Was the debate in Cycling this intense?
Technology has made today's racing bicycles a far cry from the 1970's. Know one seems to be complaining.
Ken, you need to look at the one hour record and the controversy around that in the early '90s before you use cycling as an example. The UCI also does not allow riders to use the fastest posible bikes or equiptment available. Wouldn't riders in a road race be able to go faster with aero-bars, disk wheels, and all the other fancy equiptment? There is also a minimum weight allowed for a bike durring a race, again, not being able to use the latest technology.
I don't see how this would be the case. I mean, what exactly are we currently? Only a fraction of the membership compete, and those that do are not even required to show proof of qualifying times for national championships. What it would show is that we are capable of independent and progressive thinking.
I think we are currently a swim organization for swimmers older than high school age that has generally adopted the rules that apply to USS and FINA. Independent and progressive thinking is great, but the difference would be pretty obvious and it would be interesting to see if it would be good or bad for USMS in the long-term. It is fine with me either way, but I would generally prefer not being a rogue swimming organization.
Tim
If you look at the history of Blue Seventy there first market was triathletes. The Nero evolved from a swim skin for warm water triathlons where the wetsuits were not allowed. So they already had a market, competitive pool swimming became icing on the cake. I can only make an educated guess, however based on there history and if masters keep the suits legal, I believe B70 will still manufacture as between Tri’s and Masters it may still be enough of a market.
I agree. If the suits stay legal, they will continue to manufacture them. But if B70 was only able to manufacture textile suits for masters, I'm not sure they would bother (it's not in their "core competence"). I believe that they will continue to manufacture the pointzero3 and maybe the Nero 10K (or whatever it's called) for the triathlete community but I'm not sure it would be worth it for them to design and manufacture a textile suit just for masters swimmers. Hopefully I'm wrong because I would probably continue to support them if they do.
+1
Keep them for masters. They're fun. If you don't like them, don't use them.
The problem with this is that if I don't like them and don't use one, while others do, I might get beat by people who wouldn't be able to beat me otherwise. Those of us that go to competitions like to race and I don't want to race against people with an advantage I don't have.
Maybe the solution is to allow them, but they don't count for records, top 10 times or even ribbons or medals at competitions. That way, the people who just want to go as "fast" as technology will allow can do that and those who just want to compete can do that.
As I approach 50 years of age - I too am, and always have been VERY self conscious about my body and I do not see any issue with allowing Masters swimmers the option of a full-body suit or not - as long as they are textile. I personally don't believe the full body textile suits give ANY (or at least very little) advantage other than a mental aspect of faster swimming, but as an ever aging athlete (which we all are), I would prefer to cover up a bit more than when I was younger. In fact if I could afford to wear a full-body suit in practice, I would (not really, but it sounded good).
I don't agree with the statement that if USMS has different suit rulings that it would create a scenario that we are a beer league of swimming. I think as long as we create rulings that prohibit the same materials as what FINA is proposing then we are still keeping the intent of the law intact. But I would at least like to see USMS change their rulings back to being able to wear two suits in competition, I personally get a rush when I get a good time wearing drag suits in competition.
I guess I don't get the cover-up issue because you can only cover-up for a short period of time and the last thing I am thinking about during the race or when I am around the blocks is how I am looking.
Beer league is a little harsh, but it would be something different than it is now and there would be potential for USMS to evolve to something very odd. If USMS uses the textile definition for suit guidelines, then maybe that is a good compromise and puts USMS back to 2007. However, I would think most people on this board would like everything available to them in the last year and a half to be legal for USMS. It would definitely be interesting to see if it would be good or bad for USMS. I wonder if the USMS by-laws provide for much flexibility for the organization to adopt rules vastly different than other swimming governing bodies? If they do, I would really like them to consider allowing flip turns for any stroke especially those transition turns in the IM.
Tim
The thing to me that stands out is why is the the people who want the suits to stay are the ones that have to defend their position.
I agree with you when they were universally legal. But now the rest of the swimming universe (except for masters) has banned them, so the question will naturally arise: why not?
The thing to me that stands out is why is the the people who want the suits to stay are the ones that have to defend their position.
I haven't heard a whole lot of good reasons to ban the suits. Just a lot of complaining that that guy or girl is going faster than you think they should be or price. How is a $500 swim suit any different than a $500 driver for golf? Not all parents can buy $500 drivers for their kids, right?
Okay maybe the driver lasts a little longer but still.
A state of the art speed boat or car with the best aerodynamics still can't run without an engine. So even a swimmer in a NASA designed suit still needs something to make him/her go through the water!!
Isn't the argument that the suits make you go faster than you could naturally? Isn't the only real argument in favor of rubberized suits that people like going faster than they can naturally? (All other arguments can be resolved by sticking with purely a textile full-body suit, which I don't love but would prefer to the rubberized suits by far as a compromise.)
You can't play golf without a driver. You can swim without a suit. So there's a difference when talking about technology improvements. Also, golf is a game and swimming is a physical competition. Suits used to be for modesty and the racing was all about the swimmer. Rubberized suits change us from a sport about the purity of a person's physical ability to a sport about who has the best designed swimsuit. It turns us from a sport into a game. Beer league softball, with space-aged aluminum bats, indeed.
Claiming cycling hasn't adopted and even embraced technology is absurd. Did you watch the TDF? Do you follow cycling? Maybe they haven't adopted every single nit picky breakthrough but that's a far cry from turning back the sport as swimming is doing.
I do follow cycling, and I never said cycling does not embrace technology. what I'm saying is they have rules that are followed about what technology is allowed. Also in the one hour record they have completely turned back. I was just pointing out that the example was not a very good one. Also showing a bike you buy at a department store compared to a specialty time trial bike was also a little misleading. I was not arguing for or against tech suits. But thanks for speaking for me.
