Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:43:05 GMT

2. Calling someone a troll, when you find their ideas unwelcome, is simply name-calling. No, I just think you're trolling, because you're stirring up argument seemingly out of nowhere on an account that was created days ago and which has posted in no other threads. I was born on a Thursday but it wasn't last Thursday. Your account looks like an alt-troll, and I've seen a few in my time so I know what one looks like. Calling you a troll isn't name calling. (If I wanted to call you a rude name I'd be much, much more inventive than that.) In fact, if I called you a humorless blowhard, it still wouldn't be name-calling, so much as an assessment of your presentation style on this forum. Whether you agree with the arguments presented or not, surely you must agree that the ideas are substantive.I don't. If not, then it should be easy for you to explain how approved bodysuits do not violate FINA's own rules, how underwater rules are not arbitrary and inconsistently applied across the strokes, and how the FINA rules generally are coherent, well-written and easily understood.Unless I don't want to.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:35:08 GMT

1. pwolf writes: "...how about you actually apply your inconsistent yardstick to every stroke" That's exactly what I've done here; read above. The purpose of discussing breaststroke in this context is to observe that it is singled out for underwater protectionism, restrictions not similarly applied to the other strokes. It is unsurprising that the language describing breaststroke is also found to be vague and poorly written. 2. Calling someone a troll, when you find their ideas unwelcome, is simply name-calling. Whether you agree with the arguments presented or not, surely you must agree that the ideas are substantive. If not, then it should be easy for you to explain how approved bodysuits do not violate FINA's own rules, how underwater rules are not arbitrary and inconsistently applied across the strokes, and how the FINA rules generally are coherent, well-written and easily understood. 3. FINA is mismanaging the sport, I agree. What I don't agree with is accepting the unacceptable as a given. Tens of thousands of athletes put in many millions of hours becoming the best swimmers they can possibly be. All FINA has to do is run the sport fairly, consistently, coherently. With a little critical help from the rest of us.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:03:24 GMT

Stuff. 2317

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Allen Stark — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:51:47 GMT

A few days have passed without any plausible explanation offered by anyone for the 'not beyond the hip line' (where exactly is the 'hip line' anyway?) FINA rule for post-pullout breaststroke. The only possible reason is to prevent repeated pullout-style propulsions. Which underscores the point that the underwater rules are inconsistent, as breaststrokers are not given the underwater opportunities the other three strokes are provided. The overarching point about the underwater rules is that they are incoherent, in that one style of swimming (dolphin-kick streamlining) is permitted for an arbitrarily chosen portion of a pool length; after which an entirely different style of swimming is required. It is unlikely that this arbitrary bifurcation of pool lengths into different segments will survive the test of time. Arbitrary rules rarely do. The purpose of asking about the 'hip line' rule for breaststroke is to help people see what an incompetent jumble the FINA rules are. Any well-constructed set of rules has three elements: requirements (that which must occur), prohibitions (that which must not occur), and definitions (precise meanings for the terms used in the requirements and prohibitions). Any fair reading of the FINA rules reveals that terms are floating around undefined, that requirements and prohibitions are often vague and inconsistent, and most important, that core principles (like swimming without aids, and separation of uniform strokes) are ignored. The purpose of this thread has been to demonstrate that the FINA rules are a mess, and to convince USMS members, the literal masters of the sport, to consider the creation of a new set of rules intended to replace the FINA rules. While there is a painful tradition in swimming of national organizations and federations kowtowing to FINA, there have been some notable and productive exceptions. Thanks for listening!:angel: I am not sure about the point you are making and given that FINA is the only true body to sanction WRs we are stuck with them,but they are idiots.(See all the threads about techsuits and about that Caribbean meet they wouldn't sanction and their requirements for their personnel for Worlds etc.)

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:27:44 GMT

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

pwolf66 — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:43:12 GMT

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:48:25 GMT

BTW, no one is denying the skill and conditioning required to perform dolphin-kick streamlining well. On the contrary, it deserves more respect, not less: to date, it is the fastest way ever devised for humans to traverse water under their own power. I believe in the future the marquee events for swim meets will not just be the 50 free splash-and-dashes, but a truly free 50 (or 100) where swimmers travel the distance any-which-way-they-can, like sprints in track and field. We would immediately see sub-20-second 50s, and low-40 100s. Wouldn't winners of those events have a legitimate claim to the "fastest swimmer alive" titles? has somebody dolphin kicked a 50 faster than the freestyle record? seems like the fast guys don't even stay under for the legal 15. YouTube- 50 LCM Freestyle - World Record

