Impact of rec.sport.swimming
Larry Weisenthal
take home message bears repeating.
rec.sport.swimming has a not insignificant impact
on the world of swimming. I have first hand experience
from my own encounters, but I'm certain that the
impact is generalizable to other discussants, as well.
Some examples:
Eddie Reese (U Texas and US Olympic coach) quoted
me and my writings by name on his acceptance speech
for his award as US swimming coach of the year.
The American Swimming Coaches Association contacted
me and asked permission to reprint an r.s.s. piece on shoulder
injuries on their website. (It's still there).
I've been contacted by phone or approached on the pool deck
by about a half dozen Division I coaches and asked about
stuff I posted on r.s.s.
On the NBC "Duel in the Pool" telecast, Rowdy Gaines twice
(correctly) referred to Michael Phelps' freestyle stroke as a "loping
stroke" during the freestyle leg of Phelps' 400 IM. I had never
before heard that term used in any swimming telecast or by any
swim coach, since the time I first described the nuances of the stroke
on a private internet discussion group and an age group club coach
in the discussion group coined the term "loping stroke" to describe
it. Since then (circa 1996 or so), it's been a recurring topic of r.s.s
discussions. By the way, I just looked at videos I shot of Phelps
at last summer's Janet Evans Invitational, and he did not swim
at the time with a pronounced loping stroke. But now he does.
Likewise, the swim technique of Diana Munz has been changed
a lot since the year 2000 Olympic Trials. Before, she swam a pretty
conventional female distance freestyle; now, she is the spitting
image of Janet Evans (sans only the straight arm recovery), loping
and pronounced head lift and all.
During the past month, I referenced (and, in most cases, posted for
the first time) images and videos on my swimming web site
relating to loping, back arch, and head lift on rec.sport.swimming.
This engendered a little, but not a lot of discussion here. Does
this mean that no one paid attention? Not exactly; here are the
"hits" on my web site in the month of June for the images
and videos which I cited on r.s.s. ("Hits" are in parentheses).
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans_uw.mpg (134 )
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/hackett2.htm (100)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/munz.art (84)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/loping.mpg (74)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/hackhead.htm (51)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/pressbuoy.mpg (49)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans700.mpg (48)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans_3.htm (39)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/thorpe_3.htm (33)
I conclude that rec.sport.swimming offers a very good
forum for introducing ideas and thoughts into the world
of competitive swimming.
Larry Weisenthal
Certitude is poison; curiosity is life
Larry Weisenthal
The first swimming-related video clips I posted on my website were posted in
the course of a discussion on "loping" in August, 2002. As a part of that
discussion, I posted video clips of Janet Evans, Chris Thompson (a very
pronounced loper with a very pronounced head lift, like Evans), and my
daughter, doing a nice forward-sighting lope in the ocean off of Newport Beach.
From time to time, I reference these clips on r.s.s, and, each time, the "hit"
count goes up. Anyway, here is the cumulative "hit" counts of these latter
clips since their original posting and referencing on r.s.s. in August, 2002:
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/thompson.mpg (848)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans700.mpg (687)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans_uw.mpg (577)
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/loping.mpg (444 )
MJuric
wrote:
OK I'll bite. Whats the purpose of this post?
~Matt
Larry Weisenthal
The major point is exactly that which I stated:
I'm not sure that the participants on r.s.s. realize that
the newsgroup participation extends well beyond the
people who actually get involved with our questions,
answers, and debates. The average newsgroup reader
would probably have no idea that the readership extends
to some of the more prominent people involved with the
sport. The average reader would have no way in particular
of getting a quantitative handle on this.
For example, within the past year, I got involved in a spirited
debate with a fellow r.s.s. participant. In defending one of
my statements, I said that I was arguing my position from the
point of elite competitive swimming, rather than from the point
of what is most relevant to the average triathlete or fitness
swimmer. He responded that elite swimmers/coaches don't
read r.s.s. I said, that, au contraire, they do.
In the present post, I had the opportunity of getting some
quantitative feedback, because I illustrated some of my arguments
with new postings on my web site. As it takes some time for
new web postings to be picked up by search engines, and as
ALL of the content on http://weisenthal.org/swimming/ consists
only of images and video clips (and not essays or other verbal
material), then, I think, all of the web site hits on the new images
and videos I posted most likely came from clicks on my
recent newsgroup postings.
Now, I thought that the topics under discussion (leg sinking
torque of the pull and advantages of "arching the back" instead of
"pressing the buoy") were potentially important. I was a little
disappointed that there was little relatively little commentary --
typically things like this generate a lot of controversy and
discussion.
So I figured there were two potential explanations. First, perhaps
most people just agreed with the points I was trying to make.
Or, second, perhaps no one read the threads, beyond the usual
suspects (Fagan, Gormley, Edey, etc.). But then I checked the
click counts on the images by day, and I found, for example, 100
clicks on the new Hackett image set, and between 33 and 85 on the
others). Then I went back a whole year on some of the stuff I
posted for the purpose of supporting r.s.s. debates a year ago. And
found hits in the high hundreds (and these August clips were very
long downloads).
So, I just thought that people might be interested in some indirect
and direct evidence that what we say on r.s.s. does get noticed
and considered by a far larger audience than one might surmise
on the basis of the number of participants who actively post on
the various threads.
Mike Edey
I do agree that the rss readership represents several demographics.
Partially responsible for this is the fact that there's no
rec.pool.maintenance or rec.sport.swimming.pools and only partial overlap
with rec.sport.triathalon. There are many different reasons for reading, and
contributing to, rss and so we tend to see a large array of view points and
experiences . This is good, no it's _great_ and for many reasons, though I'm
just gong to talk about one.
The fact is swimming isn't a science. We barely even have the beginnings of
a science. We don't even have a sufficient model to describe what happens
when we swim. Highly talented individuals such as Huub Toussaint are just
now developing tools & techniques for measuring some of the associated
phenomena, let alone trying to explain them. This leave one of the highest
profile sports in the world nearly purely in the arena of speculation &
experiment. My education is in computer science and not kinesiology or
medicine or physical education or anything else of the like and perhaps this
colors my perceptions of the situation a little. Regardless, I find this to
be an awfully exciting time to be a swimmer interested in the sport. Like
computer science, though for different reasons, swimming is still being
actively developed refined, heck _explored_, by amateurs layman, scholars &
professionals alike.
Ok, so this is where I tie into Larry's last post a little bit. No one
should feel unqualified to contribute to the discussion because, really,
_nobody_ is qualified. Regardless of what any of us have seen or done or
thought or tried we're all primitives struggling to develop a mythos into a
metaphysics. Surely this goes hand in hand with furthering developments in
nutrition, kinesiology, physics psychology and coaching and every other
study that changes how we view the swimming world but it doesn't mean you
have to be a learned scholar in any of those disciplines to be able to offer
something of value to this one.
Larry, quite rightly, pointed out that often discussions of technique are
often dominated by a few people. Nobody's saying that, to be a good rss
participant, one should be required to dive into such discussions but I
think we'd both like to encourage more people to do so. Larry's stats, and a
review of some of my logs, show a much larger number of unique ips
requesting material then can reasonably be accounted for by the number of
unique people who comment on material posted here. It's been pointed out
before that there is some evidence to suggest that a number of people lurk
here. I for one would like to see some of those delurk, and some of our
regulars feel free to engage the debate.
When you're not entirely sure where you're going it often helps to see where
you've been. Experience, any experience, is what we, in my humble opinion,
need now. There aren't many globally mandated forums to discuss swimming.
There certainly isn't many places where Joe Blow With A Good Idea or
Important Observation can, with extremely low barriers to entry, give that
thought to the world. I'd like think , though, that rss is one of them, or
will be. _We_ make rss what it is and while I believe it's been a valuable
tool for some with minimal extra effort it could be so much more.
--Mike
"Larry Weisenthal" <runn...@aol.comnet> wrote in message
news:20030701181756...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> What's the purpose of post?
>
> The major point is exactly that which I stated:
>
> I'm not sure that the participants on r.s.s. realize that
> the newsgroup participation extends well beyond the
> people who actually get involved with our questions,
> answers, and debates. The average newsgroup reader
> would probably have no idea that the readership extends
> to some of the more prominent people involved with the
> sport. The average reader would have no way in particular
> of getting a quantitative handle on this.
<snip>
> Now, I thought that the topics under discussion (leg sinking
> torque of the pull and advantages of "arching the back" instead of
> "pressing the buoy") were potentially important. I was a little
> disappointed that there was little relatively little commentary --
> typically things like this generate a lot of controversy and
> discussion.
<snip>
> So, I just thought that people might be interested in some indirect
> and direct evidence that what we say on r.s.s. does get noticed
> and considered by a far larger audience than one might surmise
> on the basis of the number of participants who actively post on
> the various threads.
>
> Larry Weisenthal
>
> Certitude is poison; curiosity is life
--Mike
Jason O'Rourke
>
> OK I'll bite. Whats the purpose of this post?
I'm sure you know, even if you were too polite to say.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Larry Weisenthal
j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>In article <3f01fee7...@news.choiceone.net>,
<MJuric> wrote:
>>OK I'll bite. Whats the purpose of this post?
>I'm sure you know, even if you were too polite to
say. Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com<
....written after a little introspective
soul-searching:
OK, probably there was some ego involved. I just hate
it when Terry dismisses me as a "hobbyist" (which, of
course, is what I am...never passed myself off as
anything but). So I occasionally feel the need to
validate my existence.
But much more important than my ego is what Edey
wrote (about the wonderful opportunities for ordinary
"hobbyists" to use r.s.s. as a vehicle to actually
advance knowledge in a sport which is still in its
scientific infancy). Get past my ego and you may agree
that the stats I quoted are of general interest.
Larry Weisenthal
Stats for rec.sport.swimming
During the period of logging:
611 people posted to rec.sport.swimming
There were 3843 posts in 600 threads.
These posts contained 116701 lines
145 news readers were used to post to rec.sport.swimming
Number of Posts
Rank Name Number of Posts Total Number of Lines Average Lines Change
1. Donal Fagan 280 7315 26.125 0
2. Martin W. Smith 249 11184 44.91566265060241 0
3. 4precious 140 5459 38.99285714285714 0
4. RunnSwim 137 4846 35.372262773722625 0
5. de Valois 118 3267 27.6864406779661 0
6. Paul Gormley 108 3977 36.824074074074076 0
7. Ross Bogue 87 2540 29.195402298850574 0
8. Mike 78 2285 29.294871794871796 0
9. Jason O'Rourke 77 1363 17.7012987012987 0
10. MJuric 68 3852 56.64705882352941 0
11. Larry Weisenthal 63 2810 44.6031746031746 +2
12. Don Linsenbach 63 2394 38.0 -1
13. Cam in Ottawa 58 1961 33.810344827586206 -1
14. Totalswimm 54 1425 26.38888888888889 0
15. Hootie McBooberton 52 1063 20.442307692307693 0
16. King of the Cows 50 1300 26.0 0
17. L. Murphy 47 1742 37.06382978723404 0
18. Chris 45 883 19.622222222222224 0
19. Radioactive Man 42 1541 36.69047619047619 0
20. Bikeboy 41 1650 40.24390243902439 0
21. Brian D 36 972 27.0 0
22. Girts 34 737 21.676470588235293 0
23. Madelaine 34 981 28.852941176470587 0
24. Steve Curtis 31 259 8.35483870967742 0
25. Martin W. Smith 28 1267 45.25 0
26. mrdancer 28 733 26.178571428571427 0
27. Al 26 616 23.692307692307693 0
28. George Grattan 26 869 33.42307692307692 0
29. Cam Wilson 25 961 38.44 0
30. Loser AKA Leigh 25 557 22.28 0
31. Liz D 24 834 34.75 0
32. MSEagan 24 844 35.166666666666664 0
33. Michael D. Kersey 23 1600 69.56521739130434 0
34. Helgi Briem 23 607 26.391304347826086 0
35. Kerry Wilson 22 701 31.863636363636363 0
36. Jason O'Rourke 22 395 17.954545454545453 0
37. Chief Squawtendrawpet 21 346 16.476190476190474 0
38. DrClean 21 865 41.19047619047619 0
39. Olivier 20 544 27.2 0
40. Jill 17 318 18.705882352941178 0
41. Bob Ward 16 500 31.25 0
42. j. sterling 16 244 15.25 0
43. Matt 16 399 24.9375 0
44. WebSwim 15 330 22.0 0
45. Jonathan Kamens 15 494 32.93333333333333 0
46. Edmund 15 486 32.4 0
47. chris 14 410 29.285714285714285 0
48. Nikita Synytskyy 14 247 17.642857142857142 0
49. Shahin Malekpour 14 854 61.0 0
50. Zac Hester 13 437 33.61538461538461 0
51. BillX 13 382 29.384615384615383 0
52. Cam Wilson 13 470 36.15384615384615 +3
53. rtk 12 331 27.583333333333332 -1
54. BillyG 12 379 31.583333333333332 -1
55. Donald Graft 12 329 27.416666666666668 -1
56. Cipher 12 285 23.75 0
57. Darlene M. Fackleman 11 436 39.63636363636363 0
58. Manuel Silva 11 279 25.363636363636363 +4
59. Mark Pilloff 11 233 21.181818181818183 -1
60. Robert W. McAdams 11 389 35.36363636363637 -1
61. STEVE 11 431 39.18181818181818 -1
62. Michael G. Goldstein, M.D. 10 843 84.3 -1
63. Hedgehog & Markarina 10 263 26.3 0
64. jt 10 342 34.2 0
65. Nock Oak 10 94 9.4 0
66. PatTX 10 303 30.3 0
67. Huub Toussaint 10 484 48.4 0
68. Rick Osterberg 10 206 20.6 0
69. BLorenzen 9 153 17.0 0
70. Lefty 9 154 17.11111111111111 0
71. Karen 9 254 28.22222222222222 0
72. SwmCoachB 9 43 4.777777777777778 0
73. Tom Henderson 8 138 17.25 0
74. federico 8 161 20.125 0
75. Midex 8 305 38.125 0
76. AndresMuro 8 95 11.875 0
77. Shannon 8 94 11.75 0
78. Fred McGherkin-Squirter 8 302 37.75 0
79. Mark Pilloff 8 125 15.625 0
80. Leigh Sumpter 8 166 20.75 0
81. Cecil 8 1041 130.125 0
82. James Hawkins 7 106 15.142857142857142 0
83. Catherine 7 220 31.428571428571427 0
84. Otto Vask 7 152 21.714285714285715 0
85. Dani 7 99 14.142857142857142 0
86. Mike L 7 93 13.285714285714286 0
87. Alton 7 157 22.428571428571427 0
88. Ghost Rider 7 182 26.0 0
89. Karl Dentino 7 176 25.142857142857142 +1
90. Tony Bryant 7 141 20.142857142857142 -1
91. Susan 7 75 10.714285714285714 0
92. Colin Priest 7 109 15.571428571428571 +1
93. AntiNigg 7 239 34.142857142857146 -1
94. Karen Lofstrom 7 111 15.857142857142858 0
95. John Smith 7 222 31.714285714285715 0
96. be...@bellatlantic.net 6 152 25.333333333333332 0
97. Bruce W..1 6 117 19.5 0
98. FM 6 118 19.666666666666668 0
99. 6 256 42.666666666666664 0
100. Fal Leac 6 64 10.666666666666666 0
101. nom...@hursley.ibm.com 6 147 24.5 0
102. David 6 82 13.666666666666666 0
103. Art M 6 212 35.333333333333336 0
104. lmmr 6 262 43.666666666666664 0
105. Tim 6 123 20.5 0
106. Michael Sollner 6 145 24.166666666666668 0
107. Don Brady 6 107 17.833333333333332 0
108. MJuric 6 187 31.166666666666668 0
109. Mr Swarbrick 6 195 32.5 0
110. Cramden 5 197 39.4 +19
111. 5 137 27.4 -1
112. steve 5 73 14.6 -1
113. Manuel Silva 5 162 32.4 -1
114. Michael Edey 5 220 44.0 -1
115. Dick Jones 5 76 15.2 -1
116. Dory 5 59 11.8 -1
117. aquafit 5 63 12.6 -1
118. Eike Laspe 5 71 14.2 -1
119. David Crawford Jr. 5 64 12.8 -1
120. gwydion 5 59 11.8 -1
121. Wuilbert Jaramillo 5 79 15.8 -1
122. Swimr1996 5 39 7.8 -1
123. Manuel Silva 5 225 45.0 -1
124. sphire 5 122 24.4 -1
125. Mike 5 91 18.2 -1
126. Sherman 5 136 27.2 -1
127. Cinc310 5 36 7.2 -1
128. Stuz 5 104 20.8 -1
129. Mark P 5 85 17.0 -1
130. lilli 4 101 25.25 0
131. Paul Mansfield 4 248 62.0 +1
132. Bill 4 39 9.75 -1
133. Steven Green 4 123 30.75 0
134. Peabody 4 104 26.0 0
135. Terry McLaughlin 4 91 22.75 0
136. Mark P 4 95 23.75 0
137. Peabody 4 60 15.0 0
138. Sean Riley 4 88 22.0 0
139. Scott Lemley 4 355 88.75 0
140. Beeswich 4 37 9.25 0
141. Chris 4 61 15.25 0
142. Sean 4 89 22.25 0
143. Allen Weiner 4 82 20.5 0
144. _MerlinO_ 4 68 17.0 0
145. David Swarbrick 4 201 50.25 0
146. John Rethorst 4 84 21.0 0
147. Duke 4 120 30.0 0
148. whoserman 4 20 5.0 0
149. Rob Mohr 4 58 14.5 0
150. Mark Juszczec 4 192 48.0 0
151. Gabe Brannan 4 40 10.0 0
152. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc=2DAndr=E9?= Golombeck 4 203 50.75 +1
153. topdog 4 177 44.25 -1
154. Jerry Cagle 3 64 21.333333333333332 0
155. christian audeon 3 79 26.333333333333332 0
156. RLIrwin 3 12 4.0 0
157. Stuz 3 56 18.666666666666668 0
158. TheScullster 3 49 16.333333333333332 0
159. David Wilson 3 93 31.0 0
160. F.J. 3 93 31.0 0
161. TeamBeresh 3 37 12.333333333333334 +1
162. Jan-Olov Newborg 3 204 68.0 -1
163. Jay Vonbriel 3 61 20.333333333333332 0
164. Bob Prichard 3 21 7.0 0
165. Kirk Nelson 3 23 7.666666666666667 0
166. MRH 3 112 37.333333333333336 0
167. Stuart Horner 3 62 20.666666666666668 0
168. M 3 66 22.0 0
169. openbit 3 279 93.0 0
170. none 3 85 28.333333333333332 0
171. KK 3 33 11.0 0
172. David 3 105 35.0 0
173. dhelling 3 69 23.0 0
174. Aussie Tri 3 72 24.0 0
175. P 3 74 24.666666666666668 0
176. Andy Kie Kuo 3 20 6.666666666666667 +1
177. Charles 3 45 15.0 -1
178. adrian 3 37 12.333333333333334 0
179. Nich 3 68 22.666666666666668 0
180. swim200fly 3 40 13.333333333333334 0
181. Alan Walker 3 82 27.333333333333332 0
182. Roger Hunter 3 35 11.666666666666666 0
183. Lord of Darkness 3 63 21.0 0
184. Scott T. Jensen 3 84 28.0 0
185. Leo Lockley 3 46 15.333333333333334 0
186. random 3 29 9.666666666666666 0
187. Jon Lynch 3 78 26.0 0
188. WebSwim 3 66 22.0 0
189. Dave Andersen 3 127 42.333333333333336 0
190. utahclimber 3 34 11.333333333333334 0
191. KBeyersted 3 17 5.666666666666667 0
192. Michael Shuldman 3 119 39.666666666666664 0
193. Ian 3 70 23.333333333333332 0
194. no.email.add...@none444.yet 3 45 15.0 0
195. Annie Harris 3 42 14.0 0
196. Carole Benton 3 76 25.333333333333332 0
197. bagc...@osu.edu 3 86 28.666666666666668 0
198. Greg Mossman 3 57 19.0 0
199. Rich Lockyer 3 62 20.666666666666668 0
200. Carole Benton \(Mrs\) 3 84 28.0 0
201. Toyota Lass 2 28 14.0 0
202. Leandro 2 84 42.0 0
203. Dawn 2 111 55.5 0
204. Steve 2 37 18.5 0
205. IVAN WINGATE 2 33 16.5 0
206. Jay J.W Nam 2 45 22.5 0
207. Roger McMillan 2 43 21.5 0
208. Jay Stanley 2 30 15.0 0
209. Jo Stoller 2 51 25.5 0
210. Pete Dawson 2 66 33.0 0
211. SR 2 12 6.0 0
212. news.atl.bellsouth.com 2 68 34.0 0
213. Kimberly Pearson 2 222 111.0 0
214. mark_digital© 2 44 22.0 0
215. David Scarlett 2 47 23.5 0
216. rd 2 17 8.5 +141
217. Rednose 2 26 13.0 -1
218. DJ 2 16 8.0 -1
219. Ghost Rider 2 46 23.0 -1
220. S-May 2 75 37.5 -1
221. Stephane 2 36 18.0 0
222. Bert Hyman 2 26 13.0 -2
223. Liled27 2 42 21.0 -1
224. 2 64 32.0 -1
225. Ginsmoke 2 5 2.5 -1
226. Radioactive Man 2 38 19.0 -1
227. jlbfir@HSD2$76.NET5 2 133 66.5 -1
228. no....@no.where.com 2 30 15.0 0
229. Graeme Barnett 2 40 20.0 -2
230. Jeff Plotzke 2 28 14.0 -1
231. Bernard 2 20 10.0 -1
232. newszilla.xs4all.nl 2 53 26.5 -1
233. lmmr 2 27 13.5 -1
234. suria1 2 225 112.5 -1
235. Debs 2 19 9.5 -1
236. Harold Buck 2 44 22.0 -1
237. Happyy 2 23 11.5 -1
238. Cosmo 2 24 12.0 -1
239. Bill Marut 2 72 36.0 -1
240. Eric Friedman 2 55 27.5 -1
241. Jane 2 57 28.5 -1
242. Trey 2 30 15.0 -1
243. Old Swimmer 2 101 50.5 -1
244. Najena 2 5 2.5 -1
245. slanton 2 4 2.0 -1
246. Paul Yeoman 2 73 36.5 -1
247. Ouch 2 36 18.0 -1
248. Karl 2 61 30.5 -1
249. Al 2 62 31.0 -1
250. schloog 2 20 10.0 -1
251. Paul Reis 2 32 16.0 -1
252. Aaron the Aardvark 2 43 21.5 -1
253. Ted G. 2 22 11.0 -1
254. Michael Hughes 2 93 46.5 -1
255. SteelCat 2 30 15.0 -1
256. jim morgan 2 24 12.0 -1
257. Michael Scarpitti 2 63 31.5 -1
258. Rob 2 16 8.0 -1
259. Dan Leung 2 50 25.0 -1
260. Elpaninaro 2 44 22.0 -1
261. ¦a½L¤u¤H 2 53 26.5 -1
262. Cornholio 2 27 13.5 -1
263. SureWinner 2 128 64.0 -1
264. Bryan Harold 2 41 20.5 -1
265. Lisa and Tina 2 110 55.0 -1
266. Four Hands Massage 2 26 13.0 -1
267. Trey 2 20 10.0 -1
268. MM 2 48 24.0 -1
269. Halvard Halvorsen 2 43 21.5 -1
270. Charlie Spitzer 2 58 29.0 0
271. mckinnon 2 42 21.0 -2
272. FujiGirl S304 2 31 15.5 0
273. Albert F. Spohn 2 90 45.0 -2
274. Peter Clapp 2 51 25.5 -1
275. JoanMiM 2 130 65.0 -1
276. J.M.L. 2 24 12.0 -1
277. swimg 2 27 13.5 -1
278. news.verizon.net 2 62 31.0 -1
279. Daniel Hirmann 2 21 10.5 -1
280. Mel6782000 2 28 14.0 -1
281. Webmaster 2 28 14.0 -1
282. ELVINCENTO 2 25 12.5 -1
283. John Doe 2 22 11.0 -1
284. KK 2 29 14.5 -1
285. Chuck Wyatt 2 22 11.0 -1
286. Mortimer Schnerd, RN 2 68 34.0 -1
287. PlayDoh 2 41 20.5 -1
288. Tim 2 22 11.0 -1
289. JJacobs387 2 11 5.5 -1
290. M. M. 2 71 35.5 -1
291. Stuz 2 33 16.5 -1
292-500 (Many with only 1 post)
Steve Curtis
shared by many, from the dog-paddling infant to the elite setting a
world record. The importance of open dialogue touching on all levels
and aspects of swimming in this newsgroup cannot be overstated.
