body suits

"Fred S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a question about bodysuits (Speedo Fastskin, etc).
What is supposed to be the best bodysuit for competitive
swimming? I know all manufacturers praise their suits to
the max, but what about

you,

Quoted message said:

who actually use them (or not). All experiences welcome!

Fred S. Netherlands

The decision by various international swimming regulators to
accept body suits for competition was and is regrettable,
and should be reversed for several reasons which arise from
a consideration of why we swim and why we compete.

Most people who swim regularly do not compete. They swim
for the fun, fitness and the sensual pleasure of being
weightless in the water. This applies as much to club
swimmers as to 'leisure' swimmers. Young children do not
join swimming clubs to race, they learn the competitive
spirit later, from their coaches and sometimes their
parents. And yet the whole ethos of clubs is to push young
swimmers in to competitions. Indeed the term 'Swimming
Club' is a misnomer in many cases, because they are in fact
racing clubs, with little credit given to members who just
want to swim.

This is not to denigrate competition, just to put it in
perspective. For those who like to compete - fine, do so,
but ask yourself what you are doing. There is a natural
competitiveness in some people which has led to competitions
in virtually every walk of life from fishing to flower
arranging. However, at the basis of all is the attempt to
prove who is the best at the particular activity. Where
equipment is necessary to the activity the competition
becomes a split thing, such as in motor racing where there
is a drivers' championship and a constructors championship.
The drivers compete in driving skill, and the engineers in
car building. However in many sports which need equipment,
to try to return the competition to the players, limits are
set on the equipment to make for a 'level playing field'
. For example in sailing, most races are class races where
boats are essentially the same and it is sailing skill
that wins the day. In golf, all sets of clubs are more or
less the same so no-one comments much on the winners irons
or woods, they talk about the golfers.

In swimming, very little equipment is actually necessary. A
cap may be needed to control hair in the water, goggles to
protect the eyes, earplugs and a nose clip for those who are
vulnerable, and a minimal costume to respect society's
sensibilities. That is the only function of the costume - it
is not meant to improve performance, just not to hamper it.
So far costumes have aimed to minimise their own drag in the
water and thereby keep the performance of the swimmer
dependent on their strength and technique. Even those
techniques (strokes) were made as near equal as possible.

Body suits are a fundamental departure in philosophy, in
that they aim not just to minimise the costume's own drag in
the water, but to reduce friction with the water below that
of the swimmer's skin. In effect, they start to make the
result depend on equipment as well as the swimmer. If they
are proved to work they will doubtless become de-rigour for
top competitions, and then by imitation, their use will work
its down the scale to club, and even school level. When the
point is reached where everyone is wearing them the 'playing
field' will be 'level' again, but at a huge cost to all and
no competitive advantage gained, except where those who can
not afford the cost drop out of the sport. The only winners
in the process will be the costume manufactures who drive
this trend for obvious commercial reasons.

Even if using the body suits allows the reduction of
records, what is the point of that? The records will not be
comparable with those set not using the suits. In effect it
would be like comparing Michael Schumaker's record with that
of Fangio - utterly pointless because they had different
equipment.

If one allows body suits, an escalation of equipment use and
sophistication is inevitable in a world obsessed with
everything always having to get bigger, better, faster. A
sports meet without a new record is now condemned as boring.
A gold medal without a new record is not enough to the
moguls with the money and media influence who control the
top of sport nowadays. In this never ending search for a new
record, can we expect to see the use of fins, webbed gloves,
webs under the arms, snorkels, pointed helmets and so on?
And what will it all prove? All too often scientists and
engineers do things because they can, without ever stopping
to think whether they should.

Going back to the basics of why we swim, body suits have no
place. They have to be worn uncomfortably tight to work, and
thereby remove any pleasure from the water. They are
horrendously expensive, liable to damage and difficult to
look after.

Very sensibly, the British Long Distance Swimming
Association and Channel Swimming Association have always
resisted pressure to allow wet suits, flippers and other
equipment. A dab of grease on the bits that rub, and
otherwise being at one with the elements is an essential
part of the open water/long distance sport, whether it is
competitive, or you just want to stay the course. The sprint
sport should be equally strong minded.

