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.
Former Member
Given the Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) I see in bikes and guitars, I think the swimming community is lucky those suits were disallowed.
www.27bslash6.com/bike.html
At the coffee-house start of a slow recreational ride, I debated whether to lock my bike up or not while I got a cup. I decided I didn't need to.
I could just lean my bike on the other side of a post from the unlocked bike that had the large label "TITANIUM". My bike would be OK.
I'm sure the 168 grams in weight that the $4000 titanium frame saved the rider was enough to let him be the first person to finish the slow recreational ride!
Or maybe not.
Seeing as how they can make a suit generally agreed to be a bit faster for about a grand, they would eventually figure out how to make a suit that might be even a little bit faster -maybe- and sell it for 10 grand.
Certainly the regulatory stuff with the tech suits and speed records is a a cluster F***, but, to me at least, the problem isn't that they are outlawing tech suits now. The problem is that they allowed them ever.
Channel rules rule!
I'm sure the 168 grams in weight that the $4000 titanium frame saved the rider was enough to let him be the first person to finish the slow recreational ride!
Nothing feels better than overtaking some guy on a Cannondale while I'm on my 1986 stock Peugeot, while on an uphill. Gear is great but it's a poor substitute for conditioning and desire.
Really though, the tech suit debate has found the secret to immortality...this topic just won't die.
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?
I may be able to answer this question for you, at least from my perspective, after Colonies Zones championships.
My guess is that the difference would be slight to nil, and primarily based on a placebo effect (spend more $, expect more benefit, swim with more confidence).
I tested the LZR Elite jammer for SCY, and though I did a good 50 time (for me) in it, I was not crazy about how the suit felt. There was a sense of water getting trapped in the back, which I don't feel with a normal jammer. I ordered an Aquablade online, and if it gets here in time, I may try both suits at Zones to see if one seems clearly beneficial.
I mean no disrespect to nuns--plenty of them could beat my a$$ in a pool now and plenty of them did when I was in grade school.
I am pretty sure the statute of limitations doesn't run out on this kind of thing. You might be able to get a nice settlement, especially if you can talk yourself into having "flashbacks" of horrendous buttocks-bashing abuse from yesteryear that have just now surfaced and are causing severe mental anguish.
In fact, even though I didn't personally know any nuns growing up, I am starting to have dim memories of having my butt beat by some, too.
Yikes, that hurt!
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.
Maybe by the fact that they aren't really any faster than the $60 pair of jammers I bought recently? "Level playing field" to my mind means the suit doesn't play a significant role in the outcome.
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?
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed the "stylish" new womens tech suits as seen in the recent National Championships in CA have reverted to the 1920's:
2304
Will some swimming historian in 2050 see the 2010 tech suits and yell like me, "WTF, how did all these nuns qualify for the national championships? mjm
PS. I mean no disrespect to nuns--plenty of them could beat my a$$ in a pool now and plenty of them did when I was in grade school.
Let's look at it from a business perspective. What manufacturer is going to create a line of suits that can only be used for US Masters Short Course season? We're not the center of the Universe, or, at least, the most important ones.
I think OW will eventually go the same way.
Let's look at it from a business perspective. What manufacturer is going to create a line of suits that can only be used for US Masters Short Course season?
Yes, but the suit companies wouldn't need to "create a line of suits" since they already have/had a line of full-body suits. It's just a matter of cranking out the existing designs. Whether or not even this is economically feasible I can't say.
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).Chris, I agree, even though I haven't tested the new $200+ jammers. As I probably won't pay that kind of $$ for a jammer, based upon your experimentation thus far, any recommendations on more economical jammers that are 'competition worthy?'
