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!
Elaine wasn't trying to take your suits away and has no power to do so, so why are you being so hostile to her? Maybe the pro-techies have a false sense of moral superiority as well. Why would a pro-techie be in a defensive posture? The rules allow them at least for one more weekend.
Thanks for your support, Tim. I do feel like there are a few posts on this thread that have been unfairly harsh- and hostile. :confused: Can't we all just get along??? :D
he was talking about the people who have had little to no incentive to lose that last bit of weight, because it was easier to stuff it into a suit, rather than change their lifestyles to lose the weight. i can think of a rather high-profile USMS member who has admitted as much, more than once...
Aww, Mollie, you just had to rat me out in public. That wasn't nice. :afraid:
Thanks for your support, Tim. I do feel like there are a few posts on this thread that have been unfairly harsh- and hostile. :confused: Can't we all just get along??? :D
On this topic, obviously not.
It gets terribly tiring to be told for years on end your perfectly legal suit choice cheapens your results, is exceedingly unpure, damages the sport, or, the worst lately, it gives you a "false sense of success." Not sure which is more harsh, maybe both, maybe none. You stirred the pot.
It gets terribly tiring to be told for years on end your perfectly legal suit choice cheapens your results, is exceedingly unpure, damages the sport, or, the worst lately, it gives you a "false sense of success."
Is this why I need a nap?
Not sure, maybe it's because, like Gull, I trained my ass off for Atlanta?
This would get really boring if we all agreed on everything or even worse, if we were all nice to each other.
I'm not going to be nice to you. Y'all don't like us gluten intolerant folks.
Fortress*,
With all due respect, it seems like you feel that purity of the sport is a bad thing.
A fun way for me to avoid other chores, is to compare times across the decades. Can you honestly say that your times are a faster than a swimmer who didn't wear a tech suit?
I can't. To me it is a shallow victory, and degrades the history (purity) of our sport. Wear what you want just don't claim it.
An asterick would resolve the issue, but you don't like my solution.
What is the definition of 'pure swimming'? Because I'm VERY certain your definition and mine are different. Also, I'm highly certain that competitors in the 1960's would have a different one from yours and mine.
So please don't bring out the 'purity' argument. Purity can only be defined (if it even can be) in the moment of the definition and changes as soon as you define it.
As for degrading the history? Not sure how suits would do that where the introduction of butterfly, goggles, lane lines, better pools, swim caps, submerging your head in breaststroke, rollover backstroke flip turns and the Kitajima rule wouldn't do exactly the same thing.
When talking about competitions, the minority that compete should be given a higher voice than those that don't.
This isn't the way a democracy works. Why should it be true of USMS?