Those who run our sport at the top are largely self
appointed. They act as if it is their divine right to tell
the swimming public what they must accept. However, when
they are wrong we should tell them so. It time to reclaim
our sport for the mass who do it for enjoyment, and have no
financial motives. What happens at the Olympics today will
happen at the Club tomorrow by sheer wannabe copycating of
the weak minded, fuelled by advertising images which make us
ashamed if we don't have all the gear they tell us we should
have. Join with me in telling the ASA, FINA and anyone else
who might listen that bodysuits are unnecessary, undesirable
and for the good of the wider sport should be banned.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

The only winners in the process will be the costume

Quoted message said:

manufactures who drive this trend for obvious commercial
reasons.

Duncan, I agree in principal with much of what you say.
However, elite swimmers wearing these suits will also win in
a financial sense though the larger, more lucrative
endoresement deals they will secure by wearing these suits.

Bill

I assume at the same time you're telling FINA to ban
bodysuits, you'll be telling other governing bodies to ban
equipment as well?

FINA is a governing body related to the sports encompassed
by competitive aquatics, and they do not rule the roost with
recreational swimmers, nor are they meant to do so, so get
that straight right off.

I've heard your arguments time and time again, and while
they are meritous to a point, they're also not taking into
account many factors. As Bill eludes to, these "evil suit
manufacturors" are the ones that pump the majority of money
into the sport of swimming. that money is what keeps our top
athletes doing what they do best.

you want a return to complete amateurism in swimming? take a
hike! i'm a professional coach who makes a living through
swimming, as are hundreds of thousands of other people.
these body suits bring in money, they bring media attention
and make the sport interesting, which is what we
want...*greater exposure*.

everyone can get hold of a bodysuit if they want one, the
higher up the food chain you are, the easier it is to get
one, because they *give you them to wear*. for younger
swimmers, or those not at elite level, they're fun and
swimmers *like* to wear them. Never once have i EVER heard a
*swimmer* or *coach* say "i wish i had a body suit, but just
plain can't afford one!" ...thats absolute garbage... those
who don't want to spend the money, don't care.

those who might need a fraction of a second advantage these
suits *purport* to provide, get them free. the rest of us
louts should be worrying more about conditioning and
technique...so give me a break.

also, don't compare the body suit to webbed gloves or fins,
they're not the same thing - those things aid propulsion
significantly, the suits do not, they reduce friction, which
as their opposition like to chime in all the time, hasn't
even been conclusively proven yet, (which begs the question,
why do they cry about it so much?). if you knew anything
about body suits at all, you'd know their major advantage
(in theory, again, not proven) is that they reduce muscle
vibration. I recently cited a study in this group as yet
unreleased by USA-S regarding a series of tests they
commissioned that demonstrated they aid buoyancy - if this
is corroborated, then yes, they will be looking to seek a
ban...if not, theres nothing harmful about them.

If you're a rec swimmer, stick to what you know, before
starting to campaign so vigourously about this, and if
you're determined to ban this "evil" that jades your
favourite sport so much try reading up on the subject more,
because you can be 'as sure as eggs are eggs' when Forbes
Carlaisle and Brent Rushall and Co. stand up and try and
remove them from the scene again, there'll be plenty of us
standing against them.

As usual its a case of the malcontent minority making the
noise while the happy majority look on.

Also, in answer to Fred S. try googling this subject - i
wrote a review of the currently available suits ... you
might find what you need there.

Steve

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:4075ca72_1@mk-nntp-
2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Quoted message said:

"Fred S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a question about bodysuits (Speedo Fastskin,
etc). What is

supposed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to be the best bodysuit for competitive swimming? I know
all manufacturers praise their suits to the max, but
what about

you,

Quoted message said:

who actually use them (or not). All experiences welcome!

Fred S. Netherlands

The decision by various international swimming regulators
to accept body suits for competition was and is
regrettable, and should be reversed for several reasons
which arise from a consideration of why we swim and why we
compete.

Most people who swim regularly do not compete. They swim
for the fun, fitness and the sensual pleasure of being
weightless in the water. This applies as much to club
swimmers as to 'leisure' swimmers. Young children

do

Quoted message said:

not join swimming clubs to race, they learn the
competitive spirit later, from their coaches and sometimes
their parents. And yet the whole ethos of clubs is to push
young swimmers in to competitions. Indeed the term
'Swimming Club' is a misnomer in many cases, because they
are in fact

racing

Quoted message said:

clubs, with little credit given to members who just want
to swim.