Steve Curtis
Mike Edey
something CSV'ish. If that means nothing to you, try cutting & pasting the
folling into a file named something.csv. Any spreadsheet should then load it
properly.
--Mike
Rank, Name, Number of Posts, Total Number of Lines, Average Lines, Change
1,Donal Fagan, 280, 7315, 26.125, 0,
2,Martin W. Smith, 249, 11184, 44.91566265060241, 0,
3., 4precious, 140, 5459, 38.99285714285714, 0,
4,RunnSwim, 137, 4846, 35.372262773722625, 0,
5,de Valois, 118, 3267, 27.6864406779661, 0,
6,Paul Gormley, 108, 3977, 36.824074074074076, 0,
7,Ross Bogue, 87, 2540, 29.195402298850574, 0,
8,Mike, 78, 2285, 29.294871794871796, 0,
9,Jason O'Rourke, 77, 1363, 17.7012987012987, 0,
10,MJuric, 68, 3852, 56.64705882352941, 0,
11,Larry Weisenthal, 63, 2810, 44.6031746031746,+2
12,Don Linsenbach, 63, 2394, 38.0,-1
13,Cam in Ottawa, 58, 1961, 33.810344827586206,-1
14,Totalswimm, 54, 1425, 26.38888888888889, 0,
15,Hootie McBooberton, 52, 1063, 20.442307692307693, 0,
16,King of the Cows, 50, 1300, 26.0, 0,
17,L. Murphy, 47, 1742, 37.06382978723404, 0,
18,Chris, 45, 883, 19.622222222222224, 0,
19,Radioactive Man, 42, 1541, 36.69047619047619, 0,
20,Bikeboy, 41, 1650, 40.24390243902439, 0,
21,Brian D, 36, 972, 27.0, 0,
22,Girts, 34, 737, 21.676470588235293, 0,
23,Madelaine, 34, 981, 28.852941176470587, 0,
24,Steve Curtis, 31, 259, 8.35483870967742, 0,
25,Martin W. Smith, 28, 1267, 45.25, 0,
26,mrdancer, 28, 733, 26.178571428571427, 0,
27,Al, 26, 616, 23.692307692307693, 0,
28,George Grattan, 26, 869, 33.42307692307692, 0,
29,Cam Wilson, 25, 961, 38.44, 0,
30,Loser AKA Leigh, 25, 557, 22.28, 0,
31,Liz D, 24, 834, 34.75, 0,
32,MSEagan, 24, 844, 35.166666666666664, 0,
33,Michael D. Kersey, 23, 1600, 69.56521739130434, 0,
34,Helgi Briem, 23, 607, 26.391304347826086, 0,
35,Kerry Wilson, 22, 701, 31.863636363636363, 0,
36,Jason O'Rourke, 22, 395, 17.954545454545453, 0,
37,Chief Squawtendrawpet, 21, 346, 16.476190476190474, 0,
38,DrClean, 21, 865, 41.19047619047619, 0,
39,Olivier, 20, 544, 27.2, 0,
40,Jill, 17, 318, 18.705882352941178, 0,
41,Bob Ward, 16, 500, 31.25, 0,
42,j. sterling, 16, 244, 15.25, 0,
43,Matt, 16, 399, 24.9375, 0,
44,WebSwim, 15, 330, 22.0, 0,
45,Jonathan Kamens, 15, 494, 32.93333333333333, 0,
46,Edmund, 15, 486, 32.4, 0,
47,chris, 14, 410, 29.285714285714285, 0,
48,Nikita Synytskyy, 14, 247, 17.642857142857142, 0,
49,Shahin Malekpour, 14, 854, 61.0, 0,
50,Zac Hester, 13, 437, 33.61538461538461, 0,
51,BillX, 13, 382, 29.384615384615383, 0,
52,Cam Wilson, 13, 470, 36.15384615384615,+3
53,rtk, 12, 331, 27.583333333333332,-1
54,BillyG, 12, 379, 31.583333333333332,-1
55,Donald Graft, 12, 329, 27.416666666666668,-1
56,Cipher, 12, 285, 23.75, 0,
57,Darlene M. Fackleman, 11, 436, 39.63636363636363, 0,
58,Manuel Silva, 11, 279, 25.363636363636363,+4
59,Mark Pilloff, 11, 233, 21.181818181818183,-1
60,Robert W. McAdams, 11, 389, 35.36363636363637,-1
61,STEVE, 11, 431, 39.18181818181818,-1
62,Michael G. Goldstein, M.D., 10, 843, 84.3,-1
63,Hedgehog & Markarina, 10, 263, 26.3, 0,
64,jt, 10, 342, 34.2, 0,
65,Nock Oak, 10, 94, 9.4, 0,
66,PatTX, 10, 303, 30.3, 0,
67,Huub Toussaint, 10, 484, 48.4, 0,
68,Rick Osterberg, 10, 206, 20.6, 0,
69,BLorenzen, 9, 153, 17.0, 0,
70,Lefty, 9, 154, 17.11111111111111, 0,
71,Karen, 9, 254, 28.22222222222222, 0,
72,SwmCoachB, 9, 43, 4.777777777777778, 0,
73,Tom Henderson, 8, 138, 17.25, 0,
74,federico, 8, 161, 20.125, 0,
75,Midex, 8, 305, 38.125, 0,
76,AndresMuro, 8, 95, 11.875, 0,
77,Shannon, 8, 94, 11.75, 0,
78,Fred McGherkin-Squirter, 8, 302, 37.75, 0,
79,Mark Pilloff, 8, 125, 15.625, 0,
80,Leigh Sumpter, 8, 166, 20.75, 0,
81,Cecil, 8, 1041, 130.125, 0,
82,James Hawkins, 7, 106, 15.142857142857142, 0,
83,Catherine, 7, 220, 31.428571428571427, 0,
84,Otto Vask, 7, 152, 21.714285714285715, 0,
85,Dani, 7, 99, 14.142857142857142, 0,
86,Mike L, 7, 93, 13.285714285714286, 0,
87,Alton, 7, 157, 22.428571428571427, 0,
88,Ghost Rider, 7, 182, 26.0, 0,
89,Karl Dentino, 7, 176, 25.142857142857142,+1
90,Tony Bryant, 7, 141, 20.142857142857142,-1
91,Susan, 7, 75, 10.714285714285714, 0,
92,Colin Priest, 7, 109, 15.571428571428571,+1
93,AntiNigg, 7, 239, 34.142857142857146,-1
94,Karen Lofstrom, 7, 111, 15.857142857142858, 0,
95,John Smith, 7, 222, 31.714285714285715, 0,
96,be...@bellatlantic.net, 6, 152, 25.333333333333332, 0,
97,Bruce W..1, 6, 117, 19.5, 0,
98,FM, 6, 118, 19.666666666666668, 0,
99,, 6, 256, 42.666666666666664, 0,
100,Fal Leac, 6, 64, 10.666666666666666, 0,
101,nom...@hursley.ibm.com, 6, 147, 24.5, 0,
102,David, 6, 82, 13.666666666666666, 0,
103,Art M, 6, 212, 35.333333333333336, 0,
104,lmmr, 6, 262, 43.666666666666664, 0,
105,Tim, 6, 123, 20.5, 0,
106,Michael Sollner, 6, 145, 24.166666666666668, 0,
107,Don Brady, 6, 107, 17.833333333333332, 0,
108,MJuric, 6, 187, 31.166666666666668, 0,
109,Mr Swarbrick, 6, 195, 32.5, 0,
110,Cramden, 5, 197, 39.4,+19
111,, 5, 137, 27.4,-1
112,steve, 5, 73, 14.6,-1
113,Manuel Silva, 5, 162, 32.4,-1
114,Michael Edey, 5, 220, 44.0,-1
115,Dick Jones, 5, 76, 15.2,-1
116,Dory, 5, 59, 11.8,-1
117,aquafit, 5, 63, 12.6,-1
118,Eike Laspe, 5, 71, 14.2,-1
119,David Crawford Jr., 5, 64, 12.8,-1
120,gwydion, 5, 59, 11.8,-1
121,Wuilbert Jaramillo, 5, 79, 15.8,-1
122,Swimr1996, 5, 39, 7.8,-1
123,Manuel Silva, 5, 225, 45.0,-1
124,sphire, 5, 122, 24.4,-1
125,Mike, 5, 91, 18.2,-1
126,Sherman, 5, 136, 27.2,-1
127,Cinc310, 5, 36, 7.2,-1
128,Stuz, 5, 104, 20.8,-1
129,Mark P, 5, 85, 17.0,-1
130,lilli, 4, 101, 25.25, 0,
131,Paul Mansfield, 4, 248, 62.0,+1
132,Bill, 4, 39, 9.75,-1
133,Steven Green, 4, 123, 30.75, 0,
134,Peabody, 4, 104, 26.0, 0,
135,Terry McLaughlin, 4, 91, 22.75, 0,
136,Mark P, 4, 95, 23.75, 0,
137,Peabody, 4, 60, 15.0, 0,
138,Sean Riley, 4, 88, 22.0, 0,
139,Scott Lemley, 4, 355, 88.75, 0,
140,Beeswich, 4, 37, 9.25, 0,
141,Chris, 4, 61, 15.25, 0,
142,Sean, 4, 89, 22.25, 0,
143,Allen Weiner, 4, 82, 20.5, 0,
144,_MerlinO_, 4, 68, 17.0, 0,
145,David Swarbrick, 4, 201, 50.25, 0,
146,John Rethorst, 4, 84, 21.0, 0,
147,Duke, 4, 120, 30.0, 0,
148,whoserman, 4, 20, 5.0, 0,
149,Rob Mohr, 4, 58, 14.5, 0,
150,Mark Juszczec, 4, 192, 48.0, 0,
151,Gabe Brannan, 4, 40, 10.0, 0,
152,=?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc=2DAndr=E9?= Golombeck, 4, 203, 50.75,+1
153,topdog, 4, 177, 44.25,-1
154,Jerry Cagle, 3, 64, 21.333333333333332, 0,
155,christian audeon, 3, 79, 26.333333333333332, 0,
156,RLIrwin, 3, 12, 4.0, 0,
157,Stuz, 3, 56, 18.666666666666668, 0,
158,TheScullster, 3, 49, 16.333333333333332, 0,
159,David Wilson, 3, 93, 31.0, 0,
160,F.J., 3, 93, 31.0, 0,
161,TeamBeresh, 3, 37, 12.333333333333334,+1
162,Jan-Olov Newborg, 3, 204, 68.0,-1
163,Jay Vonbriel, 3, 61, 20.333333333333332, 0,
164,Bob Prichard, 3, 21, 7.0, 0,
165,Kirk Nelson, 3, 23, 7.666666666666667, 0,
166,MRH, 3, 112, 37.333333333333336, 0,
167,Stuart Horner, 3, 62, 20.666666666666668, 0,
168,M, 3, 66, 22.0, 0,
169,openbit, 3, 279, 93.0, 0,
170,none, 3, 85, 28.333333333333332, 0,
171,KK, 3, 33, 11.0, 0,
172,David, 3, 105, 35.0, 0,
173,dhelling, 3, 69, 23.0, 0,
174,Aussie Tri, 3, 72, 24.0, 0,
175,P, 3, 74, 24.666666666666668, 0,
176,Andy Kie Kuo, 3, 20, 6.666666666666667,+1
177,Charles, 3, 45, 15.0,-1
178,adrian, 3, 37, 12.333333333333334, 0,
179,Nich, 3, 68, 22.666666666666668, 0,
180,swim200fly, 3, 40, 13.333333333333334, 0,
181,Alan Walker, 3, 82, 27.333333333333332, 0,
182,Roger Hunter, 3, 35, 11.666666666666666, 0,
183,Lord of Darkness, 3, 63, 21.0, 0,
184,Scott T. Jensen, 3, 84, 28.0, 0,
185,Leo Lockley, 3, 46, 15.333333333333334, 0,
186,random, 3, 29, 9.666666666666666, 0,
187,Jon Lynch, 3, 78, 26.0, 0,
188,WebSwim, 3, 66, 22.0, 0,
189,Dave Andersen, 3, 127, 42.333333333333336, 0,
190,utahclimber, 3, 34, 11.333333333333334, 0,
191,KBeyersted, 3, 17, 5.666666666666667, 0,
192,Michael Shuldman, 3, 119, 39.666666666666664, 0,
193,Ian, 3, 70, 23.333333333333332, 0,
194,no.email.add...@none444.yet, 3, 45, 15.0, 0,
195,Annie Harris, 3, 42, 14.0, 0,
196,Carole Benton, 3, 76, 25.333333333333332, 0,
197,bagc...@osu.edu, 3, 86, 28.666666666666668, 0,
198,Greg Mossman, 3, 57, 19.0, 0,
199,Rich Lockyer, 3, 62, 20.666666666666668, 0,
200,Carole Benton \(Mrs\), 3, 84, 28.0, 0,
201,Toyota Lass, 2, 28, 14.0, 0,
202,Leandro, 2, 84, 42.0, 0,
203,Dawn, 2, 111, 55.5, 0,
204,Steve, 2, 37, 18.5, 0,
205,IVAN WINGATE, 2, 33, 16.5, 0,
206,Jay J.W Nam, 2, 45, 22.5, 0,
207,Roger McMillan, 2, 43, 21.5, 0,
208,Jay Stanley, 2, 30, 15.0, 0,
209,Jo Stoller, 2, 51, 25.5, 0,
210,Pete Dawson, 2, 66, 33.0, 0,
211,SR, 2, 12, 6.0, 0,
212,news.atl.bellsouth.com, 2, 68, 34.0, 0,
213,Kimberly Pearson, 2, 222, 111.0, 0,
214,mark_digital©, 2, 44, 22.0, 0,
215,David Scarlett, 2, 47, 23.5, 0,
216,rd, 2, 17, 8.5,+141
217,Rednose, 2, 26, 13.0,-1
218,DJ, 2, 16, 8.0,-1
219,Ghost Rider, 2, 46, 23.0,-1
220,S-May, 2, 75, 37.5,-1
221,Stephane, 2, 36, 18.0, 0,
222,Bert Hyman, 2, 26, 13.0,-2
223,Liled27, 2, 42, 21.0,-1
224,, 2, 64, 32.0,-1
225,Ginsmoke, 2, 5, 2.5,-1
226,Radioactive Man, 2, 38, 19.0,-1
227,jlbfir@HSD2$76.NET5, 2, 133, 66.5,-1
228,no....@no.where.com, 2, 30, 15.0, 0,
229,Graeme Barnett, 2, 40, 20.0,-2
230,Jeff Plotzke, 2, 28, 14.0,-1
231,Bernard, 2, 20, 10.0,-1
232,newszilla.xs4all.nl, 2, 53, 26.5,-1
233,lmmr, 2, 27, 13.5,-1
234,suria1, 2, 225, 112.5,-1
235,Debs, 2, 19, 9.5,-1
236,Harold Buck, 2, 44, 22.0,-1
237,Happyy, 2, 23, 11.5,-1
238,Cosmo, 2, 24, 12.0,-1
239,Bill Marut, 2, 72, 36.0,-1
240,Eric Friedman, 2, 55, 27.5,-1
241,Jane, 2, 57, 28.5,-1
242,Trey, 2, 30, 15.0,-1
243,Old Swimmer, 2, 101, 50.5,-1
244,Najena, 2, 5, 2.5,-1
245,slanton, 2, 4, 2.0,-1
246,Paul Yeoman, 2, 73, 36.5,-1
247,Ouch, 2, 36, 18.0,-1
248,Karl, 2, 61, 30.5,-1
249,Al, 2, 62, 31.0,-1
250,schloog, 2, 20, 10.0,-1
251,Paul Reis, 2, 32, 16.0,-1
252,Aaron the Aardvark, 2, 43, 21.5,-1
253,Ted G., 2, 22, 11.0,-1
254,Michael Hughes, 2, 93, 46.5,-1
255,SteelCat, 2, 30, 15.0,-1
256,jim morgan, 2, 24, 12.0,-1
257,Michael Scarpitti, 2, 63, 31.5,-1
258,Rob, 2, 16, 8.0,-1
259,Dan Leung, 2, 50, 25.0,-1
260,Elpaninaro, 2, 44, 22.0,-1
261,¦a½L¤u¤H, 2, 53, 26.5,-1
262,Cornholio, 2, 27, 13.5,-1
263,SureWinner, 2, 128, 64.0,-1
264,Bryan Harold, 2, 41, 20.5,-1
265,Lisa and Tina, 2, 110, 55.0,-1
266,Four Hands Massage, 2, 26, 13.0,-1
267,Trey, 2, 20, 10.0,-1
268,MM, 2, 48, 24.0,-1
269,Halvard Halvorsen, 2, 43, 21.5,-1
270,Charlie Spitzer, 2, 58, 29.0, 0,
271,mckinnon, 2, 42, 21.0,-2
272,FujiGirl S304, 2, 31, 15.5, 0,
273,Albert F. Spohn, 2, 90, 45.0,-2
274,Peter Clapp, 2, 51, 25.5,-1
275,JoanMiM, 2, 130, 65.0,-1
276,J.M.L., 2, 24, 12.0,-1
277,swimg, 2, 27, 13.5,-1
278,news.verizon.net, 2, 62, 31.0,-1
279,Daniel Hirmann, 2, 21, 10.5,-1
280,Mel6782000, 2, 28, 14.0,-1
281,Webmaster, 2, 28, 14.0,-1
282,ELVINCENTO, 2, 25, 12.5,-1
283,John Doe, 2, 22, 11.0,-1
284,KK, 2, 29, 14.5,-1
285,Chuck Wyatt, 2, 22, 11.0,-1
286,Mortimer Schnerd, RN, 2, 68, 34.0,-1
287,PlayDoh, 2, 41, 20.5,-1
288,Tim, 2, 22, 11.0,-1
289,JJacobs387, 2, 11, 5.5,-1
290,M. M., 2, 71, 35.5,-1
291,Stuz, 2, 33, 16.5,-1
Mike Edey
Thank you.
