do we really need to change the rules so a handful of Olympians might show up at Nationals? I love seeing these guys/gals at Nationals as much as the next person, but I don't think we should be changing rules to encourage this.
Agreed. And it implies that the USMS brand is too weak to attract these swimmers without the suits. I would hope that even the most ardent techie would think that they are not the best thing about masters swimming.
USMS has already deviated from FINA once. Continuing the deviation in this respect is not necessarily flip flopping. From what I have gleaned, coverage is simply a huge issue for masters for various reasons (see Wookie's recent comment), whether you agree with that fact or not.
And I don't see, logically, how the fact that the rules generally have been the same supports the the notion that FINA cares about masters SCY competition in the US. From what I recall, they barely cared about SCM and LCM FINA masters competition ...
USMS recently passed a rule that the suits would not be legal past May 31. If in Sept they pass another rule saying they are now legal, how is that not flip-flopping? The sole reason it was extended to June 1 was because the SCY season was already in progress.
If "coverage" is such a big issue than either the SCM and LCM seasons will be marginalized even more than ever -- b/c swimmers don't want to give up their crutches (I mean suits) -- or there will soon be a push to allow the suits in meters.
I agree that FINA doesn't care about SCY, but USMS seems to care about FINA rules enough to follow them in SCY.
There are also some LMSCs where masters meets are few and far between, so that some swimmers will use USA-S meets to get their times. They will be at a disadvantage if USMS continues in its cheatin' ways.
I suppose I also just don't like the idea that this reasoning is based largely on the idea that old fart masters swimmers have such awful bodies that they need to be covered.
I also find it fairly ironic that triathletes are banning the suits ("swimskins") and we are talking about bringing them back.
For the same reason I've always loved the suits: they're fun, they're fast, I love to swim in them, and I prefer max coverage & max technology. I see no reason why SCY can't be segregated from the FINA distances. It's our own special fiefdom, and we get to make the rules.
For the record, though, I've already swum in FINA legal kneeskins in two meets. I can, and have, certainly move(d) forward without any whining.
Fort, didn't say you were whining. Asked why usms can't let this be a dead issue now.
Several thoughts:
1) Cool, suits are fun and if you're a purist you still have the realswimming course to keep to Speedos.
B) Nobody is forcing me to buy one and if I and close and want a TT I can get one in LCM without additional cost (not that it's going to happen).
iii) Stop with the nationalistic chest beating crap about yards...it's not the sole province of the US and I swam yards way before I swam metres. This attitude is feeds the one where the rest of the world thinks the bulk of the US is ignorant of anything outside it's own state's borders...how about changing the face of that misconception? If you want to spit at FINA for trying to dictate how in US courses are run fine..but please keep it specific to that.
Masters are not the only swimming federation talking suit...
Anyone follow ASCA's John Leonard's comments on the swimmingcoach.org site? Men's suits are mentioned below:
SwimSuits and Profits……by John Leonard
As Randy would say on American Idol….”ok, so, dog…..here’s how it was for me…”
Posted 5/26/10
I’ve now heard from several representatives of the swimsuit manufacturers objecting to my use of the term “greed” and implying excessive profits. Ok, so maybe there are some harsh words there….apologies to those who need them. Here’s some more thoughts:
1. FINA has to stop asking for “input” from the commercial side of our sport. The “Commercial side” does not and SHOULD NOT make the rules. The Federations and the athletes and coaches they represent make the rules, like they did last July. Was this somehow not clear last July? What part of 168-4 did you not understand? (the vote to change the suit rules). IF a member of the Bureau has investments in swimwear companies, they might not LIKE that result, but it was a vote. Democracies run by votes.
2. Swimsuit companies need to be concerned with better governance from FINA. Tell FINA not to ask them for rules, but TELL the companies the rules under which they will produce suits and learn to make a profit. The companies are in business to make a profit and should only be limited by the rules….which are made by the Federations. We clearly need the help of the industry to persuade FINA to “get it right”. Don’t be lured to do the “wrong thing” just because FINA will let you. You know how this should run, and most of you who communicated with me, admitted it.
