli, not David Guthrie, Mike Ross or Jeff Erwin (no offense at all meant to these great Masters gods). If you want to swim like Michael Phelps, a suit is not going to help you. Getting yourself in the pool regularly will do that. If you're embarrassed by your beer gut or love handles and think wearing a rubber suit will hide them ... think again. The suit just makes them more noticeable.
If "it's just Masters," then what's the point of having records? What's the point of even starting a watch or having times displayed on a scoreboard if it doesn't really matter? Why do you need the high-tech suit, if "it's just Masters"? Most people here say it doesn't really matter, but it really does when they step up on the block, regardless if you're in the slowest heat or the fastest heat.
If the best swimmers in the world finally get to go back to stepping up and depending on their training to finish a race and stop the clock first (not just touch the pad first) then why can't Masters be held in the same regard? Because we're older and whine about soreness and pain more?
Someone posted this: "One sport=one rule." I heartily agree. We're all swimmers, regardless of age or ability.
Nice post, Jeff. And going back to jammers is not instant doom, I still managed two masters PBs with jammers this past weekend.
I also think Leonard brings up a good point. If we divorce ourselves from FINA we don't get to take advatage of their testing. I like the simplicity of being able to police things by looking for the FINA-approved logo.
For the suit-supporters: what is wrong with wearing a wetsuit? Or two suits? I have never understood where this line is crossed: it is just a question of degree, after all. Jakeds may well be just as performance-enhancing as wetsuits, after all.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I would argue that the majority of Masters swimmers investing in and wearing technical suits are anything but lazy. Personally, even if I had the time to train more than six days/week, I don't believe that my body could handle the yardage. Fifty may be the new thirty, but even Dara is facing yet another operation on her aging body.
I don't know if I can ever hear from the majority of Masters swimmers, but I heard this actually come from two different Masters swimmers earlier this year who don't know each other:
"I haven't put in the pool time this year, but that's OK because I'll wear my (high-tech suit)."
One guy went slower in all his events in Clovis, saying the weather was the problem. The other guy did a Masters PB in one event recently but went relatively slow in his two best events.
These two guys used to be hard workers in the pool, and I don't think they had a reason to slack off this year, other than laziness (one is single and gainfully employed, the other is married with kids but he is semi-retired and gloats about the limitless chances he has to train).
In elite swimming, the top swimmers worked hard even though they had the suits (even Paul Biedermann, as I've read about his workouts). In Masters, the suits, more often than not, I fear, will become an excuse to back off in workout.