--Mike
"Steve Curtis" <iamh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10723-3F0...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Manuel Silva
"Pat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> Don't let the detractors get you down, Larry. I, for one, read all of the
> posts about the "science"--or is it "art"--of swimming, especially
anything
> having to do with improving my strokes! How else would I get in on this
> knowledge? I have no contact with the cutting edge of swimming techniques
> through the elite coaches or the Olympic athletes. I am just somebody who
> loves swimming and wants to be more efficient in the water, someone who
> wants to work with the water instead of thrashing through it. I can
> recognize the enthusiasm in your posts, and I appreciate that and the
effort
> you take to explore the latest theories. So, go right on ahead with your
> passions and to heck with the people who want to carp.
>
> Pat in Texas
I agree with you Pat.
For me, being just a recreational swimmer, that started about one year ago.
I must say that this newsgroup helped me alot to improve my swimming
abilities, in several levels, wich i cant even figure them all out.
I rarely post, and i am sure that there are people that never post, and are
much more "qualified" to express their opinion on swimming than I am.
From my experience on newsgroups, I must say that this is the group that has
more seriousness, interest form the posters, and it is of use to more
experimented
swimmers and amatures like me. Other newsgroups I read are often dominated
by lamers, and people that are only interested to explain their points
without
the idea that these groups are a wonderful chance to learn and to share
knowledge. Hopefully (or miserabely to other ng's) rec.sport.swimming is a
exception.
So just keep posting and having fun, and sharing the knowledge and passion
for this wonderful sport, science, art, whatever...
Hope my English is improving 8=)
MJuric
wrote:
>In article <bdt850$2ju9$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>
>>In article <3f01fee7...@news.choiceone.net>,
><MJuric> wrote:
>
>>>OK I'll bite. Whats the purpose of this post?
>
>>I'm sure you know, even if you were too polite to
>say. Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com<
>
>....written after a little introspective
>soul-searching:
>
>OK, probably there was some ego involved. I just hate
>it when Terry dismisses me as a "hobbyist" (which, of
>course, is what I am...never passed myself off as
>anything but). So I occasionally feel the need to
>validate my existence.
I'm Glad you did a little introspection. I was getting the
overwhelming feeling of chest thumping with an underlying good
message.
I think you and Terry have years of bad blood and that's
always hard to get over. Frankly I enjoy hearing you two go at it.
Having two knowledgeable people argue their points always brings out
flaws and benefits of each.
>
>But much more important than my ego is what Edey
>wrote (about the wonderful opportunities for ordinary
>"hobbyists" to use r.s.s. as a vehicle to actually
>advance knowledge in a sport which is still in its
>scientific infancy). Get past my ego and you may agree
>that the stats I quoted are of general interest.
Yes the stats are of general interest but I think they vastly
underestimate the impact of any individual forum. In my experiance
many if not most of the participants in any particular group are
lurkers. I've heard numbers used as high as 90% of all readers of
newsgroups are lurkers. If this is even close to true it means for
every regular poster here we have 9 that will read that no one knows
of. Let's say on any given day we have 25 unique posters. That means
potentially we have 250 total people reading that post on any day. How
many of those people go off and talk to other as you have show by the
interest of people calling you?
These discussion don't include the information that is spread
around via various sights such as your's and Donal's. How many people
are reading this stuff via a simple google search and find your site
or some other?
OTOH a word of caution, bad info can be spread just as fast as
good info.
~Matt
chris
prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated), and then, in a very wise
voice, sed: :
>Stats for rec.sport.swimming
>During the period of logging:
Woo Hoo! i made the top 50! (finally good at something.)
--
chris
"Nothing is real."
Larry Weisenthal
>>I think you and Terry have years of bad blood and that's always hard to get
over. <<
Terry Laughlin is a totally great guy who is devoting the most productive years
of his life in trying to improve an already great sport.
But science is science. I am a harsh critic of the science of my own colleagues
when I find fault with it (many examples of this can be found on the main
section of my website, where I severely criticize several practices and
paradigms of present day cancer treatment ( http://weisenthal.org ). Likewise,
I take no personal offense when my own science is criticized, as, for example,
in the case of my contention (not accepted by many) that a "loper" gains
advantage by partially overtaking his/her bow wave during the stroke cycle.
Where I take umbrage is when any scientist (including Terry) tries to invoke
the 19th century German professorial "geheimrat," which basically says that you
don't criticize the professor, simply because he IS the professor and you don't
have his qualifications. It is astonishing to me how much of a "geheimrat"
attitude there is among swim coaches. This has come through in a number of
Terry's responses to me over the years, where, rather than confining himself to
a critique of my ideas, he has continually felt the need to point out my lack
of "qualifications" to have any ideas at all.
I think that a couple of the earlier posts on this thread (written by others)
make the point that no one can currently claim to understand swimming so well
that there is no room for conflicting (and competing) points of view.
Brian D
> But science is science. I am a harsh critic of the science of my own
> colleagues when I find fault with it (many examples of this can be
> found on the main section of my website, where I severely criticise
> several practices and paradigms of present day cancer treatment (
> http://weisenthal.org ). Likewise, I take no personal offence when
> my own science is criticised, as, for example, in the case of my
> contention (not accepted by many) that a "loper" gains advantage by
> partially overtaking his/her bow wave during the stroke cycle.
>
What are your views on the 'controversy' over sweeps v pull/push, I.E.
Bernoulli - lift v drag. I gather it has changed in the latest
Maglischo epic?
My theorem still relies on finding still water.
Any other takers? I'm trying to be controversial.
--
Brian D
Larry Weisenthal
>>What are your views on the 'controversy' over sweeps v pull/push, I.E.
Bernoulli - lift v drag. I gather it has changed in the latest
Maglischo epic?<<
In April, 2001, I attended a USA Swimming sportsmedicine symposium in Colorado
Springs (I presented some of my ideas relating to stroke technique as it
relates to shoulder injury).
An investigator from ICAR (international center for aquatics research)
presented some very sophisticated data, showing computerized depictions of
pressure/force vectors over the hands and forearms in both freestyle and
breaststroke.
Their conclusions were that freestyle propulsion derives almost exclusively
from "drag" (paddlewheel-type) propulsion forces, whereas in breaststroke,
there were appreciable "lift" ("airfoil"-like) forces. Furthermore, in
freestyle, the forearms contributed appreciably to the propulsive forces
(disputed by Dr. Touissant's models, but, I think, supported by the still
images I posted earlier of Ian Thorpe and Grant Hackett), whereas breaststroke
propulsion is almost exclusively derived from the hands (casting doubt on Dr.
Dave Salo's "blade" theory of forearm-assisted breaststroke propulsion).
I don't have any independent data, other than the still images of the elite
freestyle swimmers, in which the forearms are clearly moving backwards while in
a near 90 degree angle to the water surface/pool bottom, which makes it pretty
clear to me, at least, that the forearms do contribute to freestyle propulsion
through a "drag" (paddle-wheel-like) mechanism.
Scott Lemley
<<In April, 2001, I attended a USA Swimming sportsmedicine symposium
in Colorado
research)
presented some very sophisticated data, showing computerized
depictions of pressure/force vectors over the hands and forearms in
both freestyle and breaststroke.
Their conclusions were that freestyle propulsion derives almost
exclusively from "drag" (paddlewheel-type) propulsion forces, whereas
in breaststroke, there were appreciable "lift" ("airfoil"-like)
forces. Furthermore, in freestyle, the forearms contributed
appreciably to the propulsive forces (disputed by Dr. Touissant's
models, but, I think, supported by the still images I posted earlier
of Ian Thorpe and Grant Hackett), whereas breaststroke propulsion is
almost exclusively derived from the hands (casting doubt on Dr. Dave
Salo's "blade" theory of forearm-assisted breaststroke propulsion).>>
I assume Larry meant to say he attended the symposium just this
spring, in April, 2003. I might be wrong, however, discussions he may
have been part of over 2 years ago hardly seem relevant enough to
bring up in this august newsgroup. If, in fact, he's refering to the
most recent symposium held in Colorado Springs, one of my assistant
coaches also attended and brought back notes from same which he talked
over with me.
My thoughts on what was presented to those coaches fortunate enough to
attend the symposium? Taking "scientific data" as gospel is a
wonderful double-edged sword. If we changed our personal diets, for
instance, every time we read a new report about "the latest facts" on
nutrition, we'd become a hopeless yoyo. At some point, however, the
weight of scientific evidence compels me to change my thinking which
changes my habits - I've stopped drinking a big mug of coffee when I
get up in the morning and now drink a big mug of tea.
Since we know Science, as such, is just a series of propositions in a
constant state of revision, what else do we have to go on? Personal
experience? Well, sure, there's merit in introspection where our own
habits are concerned. And to be sure, the wisest man who ever lived
(reportedly), Socrates, held the view that the most valuable knowledge
one can have, AND the most difficult knowledge to attain, is of
oneself. "Know thyself" he preached to anyone who would listen.
A certain oracle had let slip that he was the wisest of men and that
prompted Socrates to seek to disprove that statement by testing and
probing everyone he came in contact with. He just couldn't believe he
was the wisest of men. His response to the oracle's contention was
that most famous statement, "I know that I do not know". What an
exhilarating paradox THAT is to ponder! I have that posted in my
office right over the more Eastern thought, "Those who speak, do not
know. Those who know, do not speak." Acckk! Hoisted on my own petard!
Could it be the more I write and post to RSS, the less I actually
know? Who knows.
Having said that, I'm a believer. I teach that free, back, and fly are
drag dominant strokes and that breast is a lift dominant stroke. I
gave up the "S" stroke 15 years ago. Those big sweeping movements
seemed counterproductive. Because humans must roll their torsos when
reaching forward first with their right hand-forearm and then with
their left (at least in free and back), they can't really pull in one
plane. By necessity, there will be a bit of sideways movement in the
path their limbs take. However, I teach my swimmers to focus on
holding onto the water first (that is, find a position from which to
propel - what we used to call "the position of power", meaning the
place in the stroke cycle where the swimmer can effectively apply
force), and then to push straight back against the water as forcefully
as possible WITHOUT "slipping", that is, without overpowering the
water. The result we as coaches want is for the body to move forward
and the hand-forearm to stay in one place, as opposed to the
hand-forearm moving backward and the body to stay in one place.
The "S" stroke I teach uses that letter to remind swimmers of what's
really important. In order of importance, the 10 "S" concepts are:
Spirit (attitude), being Smooth (finding a relaxed rhythm), being
Stable (swimming in dynamic balance), being Streamlined (maintaining a
narrow cross-sectional profile), being Slip-proof ("anchoring" our
hand-forearms in the water), building Stamina, building Strength,
building Speed, and, finally, finding Synergy (which, though listed
last, may actually be the most important of the 10 concepts thus
bringing us "full circle", another concept which I find intriguing.
Coming "full circle" is a concept I learned about from my years
practicing and teaching martial arts. The clean, featureless nature of
the white belt teaches us that as a beginner we approach learning
without preconceived ideas. We are the tabla rasa, the blank slate.
The more we learn and practice, the more and varied are the colored
belts we earn. At some point, we earn the rank of Shodan, first degree
black belt. In truth, being a black belt means you've dedicated
yourself to your art to the point that you understand NOW you're ready
to really practice your art with mind and body. After years and years
as a black belt - earning various degrees of black, Nidan, Sandan,
etc. - one's belt has been used to the extent that the black dye has
worn off and you're left, once again, with a whitish belt. Proof that
if you continue in a discipline long enough, you eventually learn that
you're still just a beginner).
I've never read a scientific paper which rank ordered concepts
important to keep in mind when teaching and coaching swimmers. Thus, I
created my own list and in order to make these concepts easy to
remember, used words that only started with the letter "S". I confess
I used the letter "S" in order to tweak the noses of those coaches who
still believed in the big sweeping movements. My "S" stroke is better
than your "S" stroke. When will I grow up.
Respectfully submitted.
Scott
Larry Weisenthal
>>Since we know Science, as such, is just a series of propositions in a
constant state of revision, what else do we have to go on?<<
I'll comment more on Scott's thoughtful essay later on, but for now, I have to
object to the above as being unnecessarily nihilistic. Scientific nihilism is
never a healthy thing.
It has already been stipulated that the totality of swimming science knowledge
is still rudimentary. But that should not argue against making observations,
formulating hypotheses, positing mechanisms, and testing these hypotheses in
the real world.
Examples:
Observation #1: Janet Evans, Diana Munz, Grant Hackett, Peter van den
Hoogenband, and Jason Lezak all swim with a "lope."
Hypothesis: The loping stroke is neither an undesirable idiosyncracy nor an
affectation, but is, in fact, an advantage.
Possible mechanisms have been discussed at great length. I believe that they
have credence.
Practical application: The loping stroke may be taught by swim coaches to
swimmers who may benefit from it, rather than leaving it to develop on its own
course in a random fashion or, worse, trying to extinguish it.
Observation #2: The above swimmers all, to varying degrees, tilt forward and
then lift their heads, coincident with the catch and pull of the breathing side
hand.
Hypothesis: This is neither an idiosyncracy nor an affectation to be
extinguished, but actually serves a useful purpose.
Possible mechanisms have been discussed, which I believe are also credible.
Practical application: The head tilt may be taught and the head lift should not
be extinguished, as it begins to develop naturally as a function of integrating
the head tilt into the stroke cycle.
Observation # 3: Elite swimmers are horizontal in the water.
Hypothesis: They remain this way primarly by arching their lower backs, rather
than by pressing their chests down into the water.
Mechanisms have been discussed.
Practical application: The back arch should be taught and trained (e.g. with
kickboard sets), as opposed to teaching the relaxed back, the "hidden head,"
and "T" press.
and so forth. As I and quite a few other "hobbyists" have been exploring on
this forum for many years now -- I think with as much potential and actual
impact on the sport as anything which has ever come out of Colorado Springs.
Larry Weisenthal
>>I assume Larry meant to say he attended the symposium just this
spring, in April, 2003. I might be wrong, however, discussions he may
have been part of over 2 years ago hardly seem relevant enough to
bring up in this august newsgroup.<<
No, the USA Swimming sportsmedicine symposium I attended was in April, 2001,
where the results of ICAR research on the "drag" vs "lift" issue were presented
(which I summarized).
I quoted these findings because I was specifically asked by another newsgroup
contributor if I had any new information about the drag/lift debate. So I just
quoted (and dated) the most recent information I had. If you or someone else
can cite a more recent study, I'd certainly like to hear about the findings,
and whether they supported or contradicted the (two year old...which is not all
THAT old!) study I quoted.
Since your associate went to the April, 2003 meeting and took notes, what did
the notes say about the drag/lift debate? Do they have new findings which
either support or contradict their year 2001 study?
Martin W. Smith
>
> From: sle...@awcable.com (Scott Lemley)
>
> >>Since we know Science, as such, is just a series of propositions in a
> constant state of revision, what else do we have to go on?<<
>
> I'll comment more on Scott's thoughtful essay later on, but for now, I have to
> object to the above as being unnecessarily nihilistic. Scientific nihilism is
> never a healthy thing.
I don't think that is what he meant. I understand him to mean that
science from the user's point of view is a series of propositions in a
constant state of revision. It isn't exactly the way I would put it, but
it is close enough.
>
> It has already been stipulated that the totality of swimming science knowledge
> is still rudimentary. But that should not argue against making observations,
> formulating hypotheses, positing mechanisms, and testing these hypotheses in
> the real world.
Formulated hypotheses and posited mechanisms are a series of
propositions. Testing them and making observations is a state of
revising the series of propositions. The swimmer's view of swimming
theory is that view. Whether the swimmer adopts elements from the
current state of swimming theory is a separate question. Why do you say
this is nihilistic?
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Scott Lemley
<<I assume Larry meant to say he attended the symposium just this
spring, in April, 2003. I might be wrong, however, discussions he may
have been part of over 2 years ago hardly seem relevant enough to
bring up in this august newsgroup.>>
> No, the USA Swimming sportsmedicine symposium I attended was in April, 2001,
> where the results of ICAR research on the "drag" vs "lift" issue were presented
> (which I summarized).
> Since your associate went to the April, 2003 meeting and took notes, what did
> the notes say about the drag/lift debate? Do they have new findings which
> either support or contradict their year 2001 study?
>
> Larry Weisenthal
I apologize to Larry for assuming a typo or misstatement in his post.
He WAS reporting on findings presented over two years ago. The message
presented at this Spring's USA Swimming Biomechanics Symposium again
supported the idea that 3 of the 4 strokes are drag dominant. He finds
this idea compeling and so do I. I know I never said this explicitly
in my post. What prompted me to give my 2.5 cents worth of opinion
yesterday was that I was agreeing with Larry.
I described how I teach swimmers to propel in free, back and fly using
drag as THE model (implicitly agreeing with Larry's position), which
was to position the hand-forearm in a "position of power" (said
position differing slightly from swimmer to swimmer depending on their
flexibility, leverage, strength, and feel), and where, by the way,
their fingertips are pointing down and their forearm is vertical, and
then to apply force directly backward against the resistance of the
water. I'll now add to this description by saying before their
hand-forearms are completely extended backward, at a point where the
force vector is no longer primarily backwards but, because of
anatomical considerations, is angling upwards (which will result in
swimmers actually pushing themselves lower in the water), I teach
swimmers to "release" the water (water they've been "holding" onto)
and to begin the recovery part of the stroke cycle.
I went on to say I teach a variation of the "S" stroke, that is, not
"S" for sweeping motions (the "lift" model), but 10 fundamental
concepts each beginning with the letter "S" of which swimmers need to
be mindful. The most important of these is a swimmer's attitude
(Spirit). I believe the importance of having a strong positive
attitude is "self-evident" (a term scientists use when they're pretty
darn sure of themselves), though I seldom read about its neccessity in
this newsgroup. Undoubtedly this is because it IS self-evident and not
controversal enough for comment. As a practicing coach, I comment on
my swimmers' attitudes on a daily basis. This is a reflection of my
martial arts training where strengthening a student's spirit is more
important than helping them master any particular technique. It's not
uncommon for the coaches I know to tell their swimmers that "Attitude
is everything" so having martial arts in one's background isn't a
neccessary requirement for this understanding.
I made the statement that letting oneself be too easily swayed by the
latest "facts" reported as scientific evidence was a wonderful
double-edged sword. I don't see this as nihilistic; I see this as
pragmatic. If one were to doggedly follow Ernie Maglischo's view on
propulsion, for instance, one would need to reverse direction after
reading book two. Now, I have the GREATEST respect for Ernie partly
because he's NOT afraid to admit he got it wrong the first time
around. In my experience, most of us egos (masquerading as coaches or
hobbyists) would rather eat ground glass than admit we were barking up
the wrong tree.
I also said at some point when I've wrestled long enough with opposing
ideas I become a believer and change my habits (using my tea drinking
as an example). As we ALL know, change is painful and we resist making
changes in our beliefs. Change is also the only constant in the
universe (how's THAT for a self-evident statement?) and at some point
its all right to gracefully acknowledge this by changing direction and
happily sailing off on a new journey.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott
Larry Weisenthal
>>Whether the swimmer adopts elements from the
current state of swimming theory is a separate question. Why do you say
this is nihilistic? <<
I interpreted Scott's commentary as follows:
He began by giving the example of various diets. Every month or so, there is
some other study purporting to show something which contradicts the previous
study. Ultimately, he concluded by stating (the way I interpreted it) that if
science doen't really help you, then what do you have to fall back
on...experience?
So I just read this as a form of scientific nihilism, in that Scott's post was
in response to my previous post with the theme "science is science" (explaining
why, for example, I can be fiercely critical of Terry Laughlin's swimming
science, while being respectful of Terry as a dedicated professional).
Scott seemed to me to be overly dismissive of the concept that scientific
methods can be applied to solve practical problems in swimming.
I think that my examples were relevant. The way that my whole interest in
loping and head lifting and what not arose was when, at a TI workshop, I asked
Terry why Janet Evans was so phenomenally successful when she broke almost
every principle in the "TI" book. I even made him a copy of a videotape of her
above and underwater stroke. He dismissed it all as a non-contributory anomaly
which she was able to "overcome" though superior genetic gifts and intense
training. Neither he nor any other coach or swimming author of which I am
aware ever noted anything remarkable about Evans' stroke beyond the obvious
(and trivial) fact that she uses a straight arm recovery. But the pronounced
lope, complete out of the water head lift, back arch, and lack of body rotation
to the non-breathing side were all not appreciated. So I began to look for
these features in other elite swimmers and discovered that they were present
everywhere, and that the frequency of these traits increased as one moved up
the performance ranks from average high school and college swimmers to
Olympians to World Record holders. And then I tried to apply scientific
principles (including self-experimentation, as well as observation and
correlation and buttressed by important contributions from other r.s.s.
participants* and the published literature) and, after several years, I now
feel secure in offering these as a paradigm to be argued, compared, and tested
against the popular existing paradigm ("Boomerism/TIism").
Lemley seemed to be overly dismissive of a scientific approach to swimming.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what he was trying to say.