3. Any sustainable business model includes the business being concerned with the long term viability of the marketplace. We know that $600-$900 swimsuits will gradually kill the base of the sport. Then we become the size of gymnastics and shrinking every year. (there is a fable about killing the golden goose, etc.). “Profit” is not the problem. Short Term Profit, at the expense of long term growth of the sport, is a HUGE problem. The swimsuit companies need to be concerned with keeping the sport affordable to masses and keep growing those masses into a bigger marketplace…and NOT be worried about dragging every last dollar out of the existing market to pay for expensive suits.
4. IF the swimsuit companies want to be partners with the swimming world, then focus on long term growth and sustainable profits. NOT on capitalizing on FINA’s apparent lack of understanding of where rules must come from. Make as much profit as you can, as long as you leave the woodpile higher than you found it…by helping us GROW the sport and your marketplace.
“other than that, it was a little pitchy, dude”.
JL
www.swimmingcoach.org/.../gradrule2.gif
SwimSuits……..AGAIN…..
By John Leonard
Posted 5/24/10
Reports this weekend from the FINA Swimsuit Manufacturers meeting in Switzerland, indicate that a unanimous vote of the suit manufacturers recommends a return to a suit for men that cover the upper body and extends to the knee in the 2013-2017 quadrennium.
Luckily, their vote counts for very little. This action will require a recommendation from a member federation (or the FINA Bureau) for such a move, and a vote of the FINA Congress to overturn the existing rule voted into place near unanimously in July of 2009 in Rome.
Undoubtedly, they can find a stooge Federation to make such a recommendation since several Federations are dependent for their funding on swimsuit manufacturers.
So between now and the FINA Congress meeting in 2011 at the World Championships, its back to “game on” in political circles.
Do we want to continue the present rule or do we want to cover the male upper body? And return to more expensive swimsuits for men?
Or are we going to be treated to the “argument” that men should be wearing the same Swimsuit as the women? That’s a bit of nonsense we’ve heard before.
So the “News” is that the swimsuit industry once again wants to make more money.
JL
I do like coverage at meets and am at least happy the girls get to wear a knee to shoulder suit with the new rules.
Wish our guys could as well - its only fair.
This is the one thing that I do hate about the new rules. I would have liked for guys to have the option of farmer johns or even legskins.
Hey Rob on the Morning Swim Show:
Here's my opinion (as quoted from the results of a poll in another thread): :2cents:
"NO,NO,NO,I can't believe this idea won't die,kill it now". .......... 26 44.07%
D2
Also the argument that tech suits encourage elite swimmers (Jones, Gangloff, etc.) to attend USMS Nationals. OK, I'll buy the argument that it did this time, but will this trend continue? It's sort of a novelty this year since the suits were banned for everyone recently. Not only that, but do we really need to change the rules so a handful of Olympians might show up at Nationals? I love seeing these guys/gals at Nationals as much as the next person, but I don't think we should be changing rules to encourage this.
Exactly what I was thinking. USMS is for the average joe and josephine. If they are thinking about bringing the suits back just to attract more elite, I say no thanks. I enjoyed watching Cullen and Nick this weekend but if they ONLY came because of the suit, again, no thanks USMS. I want people there because they want to swim, not because they want to have it sucked in. Don't change the rule just to attract the elite by going over the less-than-elite that have been here for years.
Very good observation. I asked the same question a couple months ago. The answer: FINA is most likely going to 10 lanes in the 2012 Olympics and as such Omaha is planning on going with a 10 lane course for 2012 Trials. Which means there will be 20 blocks (10 from each end since the 50 starts at the far end).
FINA has used 10 lane pools since the Seoul Games in 1988. If you look at all the olympics since then, plus the World Championships, they have all used 10 lanes.
