Conventional and EVF can be one in the same unless a conventional swimming stroke means purposely dropping your elbow. The pulling pattern should never be straight back because the longer and the harder the hand moves backward the greater reduction in drag force (negative drag coefficient). The hand must move (scull slightly) into less turbulent water so peak drag force or pulling power can be maintained. As strong swimmers begin to improve their EVF, sprinters will begin to evolve into more right angled looking strokes like Rebecca Addlington's and less like Alain Bernard's. With everything being equal, a stroke like Bernards, in my opinion, can become faster by getting his forearm/hand vertical earlier. With that being said, Bernard may have anatomical factors (weak shoulder cuff, flexibility issues, EVF strength conversion habit issues) that could prevent that EVF alteration (his coach knows best). My contention is that any swimmer who can, without compromising anatomical health, improve the length of time they can keep their hand/forearm in the vertical position and improve how early they can get their hand / forearm in a vertical position, will drop time. I think conventional (as long as it doesn’t mean purposely dropping your elbow) and EVF are the same and physical limitations and training habits create the variances from swimmer to swimmer. The fastest swimmers in the world may have different looking strokes but the winners keep their hands/forearm in the vertical position earlier and in a vertical position that produces the most power the longest. Getting your hand / forearm in a power position early and keeping it their longer, isn’t all about pulling strength, it’s more importantly about the ability to resist dropping one’s elbow. I started doing an exercise where swimmers kick 50 yards with fins, holding their arms in front of them (breathe to the side or in the front), holding an EVF position. Try it and it will show you the ability to “set-up” your stroke early (conventional or not) is more difficult than you can imagine. The pressure of simply swimming forward requires strong shoulder-cuff stabilizing muscles ( supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis) and the above exercise will show you how weak or strong yours are. I think it’s safe to say, more often than not, swimmers don’t have the necessary shoulder cuff strength that allows them to properly “set-up” their stroke. And, let’s think about it, if you can’t keep your arm in a “set-up” position (conventional or not) for 50 yards, what are the chances of ever developing a better “set-up position until you strengthen and train to improve the muscles responsible for that position. I think isometrics and the use of surgical tubing offers the most effective way to improve shoulder-cuff strength. Email me at tomtomp@netzero.com if you’re interested in more information. Good luck, Coach T.
Parents
Former Member
Exactly what happens when the water is the fulcrum (2nd class lever) and not the load. And why some swimmers are faster than others because they are moving themselves forward and not wasting energy moving water backwards. Reminds me of the textbook that shows a picture of a fisherman rowing a boat and incorrectly calling the oarlocks the fulcrum.
It's not actually possible to use a paddle as a 2nd class lever. The 2nd class lever scenario you are putting forth has the upper hand working as the force, pushing the end of the paddle forward, the lower hand working as the load, therefore pulling the middle of the paddle backward, and the bottom of the paddle acting as the fulcrum. This is actually a 1st class lever with the lower hand acting as the fulcrum. The water won't apply a net force on the paddle unless the paddle is moving through the water, in which case it doesn't meet the definition of a fulcrum as the paddle will be pivoting around the lower hand.
Consider a bar attached to a solid wall with a hinge, you are holding it with one hand at the end, and the other half way, the equivalent to what you are suggesting is that you could push the bar up with the hand at the end of the bar while hanging by the hand in the middle of the bar. This is clearly impossible because the sum of the forces you exert on the bar will always amount to the force of gravity on your mass.
So the text book was in fact correct, the oar locks are the fulcrum, i.e. the fixed point around which the oar will rotate.
Exactly what happens when the water is the fulcrum (2nd class lever) and not the load. And why some swimmers are faster than others because they are moving themselves forward and not wasting energy moving water backwards. Reminds me of the textbook that shows a picture of a fisherman rowing a boat and incorrectly calling the oarlocks the fulcrum.
It's not actually possible to use a paddle as a 2nd class lever. The 2nd class lever scenario you are putting forth has the upper hand working as the force, pushing the end of the paddle forward, the lower hand working as the load, therefore pulling the middle of the paddle backward, and the bottom of the paddle acting as the fulcrum. This is actually a 1st class lever with the lower hand acting as the fulcrum. The water won't apply a net force on the paddle unless the paddle is moving through the water, in which case it doesn't meet the definition of a fulcrum as the paddle will be pivoting around the lower hand.
Consider a bar attached to a solid wall with a hinge, you are holding it with one hand at the end, and the other half way, the equivalent to what you are suggesting is that you could push the bar up with the hand at the end of the bar while hanging by the hand in the middle of the bar. This is clearly impossible because the sum of the forces you exert on the bar will always amount to the force of gravity on your mass.
So the text book was in fact correct, the oar locks are the fulcrum, i.e. the fixed point around which the oar will rotate.