*Credit to other r.s.s.'rs
Mark Miller: The first person to describe (and prove, with a very elegant
experiment) the leg sinking torque of the pull. Mark described how forces
applied against the water in front of the center of buoyancy rotates the
leading part of the body upward and the trailing part of the body downward.
Mark also noted how a very long extended forward reach increases the moment arm
in front of the center of buoyancy (fulcrum) and also made it more difficult to
avoid applying downward (as opposed to purely rearward) forces, which together
exacerbate the leg-sinking torque of the pull. The first r.s.s. reader to
recognize the importance of Miller's observation, to confirm Miller's
experimental findings, and to build upon this with further explanations of the
physics behind the phenomenon was "Oliver" (who was last heard of swimming with
the sharks in the British Virgin Islands...hope that he's still alive). By
remarkable coincidence, shortly after Miller's post came the peer review
publication of a very important scientific paper by Yanai and Hays (often
quoted here) also describing the same phenomenon.
The importance of the above observatons cannot be overstated. When Boomer and
Laughlin talk about "balance" in freestyle swimming, they do not account for
the existence of Miller torque, which affects dynamic (as opposed to static)
balance. It is crucial to counteract the leg sinking torque of the pull. The
way that elite swimmers do this is to maximize their lower back arch coincident
with the catch of their breathing side arm, which is very commonly associated
with a head tilt forward. Eric Kurth pointed out that tilting the head forward
increases the arch of the lower back (and obviously raises the head). I
described how, in the presence of an arched back, lifting the head increases
the mass forward of the center of buoyancy and actually raises (not sinks) the
part of the body (butt/thighs) rearward of the center of buouyancy.
This, therefore, explains why it is that so many of the world's greatest
swimmers "get away" with doing (quite useful) things which run contrary to
Boomerism/TIism.
This is only part of the story, however. There is also the "lope", the
barge-like, horizontal hip position during the part of the stroke with the
greatest force of the kick (i.e. lack of rotation to the non-breathing side),
the importance of maintaining momentum (and the three major ways of achieving
this), and a couple of lesser observations. After all of this has been
thoroughly "vetted" on this newsgroup, I'm going to try to put it all together
in what will probably be a multi-part manuscript to submit for publication to a
periodical such as Swimming Technique. I don't plan on ever writing a book or
in any way doing anything with this stuff for any financial gain.
Donal Fagan
(Scott Lemley) wrote:
>If one were to doggedly follow Ernie Maglischo's
>view on propulsion, for instance, one would need
>to reverse direction after reading book two.
I thought book three, Swimming Fastest, was where
he backtracked.
Donal Fagan AIA
Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com
(Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
Donald Graft
"Larry Weisenthal" <runn...@aol.comnet> wrote in message
>I
> described how, in the presence of an arched back, lifting the head
increases
> the mass forward of the center of buoyancy and actually raises (not sinks)
the
> part of the body (butt/thighs) rearward of the center of buouyancy.
A thorough search will show that I have been saying this for years.
Don
Scott Lemley
<<I interpreted Scott's commentary as follows:
He began by giving the example of various diets. Every month or so,
there is some other study purporting to show something which
contradicts the previous study. Ultimately, he concluded by stating
(the way I interpreted it) that if science doen't really help you,
then what do you have to fall back on...experience?>>
Hi Larry. My writing style is very different from yours and perhaps I
shouldn't be so oblique. What I thought I implied was that worshiping
science, that is the gospel of "data" or "hard facts" which the
scientific method produces, is a double-edged sword.
In the short term, studies are constantly being conducted to prove or
disprove any number of theories in hundreds of disciplines - nutrition
being one. Should we eat a high fat, high protein, low carb diet? High
carb, low fat? High protein, low fat, moderate carb? Should I drink
coffee in the morning or tea? Should I drink water as a fluid
replacement or Accelerade? Should I use creatine or just eat more
protein? I'm sure the phrase "the jury is still out on this one" rings
a bell. Remember: certitude is poison. I never said, to quote you,
"science doesn't really help you". Sure it helps. I just don't worship
at its alter. I believe its best to gather information from as many
sources as possible, question my own experience (another source of
information but much more relevant in some instances than published
results in peer reviewed journals) and, at least when making changes
in my diet, THEN decide where I want to go. The "facts" about
nutrition are derived from studies of large populations over time.
They may or may not directly and specifically apply to me. I may want
to change my diet to reflect MY seasonal work load, MY advancing age,
AS WELL AS any new understanding I may come to by paying attention to
the "latest facts". When it comes to diet, personal experience plays a
huge role in the decision making process. At least this is the case if
you trust your own experience and are fairly self-aware.
In the long run, the weight of accumulated data tends to sway
consensus opinion. That's why I switched to tea. I've noted the
dueling studies on coffee, black tea, green tea, etc. For a long time
I wasn't ready to give up my mug of coffee in the morning. Now I am.
However, I'm NOT ready to eat a high protein, high fat diet. I think
that's just plain nuts. That was a pun.
<<Scott seemed to me to be overly dismissive of the concept that
scientific methods can be applied to solve practical problems in
swimming.>>
Not at all. I studied biomechanics in college as well as anatomy and
physiology. I've read the oftquoted texts and papers by Doc, Ernie,
Cecil, Huub, et al. I've thought about their theories and talked with
my coaching buddies about lift and drag, boards or no boards, paddles
or no paddles, a thorough warm-up or light warm-up, a thorough
cool-down or a light cool-down, 4 weeks of speedwork or light
sharpening throughout the season, etc. Believe me, I'm well paid for
my track record of solving practical problems on a daily basis. Many
of these problems are much more fundamental than questioning how much
rotational lift occurs around the forearm of Susie Swimmer as it
sweeps out and then in towards her body when she swims the 100 fly.
Many of my solutions are intuitive since "testing" scientific theories
takes more time than I have. Is intuition science? Do you have any
theories about intuition? There are so many variables when deciding
what changes to make in a swimmer's technique that experience and
intuition are valuable assets for most coaches.
Is Schubert a "man of science"? Or is he a genius when it comes to
motivating swimmers? Is Quick a slave to scientific theory or is he a
pragmatist always looking for something that works better than what he
already has? Are the coaches with the best track records - Gambril,
Urbanchek, Reese, Thornton, etc. - scientists, or are they gardeners,
able to prepare an environment which promotes excellence, and smart
enough to stand out of the way and let their athletes grow in their
understanding of how to swim fast?
Any theories?
Respectfully submitted,
Scott
Larry Weisenthal
sle...@awcable.com (Scott Lemley) writes:
>>Hi Larry. My writing style is very different from yours and perhaps I
shouldn't be so oblique. What I thought I implied was that worshiping
science, that is the gospel of "data" or "hard facts" which the
scientific method produces, is a double-edged sword.<<
I appreciate the eloquent explanation which followed in your last post,
after the above. I think that we are both, perhaps, a little oblique in
our writing styles. The best writing advice I ever got was from my 11th
grade English teacher, Mrs. Clay. She said "it is better to be clear
than interesting." 40 years later, I'm still trying (but more often failing)
to do her proud.
>Is Schubert a "man of science"? Or is he a genius when it comes to
>motivating swimmers? Is Quick a slave to scientific theory or is he a
>pragmatist always looking for something that works better than what he
>already has? Are the coaches with the best track records - Gambril,
>Urbanchek, Reese, Thornton, etc. - scientists, or are they gardeners,
>able to prepare an environment which promotes excellence, and smart
>enough to stand out of the way and let their athletes grow in their
>understanding of how to swim fast?
Actually, the coach for whom I have the most respect (despite having
yet-unresolved major scientific disagreements) is Dave Salo. At a time when
everyone from Dennis Pursley on down to my then-10 year old daughter's age
group coach was calling him a quack, he took over a mediocre club, only to have
every single good swimmer immediately quit and move to other clubs which were
run by herd-following coaches.
He proceeded to make technique teaching job #1 and innovative, paradigm-busting
training job #2, showed managerial genius in recruiting and supporting what was
at the time probably the nation's best developmental coaching staff (most
importantly his head age group coach and his own former swimmer, Olympic Trials
finalist Brian Pajer), and instituted a low volume/high quality training
program based on his own, scientifically-based "SprintSalo" principles.
The rest, as they say, is now well-known history; though almost no one seems
willing to publicly give the guy his due.
He didn't get it all 100% right, but he had the wisdom to look at science for
new answers and the courage to go against the grain and to stand by his
principles, despite initial hard going and in the face of whithering criticism.
He was also ahead of the curve in recognizing the need to create an attractive
environment and program to meet the needs of the growning numbers of
post-college-graduate swimmers who are remaining in the sport into their late
20s (and possibly beyond).
He's also got a bit of an ego and an ever-open eye for publicity, but he's
changed the sport in a way that most of the august/respected/beloved coaches on
your list never will.
Scott Lemley
<<Actually, the coach for whom I have the most respect (despite having
yet-unresolved major scientific disagreements) is Dave Salo.>>
I don't know Dave personally though have had a couple email contacts
with him. He would certainly be one of the coaches whom I would rank
in the "one of the best in the world" category (let's call it the Swim
Coaches Top 25). One of my age group swimmers moved to So Cal upon
graduating from high school in Alaska and swam with Dave. This young
man emailed me several times over the course of several months at NOVA
about what he was doing at practice and who was in the water at the
same time he was. This was 1999, a pre-Olympic year. As I recall, Dave
had over a dozen swimmers with Trials cuts training with him at the
time.
Because of pool time considerations, I've always had a somewhat low
volume/high quality program so what Dave does resonates with me; I've
never thought of him as controversal. Dave wrote me about my fistglove
many years ago when I first started marketing it saying he had the
same exact idea for a learning device on his "drawing board", though
never got it to the stage where it could be marketed commercially.
Obviously I appreciated hearing that.
<<[Dave had at the time] probably the nation's best developmental
coaching staff, most importantly his head age group coach and his own
former swimmer, Olympic Trials finalist Brian Pajer>>
I just spoke with Brian the other day about how he's set up his age
group club and has also been able to move up to the head coaching
position at the DI level. Very impressive. He's done a heck of a job
positioning himself at UCI.
<<[Dave] also got a bit of an ego and an ever-open eye for publicity,
but he's changed the sport in a way that most of the
august/respected/beloved coaches on your list never will.>>
Well . . . I'm not sure I'd go that far. I don't know Mark at all,
only seen him at meets. He certainly has had a great run as a coach.
There has to be SOMETHING innovative about what he's done. Maybe
someone who knows Mark well can speak to that. Nort is a very
innovative coach; I know him a little and, in fact, just spoke with
him the other day about weight training ideas. Richard is probably on
your sh*t list since he's brought Bill Boomer in so often to work with
his swimmers but I see him as having incorporated quite a few
disciplines (Pilates, diet, etc) into the training regimen of his
elite swimmers. I don't know that I'd downplay the contributions
Gambril, Colwin, et al, have made to the profession of coaching.
Just my 2 cents.
Scott
Totalswimm
discussion has moved a long way from what Larry intended when he began it...
Nevertheless and for the record. I LIKE Larry and don't consider our debates
and disagreements to be bad blood. Several years ago he was nice enough to
invite me to break bread with him at his house and I found our dinner entirely
felicitous.
When I referred to Larry in the past as a "hobbyist" it was not to comment on
the worth of his thoughts on swimming or those of anyone else who cares enough
to spend time thinking deeply and with acute interest about the subject that I
find intensely fascinating.
I was primarily trying to point out the distinction between those who do this
primarily as an intellectual or theoretical (or metaphysical) undertaking and
those who - in Scott's words - "are paid to solve practical problems on a daily
basis."
I can pay the rent and buy food only if the work I do with "live" swimmers in
the water is successful. I have to be oriented to workable solutions and
positive outcomes.
I have criticized Larry most strongly in the past when he propagated arguments
like "TI is bad for swimmers" and "TI causes shoulder injury" when thousands of
"live" swimmers every year made the opposite case.
At those times I was trying to make clear the distinction between studying
videos, reading papers, writing theories, etc and actually teaching and
coaching. It seemed (and seems) to me that "solving practical problems in the
pool on a daily basis" ought to be given more weight than typing one thoughts
on a keyboard.
Happy laps,
Terry Laughlin
DrClean
"Totalswimm" <total...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030710105728...@mb-m22.aol.com...
<snip> I was primarily trying to point out the distinction between those who
do this
> primarily as an intellectual or theoretical (or metaphysical) undertaking
and
> those who - in Scott's words - "are paid to solve practical problems on a
daily
> basis."
>
> I can pay the rent and buy food only if the work I do with "live" swimmers
in
> the water is successful. I have to be oriented to workable solutions and
>
>
> Happy laps,
> Terry Laughlin
I think this is a primary difference in even swim coaches. Although I am
taking the ASA swim coaching courses I'm coming to this as an interested
amateur and don't ever see myself as earning a living being a swim coach. To
put it in a basic way, "I'll never have my balls on the line dependent on
the resul;ts I get". I've read a huge amounts of swim and tri training books
and this might give me a basic (or even advanced) knowledge of the topic but
it doesn't necessarily mean I can put those ideas across in the best way or
have gone through years of assessing what may be "Best Practice". I may have
enthusiasm and ability but I don't believe that I'll ever be as good as a
top pro-coach who spends his life and is paid to get the best out of
swimmers.
So, all of this doesn't make me potentially a bad coach and I want to do the
best I possibly can to ensure the swimmers I coach fulfil their potential,
but I don't believe I'll match a good coach who has his life invested in
swimming.
As Terry implies, no opinion is invalid and it's interesting seeing
disagreements or differences in this discussion group. Disagreeing with
someone doesn't mean you think the poster is a moron - it's just a
disagreement and an important way for all of us to increase our knowledge,
by assessing the value of each argument.
Keep up the debating.
Wayne
--
DrClean
www.DrClean.co.uk
The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web
AndresMuro
swimers I know including myself have read TI. A lot of begginer swimmers do
the excercises that you suggest, and I encourage them to do this. The only part
that I found obscure in your book is the pushing down the bouy. Technically, I
cannot think of any way to push down the chest, unless I bend at the waist.
Most beggining swimmers drag their legs as you suggest, and by trying to push
down the bouy, they appear to sink their upper body without being able to lift
their legs.
In this aspect, I agree with Larry. He suggests, as I have always done, to tell
swimmers to arch their back. This forces the legs up and pushes the chest
forward, and slightly down. I tell people that this is what you mean by pushing
the bouy. They seem to understand this explanation better. However, I have not
travelled and taught this technique to 1,000s of swimmers.
Still, anatomically, arching you back is proper position for good swimming. It
also prevents the legs from dropping. because the arching of the back pulls
against the hamstrings keeping them at the surface. I also agree with Larry
that doing a lot of kickboarding with hands at the head of the board, arched
back, head out and elbows straight teaches people to keep their backs arched.
Andres
>Subject: Re: Impact of rec.sport.swimming
>From: "DrClean" Ad...@DrClean.co.uk
>Date: 7/11/2003 1:49 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <belq8a$r2a$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
DrClean
"AndresMuro" <andre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030711093636...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Terry: I am not a coach but swim regularly and help other swimmers. Most
of the
> swimers I know including myself have read TI. A lot of begginer swimmers
do
> the excercises that you suggest, and I encourage them to do this. The only
part
> that I found obscure in your book is the pushing down the bouy.
Technically, I
> cannot think of any way to push down the chest, unless I bend at the
waist.
> Most beggining swimmers drag their legs as you suggest, and by trying to
push
> down the bouy, they appear to sink their upper body without being able to
lift
> their legs.
> > In this aspect, I agree with Larry. He suggests, as I have always done,
to tell
> swimmers to arch their back. This forces the legs up and pushes the chest
> forward, and slightly down. I tell people that this is what you mean by
pushing
> the bouy. They seem to understand this explanation better. However, I have
not
> travelled and taught this technique to 1,000s of swimmers.
If you have a completely straight spine (from your head through your hips)
and imagine there is a pivot that makes your body into a sea-saw, slowly but
surely raise where this pivot creates a balance. Eventually, make this pivot
as high on the chest as you can without diping your head or arching your
back, then you'll find it is possible to push the buoy.
If you arch your back you are, by definition, lifting your head - and that
must be bad technique. You're almost suggesting that the swimmer try
aquaplaning, above the water line, or climbs out of the water.
I am not a TI trained coach but understand and can practice this exercise.
Totalswimm
arched position. Spinal alignment is good universal body mechanics for any
movement discipline - swimming not excepted.
If anyone is familiar with the "Toypedo" you know that with a very modest bit
of thrust it travels through the water, seemingly forever. No additional
propulsion needed to keep it moving. It loses hardly any momentum. That is the
magic of a balanced and streamlined body or vessel. Why that should not also
apply to a human swimming form, no one has yet satisfactorily explained to me.
Thus, arched back and raised head do not seem like good practice.
The original TI book is - in parts - a relatively "primitive" representation of
what is current teaching practice among our coaches. We no longer put nearly so
much emphasis on "pressing the buoy" and only teach a prone position for
short-axis strokes.
For freestyle balance we now focus much more on head position and where the
hand enters and at what downward angle it extends. Shifting weight forward is
secondary in importance. As with what has been pretty continual evolution in
all of our teaching process over the past 15 years, we continue to learn from
observation of our students. I don't expect the process to ever quite be
"complete."
Cheers,
Terry
andres muro
pivot with a doll. For the chest of the doll to go down, there must be
a force applied somewhere to push the chest down. If you take your
finger and put it between the shoulder blades, you will be able to
push the chest of the doll, and the lower body will lift. However, for
a human in the water, there is no magic finger pushing the chest down.
The action of pushing the chest down needs to be initiated
mechanically by muscles that can do this. One way to push the chest
down is to bend at the waist. But, you don't want to do this because
your legs will go down too. The other way to push your chest down is
by arching your back. There is no other way to push your chest down by
itself because you do not have muscles to cause the leverage that you
are suggesting.
Regarding your description, the normal posture of the back is with a
curvature of the lower back. If swimmers, as Larry has suggested, kept
this curvature, the legs would stay up automatically. However, many in
the water let the legs drop. since the legs carry, proportionately
more musculature than the rest of the body they drop naturally. The
only way to keep them up, aside form kicking, is using some form of
leverage. The muscles in the lower back do this if you arch your back.
You can try this by arching your back and bending at the waist. You'll
see that you cannot bend. However, if you straighten your lower back,
then you can bend at the waist. This is what happens in the water. If
you swim with your lower back straight, your legs will drop. Unless
you use some muscles to stop them from dropping, gravity will pull
them down. There is no magic way to push the chest down by itself
while keeping the rest of the body straight. So, you arch your back.
all good swimers swim with an arched lower back. There ain't no way
out of this.
Andres
"DrClean" <Ad...@DrClean.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bemm7t$ped$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Larry Weisenthal
shoulder injury debate again, except to say that a long forward reach in the
presence of internal rotation is a setup for a bad shoulder injury. Eric Vendt
is simply the latest of many to prove a point which is obvious from anatomy.
I've known for years, also, that Lenny Krayzelberg's shoulders would turn to
toast; and I predicted Kaitlyn Sandeno's troubles when she was 13 years old.
There is a way to swim which minimizes the risk of shoulder injury, and it
doesn't include long forward reaching with internal rotation (in freestyle,
back, and fly).
My statement wasn't that "TI is bad for swimmers." It was rather that "TI" (a
perhaps unfortunate whipping boy for the whole Boomerism movement which has,
unfortunately, now become the dominant paradigm) -- "is bad for swimming."
Just several examples:
1. In the current issue of Splash (the one with Larsen Jensen on the cover),
there is a section on technical advice for swim coaches. Maintaining the head
down/neutral position is emphasized, for the specific reason of preventing the
hips from sinking, which is alleged to occur when the head is raised. This is
false, as discussed earlier.
2. In the current thread, Coach Scott Lemley informs that he teaches his
swimmers to keep their heads motionless (relative to the body) or, one
supposes, at least to minimize head motion.
3. Also on the current thread, another aspiring swim coach makes the following
statement: "If you arch your back you are, by definition, lifting your head -
and that
must be bad technique."
4. And here's a wonderful quote from a swim coach/"TI" disciple who used to
poke sarcastic fun at me on this newsgroup:
From: Big Red (kev...@epix.net)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
Date: 2000-08-30 21:52:52 PST
>> Something
else about Thorpe. His head is constantly moving up & down. He spends
alot of time looking forward, too. He should keep his head still &
looking down to maintain balance, conserve energy & extend streamline.
It brings up a point that I have made here before. IMHO,elite athletes
can do things because they are special. There is an intangible quality
that allows them to break rules & get away with STUFF. I suppose
Thorpe's coach could tell him to do that with his head, but more likely
he just lives with this idiosyncracy & succeeds in spite of it. He would
probably go faster if he fixed it. <<
Now, any further debate must acknowledge the fact the many if not most of the
greatest freestyle swimmers in the world have the following features to their
stroke:
1. They arch their backs prominently (which is what gives these swimmers that
"swimming high in the water" look which is so prized by coaches such as Mark
Schubert (without explaining exactly how the swimmers get this look)).
2. The back arch is most pronounced coincident with the catch and pull of the
breathing side hand, and is often accompanied by a pronounced head tilt
forward, and sometimes with an actual head lift above the water line.
3. They do not "skate on their sides," but instead are flat in the water to the
non-breathing side, while rotating with the shoulders to a greater extent than
the hips to the breathing side.