The U.S trials went to 10 lanes at the 2004 trials. 10 lanes isn't anything new for the Olympics.
As for coverage, I don't mind jammers for meets. But I liked the coverage just to avoid having to shave down. Yes, I know the hair will stick through suits, but the drag is reduced considerably.
As someone who is somewhat hairy, though not as hairy as bearskin rug(mark gill) I like not having to waste time shaving. 20 mins to put on a suit vs. several hours trimming and then shaving? I will take the pain of a suit anyday
Yes, this seems like a legitimate gripe. My $0.02:
Bad Reasons
-- To lure elite swimmers to meets (see above).
-- Coverage for modest people. If this is truly an issue, I am perfectly okay with modifying the rules to allow men to swim in t-shirts and women to wear knee-high socks. I wonder how many people would really do this.
Good Reason
Allow tech suits in SCY to increase participation in and enjoyment of masters swimming. This covers a lot of ground, including shaving, modesty, and those who like their speed artificially enhanced.
I am perfectly willing to put aside my personal dislike of the suits and seriously consider voting in their favor if I am convinced -- by hard data, not anecdotal stories -- that their use would increase participation/enjoyment. I would also have to be convinced that this doesn't put us back on a slippery slope of advocating for their use in SCM and LCM, and that those who depend on USA-S meets for their times won't be too disadvantaged. (I JUST NOW entered a dual-sanction meet into the Meet Results Database; I know that such swimmers exist.)
As far as the logistics of supplying such suits: I wonder how much modification, if any, would be needed for current FINA-legal women's suits to be suitable for men. I don't believe Rob mentioned exactly what type of tech suits would be under consideration; I have my doubts that we'd go back to the impermeable days, and I think that "equal coverage" using current FINA-legal materials is the most likely thing to be passed (if anything does).
And it implies that the USMS brand is too weak to attract these swimmers without the suits.
USMS recently passed a rule that the suits would not be legal past May 31. If in Sept they pass another rule saying they are now legal, how is that not flip-flopping?
If "coverage" is such a big issue than either the SCM and LCM seasons will be marginalized even more than ever -- b/c swimmers don't want to give up their crutches (I mean suits) -- or there will soon be a push to allow the suits in meters.
I agree that FINA doesn't care about SCY, but USMS seems to care about FINA rules enough to follow them in SCY.
I suppose I also just don't like the idea that this reasoning is based largely on the idea that old fart masters swimmers have such awful bodies that they need to be covered.
I think coverage is the real issue. Attracting Olympians is nice, to be sure, but I agree that should hardly be the sole incentive for changing masters rules since masters is for us all.
Well, I think it's a flip, not a flip flop. :D Everyone is entitled to one "motion for reconsideration." I think FINA issued a lot more contradictory rules -- total ban, partial ban w/specific criteria after "study," every suit in the known universe allowed, every single real tech suit and bodysuit (even those legal under the partial ban and legal since 2000) banned. So far, tech suits have still been legal in USMS. And, as SwimsWithAFist notes, there are other rules where USMS diverges from FINA. So USMS cares about FINA, but not slavishly so apparently. I find it encouraging that our ED is not slavish and can think independently about marketing USMS. Go Rob!
If coverage is such a big issue that SCM & LCM will truly be marginalized, then that argument suggest the suits are truly popular. To the extent that is relevant, that weighs in favor permitting them in SCY. In any event, SCY has always been the most popular course in the US and there has traditionally been fewer competitors in the other courses. I'm not sure whether that's because everyone likes SCY or because the vast majority of meets are in SCY.
I don't much like the idea that we have "awful" bodies either. But, let's face it, most of us don't look much like Cullen Jones or other 20 somethings.
Chris, I thought you were against equal coverage? Seems like a one way advantage to the guys to me. I still think bodysuits and zippers should be allowed with or without "rubber."
