It looks like the Nationals in Puerto Rico were a lot of fun. The reports by Rob Butcher were great, the weather looked good, everyone said they had a great time.... but, let's face it, the swimming was slow. There were only 8 world records by men and 7 by women. I am not a stats guy, but I think that is the lowest number of world records at a Nationals LCM meet since I started Masters swimming in 2002.
We know why. We decided to disallow the old tech suits. They help us swim faster. Purists say that is why they were disallowed. No advantage should come to us from our "equipment" seems to be the mentality. Why not? If we applied the same mentality to Track and Field they would not use cleats, would run on cinder (or dirt), pole vaulters would be using bamboo or steel poles, etc. etc. The purist argument strikes me as lame.
How did this happen? After the Worlds (was it last year?) and Biedermann soundly beat Phelps in the 200 free Bowman began talking about holding Phelps out of meets as long as the Jaked and B70 type suits were allowed (he didn't seem to mind when Phelps had the latest tech suit in his LZR at the Olympics....). Lots of folks were fretting over all the new world records. People were paying a lot of attention to swimming. This was bad? I guess it seemed so to some and FINA (we don't really know all the pressures/threats that were brought to bear) decided to ban the "rubberized" tech suits and not allow men to cover their upper body.
Now, the older we get the more loose skin we have and the more resistance we create with our "flabs" in the water. Younger, elite swimmers may not have quite the same problem. US Masters Swimming could have decided that while FINA and US Swimming disallow the old tech suits, we Masters will allow them. What would happen? Actually, from time to time, we would have elite swimmmers drop in to compete in a Masters meet--for fun--to see how fast they could go in a full body tech suit. And that would be entertaining and exciting; plus, we'd still be swimming fast.
The argument that they cost too much is weak since all the suit companies selling the new legal racing jammers charge almost as much for jammers as they did for an entire body suit!
I think it's good for our sport that swimmers can age up and aim to break a world record. Sure, it's an "age-group" record but it feels good and it makes for an exciting meet when this is happening. This is much less likely now.
I love to swim and look forward to competing again but, to me, it just never made sense to disallow the equipment that let us swim faster. We will have to make do with the situation right now but let's not pretend we are swimming faster. We're not.
By "Stud" I meant SwimStud. Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, are you stating unequivocally that the LZR Elite jammers offer no significant advantage over a pair of Aquablade jammers?
Yes, I knew that, I was just bumping Stud out of line.:bump:
I can state my own opinion pretty unequivocally: that differences between jammers (and even between jammers and briefs) are very small and probably depends much more on things like:
-- how much water the material holds
-- how tightly and well it fits
I don't think these factors have a strong correlation to price. I have worn relatively expensive jammers that didn't fit well, and I just bought a pair of relatively cheap jammers that seem to fit me very well (at least when dry; I'll test them out this weekend).
I have done meets in trials/finals format and switched between jammers and briefs and did not see a noticeable difference. So the effect, if present, will be small. YMMV, caveat emptor, and all that.
Bottom line: I think that you can find a good-performing jammer that is cheap, and that the ROI for the most expensive jammers is very small, and may even be zero (or negative).
Women have tougher choices, unfortunately. Then again, in the bad old days, their suits were always more expensive than ours.
By "Stud" I meant SwimStud. Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, are you stating unequivocally that the LZR Elite jammers offer no significant advantage over a pair of Aquablade jammers?
Yes, I knew that, I was just bumping Stud out of line.:bump:
I can state my own opinion pretty unequivocally: that differences between jammers (and even between jammers and briefs) are very small and probably depends much more on things like:
-- how much water the material holds
-- how tightly and well it fits
I don't think these factors have a strong correlation to price. I have worn relatively expensive jammers that didn't fit well, and I just bought a pair of relatively cheap jammers that seem to fit me very well (at least when dry; I'll test them out this weekend).
I have done meets in trials/finals format and switched between jammers and briefs and did not see a noticeable difference. So the effect, if present, will be small. YMMV, caveat emptor, and all that.
Bottom line: I think that you can find a good-performing jammer that is cheap, and that the ROI for the most expensive jammers is very small, and may even be zero (or negative).
Women have tougher choices, unfortunately. Then again, in the bad old days, their suits were always more expensive than ours.