4. They swim with asymetric timing...the breathing side hand enters quite
shortly after the entry of the non-breathing side hand. There is then a pause
before the non-breathing side hand enters again, producing a
"flop-flop....flop-flop...flop-flop" rhythm. The latest to break a world
record with this technique was Michael Phelps. Among other things, this
ensures that the catch and early pull of both sides occurs during a time when
the head is furthest out of the water (climbing up on the breathing side;
falling down on the non-breathing side). This helps to counteract the leg
sinking torque of the pull on both sides.
5. Many of them accentuate their kick, coincident with the breathing side pull.
This also goes against advice given in the current issue of Splash - to
maintain an even kick throughout the stroke cycle. This accentuated kick
assists in elevating the head (and also in overtaking the bow wave, but that is
a controversial subject for a different time).
Now, one can either ignore all of the above, or one can try to understand why
the above may be advantageous. Up until now, to my knowledge, everyone has
pretty much just ignored the above. What I have been doing is to try and
understand it. I believe that I now do understand pretty much all of it. It
makes sense. It is eminently teachable. And it can improve the swimming of
almost everyone.
I agree with Mike Edey that there is no one style of swimming which is best for
everyone. For example, older adults with bad backs are probably better off
"pressing their buoys" than "arching." But this doesn't change the fact
(obvious to anyone who makes the effort to learn to "arch") that "arching"
provides a vastly more stable and efficient platform from which to swim. Let's
look again at Ian:
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/thorpe_3.htm
Rather than teaching everyone to swim with their heads down, let's recognize
that there is NOTHING inherently superior about head down/relaxed back
swimming, compared to arched back swimming with counterbalancing head motions
(to counteract the leg sinking torque of the pull...by the way, Scott Lemley's
admonition to keep your head still would only make sense if one were swimming
without moving one's arms. Because the pull tries to sink the legs, reciprocal
head movements are very helpful to keep the body horizontal in the water, which
is why they are so prevalent at the highest levels of swimming --- to answer
Big Red's unasked question: Ian Thorpe produces huge torques with his huge
and long moment-arm pulls; his pronounced head movements, in the presence of
his deeply arched back, serve to counteract these torques).
I believe that Boomerization has homogenized swimming technique, to the
detriment of the sport and to the detriment of individual swimmers who would
today be more successful with other techniques. To the extent that "TI" has
contributed to this trend, it has also been harmful to the sport.
AndresMuro
Terry:
I agree with what you say. Hiwever, being completely straight means that your
lower back will have an arch. So, if you stand against a wall, and you let your
heels touch the wall, the butt touch the wall and the shoulders touch the wall,
the lower back will not be touching. This is a straight body position like a
torpedo that you describe. This also has the lower back arched. If people swam
keeping the body like this, their legs would not drop. However, when people
swim, their legs sink. Why? because people don't swim straight like torpedos.
Instead the swim with the lower back hunched. If they were to stand against the
wall with their heels and butt touching the wall, their lower backs would be
touching and their shoulders would not. This is not standing sraight. If you
want to make a person stand straight, you would tell them to arch their back.
Take this to the water. If you see someone swimming and dropping thier legs,
they are not straight. They are hunched in the lower back. In order for them to
swim straigfht, you need to ask them to arch their back. Arching their back is
tantamount to getting their bodies like the torpedos that you describe.
I think that your idea about people letting their legs drop that you describe
in your first book was right on. In fact, correcting this is the key to
swimming better. However, how do people correct this? Pushing down their bouys
does not work. When I tried to help my friends I always treid to figure out
what I was doing different from them that allowed me to keep my legs up and
they couldn't. Finally, I figured out that the difference was that I was
swimming with an arched back.
In conclusion: Arched lower back=body straight like a torpedo.
straight back=body bent at waist.
If a swimmer wants to be straight like a torpedo she needs to arch her back. I
think that if you were to include this into your model it would go from very
good to perfect.
Andres
>Subject: Re: Impact of rec.sport.swimming
>From: total...@aol.com (Totalswimm)
>Date: 7/11/2003 2:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030711165541...@mb-m05.aol.com>
Totalswimm
>straight back=body bent at waist.
>
Andre
I didn't mean to suggest that there's no arch. Just to note that I disagree
with lifting the head to *intentionally* arch the back.
Terry
Totalswimm
>detriment of the sport and to the detriment of individual swimmers who would
>today be more successful with other techniques. To the extent that "TI" has
>contributed to this trend, it has also been harmful to the sport.
Same old, same old. And once again, I must ask WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE of harm?
This is exactly the point I was making about "hobbyists" vs. professionals.
Larry can sit at his keyboard and type out manifestos, but never has to
actually prove his airy theorizing with live athletes.
I and other TI coaches, on the other hand, have to back up our beliefs in our
daily work. And, without exception, every coach who is using TI in an informed
way (i.e. some measure of training by us) reports SIGNIFICANT improvements by
their teams.
So where's the evidence of harm? Please show me even one team - on any level -
that has been harmed by adopting a TI approach.
Terry
Larry Weisenthal
>>So where's the evidence of harm? Please show me even one team - on any level
-
that has been harmed by adopting a TI approach.<<
It depends on what your meaning of "harm" is.
Is it a good idea to teach swimmers a sense of
balance? Of course.
Is it a good idea to teach swimmers the importance of
minimizing drag? Of course.
But there is a problem with almost all "lowest common
denominator" approaches, when they rise to the level of
not just a stepping-off point, but to the level of a
paradigm. In my previous post, I gave several specific
examples of how Boomer/"TI"ism has become the dominant
paradigm in USA swimming; I believe to the detriment of
the sport.
You've got "TI"-trained swim coaches saying that Ian
Thorpe doesn't swim correctly! And you've got "TI"
instructors claiming that Janet Evans swam according to
"TI" principles, if only you look underwater!! (Thereby
obfuscating what it is that she's really doing and how
it might help a given good swimmer become great).
I don't think so:
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans_3.htm
http://weisenthal.org/swimming/evans_uw.mpg
Who has "TI" "harmed?"
Well, let's start with (I'm guessing) 5,000
triathletes.
What are the most important things in triathlon
swimming?
1. Threading one's way out through the mass of writhing
bodies at the mass start.
2. Getting on the feet of someone who's 10% faster than
you and staying there.
3. Sighting ahead at the marker buoys, to stay on
course.
How does one best achieve the above?
Tilt one's head forward during each stroke cycle to
glance sight briefly forward. Raise one's head a
little, frequently, to thread one's way and to stay on
course.
Bonus #1: If you do the above, and maintain a properly
arched lumbar spine, you will have better horizontal
balance as you swim than if you keep your head
"hidden," in the neutral position. A properly arched
lumbar spine must be specifically trained in the water
(standard kickboard training helps immensely, but there
are better in the water drills for this, as described
previously and to follow). An arched lumbar spine is
also useful for running fast (Michael Johnson, Haile Gebrselassie), to
avoid a hunched over posture in daily life, and to
avoid anterior compression of the vertebral bodies.
Bonus #2: If you do the above, you will be swimming in
the style of some of the fastest freestyle swimmers in
the history of the world.
I'm going to describe how to learn to swim in this
fashion step-by-step. It is not yet another lowest
common denominator approach to swimming. But it is a
method and style of swimming which is clearly advantageous
to some swimmers.
The fact that I don't make my living from this should
not automatically detract from its consideration.
DrClean
"Larry Weisenthal" <runn...@aol.comnet> wrote in message
<snip>
> Now, any further debate must acknowledge the fact the many if not most of
the
> greatest freestyle swimmers in the world have the following features to
their
> stroke:
>
> 1. They arch their backs prominently (which is what gives these swimmers
that
> "swimming high in the water" look which is so prized by coaches such as
Mark
> Schubert (without explaining exactly how the swimmers get this look)).
>
> 2. The back arch is most pronounced coincident with the catch and pull of
the
> breathing side hand, and is often accompanied by a pronounced head tilt
> forward, and sometimes with an actual head lift above the water line.
>
</snip>
Sorry Larry,
I don't believe that swimmers either
1. raise their backs intentionally into an arch or
2. try to do so to get on top of the water.
The fact that a back isn't perfectly straight in no way proves that swimmers
arch their back. To arch the back you must intentionally create the arch,
whereas if the swimmer (or anyone) keeps a straight back the head will
generally fall in line with the shoulders, hips and feet, if not they would
inevitably topple over when standing up straight or walking. Furthermore, I
believe the effort to raise the head, especially on longer swims, would have
a related cost in terms of fateague.
Maglischlo, in Swimming Fastest, assesses and discounts the thoery that
swimmers try to aquaplane by raising their heads and bodies and I think with
good reason. If you actively try to adjust the bodies natural position you
have to overcompensate in another area to retain the balance that the body
(and mind) wants to achieve. This, I assume as I've done no tests, would
lead to a veritable can-of-worms in terms of overcompensation, where to
compensate, potential injury and the ease with which the swimmer performs
the stroke. Remember, most of the truly great swimmers make it look as if
it's so god-damn easy and you can't do that in an unnatural position (again
I haven't tested this theory).
Perhaps this is just a mental block or failing on my part but I can't
believe that in order to swim smothly you twist the body into an unnatural
position.
Donal Fagan
andre...@aol.com says...
>I agree with what you say. Hiwever, being completely straight
>means that your lower back will have an arch.
To set a benchmark, I ask that people look at Anita and tell me
whether, in their opinion, *her* back is arched:
http://www.donalfagan.com/html/anitanall.html
IMO, she is as straight and streamlined as one can get, but
still maintains a small arch in the back (that natural
'lordosis' that Larry always talks about).
When I try to swim with a streamlined posture, I imagine that I
still have that small bit of arch, because I do not bend at the
waist. When I look at Terry's posture, I don't see him bending
at the waist:
http://www.donalfagan.com/TL-2.jpg
http://www.donalfagan.com/TL-4.jpg
Although Terry was fairly bulky in these clips, I still see a
small arch in his back, too.
But, when I read about Yanai-san's "arched-back, busy kick"
swimmers, I envision considerably more arching than what is
shown by Anita. I think of Johnny Weismuller smiling at Maureen
O'Sullivan as he carried his torso high, for the camera,
through the croc-infested waters.
Donal Fagan
AndresMuro
Long time no see. I agree with what you are saying. The arched back model is
something that I use to tell people how to prevent the legs from falling.
As I explained earlier, this is one of the greatest difficulties that prevent
some people from swimming correctly. When I am trying to explain people how
they can prevent their legs from falling I tell them to arch their backs. This
is because when there is no arch in their backs, their legs naturally sink. As
soon as they arch their backs the legs lift. Proper position both in and out of
water is with arched back. Look at my explanation of a person standing against
a wall with butt, shoulders and heels touching the wall.
Andres
>Subject: Re: Impact of rec.sport.swimming
>From: Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Donal Fagan)
>Date: 7/12/2003 3:41 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <nJQPa.96465$Io.83...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Totalswimm
>have to overcompensate in another area to retain the balance that the body
>(and mind) wants to achieve. This, I assume as I've done no tests, would
>lead to a veritable can-of-worms in terms of overcompensation, where to
>compensate, potential injury and the ease with which the swimmer performs
>the stroke. Remember, most of the truly great swimmers make it look as if
>it's so god-damn easy and you can't do that in an unnatural position (again
>I haven't tested this theory).
>
>Perhaps this is just a mental block or failing on my part but I can't
>believe that in order to swim smothly you twist the body into an unnatural
>position.
What we need in swimming is less academic theorizing and more common sense such
as the above. We just understand, intellectually, and the body understands,
kinesthetically, the virtues of natural posture. The body is designed to work
well as a mechanical system on land. In the water, the mechanical system
operates horizontally and with far less gravity -- and must contend with HUGE
resistance -- therefore the natural posture in water can and should be even
more cleanly aligned than on land.
Over the years I have had countless folks who practice seriously or teach a
variety of land-based movement disciplines - tennis, golf skiing, dance,
Alexander, Feldenkrais, yoga, pilates AND orthopedists and PTs - take a TI
workshop or read one of the IT books. All have agreed that the principle off
head-spine alignment makes just as much sense in swimming as in their
disciplines and wonder why swimming folks would think swimming ought to be
exempt..Head-spine alignment is the most body-friendly position and therefore
the body will operate optimally whatever you do with it.
This isn't rocket science. It's common sense.
Totalswimm
>
>Well, let's start with (I'm guessing) 5,000
>triathletes.
Larry
You've totally gone off the deep end here. Triathlon is the one discipline
where it's pretty much inarguable that TI has been a huge boon to the average
athlete.
We hardly even have to market or advertise in triathlon. They have adopted TI
as the gold standard for swim improvement and spread it virally from athlete to
athlete.
Why? Because it SOUNDS appealing? No, because it WORKS.
Last October while I was in Kona, the president of WTC - owner and operator of
the Ironman franchise - came up to me and said "You've made our job much
harder, but thanks anyway." I asked why and he said "Before TI the swim field
in Ironman races would be spread evenly between 60 minutes and 2 hours, making
it easy for the bike marshals to do their job. Now, he said, the great majority
of the field is under 90 minutes "meaning the bike marshals have a really
tough job and it's all your fault."
And, more importantly, he said "the sport is much safer because of TI."
Harming triathletes? Time for a reality check, Larry.
Totalswimm
>swimming?
I've been racing in open water since 1972, virtually always in the medals. I
also completed the 28.5-mile Manhattan Island Marathon last year. I'll be
racing a 5K in Long Island Sound tomorrow morning and six other races through
September. I have learned a lot through experience about how to swim
effectively in open water and have tried to share as much as I could about what
works with triathletes. Intentionally arching would do nothing but make me
tired sooner and leave me with a sore back and neck.
Strategically and cleverly sighting, while minimizing loss of balance, energy
cost and disruption in rhythm are what works.
In Chapter 21 of Triathlon Swimming Made Easy, I wrote:
>>Each summer, I divide my swim training between an outdoor 50-meter pool in
New Paltz, and several lakes in the nearby Shawangunk Mountains. At the pool, I
swim at slack times, but with no lane lines so I sometimes have to weave
through bathers who wander into my lane, giving me "open-water practice" of a
sort. I can get even better open-water simulation in the pool by doing all of
the following:
Swimming "blind." Swimming in a 50-meter pool (particularly one without lane
lines) gives me a great opportunity to test how straight I swim when not
following a line. Because it takes me about 40 strokes to swim a length, I can
easily swim 20 to 30 strokes with my eyes closed (only when the pool is not
crowded) and see how far I've wandered from the line where I started. This will
help me pick a frequency for sighting when I race. (Read more below.)
Sighting. Once or twice each length, I can breathe and sight to the front,
specifically practicing my ability to maintain my balance and rhythm as I do
so. I can combine this with blind swimming -- opening my eyes only when I lift
my head -- for an even more accurate simulation of the open water experience.
(Find more guidance below.)>>
And later:
>>Look This Way
Without a line to follow, any swimmer will eventually travel in a circle; the
best swimmers in a 10-mile circle while others might splash within the turning
radius of a VW. In open water, you stay the course by occasionally sighting on
landmarks, buoys, or swim caps. Practice can help you do that without losing
your balance and flow. Here's what I practice:
Look less often. When your technique improves, so should your ability to swim
straighter. I test mine by swimming considerable distances without looking. It
usually takes me about 320 strokes to cross the lake (yes, I count even there),
so I'll often begin a crossing by taking 100 "blind" strokes (without checking
my bearings) to see how straight I swim. If I've gone considerably off, I'll
take fewer strokes before looking again. This gives me a pretty fair sense of
how often to look in a race.
Sight smart. As we swim westward, our target is a dead tree angled into the
water. Coming east, we swim toward a dock. Complicating the westward trip is
sun glare that obscures the dead tree until we move into shadow, about 50
meters from the shore. How do I sight for the first 350 meters? On the bluff
above the shore the treeline dips slightly just right of the spot we're aiming
for. So I sight on the dip in the treeline until we reach the shadows. Heading
east, the dock isn't clearly visible until the last 100 meters, so I use two
buildings behind it, one a bit to its right and one to its left, to
"triangulate." While warming up for a race, check for landmarks and other
features that can help guide you when visibility is compromised.
Sight seamlessly. Sometimes the lake is almost as calm as pool water. When it
is, I practice "surfing" my goggles barely over the surface, using my extending
arm for support as I lift my head up and forward. Staying that low is far less
tiring than holding my head aloft for several strokes in a row, but I may not
get a completely clear picture. This sighting style is so easy to fit into my
normal stroke rhythm that if I didn't get a complete picture, I assemble one by
taking a series of "snapshots." And when windchop kicks up on the lake, I
adjust by lifting just a bit higher or by taking more snapshots. These
techniques help me maintain seamless balance and flow.>>
And still later:
>>Practice Free Rides
Swimming just behind someone else can be worth as much as 10 percent in energy
savings. Just as helpful, you can let your draftees do the work of navigation
while you simply follow in their wake - but do check their bearings from time
to time. I practice drafting in the pool, as I said, and at the lake, where I
sometimes start at the back of the pack to practice drafting. I'll do my
no-look strokes, and practice following other swimmers without actually looking
for them. I try to sense their proximity by feeling the bubbles from their
kick. You can also catch a ride by swimming alongside another swimmer (or
between two swimmers) but close enough to stay within their bow wave, by
keeping your goggles somewhere between their knees and feet. When drafting that
way you can keep your "rabbit" in view with normal side-breathing.
After swimming "blind" for 40 or more strokes, I'll sneak a quick peak at my
draftee's cap or for the center of the cluster of caps. Another way to use the
pack to stay on course is by swimming to one side. If you know, for instance,
that you typically wander to the left while swimming, position yourself to the
right of most of the pack. Everyone else will help keep you in line.>>
Read more excerpts at http://www.totalimmersion.net/products.html
Larry I'll be racing in the La Jolla Roughwater swim - 5K from the cove to
Scripps Pier and back - on Sept 6. That's close to your house. Care to test
your approach vs. mine?
AndresMuro
a perfectly aligned position by trying my out of the water example. Put your
heels, butt, shoulders and head against the wall. stand in the tips of your
toes, and raise your arms above your head. This is a perfectly straight body
position that is as perfectly aerodynamic as a human could achieve in the
water. You can add one more thing to that position. Bend your neck to look up.
The body still remains perfectly aligned and aerodynamic. So, in essence,
looking down, or looking forward while swimming makes no difference in
alignment. The advantage of looking forward is seeing other swimmers. This is
in no way contradictory to your model of swimming like a torpedo. However, most
swimmers will tend to keep their head at aproximately 45 degrees which, again,
does not contradict your aligned body model. I favor this to looking down.
From this model, if you are a triathlete, you can add one more thing. Every so
often, with your body perfectly aligned, bend your neck to look forward. Again,
maintaining your perfectly straight alignment that you suggest. this will not
cause the legs to drop as some people suggest, since head remains under water
in alignement with the rest of the body. Still, no disagreement with your
model. This allows a triathlete to see othe people under water if the water is
clear. To sight bouys, you can add one more thing. Apply Larry's lopping model.
During the pull phase of your dominant arm, allow your head to lift slightly
above the water for a few seconds. This is more tiring than keeping your head
submerged, but slightly more so. If you do this for two for three strrokes, you
will be able to sight bouys or other land marks during a lake swim. This is
much more efficient with, little time loss, than trying to keep your head above
water and swimming breaststroke or doggy style to sight bouys.
After sighting the land target, the swimmer can continue to swim with the head
under water until she feels that she needs to sight a boy again (I meant a
bouy). At this point, she bends the neck to look forward and lopes again.
Either way, while swimming with head submerged, looking down or looking forward
does not disrupt you perfect allignment model. I prefer to look about 45
degrees and forward, and used the looking forward and lopping technique
successfully in my last triathlon. Also, in the pool, I sometimes want to look
out to see if nobody has "accidentally" walked away with my bag, or to see who
the beautiful girl who just walked in is. Again, after Larry's loping
description, I have added the loping model to my repertoire to do this. Give it
a try, it is good.
In essence, I don't think that you and Larry ultimatley disagree much in what a
swimmer must do. The biggest disagrement is in interpretation of what a
perfectly aligned body looks like.
Andres
>Subject: Re: Impact of rec.sport.swimming
>From: total...@aol.com (Totalswimm)
>Date: 7/12/2003 5:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030712072428...@mb-m20.aol.com>
Donal Fagan
<20030711214628...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
runn...@aol.comnet says...
>1. In the current issue of Splash (the one with Larsen
>Jensen on the cover), there is a section on technical
>advice for swim coaches. Maintaining the head
>down/neutral position is emphasized, for the specific
>reason of preventing the hips from sinking, which is
>alleged to occur when the head is raised. This is
>false, as discussed earlier.
It is not false. I see many swimmers with their head
and torso consistently held high and their legs dragging
low. Raising their head *does* lower their legs. Yes,
some people manage to briefly raise both their head and
legs at a certain point during their stroke, but citing
a brief maneuver does not help these leg-draggers at
all.
Some people can smoke an occasional cigarette without
getting cancer, but it would foolish and irresponsible
to use that as an argument that smoking cannot hurt you.
If you carry your head and torso high while swimming,
you'd better have a big kick, or a pull float, to keep
your legs from sinking.
>1. They arch their backs prominently
Well, you've previously maintained that that one should
maintain "normal lordosis" while loping, so I'd ask,
"Which is it? Prominent arching of the back or normal
arching of the back?"
Imagine someone walking or running with prominent
arching of the back. They'd probably draw a crowd
asking what they were looking at. "Look, in the sky!
It's a bird, it's a plane, ..."
>I believe that Boomerization has homogenized swimming
>technique, to the detriment of the sport and to the
>detriment of individual swimmers who would today be
>more successful with other techniques.
I can just as easily claim that many swimmers were
ruined in the past because they weren't taught with TI.
In fact, I do think I would have been far better off
with such training, but in the absence of a large study
of clones or identical twins taught in a variety of
styles, it is flatly impossible to prove either way.
Donal Fagan
Scott Lemley
<<...by the way, Scott Lemley's admonition to keep your head still
would only make sense if one were swimming without moving one's arms.
Because the pull tries to sink the legs, reciprocal head movements are
very helpful to keep the body horizontal in the water...>>
Hi Larry. I'm certainly not alone as a coach telling my swimmers to
minimize their head movements when they swim freestyle. The fact that
most coaches I know tell their swimmers the same thing does NOT in
itself make such advice "right", of course. I mention this because the
coaches I know don't simply coach the way we were coached, which would
be perpetuating an old paradigm and would be evidence of a certain
thoughtlessness on our parts. Most coaches I know are quite
perceptive. They look closely at what their swimmers are doing, think
deeply about what their swimmers need to change in their strokes to
swim better, carefully suggest those changes, and then look closely at
what the results are.
If this is your habit as a professional coach, and you're at all good
at what you do, which is to say, have a proven track record of helping
the swimmers on your team swim faster every year, and you do this year
after year (in my case for 25 years now), don't you think we as
coaches would see some significant patterns in terms of helpful stroke
tips vs non-helpful stroke tips?
Are we all not making sense as professional coaches (again I'm just
speaking from personal knowledge about me and the coaches I know)? Are
we all deluded on this point? Are you the only one (that I know,
anyway) who sees clearly that we should not only let the head bobbing
go, we should teach it? Sorry, rhetorical question. Your answer, of
course, is "Yes. You don't make sense when you teach swimmers to keep
their heads steady."
Your assertion that "telling a swimmer to keep their head steady would
only make sense if they weren't moving their arms" doesn't make sense.
Our torso can move independently of our head. If we rotate along our
long axis as we swim I see no reason for our heads to bob around. The
only reason to move the head is to bring the mouth into position to
breath and you don't need to move it much to accomplish this.
Your premise of the "pull trying to sink the legs" is true only if a
swimmer pushes down significantly upon entry. I teach my swimmers NOT
to push down when their hands initially enter the water. I want their
fingertips to point down and for them to "slid" their hands down until
their hand-forearm (and upper arm as well) is in a position of power
(which I've described), i.e., vertical in the water. That's the point
at which I want them to apply power to their stroke, i.e., push
against the water. Pushing down immediately is counter-productive and
inherently dangerous in terms of potentially levering their shoulders
out of their sockets.
So could it be that since I don't let my swimmers push down on the
water upon entry I just don't see the legs sinking at that point and
thus don't see that "reciprocal head movements are very helpful to
keep the body horizontal in the water"?
Scott
Michael D. Kersey
<snipped>
> This is exactly the point I was making about "hobbyists" vs. professionals.
> Larry can sit at his keyboard and type out manifestos, but never has to
> actually prove his airy theorizing with live athletes.
There's plenty of room in swimming for practitioners and for those who
spend more time observing, thinking and developing hypotheses.
Swimming is in a pretty sad state of affairs when one cannot say clearly
whether the optimal freestyle technique is a pure pull or a sculling
motion (Maglischo).
Like electricity and magnetism in the 1800's swimming has hobbyists,
experimenters, practitioners and theoreticians. Missing is a
practitioner as skilled as Michael Faraday at providing crucial
experiments. Also missing is a theoretician like James Clerk Maxwell to
make sense of the details and provide a clarifying framework.
> I and other TI coaches, on the other hand, have to back up our beliefs in our
> daily work. And, without exception, every coach who is using TI in an informed
> way (i.e. some measure of training by us) reports SIGNIFICANT improvements by
> their teams.
Of *course* they report improvement. But this is nothing exclusive to
TI: *any* reasonable additional coaching of a swimmer will improve that
swimmer's performance. So while it is good that TI will usually improve
a swimmer's performance, so can the local swim coach. But when a swimmer
pays $$ for a short intense TI training clinic they may be more
motivated to listen to suggestions.
IMO what is most remarkable about TI is that it has a business model
that allows it to be profitable. In contrast it appears that being a
swim coach is more a vocation (a "calling") than a business.
Jason O'Rourke
>Swimming is in a pretty sad state of affairs when one cannot say clearly
>whether the optimal freestyle technique is a pure pull or a sculling
>motion (Maglischo).
There may not be a single answer to the question. And the answer may
not be the same for the elites as the common triathlete. Our bodies
were not evolved around swimming.
It is pretty firmly established that TI takes a lot of people to a good
level of performance.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Michael D. Kersey
<snipped>
> It is pretty firmly established that TI takes a lot of people to a good
> level of performance.
My point was that one need not use TI to move to a higher level of
performance; a good coach can do the same thing. There's nothing magical
about TI's content: AFAIK they don't have any patents or trade secrets
or tricks unknown outside TI. TI does apply well-know training,
motivational and swimming techniques cost-effectively to groups.
TI has a business model that profitably passes knowledge about swimming
to an eager market. IMO that is unique and is the most remarkable thing
about TI.
Donal Fagan
Kersey" <mdke...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>My point was that one need not use TI to move to a
>higher level of performance; a good coach can do
>the same thing.
If you can find one. Finding a coach may be easy
in some places, but not everywhere. And some of
the 'coaches' I did have in masters taught me very
little.
Donal Fagan AIA
Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com
(Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
Martin W. Smith
>
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:44:42 -0500, "Michael D.
> Kersey" <mdke...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> >My point was that one need not use TI to move to a
> >higher level of performance; a good coach can do
> >the same thing.
>
> If you can find one. Finding a coach may be easy
> in some places, but not everywhere. And some of
> the 'coaches' I did have in masters taught me very
> little.
There is a wide variation in Masters coaches. In Australia they have a
qualification system, so that coaches are qualified to a certain level.
You can choose a Masters club based on that level, if you want to ask
the coach what level he/she is, I suppose.
But even with a teach-nothing coach, just training with a Masters club
will put you with other knowledgable swimmers, any of whom can observe
your stroke and tell you what to work on. For the overwhelming majority
of Masters swimmers, the changes required are at a coarse level.
Successive refinements in technique will provide diminishing returns for
most Masters, where moving to a higher level, once you have a descent
stroke, is achieved by improvements in strength, stamina, and above all,
cardio-vascular output, IMO.
Sometimes I get the impression that Masters who work a lot on technique
are avoiding the hard work. On the other hand, it is rare that I see a
Masters swimmer's stroke that couldn't be improved. Fortunately, I can't
see my own.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Totalswimm
>whether the optimal freestyle technique is a pure pull or a sculling
>motion (Maglischo).
In the end I wonder how important it is to ask or answer the question. It's why
I'm not much interested in the "academic" debates that occur so often here.
I swim a LOT, and spent a little time pondering this question years ago when
the possibility was first raised. So I tried adding little sculling motions and
outsweeps to my stroke. It had zero effect - either increased efficiency or
speed or ease OR any kinesthetic sense that something significant was
happening.
Later I focused on balance and avoding drag and more fluency and less noise.
All had immediate and significant effects. Noticeable both quantitatively and
qualitatively.
I don't believe that any great swimmer has ever developed by swimming down a
pool asking "drag or lift?" They are gifted to be able to figure that stuff out
by pure feel and instinct. The less-gifted among us can improve our sensitivity
to gaining advantage by some informed, acutely attentive experimentation,
cross-referenced with what the stroke count and pace clock and HR tell us.
Thus my bias in favor of what we (swimmers and coaches) discover in the pool,
much as Scott Lemley has described. And my bias against the wordy discussions
on line, which in the end never produce any practical functional understanding.
>>In contrast it appears that being a
swim coach is more a vocation (a "calling") than a business.>>
I want it to be both. I want fewer coaches who sit on deck drinking coffee and
reading newspapers, occasionally saying "Ready go" and more coaches who are
passionate about coaching the whole swimmer, using every possible human faculty
to make that happen.
The people who are being attracted to TI to be trained as teachers and coaches
are characterized by this shared passion.
When asked to describe what I do, I never call it a "job," nor even a "career."
I always think of it as a "calling."
Terry
Totalswimm
Speaking from a subjective point of view -- buttressed however by the people at
Simon and Schuster who published the original TI book and consider it a
phenomenon -- I think that what distinguishes TI is that we've managed to make
accessible and simple ideas about swimming that had always been presented in an
intimidatingly technical way. And to a pretty remarkable extent, people who've
been exposed become raving fans. Nothing in swimming heretofore has ever had
that effect on people. They like that they can understand it, that it works and
that the "mindful, qualitative model" is intellectually and emotionally
satisfying to an extent that the quantitative ("Do more, harder) model could
never be. They really prefer to do swimming as a "practice" (like yoga and tai
chi) rather than as a workout. And they find that their endurance and speed
improve as they do.
Unquestionably it's good for swimming at large to have something going on
that's stimulating people to become passionate about it.
And all this is possible only because our methods are a real departure from
existing paradigms and conventions. It goes well beyond marketing. It has
turned into a viral thing far beyond anything we could accomplish with our
modest resources.
Terry
4precious
Darn it, Larry. As long as you keep admitting that your "hot button"
is when Terry refers to you as a "hobbyist" instead of a
"professional", he'll keep pushing it.
I'd tread a little lightly, Terry. Dr. Weisenthal has a medical
degree and a PhD. Which means he probably has a bigger scientific
brain with which to dissect things than you and I put together.
That's why he and no other swim coach was able to put together the
common attributes of the loping technique, identify the large number
of swimmers who use it, and postulate a number of reasons why elite
swimmers seem to naturally gravitate towards it.
If you have any advanced degrees, or any degrees in hydrodynamics,
please lay them on the table.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I believe your
contributions to the sport are two-fold. First, as another poster
stated far more eloquently than I could, you have a business model for
teaching swimming which is quite profitable. I'm sure your swim
empire rakes in more in two years than most poor coaches make in a
lifetime. Second, your relaxed approach to drilling cuts through the
hyper-swim culture like a knife. And that's a great thing. In my
Masters group we do drilling with such a small interval, you'd need
fins to keep up. What's the point of that?
But the main purpose of my post is this. You talk about swim teams or
clubs that adopt the TI approach. Could you be specific about what
you mean there. For example, do you mean the TI approach as embodied
by trying to work more on decreasing drag rather than increasing
propulsion? Or having a large emphasis on distance per stroke. Or
doing a certain amount of drilling per work-out. What would you say
qualifies a team for adopting the TI approach?
thanks
Eric
Jason O'Rourke
>> It is pretty firmly established that TI takes a lot of people to a good
>> level of performance.
>
>My point was that one need not use TI to move to a higher level of
>performance; a good coach can do the same thing. There's nothing magical
>about TI's content: AFAIK they don't have any patents or trade secrets
There's nothing magically about it, but it's actually there.
It's easy to say "anyone can do this," but a different matter entirely
to actually do it. As a diver and surfer, dark OW never scared me, but
it certainly gives a lot of triathletes the willies. For the amount of
money they spend on bike gear alone, the TI books, videos, or even classes
look like a steal.
de Valois
(UTC) for The Way to clean up:
Most coaches and/or techniques really boil down to one thing: they force you to
focus on how to swim better. Ultimately only the swimmer can make the
improvement, so whether that comes from private or team coaching, or from
reading and implementing TI, doesn't matter. What matters is what the swimmer is
going to respond to.
(Granted, the book can't stand poolside and correct you on the fly, pardon the
pun)
Back in my acting days (OK, last week :) ), we were always encouraged by the
really good teachers to study up on every possible technique for acting, whether
by book or auditing classes or enrolling in another class. Not because there's
"one right way" to do things, but because it forced us to think about practical
application of techniques we were learning.
Swimming is the same way, with the added complication that there are
demonstrable differences in efficiency and technique that you wouldn't find
learning a highly subjective art.
Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003
Donal Fagan
Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote:
>But even with a teach-nothing coach, just training
>with a Masters club will put you with other
>knowledgable swimmers, ...
Some masters teams are very loosely organized.
Here in Altoona, we only see the 'coach' at meets,
and only run into each other as our schedules
happen to coincide. Some people do pair off
intentionally.
>... any of whom can observe your stroke and tell
>you what to work on.
A few of them do, others just aren't very
talkative.
Donal Fagan
(4precious) wrote:
>I'd tread a little lightly, Terry. Dr. Weisenthal has a medical
>degree and a PhD. Which means he probably has a bigger scientific
>brain with which to dissect things than you and I put together.
"She blinded me with science ..."
Jason O'Rourke
>I'd tread a little lightly, Terry. Dr. Weisenthal has a medical
>degree and a PhD. Which means he probably has a bigger scientific
>brain with which to dissect things than you and I put together.
The catch to that, is that PhDs (and doctors) tend to have corresponding
egos to their presumed brain mass, and are not above outright lying to
defend a taken stance.
A lovely example would be "Arming America," by a now former professor at Emory
that showed the gun ownership in America is a new development, not seen in
the 18th and 19th Centuries. Nice book for the HCI crowd to hang with,
but unfortunately beset by errors that showed at best incompetence, at worst
academic fraud.
So...the doctor doesn't get a free ride. If he's going to claim that he
has it right, and that Terry is destroying thousands of swimmers, he can
prove it.
Larry Weisenthal
>>So...the doctor doesn't get a free ride. If he's going to claim that he
has it right, and that Terry is destroying thousands of swimmers, he can
prove it.<<
Can we at least let me defend what I said, rather than what you said I said?
My original statement was that Boomerism/"TI"ism has been harmful to the sport,
because it has has led to the ascendency of wrong-headed principles as part of
the dominant paradigm. As a corollary, it has led to a homogenization of
swimming technique, to the overall detriment of the sport and to the
disadvantage of individual swimmers. I continue to hold this opinion.
To prove the point that Boomerism/"TI"ism has become the dominant paradigm, I
quoted the most recent issue of Splash, the official "organ" (publication) of
USA Swimming, the self-proclaimed "largest swimming circulation" periodical in
the world. I directly quoted "TI" trained swim coaches and instructors. I
quoted my own observations from attending an average of 20 two to 5 day
swimming meets per year over the past dozen years -- showing a pronounced trend
toward a homogenized freestyle technique.
Furthermore, I noted the unchallenged fact that some of the greatest world
records in freestyle swimming are held by swimmers who swim with styles which
go against the teachings of Boomerism/"TI"ism.
Furthermore, I cited personal experience of observing coaches who attempted to
extinguish the spontaneous development of technical traits of age group
swimmers which mimiced the traits of the great freestyle world record holders
-- because, once again, these violated the central tenets of Boomerism/"TI"ism.
Furthermore, I noted how the key elements of triathlon swimming (surviving the
mass start, drafting, course sighting) are also much better addressed by the
swimming style of the great freestyle world record holders, which violate the
tenets of Boomerism/"TI"ism.
Furthermore, I pointed out how "TI" instructors have promoted a style of
swimming ("skating on the side," with lead arm outstretched completely,
fingertips just below the surface of the water, palm parallel to the surface)
which puts the shoulder in marked internal rotation at a time of full
elevation, with resulting rotator cuff impingement, which is an anatomic fact
and not a speculation.
And so forth.
But I agree wholeheartedly with the more central thesis of O'Rourke's posting.
My ideas and opinions do not merit special consideration because of my
background or academic degrees. But my ideas and opinions do deserve whatever
consideration they may receive from anyone who reads this newsgroup and wishes
to consider them. No more/no less. Just because they are there, available for
all to read, consider, reject, criticize, or praise.
I am respectful of those who offer specific criticisms of the ideas and
opinions, themselves. I have just never found it helpful when people ignore
the specifics of the ideas and opinions, themselves, and dismiss them because
of my perceived lack of "qualifications," relative to a swim coach.
I've paid my dues, in terms of literally thousands of hours (I've calculated
this, and I'm not exaggerating) spent watching workouts and swim meets at all
levels. I have the huge advantage of being able to focus all my attention on
comparison and contrasts of correlations between technical nuances and
performance. I don't need to focus all my attention on my own swimmers, take
and record splits, and keep 36 different swimmers all going through their paces
for 2 1/2 hours. I also don't have a personal financial stake in promoting any
particular system. I'm just intrigued by figuring out the whys and hows of the
sport.
The sport has been enriched by coaches and by bona fide academic physiologists
and biomechanists. Because of the existence of the Internet, I feel that the
sport is now capable of being enriched by the observations and ideas of
"hobbyists," like me.
I think when we focus on the specifics of the controversy under discussion and
not on the personal attributes of the discussants, we are capable of making
progress.
Terry has offered a paradigm and a method. I have a competing paradigm and a
competing method (which I've outlined before, but will describe in step-by-step
detail in the near future). Rather than defending each of our paradigms and
methods to the exclusion of the other, perhaps we (all, collectively) can take
elements from both sides (and more) and construct something superior to both,
taken individually. Let's just continue the discussion. Continue to consider,
argue, debate, experiment (on ourselves and/or on our swimmers), and see where
this may lead.
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>Furthermore, I pointed out how "TI" instructors
>have promoted a style of swimming ("skating on the
>side," with lead arm outstretched completely,
>fingertips just below the surface of the water,
>palm parallel to the surface) which puts the
>shoulder in marked internal rotation at a time of
>full elevation, with resulting rotator cuff
>impingement, which is an anatomic fact
>and not a speculation.
You won't find an impingement free stroke in
Maglischo, Colwin or even Katz. The reality is
that most, if not all, major swim gurus describe
strokes with a great deal of internal rotation as
the proper way to swim. And some percentage of
swimmers have always dropped out due to swimmer's
shoulder (like poor AKA Leigh).
In part, elite swimming seems to be a matter of
having the right physique to survive that rotation
through high yardage workouts.
That said, I don't think the long reach is as much
of a problem as beginning the push too early,
whatever your stroking style.
Larry Weisenthal
>>That said, I don't think the long reach is as much
of a problem as beginning the push too early,
whatever your stroking style.<<
A true red-letter day in my life. Agreeing with O'Fagan about
anything...priceless.
Most of the total impingement in the stroke cycle, though, occurs during the
parts of the stroke which have nothing at all to do with propulsion...namely
recovery and forward reach. Only about 25% of the total potential impingement
in the stroke cycle occurs during the pull itself, when whatever favorable
biomechanical advantage from internal rotation would be enjoyed.
You can recover with your thumb facing your ear, palm down, or, even better,
with your thumb upward and your palm facing your ear. This alone gets rid of
50% of the impingement.
You can also do your long forward reach with your thumb up and pinky down,
instead of with your palm down. Enter just a little wider than usual (enter at
about the position of butterfly swimming). Let the descent of the hand be
somewhat diagonally (from the outside toward the midline), again, just like in
the descent and early part of the catch in butterfly. Thereafter, if you
absolutely have to internally rotate, you'll at least be doing it in less than
full forward shoulder elevation, and you'll be less likely to drive the head of
the humerus upward to squeeze your rotator cuff, because you'll be pulling
backward and not downward at the time when you are internally rotated.
Scott Lemley
<<You talk about swim teams or clubs that adopt the TI approach.
Could you be specific about what you mean there. For example, do you
mean the TI approach as embodied by trying to work more on decreasing
drag rather than increasing
propulsion? Or having a large emphasis on distance per stroke. Or
doing a certain amount of drilling per work-out. What would you say
qualifies a team for adopting the TI approach?>>
Hi Eric. I think I currently probably coach a couple of teams that
qualify as TI oriented - an age group club and a high school team. Let
me qualify that by saying I don't call what I do "TI". Certainly Terry
and I share very similar proclivities as coaches. I admit upfront that
I once even ran a 4 stroke kid's camp for Terry. That was years ago.
However, how I coach is more a distillation of 25 years of thinking
about what works and what doesn't and what makes sense and what
doesn't than holding to a strict "TI" format.
So, why do I think who and how I coach might qualify as a "TI"
oriented team? Because we "practice" swimming well rather than simply
"working out" for one thing. Though I understand how important aerobic
conditioning is, for instance, I know my swimmers have a great aerobic
base NOT because we focus so much on LSD (long slow distance), but
rather, because I follow the basic principles underlying aerobic
conditioning, i.e., moderate pace, little rest AND, within that
framework, we focus on some very precise aspects of what I call "good
technique". We do our share of "straight" drills - one arm freestyle,
for instance, or kicking 10 times and then swimming 3 careful strokes.
More than that, however, we practice mindful swimming. This is the
essence of drills in a sense; every stroke is important to me and, by
extension, to my swimmers. When a coach asks his or her swimmers to
execute some drill it's usually to isolate and emphasize one aspect of
technique they want their swimmers to really understand (read
"adopt"). I essentially want my swimmers to "drill" every stroke in
every practice in this regard, whether what they're doing is "full
stroke" swimming or straight drilling.