This is not to denigrate competition, just to put it in
perspective. For those who like to compete - fine, do so,
but ask yourself what you are doing. There is a natural
competitiveness in some people which has led to
competitions in virtually every walk of life from fishing
to flower arranging. However, at the basis of all is the
attempt to prove who is the best at the particular
activity. Where equipment is necessary to the activity the
competition becomes a split thing, such as in motor racing
where there is a drivers' championship and a constructors
championship.

The

Quoted message said:

drivers compete in driving skill, and the engineers in car
building.

However

Quoted message said:

in many sports which need equipment, to try to return the
competition to

the

Quoted message said:

players, limits are set on the equipment to make for a
'level playing

field'

Quoted message said:

. For example in sailing, most races are class races where
boats are essentially the same and it is sailing skill
that wins the day. In golf,

all

Quoted message said:

sets of clubs are more or less the same so no-one comments
much on the winners irons or woods, they talk about the
golfers.

In swimming, very little equipment is actually necessary.
A cap may be needed to control hair in the water, goggles
to protect the eyes, earplugs and a nose clip for those
who are vulnerable, and a minimal costume to respect
society's sensibilities. That is the only function of the

costume -

Quoted message said:

it is not meant to improve performance, just not to hamper
it. So far costumes have aimed to minimise their own drag
in the water and thereby

keep

Quoted message said:

the performance of the swimmer dependent on their strength
and technique. Even those techniques (strokes) were made
as near equal as possible.

Body suits are a fundamental departure in philosophy, in
that they aim not just to minimise the costume's own drag
in the water, but to reduce

friction

Quoted message said:

with the water below that of the swimmer's skin. In
effect, they start to make the result depend on equipment
as well as the swimmer. If they are proved to work they
will doubtless become de-rigour for top competitions, and
then by imitation, their use will work its down the scale
to club, and even school level. When the point is reached
where everyone is wearing

them

Quoted message said:

the 'playing field' will be 'level' again, but at a huge
cost to all and

no

Quoted message said:

competitive advantage gained, except where those who can
not afford the

cost

Quoted message said:

drop out of the sport. The only winners in the process
will be the costume manufactures who drive this trend for
obvious commercial reasons.

Even if using the body suits allows the reduction of
records, what is the point of that? The records will not
be comparable with those set not using the suits. In
effect it would be like comparing Michael Schumaker's
record with that of Fangio - utterly pointless because
they had different equipment.

If one allows body suits, an escalation of equipment use
and

sophistication

Quoted message said:

is inevitable in a world obsessed with everything always
having to get bigger, better, faster. A sports meet
without a new record is now

condemned

Quoted message said:

as boring. A gold medal without a new record is not enough
to the moguls with the money and media influence who
control the top of sport nowadays.

In

Quoted message said:

this never ending search for a new record, can we expect
to see the use of fins, webbed gloves, webs under the
arms, snorkels, pointed helmets and so on? And what will
it all prove? All too often scientists and engineers do
things because they can, without ever stopping to think
whether they

should.

Quoted message said:

Going back to the basics of why we swim, body suits have
no place. They

have

Quoted message said:

to be worn uncomfortably tight to work, and thereby remove
any pleasure

from

Quoted message said:

the water. They are horrendously expensive, liable to
damage and difficult to look after.

Very sensibly, the British Long Distance Swimming
Association and Channel Swimming Association have always
resisted pressure to allow wet suits, flippers and other
equipment. A dab of grease on the bits that rub, and
otherwise being at one with the elements is an essential
part of the open water/long distance sport, whether it is
competitive, or you just want to stay the course. The
sprint sport should be equally strong minded.

Those who run our sport at the top are largely self
appointed. They act as if it is their divine right to tell
the swimming public what they must accept. However, when
they are wrong we should tell them so. It time to reclaim
our sport for the mass who do it for enjoyment, and have
no financial motives. What happens at the Olympics today
will happen at the Club tomorrow by sheer wannabe
copycating of the weak minded, fuelled by advertising
images which make us ashamed if we don't have all the gear

they

Quoted message said:

tell us we should have. Join with me in telling the ASA,
FINA and anyone else who might listen that bodysuits are
unnecessary, undesirable and for the good of the wider
sport should be banned.

