With all due respect to Ande, who tried to get me to buy a tech suit at Nationals (Ande, thanks for the compliment when you guessed my size, but I would wear a 36 in a tech suit, not a 26.), I respectfully submit my top ten reasons for hating tech suits:
1. $$$ Too expensive. I feel my money was better spent at The Athlete Village, having a video analysis done of my breaststroke. Implementing the tips I picked up from the online coach will help me to swim faster faster than a tech suit.
2. Struggle to put on. In the time it took a couple of gals in the locker room at Nationals to get their suit half-way on, I was out of my street clothes, into my Speedo Endurance suit, and had my bag unpacked and into the locker. And, I had expended a lot less energy than they did. I would rather spend my energy in the pool… :D
3. Too fragile. See Allen Stark’s post about his tech suit blowout- right before his event. I would be steaming big time if I had spent a heap of $ on a tech suit, then have it rip on me. :bitching:
Speaking of steaming…
4. The heat factor. I have heat intolerance medical issues (I love the heat mentally; my body hates it in a serious way), so being encased in a tech suit would exasperate the situation and possibly negate any gain I had made wearing the suit anyway. I was in Sunday’s last event (200 breaststroke) and was wasted by that point, after spending three days in the heat and humidity. :badday:
5. I want an apples-to-apples comparison of my times. I (barely) beat my seed times in two of my events and dropped my time about 2 seconds in another. If I had worn a tech suit and improved my times even more, would that have been a fair comparison- or would it have been the suit? I think a tech suit would have provided a false sense of success and an inaccurate indication as to my level of improvement since my previous meet. Then, post-tech suit, if my times got worse how would I feel then? I wonder how many of the swimmers will feel when they see (possibly) seconds being added back on to their times, post-tech suit? A false sense of success followed by huge disappointment is going to play on many minds, I’m sure. :confused:
6. Wearing a tech suit only exposes the arms and feet. I like to FEEL of the water with more than that. :agree:
7. Claustrophobic; too confining. I love summer, because I get to live in shorts and t-shirts. The less on me the better; it's more comfortable. :)
8. My current ranking #130 of 266 in the 50 breaststroke doesn’t put me in a position to be winning any medals or awards. Where would a tech suit put me in the rankings? #125? #120?? Even #100? Big deal! :rolleyes:
9. Personally, modesty isn’t an issue. At 48, I’m comfortable in my 5’71/2, 123lb. frame. And, I was comfortable in my not-as-fit 150lb pound frame, when I spent six months in Australia, back in 1984, where I spent some of the time relaxing on their nude beaches. Why? Because Aussies are comfortable in their skin and not hung up on their bodies like Americans are. Nude and topless beaches are common in Australia and you will see bodies of all shapes and sizes there. And, nobody cares. :)
Speaking of bodies…
10. Visualize Mark Spitz…1972 Olympics… in a Speedo… :D I was only 10 years old, but, believe me, my eyes were GLUED to the TV- and not necessarily only while he was swimming. Need I say more? Not all Masters swimmers look as good as Mark Spitz in a Speedo, but I saw PLENTY of AARP eligible swimmers out of their tech suits at Nationals that had absolutely stunning bodies- male and female! And, for those who weren’t? So what???
That concludes my :2cents: on the subject!
He also swam without goggles and with facial hair. I don't know how that point goes for or against tech suits, I just want to throw that out there, because it amazes me and makes my eyes burn each time I think about it.
I'll just stick with mimicking the facial hair part. I'd prefer to keep both my tech suit and my goggles. People that don't want them, shouldn't wear 'em. Pretty simple if you ask me.
:cool:
If you want to talk low-tech and low cost, running is one sport where nearly everyone can get by on very little. Even pricey running shoes may be $150-200, but they'll last 3-4 months, and most people pay far less.
Doesn't seem that cheap to me. I doubt many people typically buy/bought more than one tech suit per year. If a runner buys a pair of $100 shoes four times per year that's $400. Pretty much the same as a tech suit.
Leslie--how much did your husband spend on his running gear for his Boston-qualifying marathon? If you want to talk low-tech and low cost, running is one sport where nearly everyone can get by on very little. Even pricey running shoes may be $150-200, but they'll last 3-4 months, and most people pay far less.Tim, I agree that running can be cheap, but, for people who are competing in running races with the same frequency and intensity that some of the forumites (like me, Fort, Chris, etc.) compete in swimming meets, running is likely more expensive. While you are right that running shoes can last 3 to 4 months, my swimming training gear lasts me years. I've got 4 or 5 training suits that I've had for 3+ years, 3 or 4 pairs of goggles the same age and a speed cap for racing that never seems to wear. Outside of buying a tech suit, I pretty much just have meet fees (which are always less than road race fees for 10Ks/half marathons) and travel fees. Since I almost always combine travel meets with either a trip with my wife, work or to see my parents, I find swimming to be an incredible value for money. I know from Quicken that I spend less per year on swimming than my wife does on training for half marathons.
