Swim myth #3....busted.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:55:29 GMT

Unfortunately, the fly and *** strokes obey the laws of inertia even we wish it were not so! They are just less efficient than freestyle. I keep thinking that in freestyle there should be less drag in a side position than in a front position when you're on the surface of the water. Sufficiently far from a boundary, orientation of your body relative to gravity should not have any influence. If you're on the surface, you'll interact with the boundary and create a wake. The energy in the surface waves making up the wake has to come from somewhere, so it must come from your efforts at locomotion being wasted. I'd maintain that you'll interact less with the surface on your side. I'd agree completely that it is not the biggest reason to rotate. Having your body oriented on its side should reduce drag, at least it feels that way for me. But you can't swim completely on your side, you've got to pull, and the way to put the most propulsion to the water is to rotate your body from one side to the other as you're pulling your hand by your hip, as you described so well. In this case, bio-mechanics trump fluid mechanics. You are right in that BS and Fly do obey the laws of inertia. Unfortunately, they do not take advantage of those laws, and are therefore, subject to them and consequently, very inefficient strokes. I did not communicate my thoughts appropriately. Gary

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Elaine Krugman — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:04:32 GMT

Pay no attention to Paul it matters of BR.Paul is a great guy,but he has this irrational view of the most beautiful stroke. You tell 'em, Allen! :cheerleader: Besides, I was never a gymnast OR a diver. I was a natural breaststroker from the start. :applaud:

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Allen Stark — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 03:21:52 GMT

Gary, sorry to only agree with you on 50% of this statement...I would personally change it to "fly is the beautiful stroke and all of you ugly, inefficient breaststrokers need to go back to gymnastics or diving" Pay no attention to Paul it matters of BR.Paul is a great guy,but he has this irrational view of the most beautiful stroke.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:29:40 GMT

I keep thinking that in freestyle there should be less drag in a side position than in a front position when you're on the surface of the water. Hmmmm not sure.... But I'd like to let you explain me how? Why would the human body floats better (thus requiring more volume of body to be out in the air) on his side than flat belly? Counsilman found it long ago that passive drag was greater when swimmers were towed on their side than when in prone position. That was very long ago, but the test didn't involve swimming technique. Just a human body being towed. And it kind of makes sense too. Can't explain my thoughts, way too challenging for my limited English. Bah lets try... Considering the body as a vessel. Fairly flat one (more wide than thick). Considering that being in prone position is horizontal. But if you don't catch immediately, that just won't happen. Hard to imagine why this vessel would float better in a vertical position compared to horizontal. Although you may be right and Councilman wrong, hence why I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. One thing though that this study did not account for. If some of the energy used in pulling is used to lift yourself during the process of rotating from left to right, then it's possible that this would end up exposing less body volume in the water. But on the other hand, drag probably gets created during this process as well so let's assume it cancels off. Otherwise it could go one way or the other. In other words, there's a possibility that the net effect of body rotation be to create more drag than saving some. I totally agree with your position on inertia being involved in BS and Fly. In fact, I wrote a full reply but then read yours, so I held on.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:48:11 GMT

Very interesting thanks a lot.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

fritznh — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:33:15 GMT

Hmmmm not sure.... But I'd like to let you explain me how? Why would the human body floats better (thus requiring more volume of body to be out in the air) on his side than flat belly? Counsilman found it long ago that passive drag was greater when swimmers were towed on their side than when in prone position. That was very long ago, but the test didn't involve swimming technique. Just a human body being towed. And it kind of makes sense too. Can't explain my thoughts, way too challenging for my limited English. Bah lets try... Considering the body as a vessel. Fairly flat one (more wide than thick). Considering that being in prone position is horizontal. But if you don't catch immediately, that just won't happen. Hard to imagine why this vessel would float better in a vertical position compared to horizontal. Although you may be right and Councilman wrong, hence why I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. One thing though that this study did not account for. If some of the energy used in pulling is used to lift yourself during the process of rotating from left to right, then it's possible that this would end up exposing less body volume in the water. But on the other hand, drag probably gets created during this process as well so let's assume it cancels off. Otherwise it could go one way or the other. In other words, there's a possibility that the net effect of body rotation be to create more drag than saving some. I totally agree with your position on inertia being involved in BS and Fly. In fact, I wrote a full reply but then read yours, so I held on. I was basing my conjecture on wake drag and interaction with the surface. I've been trying to figure out how to kick the fastest off the turn (for me, anyway) and I've tried different orientations, but my times to 10 meters don't seem to vary if I kick on my front, side or back as long as I'm deep enough. Kicking on the surface is slower for me no matter what orientation I use, so as long as I'm deep enough (about 3/4 meter to 1 meter) I can carry speed off my turn and get out. With depth, you don't create surface waves. If you're on the surface you will, no matter what, it is just a matter of how much. Drag from the surface waves may be small compared to form drag from the water you need to push out of the way to move through. I think the skin friction is minimal, most of the drag is form drag and wake drag. But this is a complex problem, not clean like a ship being pushed through the water. You're not driven by a propeller from the back (though some people have tremendous kicking power and it seems that they just motor away when you swim against them), and so it is not just drag reduction that lets you go faster. Rotation is key to getting your arms around and into a position that provides the best propulsion. If you can minimize the drag at the same time, so much the better. OK, so I waffled -- let me continue do do so: If you're just being dragged through the water in a streamlined position on the surface, the form drag will be less when you're on your front, but the wake drag will be higher. On your side, the form drag and skin friction will be slightly higher (because there is more of you in the water), but the wake drag will be lower because there is less of you on the surface. Because the form drag is the biggest, the overall drag will be less when you're passive and on your front. When you're actually trying to propel yourself and kicking, the wake drag goes up and becomes more important. So I'd think that for a swimmer actively propelling themselves, the drag would be less on the side. It would depend on the type of propulsion, dolphin kick produces a lot of waves, flutter kick no so much. So I'd maintain dolphin kick would be faster on your side or underwater, flutter kick might not matter. That seems consistent with what I've tried in my own practice. For freestyle, I can't get anywhere in terms of dps without rotating. The drag in this case is of secondary importance, without rotation I can't get any power to the water.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Paul Smith — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:34:43 GMT

