Well, I guess I need to rethink things.
I peruse triathlon forums from time-to-time & often read posts with things like "swimming is 100% technique", "it's all about form", or "strength isn't needed to swim fast."
So yesterday I read this quote by one of the technique folks: "Swimming is a fine motor activity, not a power sport!" This was in support of a statement that speed will come with improved technique, not working harder at swim sets.
I thought that was BS. I still do, actually. But I'm willing to investigate the possibility that I'm the one who's incorrect.
Thanks for your responses,
Dan
I would say it's both. here's my thinking on this:
1) Fine motor control is needed to place the hands and feet in the proper position to....
2) Generate maximum power during the arm pull or leg kick
Not to mention the adjustments needed in the core to maintain proper body position.
Asking _most_ triathletes about swimming is like getting financial advice from Bernie Madoff. You can do it but the results are going to be iffy.
So yesterday I read this quote by one of the technique folks: "Swimming is a fine motor activity, not a power sport!" This was in support of a statement that speed will come with improved technique, not working harder at swim sets.
I thought that was BS. I still do, actually. But I'm willing to investigate the possibility that I'm the one who's incorrect.
All other things being equal, improving technique will definitely improve speed. It can certainly be argued that it is the most "cost-effective" way of doing so.
All other things being equal, working harder (with sufficient recovery) at swim sets will definitely improve race performance. Anyone who says differently is being silly, or justifying his lazy work habits.
Physiologically, pool swimming is a power sport, as opposed to an endurance sport like triathlons...or most OW swimming. But technique is huge, so it is a fine motor sport in that sense; I would agree with Debaru that it is both.
a fine motor activity, or a power sport?
Just curious what swimmers think.
I have to say a power sport, only because we have a 17yr old on our team that is struggling to get a "C" in gym, but can swim 200 LCM in 2:19, I know that's not the greatest of times, but still.
this is the same kid that took 1 hr longer than the rest of his teammates to climb down a mt that was mostly just walking.
I have to say a power sport, only because we have a 17yr old on our team that is struggling to get a "C" in gym, but can swim 200 LCM in 2:19, I know that's not the greatest of times, but still.
this is the same kid that took 1 hr longer than the rest of his teammates to climb down a mt that was mostly just walking.
Suggest checking his vision. Swimming does not require too many visual skills or balance based on visual cues but many other activities do. From personal experience I can say that a few diopters of strabismus (when your eyes do not point in quite the same direction) has little effect on swimming but can wreak havoc on e.g. the basketball court (field percentage in the neighborhood of "pure luck & a prayer"). Mild cases are surprisingly hard to detect.
It's a guess.
Asking _most_ triathletes about swimming is like getting financial advice from Bernie Madoff. You can do it but the results are going to be iffy.
I know - normally I'd just ignore it, but it was a "coach" making this claim.
I suppose for folks swimming 2:30's per 100yds technique improvement is the best way to go to reduce time. But, to me, if someone's swimming that slowly, there's gotta be strength/power problems that are keeping the body from being able to rise up and reduce drag.
At some hypothetical speed, improvement can't be made in a weak swimmer by altering the stroke. I suppose I may underestimate that speed by placing it around 1:45 per 100yds. Perhaps it's really in the 1:20 to 1:30 range.
Thanks again for your thoughts,
Dan
BUT, once we're talking a group of swimmers that have good technique, the most powerful swimmer will likely be the fastest.....
:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:
