Chris suggests that he would like to represent the whole of Masters and solicits on these boards, where most of the outspoken people have already used or adopted the suits.
...
These are regulatory rules, not a popularity contest. Ban the suits and let's get back to swimming.
You are right that "majority rules" is not the only consideration.
What I said (or meant to say, I can't remember and I'm too lazy to check) is that I will vote for what is in the best interests of the LMSC I represent, not just my own preference. I believe that is, in fact, the charge given to all delegates at convention.
In this case I think "best interests" are defined as (a) what is going to get most people to compete, and increase their satisfaction in it and (b) what is good for the sport (for want of a better phrase). There is a popularity component in the first but not the second.
I do think uniformity with FINA and (especially) USS is good and I've said as much. But uniformity also applies to other masters federations...
I readily admit that there are some ways that masters are unique. Allowing in-water starts or butterfrog are examples of "special" rules.
So: are there other reasons why should the suits be treated as a special case?
these are "comfort" rules, and though there may be some individual advantage they are certainly not techniques designed to add speed. i would like to see the ban go further, and extend to open water (approval of the point zero for OW may be seen as the start of the whole tech suit arms race)
The 'people won't watch if they don't see world records' argument is totally bogus. Look at women's track and field. They've got a ton of world records from as far back as the 1980s dope fests that no modern runner or relays comes close to approaching. And the women of the Golden League circuits like Sanya Richards, Allyson Felix and Blanka Vlasic are huge sporting start over in Europe, world records or not.
The one record on that side that's under constant assault is the pole vault and that's because Yelena Isinbayeva is doing the same thing that Sergei Bubka did back in the day and constantly upping her competition clearance height by a centimeter or half centimeter in order to max out on the world record bonus money. And consensus is that by taking that kind of strategy, she makes setting a world record less special because she'll do it 5-6 times a year.
I'm a master swimmer (and as a disclaimer also a swim shop owner), besides swimming pool competition i go to a lot of open water events.
As an open water swimmer and aficionado I vote for swimsuits in OW (possibly the textile only, or maybe more). Water can be cold in some countries, regions and days.
For the average OW swimmer some cold water swims (the longer ones) just can’t' be made without a suit
·Suits are more effective than Vaseline alone (and surely less messy and better for the skin breath)
·surely cold water tolerance can be trained but how many do have time and patience for this, do we want more or less people doing OW?
·Ending and OW race in hypothermia is no fun and it's not safe (I've experienced this and I’ve seen it once to many)
·Suits won't prevent all hypothermia cases but they will do away with most, they make colder water swims more accessible comfortable and safe (not to mention fun)
·Also in some seas there are jelly fish and other things for which suits offer some protection
As a master swimmer i would prefer the suits (possibly the textile only) are maintained. I do see a lot of diference in time betwen being shaved and not and i would prefer not to shave.
·There's a lot of difference in body hair for older swimmers. Some naturally have almost full body hair coverage other almost none
·If they're not both shaved or wearing full suits I would say it's not a level playing field (unlike other physical characteristics i think it's pretty much accepted to change/go around this one)
·There are good and cheap full swimsuits, wearing this will end up being cheaper (and surely easier and less time consuming) than shaving
regards
What other sport is actually going in reverse when it comes to technology?
Actually, golf has just banned square groves, on a sliding rotation, depending on the level of competition.
And the car racing analogy is bogus as well. If you look at the history of formula 1 and Indy Car (and probably NASCAR too) there have been many occassions where technological advances were made that were within the current rules and were subsequently banned, here is a list of just 2008. Most relate to technologic advances.
www.formula1.com/.../default.html
I just looked at the men's 4x100 free relay final Sydney 2000. Old model textile suits of every style/description were everywhere. I don't recall there being a huge suit brouhaha at the time. (As far as I know few suggest that Ian Thorpe's records should have asterisks beside them.) This suggests to me that it is primarily the LZR and post-LZR innovations that have caused the problem. I thus don't understand why FINA didn't try to simply adopt rules to set the clock back a bit. This is where I would prefer masters to go (suits ok but approved textiles only) because like wookie and others I find the suit is the "shave alternative". If I had to shave to try to swim fast - and I would without the suit - it would significantly reduce my enjoyment of competition.
Except swimsuits is what we're actually discussing! That's good for the sport.
Why? Much of the swimsuit coverage was not complimentary. And even the ones that were neutral just focused on the technology, not the sport of swimming. (I guess I'm not at the point where I equate the two.)
But fear not, I'm sure there will be continued coverage about how the absence of the suits has resulted in a dearth of new WRs. Any exposure is good, right?
But all that doesn't help us decide what to do about masters. The suits are already banned in "mainstream" swimming so Rowdy's argument for why they were a good thing is interesting but moot.
In this case I think "best interests" are defined as (a) what is going to get most people to compete, and increase their satisfaction in it and (b) what is good for the sport (for want of a better phrase). There is a popularity component in the first but not the second.
The suits were good for the sport, in terms of popular culture. Rowdy is right about the correlation between the suit controversy and the increased media exposure for the sport of swimming. If we collectively tried to buy that kind of media exposure the total cost would be significantly larger then the entire niche swimsuit market!