For me and many people I know, this is a dealbreaker. Next year's SCY nationals are local. Most of us never travel for a swim meet, other than occasionally to Tucson or flagstaff. The thought of a $75 entry fee is daunting enough, but then paying hundreds of dollars on top of that for something to be used once simply puts this out of reach. If USMS wants to eliminate the slower local swimmers who would only swim a nationals every 7-10 years, letting tech suits in is the way to go. While it isn't mandatory, none of us wants to be the 2% who stick out.
Leslie--how much did your husband spend on his running gear for his Boston-qualifying marathon? If you want to talk low-tech and low cost, running is one sport where nearly everyone can get by on very little. Even pricey running shoes may be $150-200, but they'll last 3-4 months, and most people pay far less.
Hmm ... you did just go to Europe, no? It's all a matter of priorities.
Mr. Fort* probably didn't spend to much on his running gear, but he is trying to figure out how many 1000s to spend on a bike for our triathlon relays this fall. And traveling to Boston for the weekend will likely be quite expensive.
I gotta agree with the hairy Wook. I don't find it persuasive -- at all -- when people who don't compete and choose not to compete, diss the suits. Plenty of masters swimmers just train, and good for them! But don't tell those that do compete what to wear if you're always on the sidelines by choice. I wouldn't like tech suits to be a barrier to entry at meets, but I don't believe they really are. You don't have to shell out $500, and the cost argument has largely been shot down (e.g., women will pay just as much under the non-tech suit regime). If you only swim a meet every 7-10 years, do you really care that much about what you wear? And do you think others, including regular competitors, should adjust their attire to your comfort level? Uh, no.
Elaine, I don't recall making that statement. I am certainly fond of my tech suits, as I've competed exclusively in body suits in every single meet for 5+ years. But do you notice how the anti-tech contingent always uses pejorative words (such as addiction, cheating, lack of "purity") to describe the pro-techies? Indeed, Muppet just lambasted tech suit wearers as unhealthy "fatties." Honestly, most people at Nats looked fit and, I suspect, train hard. I know very few people who strap on a tech suit to compensate for lack of training.
No, not purist; just PRACTICAL, for me. Leslie, I know you're addicted to your tech suit and that's cool with me. You're a Top 10 swimmer so you have valid reasons for wanting to be as competitive as possible; especially if your competition is wearing a tech suit. If I had been in a tech suit it would have started a wave of :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: throughout the Aquatic Center! :blush:
You go girl! :cheerleader:
P.S. Sorry if my "drivel" offended you. :)
We have been through this many times and that is what makes it so fun discussing it. Fort and Geek will react negatively to any anti-suit posts due to the many arguments over tech suits when the discussions seemed more relevant. I am in your camp (one of the few on these boards). I don't really care if others wear the suits. Wear tech suits if it makes sense to you and they are definitely not for everyone for a variety of reasons that you pointed out. However, it is best to keep your decisions and reasoning to yourself though because the pro-techies feel like it is their duty to convert you. You can still enjoy swimming and even excel in masters swimming competitions without the suits (as Chris evidently did at Nationals in the 50 back).
I am not sure how USMS will reconcile limited and diminishing availability with extending tech suit use in any case.
Have fun swimming,
Tim
How about we all agree to stop talking about it AGAIN, until we even hear if USMS will change the policy?
That's in September I believe. :D
How is the decision made? Who makes it? When and where? Are these people not allowed to view discussions on the forums on which to base their decisions?
In my 13 years of USMS membership, I've received the occasional ballot for state officers, but I've never received a ballot for proposition initiatives In AZ I get ballot propositions several times a year.
I know very few people who strap on a tech suit to compensate for lack of training.
I concur, in fact, the people I know who have the suits are probably the hardest training swimmers I know, even those damn sprinters.
I just spent a whole lotta cash on Atlanta (and I was able to drive), so someone whining about spending $75 on it in their home town goes over with me like a pregnant polevaulter.
the pro-techies feel like it is their duty to convert you.
Nah. I had several friends at Nats who chose not to wear tech suits -- Chris, Speedo, SwimStud, SwimmieAvsFan, SwimShark. I've never tried to "convert" them. I think techies are more frequently in a defensive posture (even when the suits were perfectly legal) than a conversion posture.
I don't think it is fair to say that my voice doesn't count in a decision when I'm an equal dues-paying member like anyone else. Take away those who don't or rarely compete, and you lost 80% of USMS membership, and their dues.
Wookeroni,
Man, you told him!
He doesn't represent those in USMS that feel like you.
Good job.
P.S. You forgot the asterisk for Bill* and Leslie*.
P.P.S. I have almost finished the next chapter of our book where you and your BFF Bill* come down from a very cold night on Cowboy Mountain. Guess what, your heading to Central California.
P.P.P.S. You still owe me money for the time machine helmet. I have faith that your good for it. You're not a cheap whiner.
Your Pal
I don't think it is fair to say that my voice doesn't count in a decision when I'm an equal dues-paying member like anyone else. Take away those who don't or rarely compete, and you lost 80% of USMS membership, and their dues.
But why do you want to vote on what people can wear at a competition when you don't compete? It should be irrelevant to you.