Therefore, fly and *** do not obey the laws of inertia. The are simply not efficient strokes. Gary Sr. Gary, sorry to only agree with you on 50% of this statement...I would personally change it to "fly is the beautiful stroke and all of you ugly, inefficient breaststrokers need to go back to gymnastics or diving"

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:01:22 GMT

I know the statement is hyperbole,but you can't have "total disregard for the importance of inertia" in BR.Given the high drag points in BR it is if anything more important to minimize all extraneous drag.To that end the"great big thighs"should not come forward until after the recovery at the catch and then only as much as necessary to maximize leg thrust(not 90 degrees like in the old flat BR).Until then the feet should recover by bending the knees only. This has everything to do with drag, but unfortunately, with the mechanics of fly and breaststroke, one cannot prevent the extreme changes in velocity. Even Kitojima comes to almost a complete stop with each kick when his thighs move forward, regardless of how short of time they are there. Therefore, fly and *** do not obey the laws of inertia. The are simply not efficient strokes. Gary Sr.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

fritznh — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:28:38 GMT

This has everything to do with drag, but unfortunately, with the mechanics of fly and breaststroke, one cannot prevent the extreme changes in velocity. Even Kitojima comes to almost a complete stop with each kick when his thighs move forward, regardless of how short of time they are there. Therefore, fly and *** do not obey the laws of inertia. The are simply not efficient strokes. Gary Sr. Unfortunately, the fly and *** strokes obey the laws of inertia even we wish it were not so! They are just less efficient than freestyle. I keep thinking that in freestyle there should be less drag in a side position than in a front position when you're on the surface of the water. Sufficiently far from a boundary, orientation of your body relative to gravity should not have any influence. If you're on the surface, you'll interact with the boundary and create a wake. The energy in the surface waves making up the wake has to come from somewhere, so it must come from your efforts at locomotion being wasted. I'd maintain that you'll interact less with the surface on your side. I'd agree completely that it is not the biggest reason to rotate. Having your body oriented on its side should reduce drag, at least it feels that way for me. But you can't swim completely on your side, you've got to pull, and the way to put the most propulsion to the water is to rotate your body from one side to the other as you're pulling your hand by your hip, as you described so well. In this case, bio-mechanics trump fluid mechanics.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:21:01 GMT

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:33:25 GMT

Please don't tell me this is not a myth. Certainly is. So if body rotation is not about drag reduction, why do we do it? Two reasons. The first is to gain more power. By rotating, we put our arm into a mechanically better position of strength, engaging much bigger muscles in our back and core to help with the pulling. Sorry to be on your tail, I do respect your experience and position in the world of swimming. But that's a great opportunity to better illustrate my thoughts related to your first myth busting post. Yes indeed body rotation adds some pulling power. The analogy I often use, it's like cranking a reluctant gas fueled lawn mower. You'd do it twisting your torso to add more power to the motion. **Upward** body rotation adds some power, thus allowing higher peaks velocity to take place. But given that you don't extend the hand entry/catch phase, your hand will already be near the end of FQ when that occurs. Or well, a more general and inclusive statement would be: You want your hand to be where it's safe for you to apply massive load of torque when the body rotates upward. For me, given my fragile shoulders, I need to time my arm cycle in a way that I am already near the end of Front-Quadrant when that occurs (upper body rotation). That explains why I feel that I get my peak pulling propulsion only then, not before. Not while the body rotates downward in other words.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:10:50 GMT

This got me thinking of something that's a bit of a digression.... I've heard some people say taht butterfly (also, the style with the front quadrant focus) is actually the fastest stroke around. I wonder if anyone has tried doing butterfly with a flipturn, vs. a freestyle flipturn race... on a 100Y or 100m or maybe 200 distance, and how the times compared. To further the digression...There was a relay meet in college we used to attend that the stroke relays allowed flipturns at every wall (300 butterfly relay, 300 br relay, 400IM relay etc). I don't particularily remember it being much faster, but it was also a very early meet in the season, so it's hard to compare given the yardage we were doing at the time. Back to topic though, it's hard to say this myth is totally busted if we should still be doing what it says to do, just for other reasons. More of an asterisk to the original or clarification?

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:55:46 GMT

Correct. Fly generates the fastest speed (momentarily) of all strokes (well over 3 m/sec in world class swimmers)....but also shares with breaststroke the dubious honor of having 70 to 80% or higher reduction of speed during the same stroke cycle, by virtue of having both arms creating frontal drag at the same time. In breaststroke, you can thank those great big thighs coming forward that nearly brings each breaststroker to a halt with each stroke cycle. Fly and breaststroke are both inefficient, 'stop-and-go' strokes, with a total disregard for the importance of inertia. Gary Ah, so that could be why my one armed fly drill, with alternating arms is faster then my actual fly. No "stop" part in the cycle to, well, stop me, and I don't poop out as quickly.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:23:26 GMT

Gary - I love your threads. I've read them all on other boards. The more I learn about swimming the more I relate to all of your advice. I must say that for me what sticks out about #3 is how strong kickers get the advantage of being able to rotate more/reach more and get the longer dps. My coach is having me try to increase my dps but I haven't yet developed the kick to properly be able to do this. It is coming along though. Anyways... love the posts. Thanks!

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:00:10 GMT

It would be nice to have some quantitative comparison of the two reasons Gary gives, to get some objective measure of their relative importance. I don't know if it is possible. Something to pull against, fine. A "stabilizing force" like a gyroscope (conservation of angular momentum)...I am less sure of. I don't know if we rotate fast enough for that to be a big effect. And honestly I don't care if it is a factor or not, just like about the whole drag reduction thing...there are enough reasons to rotate anyway. Though if more/faster rotation would help backstrokers to swim in a straight line in an outdoor pool...that would be nice... :) I give credit to Dr. Jan Prins at the U of Hawaii for enlightening me about the use of core rotation (and kick as well) to create a stabilizing force for the pull. He uses an example of a baseball pitcher who can throw a fastball at 90 mph when on a pitching mound and with a strong leg pushing against the rubber. Put the same pitcher in the deep end of the swimming pool and even with all of the body rotation and strength he can muster, his ball speed drops to 45 mph. Why? No stabilizing force (pitching mound) to push off of (ok..gravity helped some, too). The point is that we create our own pitching mound (stabilizing force) through the motion (or counter motion) of our own body, enabling us to generate more power with each arm pull. We call this the connection. Gary

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:53:14 GMT

I believe it indeed is. Fly probably creates greater peak in velocity but it also creates greater drag on hand entry. All in all, it comes slightly short compare to free on a short distance, and probably can't compare to it on longer distances (e.g. 800/1500 etc). Mysterious the Fly. Correct. Fly generates the fastest speed (momentarily) of all strokes (well over 3 m/sec in world class swimmers)....but also shares with breaststroke the dubious honor of having 70 to 80% or higher reduction of speed during the same stroke cycle, by virtue of having both arms creating frontal drag at the same time. In breaststroke, you can thank those great big thighs coming forward that nearly brings each breaststroker to a halt with each stroke cycle. Fly and breaststroke are both inefficient, 'stop-and-go' strokes, with a total disregard for the importance of inertia. Gary

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:51:35 GMT

It's possible that the peak speed in the stroke cycle is higher in fly... I believe it indeed is. Fly probably creates greater peak in velocity but it also creates greater drag on hand entry. All in all, it comes slightly short compare to free on a short distance, and probably can't compare to it on longer distances (e.g. 800/1500 etc). Mysterious the Fly.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Allen Stark — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:18:09 GMT