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:34:10 GMT

I'm not sure there is a good reason for the 'not beyond the hip line' FINA rule for the breaststroke pull. Regardless of how far back one pulls, the recovery still cannot expose the elbow or upper arm above the water surface, so the rule is not needed to prohibit a butterfly-style recovery. The only reason I can think of for the rule is to avoid repeated pullout strokes: since the head only needs to break the surface with each stroke, it is possible to devise a series of head-skimming pullouts as fast as conventional breaststroke. Why FINA would feel the need to prohibit that possibility, while allowing significant underwater leeway in the other three strokes, still escapes me. BTW, no one is denying the skill and conditioning required to perform dolphin-kick streamlining well. On the contrary, it deserves more respect, not less: to date, it is the fastest way ever devised for humans to traverse water under their own power. I believe in the future the marquee events for swim meets will not just be the 50 free splash-and-dashes, but a truly free 50 (or 100) where swimmers travel the distance any-which-way-they-can, like sprints in track and field. We would immediately see sub-20-second 50s, and low-40 100s. Wouldn't winners of those events have a legitimate claim to the "fastest swimmer alive" titles?

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

pwolf66 — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:57:41 GMT

Could someone please explain why FINA breaststroke rules allow the arms to pull "completely back to the legs" for the pullout stroke, but for all subsequent strokes the following rule applies: " The hands shall not be brought back beyond the hip line, except during the first stroke after the start and each turn." Maybe the reasoning is obvious, but I'm having trouble seeing what aberration this rule is intended to avoid. I suspect that it is to allow the swimmers a method for trying to maintain the initial speed from the dive/pushoff without altering the overall cyclical nature of the stroke.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:59:22 GMT

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:17:54 GMT

I don't know this for a fact, yet I'm inclined to think it was a wizend old sage that made the decision. Her thinking was "Anything to make this silly stroke faster is a good thing".

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:58:48 GMT

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

jim thornton — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:30:42 GMT

Could someone please explain why FINA breaststroke rules allow the arms to pull "completely back to the legs" for the pullout stroke, but for all subsequent strokes the following rule applies: " The hands shall not be brought back beyond the hip line, except during the first stroke after the start and each turn." Maybe the reasoning is obvious, but I'm having trouble seeing what aberration this rule is intended to avoid. Perhaps, now that the head can go underwater, this is to keep people from swimming the whole way underwater, using a series of full pull outs.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:43:57 GMT

Partial quote from Woofus B. Loofus: “Suits for males should not rise above the navel or cover any part of the leg. Suits for females should not cover the arms, neck, or legs…………………Tightness? That's up to you.” Hey Loofus, not only have you solved the debate about suits, but you’ve also come up with a solution to another problem. Since swimming is not getting enough attention in the media (and consequently not brining in enough $$$$ either), having guys swim only in briefs and gals in bikinis would also set a new record ………..in TV viewership!!! :agree: :bouncing: :banana: D2

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Elaine Krugman — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:41:08 GMT

having guys swim only in briefs and gals in bikinis would also set a new record ………..in TV viewership!!! :agree: :bouncing: :banana: D2 Mark Spitz, 1972 Olympics. In briefs. That poster with his gold medals around his neck. 'Nuff said! :bliss:

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:04:46 GMT

Back to FINA FINA rule....SW 7.1 After the start and after each turn, the swimmer may take one arm stroke completely back to the legs during which the swimmer may be submerged. A single butterfly kick is permitted during the first arm stroke, followed by a breaststroke kick. thus, the pull cannot be after the kick I was told the dolphin kick may be at any time during that first pull sequence, as long as it occurs during before the breaststroke kick. Perhaps this is the interpretation of others as well? :afraid: Good thing I don't really swim breaststroke! As far as Woofus and the streamline :bitching: meltdown, it sort of sounds like he is trying to diminish the performances of those who are able to capitalize on all the tools available to them. Not everyone is good at starts, turns, every stroke, or in my case, long course! :agree: In fact, without pullouts in breaststroke, the entire meet would be waiting all day for me to finish an IM. So just remember that strong underwater work takes quite a bit of discipline, breath control, and really kicks off oxygen debt. :bolt:

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:03 GMT

Back to FINA FINA rule....SW 7.1 After the start and after each turn, the swimmer may take one arm stroke completely back to the legs during which the swimmer may be submerged. A single butterfly kick is permitted during the first arm stroke, followed by a breaststroke kick. thus, the pull cannot be after the kick note yet another video akin to the one's I linked to earlier....YouTube- Kosuke Kitajima 100m Breaststroke Under Water Camera (I thought I saw this video link posted here recently, but now cannot find) Note about 58 seconds into the timeline. Poor memory...was this the swimmer for whom the relevant rule was constructed? In any case, sure looks like a butterfly kick BEFORE the arm pull. If so, the rule says DQ, but the rule is interpreted officially as no DQ!