As some of you RSS veterans may recall we had a spirited
debate on body suits around this time 4 years ago. Looks
like we're going to choose sides again.

(Before I begin, for full disclosure: I developed and
commercialized the Speedo Monitor. However, this product is
no longer in production and is no longer an operating
business.)

From my perspective, the core issue with body suits centers
on the following: what's more important - the sanctity of
swimming past or the future viability of the sport?

The fact is - swimming lacks the economic infrastructure
many other sports benefit from - and in this era of real-
time TV coverage and an 'always on' world - the results are
starting to show. The number of new people coming into our
sport is dwindling.

Will bodysuits solve the problem? Not entirely, but I
believe they will help boost the economics of the sport -
and this is a boost the sport needs. Yes, Speedo, Adidas,
TYR, etc. will be prime beneficiaries, but its not just the
equipment manufacturers who benefit. Athletes, coaches,
teams, sport associations, etc. all benefit when greater
sums of money are spent on gear. The more money
manufacturers make, the more money they are willing to plow
back into the sport to keep it growing. When growth
stagnates, so to do their investments.

Unquestionably, this is a tough call, but I'll take the
future over the past.

Bill

"diablo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
kc.rr.com...

Quoted message said:

I assume at the same time you're telling FINA to ban
bodysuits, you'll be telling other governing bodies to ban
equipment as well?

FINA is a governing body related to the sports encompassed
by competitive aquatics, and they do not rule the roost
with recreational swimmers, nor

are

Quoted message said:

they meant to do so, so get that straight right off.

I've heard your arguments time and time again, and while
they are meritous to a point, they're also not taking into
account many factors. As Bill eludes to, these "evil suit
manufacturors" are the ones that pump the majority of
money into the sport of swimming. that money is what keeps
our top athletes doing what they do best.

you want a return to complete amateurism in swimming? take
a hike! i'm a professional coach who makes a living
through swimming, as are hundreds of thousands of other
people. these body suits bring in money, they bring

media

Quoted message said:

attention and make the sport interesting, which is what we
want...*greater exposure*.

everyone can get hold of a bodysuit if they want one, the
higher up the

food

Quoted message said:

chain you are, the easier it is to get one, because they
*give you them to wear*. for younger swimmers, or those
not at elite level, they're fun and swimmers *like* to
wear them. Never once have i EVER heard a *swimmer* or
*coach* say "i wish i had a body suit, but just plain
can't afford one!" ...thats absolute garbage... those who
don't want to spend the money,

don't

Quoted message said:

care.

those who might need a fraction of a second advantage
these suits

*purport*

Quoted message said:

to provide, get them free. the rest of us louts should be
worrying more about conditioning and technique...so give
me a break.

also, don't compare the body suit to webbed gloves or
fins, they're not

the

Quoted message said:

same thing - those things aid propulsion significantly,
the suits do not, they reduce friction, which as their
opposition like to chime in all the time, hasn't even been
conclusively proven yet, (which begs the question, why do
they cry about it so much?). if you knew anything about
body suits

at

Quoted message said:

all, you'd know their major advantage (in theory, again,
not proven) is

that

Quoted message said:

they reduce muscle vibration. I recently cited a study in
this group as

yet

Quoted message said:

unreleased by USA-S regarding a series of tests they
commissioned that demonstrated they aid buoyancy - if this
is corroborated, then yes, they will be looking to seek a
ban...if not, theres nothing harmful about them.

If you're a rec swimmer, stick to what you know, before
starting to

campaign

Quoted message said:

so vigourously about this, and if you're determined to ban
this "evil"

that

Quoted message said:

jades your favourite sport so much try reading up on the
subject more, because you can be 'as sure as eggs are
eggs' when Forbes Carlaisle and Brent Rushall and Co.
stand up and try and remove them from the scene

again,

Quoted message said:

there'll be plenty of us standing against them.

As usual its a case of the malcontent minority making the
noise while the happy majority look on.

Also, in answer to Fred S. try googling this subject - i
wrote a review of the currently available suits ... you
might find what you need there.

Steve

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Fred S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a question about bodysuits (Speedo Fastskin,
etc). What is

supposed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to be the best bodysuit for competitive swimming? I
know all manufacturers praise their suits to the max,
but what about

you,

Quoted message said:

who actually use them (or not). All experiences
welcome!