Correct. Fly generates the fastest speed (momentarily) of all strokes (well over 3 m/sec in world class swimmers)....but also shares with breaststroke the dubious honor of having 70 to 80% or higher reduction of speed during the same stroke cycle, by virtue of having both arms creating frontal drag at the same time. In breaststroke, you can thank those great big thighs coming forward that nearly brings each breaststroker to a halt with each stroke cycle. Fly and breaststroke are both inefficient, 'stop-and-go' strokes, with a total disregard for the importance of inertia. Gary I know the statement is hyperbole,but you can't have "total disregard for the importance of inertia" in BR.Given the high drag points in BR it is if anything more important to minimize all extraneous drag.To that end the"great big thighs"should not come forward until after the recovery at the catch and then only as much as necessary to maximize leg thrust(not 90 degrees like in the old flat BR).Until then the feet should recover by bending the knees only.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:23:21 GMT

This argument is pretty easy to debunk by looking at the world records in the LC 50 free versus the 50 fly. No turns, so that's not a factor. The only difference is the two hand touch requirement in fly, which will certainly give a slight disadvantage, but only by a small fraction of a second. The current world records for men are 20.94 in free and 22.43 in fly. For women the records are 23.73 and 25.07. It's possible that the peak speed in the stroke cycle is higher in fly...

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:32:04 GMT

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:08:18 GMT

I've certainly talked to far fewer coaches than Gary, but mostly I hear this statement as an aside or beneficial side-effect to rotation, rather than the primary reason to rotate. From the post it sounds like Gary might be positing that there is no reduction in drag from rotating, though. I don't know if it is true or not but I don't much care, either, since it isn't the main reason to rotate. The first reason is a no-brainer, but I don't hear the 2nd reason given very often (or, if I do, not in this fashion). Clearly as the body rotates one way and then the other, there is a change in angular momentum; it sounds a little like Gary is saying that during this time, some of this rotation (angular momentum) essentially gets translated into forward motion (linear momentum). Physics-types, help me out: does that sound right/reasonable? I guess I don't see why not...it happens every time I use a screwdriver... As far as the rotation giving "something to pull against"...it is hard here, sitting at a desk rather than in the water, to recreate exactly what happens, but I wonder if the rotation is initiated/changed by the pull as much as the core/legs. Maybe it might just as well "something to kick against?" It is all connected at that point, as Gary says...just thinking out loud... For me, the second reason is also a no-brainer. And btw, I don't think I have ever read such a nice explanation as that provided by Gary. Stabilizing force, something to pull against. I believe in this very hard in fact. That's because I clearly feel it. Maglischo doesn't though. And quite clearly. Do you remembers in your early days having played doing this in the water? YouTube- Demonstrating Body Rotation (please turn off the volume, sorry about that) On this clip, I aimed at the cleanest possible rotation, I didn't have time to practice before etc... I can assure you that I can accelerate body rotation without the arms without the legs up to speed that probably excess 2 rotation per second (120 per minute), and I am sure you can do it too. I used to do this stuff a lot when I was young. Body rotation remains the same no matter the kicking pattern. Body rotation remains the same even during pull band sets. For me, it's the center of the stroke, just like dolphin undulation is at the core of the fly stroke. What is making all this theoretically possible is that we don't rotate along a perfectly straight frontal axis. This axis is somehow disrupted by lateral torsion. I couldn't be spinning without the arms without the legs at 120 spins per minute without breaking this perfectly straight axis. That's why it works in my opinion.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

knelson — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:37:08 GMT

This got me thinking of something that's a bit of a digression.... I've heard some people say taht butterfly (also, the style with the front quadrant focus) is actually the fastest stroke around. This argument is pretty easy to debunk by looking at the world records in the LC 50 free versus the 50 fly. No turns, so that's not a factor. The only difference is the two hand touch requirement in fly, which will certainly give a slight disadvantage, but only by a small fraction of a second. The current world records for men are 20.94 in free and 22.43 in fly. For women the records are 23.73 and 25.07.

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Chris Stevenson — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:27:18 GMT

For me, the second reason is also a no-brainer. And btw, I don't think I have ever read such a nice explanation as that provided by Gary. Stabilizing force, something to pull against. I believe in this very hard in fact. That's because I clearly feel it. Maglischo doesn't though. And quite clearly. It would be nice to have some quantitative comparison of the two reasons Gary gives, to get some objective measure of their relative importance. I don't know if it is possible. Something to pull against, fine. A "stabilizing force" like a gyroscope (conservation of angular momentum)...I am less sure of. I don't know if we rotate fast enough for that to be a big effect. And honestly I don't care if it is a factor or not, just like about the whole drag reduction thing...there are enough reasons to rotate anyway. Though if more/faster rotation would help backstrokers to swim in a straight line in an outdoor pool...that would be nice... :)

RE: Swim myth #3....busted.

Former Member — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:28:47 GMT

i think this is a case of semantics. the position one's body is in when rotated and extended is certainly streamlined, perhaps not as much as an "off the wall" streamline, but the latter position is static and the former dynamic.