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Rykno — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:03:15 GMT

I believe the rule was modified because of him. if I was the official watching that race I would have DQ'd him because it is obvious with the underwater camera that his feet start to kick before his hands seperate too bad officials don't have underwater vision. depending on the lighting and the distance of the pull out, and lane some swimmers get away with more than others.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

knelson — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:45:56 GMT

In any case, sure looks like a butterfly kick BEFORE the arm pull. It looks to me like he's initiating the pull exactly when he starts the downward butterfly kick, so per the rule it is legal--the kick is during the pull just as the rule states.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Michael Blatt — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:00:44 GMT

:) Clearly, competitive swimming has been going to :censor: in a handbasket since FINA allowed a freestyle turn without a hand touch and eliminated the requirement that women's suits have a skirt. :)

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:29:07 GMT

Underwater racing was an Olympic event, once I believe, in Paris 1900. 60M through a dark, horribly polluted Seine. Probably not a big spectator favorite. The absence of response to the first point of my last post, with the FINA rule quotation, indicates the bodysuit issue is concluded, from an intellectual standpoint. No one denies that the suits in use enhance performance, yet there's a specific rule prohibiting performance-enhancing suits. Wow. Since this subject obviously makes a lot of people (and companies) very uncomfortable, let's try to ignore the elephant in the living room. While it tramples our integrity. On the second subject–the inconsistencies in the underwater rules–let's take a closer look at the breaststroke as an example. Why are breaststrokers required to surface after the pullout, and then during each stroke? The answer to that question takes us back to the 1956 Olympics. At that time, FINA rules stated that breastrokers were required to surface for each stroke only after they had first surfaced during any length. A Japanese swimmer–in accordance with the rules but with great controversy–won the gold medal by doing wholly underwater breaststroke for almost the entirety of each length. A number of other swimmers tried to imitate his technique, and had some health problems (fainting, coughing, difficulty breathing). FINA changed the rules. So is FINA showing enlightened paternalism by requiring breaststrokers to surface after the pullout, and the other three strokes after 15M? Are the breaststrokers in that worse of shape? Will the streamlining limits be lengthened in the future, as swimmers become more fit? Oh yeah: and why are breaststrokers only required to have their heads break the surface with each stroke? As paternalists, shouldn't we also require them to breathe? Whether breaststrokers could evolve an underwater stroke to rival their surface stroke for some or all of a race is an open question. Why aren't they even allowed to try? In order to introduce my recommendation for how competitive swimming should treat the innovation of streamlining, please click on this link: en.wikipedia.org/.../John_Davies_(swimmer) See the guy in the photo doing the butterfly? Actually, he's not. That's John G. Davies, Olympic gold medalist and one-time world record holder, doing the breaststroke in 1950. For about 20 years, from the '30s until after the 1952 Olympics, many of the best breaststrokers used a butterfly-arms-and-frogkick breaststroke. FINA had disallowed a dolphin kick, and the butterfly didn't exist as a competitive stroke. FINA could have left it that way, but they were smart enough to realize that a new and different and fascinating swimming stroke was being innovated; a stroke that deserved to be competed separately in order to evolve to its full potential. As butterfly grew out of breaststroke technique, so has streamlining evolved out of butterfly technique. It deserves to have its own events, and yes, I think spectators would love it. BTW, after his illustrious breaststroke career, the Honorable John G. Davies presided over the Rodney King case. So in summation: "Why can't we all just get along?":)

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:19:07 GMT

Interesting quote from the Washington Post story. "Swimmers and coaches say the supersuits did not merely increase athletes' speed; they also taught them how to go faster - critical information some have already applied to their training." Like we use fins, paddles, pull buoys, stroke timers, snorkels and paddle boards for training, why not get some time in with the super-tech suits? Yup I said this ages ago, the positioning and other not material factors from suits probably will get dialed into by top swimmers.

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:04:37 GMT

Reads like a John Smith type rant: pro-tradition, anti-innovation, anti-streamlining. And does competitive swimming just = arms?! Quite odd. Or in my case Butterfly involves ONLY arms....

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:34:26 GMT

8.5

RE: Fina rulemaking: How to run swimming into the ground

Former Member — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:06:12 GMT

Reads like a John Smith type rant: pro-tradition, anti-innovation, anti-streamlining. And does competitive swimming just = arms?! Quite odd. I will leave John Smith out of it. I agree with Leslie. It IS a rant. When "woofus" (why do folks come up with such weird names?) says competitive swimming is "just arms" he clearly doesn't "get" competitive swimming. Does he compete? I wonder. I have been thinking about the shift away from the tech suits as we knew them but will start a different thread to talk about it.