Fred S. Netherlands

The decision by various international swimming
regulators to accept body suits for competition was and
is regrettable, and should be reversed for several
reasons which arise from a consideration of why we swim
and why

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

compete.

Most people who swim regularly do not compete. They swim
for the fun, fitness and the sensual pleasure of being
weightless in the water. This applies as much to club
swimmers as to 'leisure' swimmers. Young

children

Quoted message said:

do

Quoted message said:

not join swimming clubs to race, they learn the
competitive spirit

later,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from their coaches and sometimes their parents. And yet
the whole ethos

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clubs is to push young swimmers in to competitions.
Indeed the term 'Swimming Club' is a misnomer in many
cases, because they are in fact

racing

Quoted message said:

clubs, with little credit given to members who just want
to swim.

This is not to denigrate competition, just to put it in
perspective. For those who like to compete - fine, do
so, but ask yourself what you are doing. There is a
natural competitiveness in some people which has led

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

competitions in virtually every walk of life from
fishing to flower arranging. However, at the basis of
all is the attempt to prove who is

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

best at the particular activity. Where equipment is
necessary to the activity the competition becomes a
split thing, such as in motor racing where there is a
drivers' championship and a constructors championship.

The

Quoted message said:

drivers compete in driving skill, and the engineers in
car building.

However

Quoted message said:

in many sports which need equipment, to try to return
the competition to

the

Quoted message said:

players, limits are set on the equipment to make for a
'level playing

field'

Quoted message said:

. For example in sailing, most races are class races
where boats are essentially the same and it is sailing
skill that wins the day. In golf,

all

Quoted message said:

sets of clubs are more or less the same so no-one
comments much on the winners irons or woods, they talk
about the golfers.

In swimming, very little equipment is actually
necessary. A cap may be needed to control hair in the
water, goggles to protect the eyes,

earplugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and a nose clip for those who are vulnerable, and a
minimal costume to respect society's sensibilities. That
is the only function of the

costume -

Quoted message said:

it is not meant to improve performance, just not to
hamper it. So far costumes have aimed to minimise their
own drag in the water and thereby

keep

Quoted message said:

the performance of the swimmer dependent on their
strength and

technique.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even those techniques (strokes) were made as near equal
as possible.

Body suits are a fundamental departure in philosophy, in
that they aim

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just to minimise the costume's own drag in the water,
but to reduce

friction

Quoted message said:

with the water below that of the swimmer's skin. In
effect, they start

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make the result depend on equipment as well as the
swimmer. If they are proved to work they will doubtless
become de-rigour for top

competitions,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and then by imitation, their use will work its down the
scale to club,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even school level. When the point is reached where
everyone is wearing

them

Quoted message said:

the 'playing field' will be 'level' again, but at a huge
cost to all and

no

Quoted message said:

competitive advantage gained, except where those who can
not afford the

cost

Quoted message said:

drop out of the sport. The only winners in the process
will be the

costume

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

manufactures who drive this trend for obvious commercial
reasons.

Even if using the body suits allows the reduction of
records, what is

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

point of that? The records will not be comparable with
those set not

using

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the suits. In effect it would be like comparing Michael
Schumaker's

record

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with that of Fangio - utterly pointless because they had
different equipment.

If one allows body suits, an escalation of equipment
use and

sophistication

Quoted message said:

is inevitable in a world obsessed with everything always
having to get bigger, better, faster. A sports meet
without a new record is now

condemned

Quoted message said:

as boring. A gold medal without a new record is not
enough to the moguls with the money and media influence
who control the top of sport

nowadays.

Quoted message said:

In

Quoted message said:

this never ending search for a new record, can we expect
to see the use

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fins, webbed gloves, webs under the arms, snorkels,
pointed helmets and

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on? And what will it all prove? All too often scientists
and engineers

do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

things because they can, without ever stopping to think
whether they

should.

Quoted message said:

Going back to the basics of why we swim, body suits have
no place. They

have

Quoted message said:

to be worn uncomfortably tight to work, and thereby
remove any pleasure

from

Quoted message said:

the water. They are horrendously expensive, liable to
damage and

difficult

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to look after.