To that end WE use fistgloves a fair amount of the time during our
practices. Shielding one's hands (while they're being held in fists)
compels swimmers to concentrate more on using their forearms, for
instance, than they would under normal conditions. Utilizing the
forearm has been shown to be a very desirable characteristic in
swimmers. We devote a fair amount of every practice to this one trait.
Now that's certainly considered to be on the "propulsion" side of the
equation. Yet we also greatly value minimizing resistance as well,
which you identified as a "TI" trait. To THAT end, we spend what some
might call an inordinant amount of time streamlining off the walls and
streamlining while we swim. This is most certainly seen as being on
the other side of the equation.
We also like to (read "I like my swimmers to") swim "golf" sets, that
is, focus on Distance Per Stroke rather than straight speed or
straight power sets. I like this because I see young athletic kids
able to evidence endurance and strength far more often than I see them
evidence efficient mechanics. It only makes sense, then, to give them
ample opportunities to learn to swim more efficiently, which is to
say, more smoothly or in a more relaxed fashion. I temper these sets
with time constraints; I ask my swimmers to stay somewhat close to
race speeds while focusing on efficiency. That makes it real.
So, I suppose someone in tune with what's currently going on in the TI
movement would need to comment on what I've said WE do as to whether
or not that's "TI".
I suspect Terry and I have arrived at somewhat the same place at
somewhat the same time. I doubt that he and I are alone.
I know Larry has believers as well. There are undoubtedly those
coaches and swimmers who feel "loping" (head bobbing?) is the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Even if these people don't write in and add
their voices to his I know they're out there. Ultimately the value of
what any of us contributes to rss is how well we explain what WE do to
the readers and how compeling our arguments are. If the readers go out
and try what we suggest (or have their swimmers try what we suggest)
then we were persuasive and rss has served a purpose. THAT IN ITSELF
doesn't make what we suggest right (or wrong). If it works for you or
your swimmers, in a sense, that's good enough. BETTER than that,
however, is how well it works for ALL your swimmers and how long it
works for them.
We're all looking for that Unified Field Theory of swimming. It may or
may not exist. Saying something that sparks a thought in another
person that rings a bell or strikes a chord and compels us to refine
what we do or try something different gives rss value. It can be
something simple; it doesn't need to qualify as the Unified Field
Theory of swimming.
There's no doubt that this newsgroup has functioned that way for me. I
apprecate all the comments posters have made over the years.
Regards,
Scott
Totalswimm
>clubs that adopt the TI approach. Could you be specific about what
>you mean there
A fair question and one that gets to the heart of it. You could be led to
think, by following the discussions on this website (or at least those started
by Larry) that competitive swimming consists of only one stroke. But TI-trained
coaches teach all four strokes and do so with great results. How do we measure
those results. Their swimmers improve significantly across the board compared
to how they swam pre-TI. And more importantly they are injured less and enjoy
swimming more. About a week ago, I posted a list of what TI coaches consider to
be the fundamental truths about ALL forms of swimming, competitive included.
Teams which embrace this philosophy may fairly be called "TI teams."
If you consider how 95% of teams are coached, this is a pretty radical
departure from the prevailing paradigm. I consider this to be far more
significant as a contribution to swimming than any aspect of TI as a business
model. As a business model, I mainly hope to convince coaches that their market
value and income potential are far greater when they become great teachers than
when they are good mainly at saying "Ready, Go."
TI Teams are trained according to these principles:
1. Nothing is more important than fitting your body through the smallest
possible hole in the water -- and disturbing the water as little as possible as
you pass through it.
2. All propelling movements must be as fluent as possible to achieve maximum
effect.
3. All training considerations should be subordinate to #s 1 and 2. You can
train as hard and as long as you wish, so long as you have the skill to
continue maximizing #s 1 and 2 as you do. All training should be a systematic
exercise in expanding your capacity to swim harder and longer fluently and
economically.
4. For 98% of the swimming population, the skills to do the above are not
instinctive and sometimes even counterintuitive. But they are learnable to a
significant degree if coaches are rigorous in their committment to teaching
them.
5. Most importantly, an approach to training that embraces all of the above is
engaging and motivating for the swimmer to a far greater degree than "longer
and harder" because it allows them to use all of their human faculties to
maximize their potential. If more coaches would use this paradigm they'd retain
far more of their talent base and do much more with it.
Best,
Terry
Martin W. Smith
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:59:00 +0200, "Martin W.
> Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote:
>
> >But even with a teach-nothing coach, just training
> >with a Masters club will put you with other
> >knowledgable swimmers, ...
>
> Some masters teams are very loosely organized.
> Here in Altoona, we only see the 'coach' at meets,
> and only run into each other as our schedules
> happen to coincide. Some people do pair off
> intentionally.
I don't see any reason to be a member of a club like that, when there is
usually a good on nearby, unless you just want to be a registered member
of a club so you can compete.
> >... any of whom can observe your stroke and tell
> >you what to work on.
>
> A few of them do, others just aren't very
> talkative.
You do have to ask.
Totalswimm
some thought as I took my daily swim at Lake Minnewaska last evening. I should
clarify, I was thinking about the QUESTION - not the actual phenomenon or
sensation of how the stroke would feel if it was "lift" and how it would feel
if it was "drag." I challenge anyone on this newsgroup to write a description
that distinguishes those feelings with sufficient vividness and clarity that it
could actually be used to guide a swimmer in the pool, because it's the
FEELING, not the academic question that ultimately matters in the water.
As I thought about the question -- while actually swimming -- it became even
more apparent to me how little application it had to actual swimming. Here's
why:
I think everyone understands from experience that when swinging a golf club, or
baseball bat or tennis racket there is simply no way to guide that action
properly to its conclusion. This is true of all ballistic movements. One can
only initiate them in the most accurate possible manner - and then hope for the
best. Which is why such acute attention is given to learning and imprinting a
highly reliable neuromuscular pathway.
A swimming stroke is not substantially different. 95% of the effectiveness of
the stroke will be determined by what happens in front of your head. What
happens under your body is of little moment, because it's been predetermined by
what happened in front of your head -- you really can't tweak it as it's
happening.
And in front of your head, what you're trying mainly to do is get your hand to
feel as if it's almost standing still, so your body can move past it. Once you
finish thinking about the "catch" on one hand, you shift immediately to
thinking about the "catch" on the other hand.
And the question "lift or drag?" is just not occurring to you at that moment.
Terry
Martin W. Smith
>
> One more note about the lift/drag question. I was actually giving the question
> some thought as I took my daily swim at Lake Minnewaska last evening. I should
> clarify, I was thinking about the QUESTION - not the actual phenomenon or
> sensation of how the stroke would feel if it was "lift" and how it would feel
> if it was "drag." I challenge anyone on this newsgroup to write a description
> that distinguishes those feelings with sufficient vividness and clarity that it
> could actually be used to guide a swimmer in the pool, because it's the
> FEELING, not the academic question that ultimately matters in the water.
I will use the word sensation in place of feeling. When swimming a drag
stroke, one has the sensation of moving in the opposite direction of the
vector of the force being applied. When swimming a lift stroke, one has
the sensation of moving not quite in the opposite direction of that
vector but slightly across it, much as a sailboat sails fastest when it
sails across the wind instead of with the wind.
> As I thought about the question -- while actually swimming -- it became even
> more apparent to me how little application it had to actual swimming. Here's
> why:
>
> I think everyone understands from experience that when swinging a golf club, or
> baseball bat or tennis racket there is simply no way to guide that action
> properly to its conclusion. This is true of all ballistic movements. One can
> only initiate them in the most accurate possible manner - and then hope for the
> best. Which is why such acute attention is given to learning and imprinting a
> highly reliable neuromuscular pathway.
>
> A swimming stroke is not substantially different. 95% of the effectiveness of
> the stroke will be determined by what happens in front of your head. What
> happens under your body is of little moment, because it's been predetermined by
> what happened in front of your head -- you really can't tweak it as it's
> happening.
>
> And in front of your head, what you're trying mainly to do is get your hand to
> feel as if it's almost standing still, so your body can move past it. Once you
> finish thinking about the "catch" on one hand, you shift immediately to
> thinking about the "catch" on the other hand.
>
> And the question "lift or drag?" is just not occurring to you at that moment.
> Terry
--
Shahin Malekpour
"Totalswimm" wrote
[...]
> Intentionally arching would do nothing but make me
> tired sooner and leave me with a sore back and neck.
[...]
Of course I am aware of your being a Yoga practitioner,
Terry. So I find the above somewhat surprising :) But I do
appreciate the effects of holding an _unnatural_ posture
for too long (without counter-balancing) on the spine.
With training and appropriate stretching exercises,
arching of the back would become effortless for an
adept athlete. In becoming a "fish-like" swimmer,
one must educate the body to behave flexibly as
a whip, tuned to seamlessly slip through the liquid.
In "swimming with ones body", arching of the back,
as well as "raising the head" have their parts to play.
I do both of these, and have great fun with them because
of the range of effects and functions that they lend to my
swimming.
I find Larry's terminology "Boomerism" interesting,
and his concern about "homogenization of swimming
techniques" a legitimate one. Personally, as a serious
recreational swimmer, I find both sides of this argument
fascinating and worthy of examination.
The most thing I enjoy from my swimming is the tranquillity,
and the quality of concentration that it brings me, albeit in
the busy fast lane. I never volunteer to coach; because that
is not my aim. However, I always have a handful of students.
They approach me themselves and request instructions to
help them swim as fast and as effortlessly as I do. Being a
serious practitioner/student of swimming, I happily oblige
when I see a promising student. The rate of my success has
surprised myself, and my sons wonder why I don't become
an official coach! But I have many other interests, e.g.
already successfully coaching businessmen in management
disciplines and design to swimmingly reach their goals :)
Admittedly, I start off my swimming students with some of the
"TI" drills, because they are invaluable in teaching balance.
I was originally influenced by Howard Firby and his teaching
of "the feel for water". Boomer/Total Immersion too put a lot
of emphasis on the feel for water in their drills. I also like the
sheer elegance of Total emersion technique, which I have
taught myself by reading and practicing.
In fact the other night I was watching with some amusement
half a dozen of my disciples swimming more or less in "TI"
fashion! Even swimmers too shy to come forward and
ask for coaching, from afar, by observing, have started to
emulate some of the drills that I have brought to the pool.
Fortunately, I have a much more varied repertoire than "TI",
and not all those drills are from the "TI" school. Additionally
I always emphasise to my fellow swimmers to continue and
explore things for themselves; to break the mould and avoid
falling into a sterile, samy approach to swimming.
Swimming, particularly free style, I think is like dancing, albeit
a little more formal. It is an athletic form of art that whilst
governed by groups of immutable physical laws, it can also
be performed in infinite variations, rhythms and compositions,
when done with imagination as well as physical excellence,
to achieve flawless _unity of motion_ which distinguishes
the artist from the crowd.
I have only recently started to pay more attention to arching
my back, after reading about it in this NG. In my experience
it works, just as well as "TI" techniques, adding as much
function, pleasure and fun that one might wish in swimming
effortlessly and fast.
Thanks for the time and the quality of knowledge/arguments
that you, Larry and other good participants put into this fine
NG, whose impact, at least in a good Nottingham swimming
pool, creates nought but ripples of harmony. :)
Shahin
Larry Weisenthal
> Intentionally arching would do nothing but make me
> tired sooner and leave me with a sore back and neck.
There's a right way and a wrong way to "arch." A way that hurts your back, and
a way that doesn't. I'll explain; anyone interested can try it and report
back. There's a right and wrong way to tilt your head forward. But the degree
of required head tilt is less than riding a dropped handelbar bike; so it's
hardly radical. It's actually natural to look ahead. What's important is the
timing of the head tilt. An actual head lift is advantageous only at the truly
elite level, where the leg sinking torque forces are very considerable because
the power application is so great. As one's swimming improves and one's
training improves, the head lift becomes more prominent and becomes more
prominent in a way which is completely natural and easy.
It is true that there tends to be a loss of the natural lumbar lordosis with
aging. I have stipulated that people with degenerative disc disease and/or
anterior vertebral compression fractures may not be able to enjoy the
considerable benefits of learning to swim in the fashion of the greats.
Because the "TI" balance method is so inherently unstable that it requires
hundreds of hours of drilling, careful attention to entry and hand placement,
etc., it is a method which requires individual instruction, workshops, videos,
books, drilling aids, and endless hours of drills. And, in the end, the
swimmer is still inherently unstable. Serious competitive swimmers overcome
this through developing natural back arches (often greatly assisted by
kickboard training), by spending a lot of time looking forward while swimming
in crowded lanes (which has the benefit of increasing lower back arch and
training the muscles which maintain this arch), and by having typically very
good kicks.
None of these advantages are enjoyed by the typical fitness swimmer/triathlete.
I'm claiming that that "my" (public domain) methods are simple to learn and
master and will provide unparalled stability in balance, for those swimmers who
do not suffer from pre-existing back problems.
I'll describe them. At least some people will hopefully try them, and then
we'll get some real world feedback and this will all be less abstract and
theoretical.
I'm proposing a "Duel in the Pool."
May the better paradigm win.
AndresMuro
Andres
PS: I am trying to remember the movie in which Jack Nicholson says this in a
sarcastic tone.
Donal Fagan
Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote:
>I don't see any reason to be a member of a club
>like that, when there is usually a good on nearby,
Nope, there are a couple of clubs in Pittsburgh,
which is two hours away and several in Wash DC,
which is three hours away, but here there is:
- a small pool in a fitness club, two lanes and
maybe 20 yards long, no team,
- the old YMCA pool, four lanes x 25 yards, no
lifeguard, rarely cleaned, poorly lit, temperature
fluctuates, no team,
- (where I swim) the nearby YMCA pool, six lanes x
25 yards, well-maintained, a bit shallow, a bit
warm, a team that sits at meets together,
- the local high school pool, never been, not
allowed to swim there.
- the local PSU campus pool, been so long I forget
the details. It is clearly the best of the bunch,
but is restricted to alumni and employees of PSU,
and their families, and even then has limited
hours. There is a college team, but no masters
team.
Here in the hinterland, you don't always have that
many options.
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>You can recover with your thumb facing your ear,
>palm down, or, even better, with your thumb upward
>and your palm facing your ear. This alone gets
>rid of 50% of the impingement.
But how many of the elites do this? There is a
school of thought that if it's good enough for
Hackett, it's good enough for anyone.
DrClean
"Donal Fagan" <Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com> wrote in message
news:eda9hv83m3motp7a3...@4ax.com...
You need to move somewhere more civilised Donal.
Here in the UK all our pools have perfect temperature - the lighting is
perfect - everyone showers at least 3 times before swimming (both naked and
in their costume) - Lanes are self controlled with Fast, Faster and My god
what was that levels and what's more there's a little yellow brick road that
leads to each one. This is probably why we have such great success in the
olympics.
Wayne
--
DrClean
www.DrClean.co.uk
The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web
Donal Fagan
<Ad...@DrClean.co.uk> wrote:
>Here in the UK all our pools have perfect temperature - the lighting is
>perfect - everyone showers at least 3 times before swimming (both naked and
>in their costume) - Lanes are self controlled with Fast, Faster and My god
>what was that levels and what's more there's a little yellow brick road that
>leads to each one. This is probably why we have such great success in the
>olympics.
" ... and there's a legal limit on the snow here,
in Camelot."
Martin W. Smith
No, well, I would have expected Altoona to have more interest in Masters
swimming, since it is big enough to have a lot of Masters swimmers. It
sounds like the PSU pool has time available. I would approach the coach
and ask him to coach a masters team. It would bring income into the
university from pool rental, and I would think the coach would be
interested, too, if there is community interest.
Larry Weisenthal
>> Telling these to arch their back and look forward just a little
bit less than a cyclist looks?
>>Sorry I can't see it.
You misunderstand, but it's not your fault.
Just give me a few days to explain my "system," OK? Then I hope that some
people (including Terry) will give it a try and report their experience.
>>There's no question of doubt that it ["TI"] works and that reducing drag will
improve more swimmers strokes and feel for the water than any amount of lap
swimming.<<
I've certainly never disagreed about the importance of reducing drag. I think
that what causes the most drag is failure to maintain a horizontal body
position in the water. The easiest and best way to do this is to maintain the
NORMAL lumbar arch which is a hallmark of good posture on land, but which is
lost in the water, because lying in the water is the same a lying on a water
bed (and if you don't believe you lose your lumbar arch in the water, then just
get someone to put a meter stick over your dorsal spine from between your
shoulder blades down to the crack between your butt cheeks while you are
standing upright. Insert fingers between the meter stick and your body at the
deepest point of the arch. Measure this gap. Then repeat the same thing,
while lying face down on a water bed.
It is UNNATURAL to maintain your lumbar arch while lying in the water. Your
spine relaxes, because it doesn't have to support the upper body. Yet
maintaining this arch is the most important key to maintaining horizontal
balance. Look again at Thorpe, Hackett, Evans, van den Hoogenband. Then look
at the novice swimmers in your pool. The great swimmers maintain a very
prominent arch. The backs of the novices are not arched. With a non-arched
back, you must keep your head down, but your balance is very pecarious and your
lower torso and thighs will sink especially during the catch and pull (because
of the leg sinking torque of the pull).
So you can try to maintain balance in an unstable manner by doing all of the
things that "modern" (you didn't want me to mention "TI") teaching proposes
that you do. But this is not the most stable way to maintain balance and it is
not the way that balance is maintained by the greatest freestyle swimmers in
history.
I want to teach you how to have better, more stable balance and less drag and
to swim in the manner of the greats.
>>On the bike you have to look directly forward, otherwise Lance would have
run right over Beloki the other day.<<
I never said otherwise; I said that, except for truly elite swimmers who
generate huge torque forces, there is no reason to do a whole lot of head
elevation. I said that just a temporary head tilt forward to a degree LESS
than riding on dropped bars is all that it takes. As your swimming improves
and as you train more and get stronger, your head will just naturally tend to
tilt more and rise higher. If/when this happens, just let it (your head) go
where it wants to go. Don't pay any attention to your coach when he/she tells
you to go putting it back down in the water.
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>It is UNNATURAL to maintain your lumbar arch while
>lying in the water. Your spine relaxes, because
>it doesn't have to support the upper body. Yet
>maintaining this arch is the most important key to
>maintaining horizontal balance. Look again at
>Thorpe, Hackett, Evans, van den Hoogenband.
Or, look at Anita Nall.
http://www.donalfagan.com/html/anitanall.html
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>Because the "TI" balance method is so inherently
>unstable that it requires hundreds of hours of
>drilling, careful attention to entry and hand
>placement, etc., it is a method which requires
>individual instruction, workshops, videos, books,
>drilling aids, and endless hours of drills. And,
>in the end, the swimmer is still inherently
>unstable.
Do I really have to google out all the times where
you admitted that TI did a good job of teaching
longitudinal balance?
Donal Fagan
Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote:
>I would approach the coach and ask him to
>coach a masters team.
Actually I looked at PSU's site and found that a
masters swimmer from the local team is their new
coach. I never swam with her, but I recognize her
name from following the AMYMSA results over the
last two years.
I doubt she has that much authority, but it can't
hurt to ask.
Larry Weisenthal
>>
http://www.donalfagan.com/html/anitanall.html
She's pushing off the wall. There is no controversy whatsoever about body
position, underwater, pushing off the wall.
The controversy under discussion is freestyle swimming, on the surface of the
water (though the same principle applies to backstroke and fly, though not
necessarily to surface breaststroke).
Larry Weisenthal
>>Do I really have to google out all the times where
you admitted that TI did a good job of teaching
longitudinal balance?<<
I am happy to acknowledge that "TI" does a good job of teaching the swimmer a
sense of balance, meaning a sense of when the swimmer is in and out of balance.
Many swimmers lack this sense of body position. TI teaches it. So, of course,
it helps.
After I took the "TI" workshop, I had an improved feel for the water and
awareness of body position in the water. This is valuable for anyone. In the
interim period of time, I've spent as many hours "pressing my buoy" as the
average TI workshop participant, I'm sure of that.
But, I think, a major reason why TI is so good at teaching the swimmer when he
is in and out of balance is that, as I've written, the TI body position is so
inherently unstable. To quote again from the words of Terry Laughlin in the
"TI" instructional video.
Keep your head down. Raising your head even one inch will disturb your
balance. And the proof of what he says is in his own drilling. When he raises
his head even a little, down goes his butt well under the water. Likewise,
when he is swimming, his butt is submerged well under water during the "leg
sinking torque of the pull."
I now believe that a much better way to understand balance is the kickboard
exercise which I've described before and will describe again. One session,
properly done, teaches you to appreciate body postion much faster and much
better than a whole weekend of a "TI" workshop. In one month, you will make
more progress in improving your body position and reducing your drag than in a
year of "TI" drills. And you'll have the confidence of knowing that you are
learning to swim in the style of the greatest freestylists in history.
But don't take my word for it. Try it. Then critique it.
Larry Weisenthal
I'm thinking of making a home-made mini-digital instructional video to
illustrate the "30 Days To Better Swimming" methods. I've pledged never to
make a nickel off of this, but neither can I afford the time to go duplicating
tapes. So I'm thinking of doing the following: I'll make the video and a
single VHS copy. The first person who asks can have the VHS copy, but has to
agree to return the copy plus one additional copy of the copy. In that way,
I'll have the original VHS copy to lend out again, along with one copy of the
copy. If I repeat the process several times, I'll eventually accumulate a
dozen or so tapes that I can offer to lend out to anyone who wants one in the
future.
Steve Curtis
"The first person who asks can have the VHS copy, but has to agree to
return the copy plus one additional copy of the copy. In that way, I'll
have the original VHS copy to lend out again, along with one copy of the
copy. If I repeat the process several times, I'll eventually accumulate
a dozen or so tapes that I can offer to lend out to anyone who wants one
in the future."
Sort of like a VHS pyramid scheme. :-)
Steve Curtis
Jason O'Rourke
>I'm thinking of making a home-made mini-digital instructional video to
>illustrate the "30 Days To Better Swimming" methods. I've pledged never to
>make a nickel off of this, but neither can I afford the time to go duplicating
>tapes. So I'm thinking of doing the following: I'll make the video and a
>single VHS copy. The first person who asks can have the VHS copy, but has to
>agree to return the copy plus one additional copy of the copy. In that way,
>I'll have the original VHS copy to lend out again, along with one copy of the
Rather than live in the 80s, use the internet. Make a VCD image as a
standard iso9660 ISO image. A full hour would be 600M, a half hour 300.
This is big enough to make an issue with bandwidth limits on web server
accounts so each person that downloads and has the ability should host it
for the next few downloaders. Or if someone actually has unlimited, even
better.
Then there is no shipping costs, immediate access, and a cleaner signal
without Nth generation tape noise. Or at the least, sending a cdr is
much easier and faster than a tape.
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>>>Or, look at Anita Nall.
>
>>>
>http://www.donalfagan.com/html/anitanall.html
>
>She's pushing off the wall. There is no
>controversy whatsoever about body position,
>underwater, pushing off the wall.
Yes she is pushing off the wall. She is perfectly
streamlined and has a small arch in her back.
What should she do once she starts stroking?
Adopt a prominent arched-back, or keep the good
posture she already shows?
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>I now believe that a much better way to understand
>balance is the kickboard exercise which I've
>described before and will describe again.
From what I recall, you aren't even moving forward
in that exercise.
Totalswimm
> Terry. So I find the above somewhat surprising
Shahin.
When I do upward facing dog, or cobra, I hold these positions for about 5 to 6
breaths at longest. I also have to use a significant degree of muscular
contraction to get them right, particularly pulling my shoulder blades together
and keeping my shoulders away from my ears. My triceps begin to shake toward
the end from the effort required in holding it. At the same time, I'm fully
supported by the floor.
In swimming, I'm unsupported by a solid surface - thus arching my back causes
my hips and legs to drop - and I wish to avoid that kind of muscular effort.
>I find Larry's terminology "Boomerism" interesting,
>and his concern about "homogenization of swimming
>techniques" a legitimate one.
I don't hear anyone complain about homogenization of golf techniques from the
effects of great teachers.I also never hear anyone make that sort of complaint
about, say, aikido techniques. So why should there be something negative about
promotion of wider use of intelligent body mechanics in swimming, a movement
art still immature enough to benefit greatly from improved understanding.
>I was originally influenced by Howard Firby and his teaching
>of "the feel for water"
Definitely one of my icons.
>half a dozen of my disciples swimming more or less in "TI"
>fashion! Even swimmers too shy to come forward and
>ask for coaching, from afar, by observing, have started to
>emulate some of the drills that I have brought to the pool.
As I would expect. Fluent, economical movement in the pool is sufficiently rare
that people are naturally attracted by it.
Terry
Totalswimm
>the sensation of moving not quite in the opposite direction of that
>vector but slightly across it, much as a sailboat sails fastest when it
>sails across the wind instead of with the wind.
I must admit to being unable to picture how this sensation would apply to
freestyle. Are you suggesting that you are to feel as if moving diagonally,
rather than directly ahead?
I'll say this much. I think fly and breast are lift-dominated. There's no push
back. But the insweep of one hand counters the insweep of the other.
T
Martin W. Smith
>
> >When swimming a lift stroke, one has
> >the sensation of moving not quite in the opposite direction of that
> >vector but slightly across it, much as a sailboat sails fastest when it
> >sails across the wind instead of with the wind.
>
> I must admit to being unable to picture how this sensation would apply to
> freestyle. Are you suggesting that you are to feel as if moving diagonally,
> rather than directly ahead?
No, I think of freestyle as a drag stroke. I only get the lift stroke
sensation when I do breaststroke.
> I'll say this much. I think fly and breast are lift-dominated. There's no push
> back. But the insweep of one hand counters the insweep of the other.
The lift sensation I get in breaststroke is the sensation of my body
moving up, diagonally forward.
martin
Scott Lemley
his feeling that rss has influenced our sport, or at least some of the
coaches and/or swimmers involved in swimming. Though I have a sneaking
suspicion he was tooting his own horn a bit I think the premise was
valid. As a coach I've read some very thoughtful comments on rss. I
don't know how many coaches come here for their information but some
obviously cruise through this newsgroup on occasion looking for
interesting threads to follow. Larry mentioned Eddie Reese
specifically thanked Larry by name at one time. That's pretty high
praise.
On the one hand it's kinda sad that professional coaches would be
looking for "helpful hints" on an Internet newsgroup. It reminds me a
bit of people "looking for love" in chat rooms. On the other hand,
since knowledge is power, it makes complete sense that
coaches/swimmers/interested parties living in the 21st Century can
glean thought provoking comments electronically 24/7 and we ought to
be thankful there's a "clearing house of sorts" like rss that we can
all go to. Of course there are a lot of coaching forums and various
swimming web sites which have as many if not more thought provoking
comments so rss isn't alone.
I wonder what ever happened to ICAR (the International Center for
Aquatic Research based in Colorado Springs)? At one time they
published an annual volume which included not only a synopsis of the
studies which they'd conducted that year, but how to make the results
from each study immediately useful to the average coach. That research
may not have been "peer reviewed" but it was more-or-less seen as
cutting edge stuff.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott
Jason O'Rourke
>On the one hand it's kinda sad that professional coaches would be
>looking for "helpful hints" on an Internet newsgroup. It reminds me a
>bit of people "looking for love" in chat rooms. On the other hand,
>since knowledge is power, it makes complete sense that
>coaches/swimmers/interested parties living in the 21st Century can
>glean thought provoking comments electronically 24/7 and we ought to
>be thankful there's a "clearing house of sorts" like rss that we can
Probably more the second than the first. You bump into local coaches
at meets, but often can find they are all birds of a feather, esp if
there was one influential person. But go to a global group like this
and you can't avoid alternative lines of thought.
Larry Weisenthal
>>Yes she is pushing off the wall. She is perfectly
streamlined and has a small arch in her back.
What should she do once she starts stroking?
Adopt a prominent arched-back, or keep the good
posture she already shows?<<
She's a breaststroker. Breaststroke is different than free, fly, and back (the
latter being all arched back strokes; breast being a straight back
stroke--during the horizontal lunge).
What you want to do in free, back, fly is to maintain a distinct arch to the
L3,4,5 region of the spine. This is not a sway back. But you have to train
yourself to do this; as I noted, the natural tendency is to let the lower back
relax when you lie on a water bed or in a swimming pool. With a distinctly
arched back, you have tremendous stability; for example, raising your head
doesn't sink your legs; rather it elevates your legs.
Good competitive swimmers develop arched backs by doing a lot of klckboard
training, looking forward while swimming in crowded lanes, and by swimming lots
of butterfly. One of the skills often taught to age group butterflyers is
"showing the shiny butt." This is a true hallmark of an expert freestyle
swimmer. Maintaining a "shiny butt" (suit fabric out of the water) at all
times. Look at Grant Hackett or Janet Evans or my daughters or any really
good, serious freestyle swimmer, and you will see that their butts bob at the
surface of the water at all times; there is a gentle "cheek to cheek" (butt
cheeks, that is) rocking back and forth motion, as they stroke on one side and
then the other. It is not a prominent "skating on the side" motion to both
sides. Some elite swimmers just rock their butt cheeks from one side to the
other. Others rotate markedly to the breathing side, but only gently rock to
the non-breathing side. But the butt stays "shiny" on top of the water at
virtually all times. The way they do this is to maintain a distinct, prominent
arch to their L3,4,5 spine region. This is not natural. It takes either (1)
lots of kickboard training, looking ahead swimming, and butterfly swimming to
get the in-the-water muscle tone to maintain this arch or else it takes (2) a
conscious effort to train it. But it is absurdly easy to learn. I'm going to
explain how. And, in a month or less, it becomes automatic.
Far from making you more tired (which is what Terry charged), the easiest way
to take a rest is to raise your butt by increasing the arch in L3,4,5. Once you
train yourself to do this, you will be swimming downhill forever and you can
raise your head all you want (for some advantageous reasons, as described
previously), and your butt will stay shiny.
I'm going to describe how to do it, step by step. From the "shiny butt" to the
"cheek to cheek" to the head tilt to the lope. It's how the fastest swimmers
in the world swim and I think it's the easiest and best way for many, if not
most, fitness and triathlon swimmers, also.
Scott Lemley
<<You bump into local coaches at meets, but often can find they are
all birds of a feather, esp if there was one influential person. But
go to a global group like this and you can't avoid alternative lines
of thought.>>
Too true, Jason. I'm at an average of 30 meets every year (including
high school dual meets, age group invitationals, state senior
championships, etc.). In fact, I'm currently at the Senior Sectional
Long Course Championships this week in Portland, Oregon, rubbing
elbows with coaches from most of the prominent teams from 10 Western
States (Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona,
Colorado, etc). Most of us coaches are mainly focused on our own
swimmers, as we should be. Secondarily, we spend time watching the
best of the other athletes present at the meet (e.g. I watched
breaststroker Megan Quann closely in her 200 breast prelim swim this
morning, taking splits and noting stroke tempos in each 25 meter
segment of her race. By the way, she wasn't the fastest swimmer in
prelims with 22 year old Birte Steven posting a time 5 seconds faster
- 2:30.46. Of course this was prelims and finals will obviously be a
time for the two girls to race head-to-head since they were in
different heats this morning. With tempos in the 36 to 40 cpm range I
suspect they were both crusing through prelims).
When you factor in most of us are coaches AND chaperones at these big
meets and we're responsible for renting minivans, checking into
hotels, making sure swimmers are fed, picking up everyone's
credentials, attending general meetings to make sure we know if there
are changes in the event timeline or conduct of the meet, warming our
own swimmers up, preparing them to swim fast, debriefing them after
their races, etc., shooting the breeze with the other coaches doesn't
always happen.
Scott
Larry Weisenthal
appears in a January, 2003 "Physician and Sportsmedicine" publication, authored
by Dr. James Johnson of Stanford University. Dr. Johnson is a very interesting
individual. I met him a couple of years ago at a sportsmedicine symposium. He
agrees with some of my ideas on swim technique to avoid shoulder injury,
particularly on the importance of avoiding internal rotation at the time of
full forward extension (Dr. Johnson, in the Jan., 2003 article advocates
entering the water pinky first, rather than thumb first, to avoid the internal
rotation). Dr. Johnson is interesting, because he's not only a sportsmedicine
physician; he's a part-time Stanford Swim Coach (he did a lot of the coaching
of Stanford's distance great Jessica Foschi; by the way, Dr. Johnson told me
that Foschi could climb a rope up 20 feet with arms only, then lower herself to
the ground and repeat the climb with arms and legs, to give you some idea how
strong a world class woman swimmer can be).
Anyway, here's a quote from his Jan. 2003 article:
>>Floating the legs. Body balance is difficult to learn and explain but is the
most important skill in linking the kinetic chain from the legs and trunk
through the scapula into the shoulders. The body's center of mass is around the
pubis, but the center of buoyancy is at the sternum. The lungs filled with air
float the body, but the mass and density of the legs tend to bring the body
down feet first. The swimmer must use the counterbalancing weight of the head
and press the center of buoyancy (sternum) into the water to float the legs.
Essentially, the swimmer must experiment with balance in the water and try to
find the best dynamic position to maintain the whole "vessel" at or near the
surface on the same horizontal plane. Floating drills with the hands at the
side are the best way to learn this technique. <<
Do you see how he is describing a swimming style which is inherently very
unstable? But this is conventional Boomerism/"TI"ism. Do you see why learning
to balance yourself in this fashion takes literally hundreds of hours of drills
and still leaves you swimming in an unstable position?
What if you could learn a method to remain forever horizontal in the water in a
single session? And that this was a stable position, which was very forgiving
of head motions and arm motions (the leg sinking torque of the pull). Wouldn't
this be something worth considering? Especially when this is the way that the
best swimmers in the world do it?
Larry Weisenthal
sle...@awcable.com (Scott Lemley) writes:
>Hi Larry. I'm certainly not alone as a coach telling my swimmers to
>minimize their head movements when they swim freestyle. <snip>
>Your assertion that "telling a swimmer to keep their head steady would
>only make sense if they weren't moving their arms" doesn't make sense.
>Our torso can move independently of our head. If we rotate along our
>long axis as we swim I see no reason for our heads to bob around. The
>only reason to move the head is to bring the mouth into position to
>breath and you don't need to move it much to accomplish this.
>
>Your premise of the "pull trying to sink the legs" is true only if a
>swimmer pushes down significantly upon entry. I teach my swimmers NOT
>to push down when their hands initially enter the water. I want their
>fingertips to point down and for them to "slid" their hands down until
>their hand-forearm (and upper arm as well) is in a position of power
>(which I've described), i.e., vertical in the water. That's the point
>at which I want them to apply power to their stroke, i.e., push
>against the water. Pushing down immediately is counter-productive and
>inherently dangerous in terms of potentially levering their shoulders
>out of their sockets.
>
>So could it be that since I don't let my swimmers push down on the
>water upon entry I just don't see the legs sinking at that point and
>thus don't see that "reciprocal head movements are very helpful to
>keep the body horizontal in the water"?
You have to begin by acknowledging that, to a large degree, the heads of some
of the greatest swimmers in the world do bob up and down, independently of the
torso.
Now, you can dismiss this. You can ignore it. You can choose not to see it.
You can even, as in the case of "TI" coach "Big Red" say that Ian Thorpe would
be faster if he didn't do it.
Or you can try and understand it.
We discussed on the newsgroup a couple of years back how all arm movements
ahead of the center of buoyancy will produce a leg sinking torque. The more in
front of the center of buoyancy (the longer the moment arm), the greater the
torque. The more vertical, the greater the torque. In order to avoid the
torque completely, you'd have to have your swimmers not applying any forces at
all until after their arms moved rearward of their sternal notch. In practice,
everyone applies leg sinking torque when they pull -- even your swimmers.
Tether your ankles together so that you can't kick. Then insert the smallest
pull buoy which allows you to remain horizontal with one arm extended and the
other arm at your side. Then execute your catch and pull with the forward
hand. Using your best "high elbow" technigue and attempting to apply only
rearward forces. Then just start to swim.
You can compensate for this leg sinking torque by kicking, by arching your
back, and also by lifting your head with an arched back. Not any old head
motions are helpful. Only those that are timed to coincide with the leg
sinking torque of the pull and only with a properly arched lumbar spine. Grant
Hackett has a beautiful, smooth stroke. His head goes up and down in a
rhythmic fashion, timed perfectly to counteract his leg sinking torque, in the
presence of a continuously arched lumbar spine. So does Jason Lezak. And
Gabrielle Rose. And Chris Thompson. And Janet Evans. And Diana Munz. And on
and on. No one taught these swimmers to do this (your point is precisely that
swim coaches DON'T teach this, and I agree).
So would all these swimmers be faster if they kept their heads still? Why are
they moving their heads in the first place? I've tried to explain why. But
mostly, because it works. And it can be taught.
Donal Fagan
(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>>Adopt a prominent arched-back, or keep the good
>>posture she already shows?
>She's a breaststroker. Breaststroke is different
>than free, fly, and back (the latter being all
>arched back strokes; breast being a straight back
>stroke--during the horizontal lunge).
So 'normal lordosis' isn't really enough, after
all. You want us all to be prominent arched-back
swimmers.
Larry Weisenthal
prominent arched-back swimmers.<<
You want to have the normal lordosis associated with a good, stretched to full
height, posture on land. To do this in the water, you have to intentionally
increase the tension in your lower back. How much is enough? A United Way
slogan used to be "give until it feels good." The swimming equivalent would be
"arch until it feels good."
It's not at all radical, even though you keep wanting me to confess that I want
to turn everyone into banana backs.
If you look at my Thorpe images, it looks as if he has a really radically
arched back...until you rotate the images 90 degrees and see that what he
really has is just a great, upright posture.
The way that you learn to arch is not even by "arching," per se. You don't
think "arch the back"...you think "push up the butt"...just push your butt up
until you can feel the breeze of the air on your Speedos. The way that you do
this is NOT to go pressing down your chest. You don't "think chest." You
"think butt" (and the very end of your lumber spine). The best way to practice
this is with a kickboard, as I've described several times.
Hold the kickboard pointing forward, gripping it on the side, thumbs up (avoid
internal rotation and make it easy on the shoulders). You want the kickboard
completely underwater, parallel to the surface. I like to pretend that it is
some sort of propulsive device, like I saw Lloyd Bridges ("Mike Nelson") use on
Sea Hunt. But it's really my (feeble) kick which provides the propulsion.
You want the board under water so that your body can assume the same position,
vis a vis the water surface, as it does when you are swimming without a board.
And the board also becomes an indicator/gauge, if you will. Stretch out, look
slightly forward. Start kicking. Now PUSH your butt up to the surface of the
water. You should feel the muscles in the most distal parts of your lumbar
spine and upper pelvis start to contract. These are the muscles which push
your butt up, by creating an arch in your lower back. When you do this, note
how the board (the indicator/gauge) goes down. Now, with your butt up on the
surface and your lumbar spine arched, tilt your head forward, then actually
lift it up. If you are doing it properly, your butt will rise up even further
and the board will go down even further.
Now, put a board on each end of the pool. Kick as described one way, keeping
your butt at the surface of the water by "pushing" it up with your lower back
muscles (which are, again, just putting a litte arch into your back). When
you've completed a length, then swim back, keeping your butt in the same
position. While swimming back, do the "cheek to cheek" drill, where the butt is
on the surface at all times, but you are rotating from side to side "airing
out" each butt cheek in succession. Then kick a length. Then swim. In short
order, you should have the best sense you've ever had in your life of when you
are truly horizontal while swimming and when you are not.
Expect to be a little sore the next day (especially if you overdo it the first
day). You can do "dry land" to prepare for this by making it a point to sit
and stand with perfect, stretched to full height posture as much as you can.
This will have obvious benefits in your dry land life, as well. You can also
practice standing up and pushing your butt backwards, while contracting your
lower spinal muscles to exaggerate your lumbar arch. Another exercise I like is
to hold a pair of dumbells down at your sides while standing straight and tall
and then shrugging (lifting) your shoulders first maximally straight up and
then maximally back, while up, then letting the dumbells drop and repeating
12-15 times. This also helps to strengthen your posterior rotator cuff
muscles, which helps you to combat that hunched over posture that some swimmers
tend to get and improve the tone of your "active stabilizers" (of the shoulder)
to help prevent impingement injury.
This is just a very brief intro. I'll try to do a better job of providing step
by step detail and then some more follow on stuff later on. How you integrate
a slight head tilt into the stroke cycle to further improve balance during the
stroke. How you may want to adjust your stroke timing and kick timing to
really swim like the greats and gain other advantages. And so on.
Totalswimm
>to balance yourself in this fashion takes literally hundreds of hours of
>drills
>and still leaves you swimming in an unstable position?
As in so many previous instances, I have to ask "where's your evidence for this
statement?"
One week ago we completed our third week of camps for age group swimmers. Had a
total of 100 kids for the three camps - which gives us a pretty decent sample
size.
The kids mostly looked entirely "average" when they arrived - the exceptions
being the kids who'd attended our camps in previous summers.
We spent 90 minutes each Monday morning teaching Long Axis balance skills (and
90 minutes on Mon afternoon teaching Short Axis balance).
Then we had 90 minutes on Tuesday morning to teach the application of those
balance skills to backstroke and another 90 minutes on Wed morning to teach the
application of those skills to freestyle.
After exactly three hours 90% of those kids were beautifully balanced in
backstroke. And after a similar amount of time (90 min on Mon and 90 min on
Wed) a similar percentage were also wonderfully balanced -- and beautifully
stable -- in freestyle.
Also, we had counted their strokes for 50 yds of free and back on Sunday as a
benchmark. After mastering balance and fluency those stroke counts had dropped
by an average of 25%.
So three hours vs "hundreds of hours" to achieve balance. Can you continue to
refine that balance, beyond the initial level of mastery? Well of course you
can, it's that prospect of "kaizen swimming" or continuous improvement that
makes practice exciting and engaging. After thousands of hours of mindful
practice I'm still learning subtle new lessons about control and balance -- and
my swimming continues to improve steadily. (Last evening I swam several lengths
of a 200-meter line in Lake Minnewaska in fewer than 140 strokes, which I'd
never done before.)
But for most competitive swimmers -- i.e. those who are most discussed in
Larry's posts -- the process of learning balance that makes a REAL difference
in efficiency can easily be accomplished take as little as one pool session.
Terry