Very sensibly, the British Long Distance Swimming
Association and

Channel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Swimming Association have always resisted pressure to
allow wet suits, flippers and other equipment. A dab of
grease on the bits that rub, and otherwise being at one
with the elements is an essential part of the

open

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

water/long distance sport, whether it is competitive, or
you just want

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stay the course. The sprint sport should be equally
strong minded.

Those who run our sport at the top are largely self
appointed. They act

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if it is their divine right to tell the swimming public
what they must accept. However, when they are wrong we
should tell them so. It time to reclaim our sport for
the mass who do it for enjoyment, and have no financial
motives. What happens at the Olympics today will happen
at the Club tomorrow by sheer wannabe copycating of the
weak minded, fuelled by advertising images which make us
ashamed if we don't have all the gear

they

Quoted message said:

tell us we should have. Join with me in telling the ASA,
FINA and anyone else who might listen that bodysuits are
unnecessary, undesirable and

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the good of the wider sport should be banned.

Mike Edey said:

It does seem likely that the only way we're going to see
anyone working hard to improve the visibility of our sport
is to ensure they have a financial incentive to do so. In
theory FINA & the IOC should be busting their collective
butts off in this regard but as some of the recent winning
Olympic bids show both bodies seem content to just take the
tv revenues & run.

Why do some of you see the visibility of swimming as a
problem? Do you just mean you want more swim meets on
TV? Because, otherwise, swimming has plenty of
visibility. Swimming must be one of the most popular
sports in the world, but there aren't a lot of swim
meets on TV because they are boring to watch. They will
always be boring to watch, when you have people arguing
against changing the sanctity of the sport, as we have
seen in the group here recently.

The reason swim meets aren't shown on TV very often is that
they are boring to watch. There is no conspiracy to keep
them off TV, and there is no pent up demand that TV sports
producers don't know about. They're boring.

You're one hope is for meet organizers to make videos of
swim meets and post them on the web.

Quoted message said:

Personally though I feel this particular issue is moot
until anyone can _prove_ that the suits are propulsive (or
at least buoyant) in nature. simply being 'faster' or
expensive isn't enough. The only numbers I've seen in this
regard look a hell of alot like add copy to me.

The rule doesn't say anything about propulsion. It refers to
aiding speed. Reducing friction aids speed. That can be
objectively tested by propelling an object through the water
with and without a coating of the suit material, using the
same force in both cases.

martin

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As some of you RSS veterans may recall we had a spirited
debate on body suits around this time 4 years ago. Looks
like we're going to choose sides again.

(Before I begin, for full disclosure: I developed and
commercialized the Speedo Monitor. However, this product
is no longer in production and is no longer an operating
business.)

From my perspective, the core issue with body suits
centers on the following: what's more important - the
sanctity of swimming past or the future viability of
the sport?

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does not
need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple pleasure.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple pleasure.

No, Duncan, Swimming *to you* is a leisure activity. To
others its a sport and a profession.

Martin - by visibility and exposure of the sport i'm talking
about getting kids into competitive swimming and keeping
them in, which is incredibly hard to do.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple pleasure.

"The language of greedy capitalism?" That's stretching
things just a bit, don't you think?

While the viability of the sport may not be important to
you.......it is to others. There are many people who depend
of the 'viability' of the sport to provide a basic
income....note - I'm not talking about a huge income - I'm
talking about earning enough to keep a roof over your head
and pay the utility bills.

The average swim coach in the US is far from wealthy - most
likely he/she needs to find a second job just to pay the
bills. I can't speak for coaches from other nations, but I
doubt they are making much more. These people who coached me
in my youth....and the youth of today.....depend on a steady
stream of new swimmers to join and stay with the sport.

I seem to recall you've been involved in swimming the
channel.....if so, did the guy who drove the boat while you
were taking a leisurely swim do it for free? How forked over
the cash to pay for his time? The gas? How about all the
other people in involved? As I said - it might be a leisure
activity for you - for others it isn't.

So, next time you want to take your high and mighty stance
regarding "greedy capitalism" as it pertains to
swimming.....you might want to keep this in mind.

"diablo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple

pleasure.

Quoted message said:

No, Duncan, Swimming *to you* is a leisure activity. To
others its a sport and a profession.

Yes, and it is they - the money grubbers - who are spoiling
it for the many, like me, who just do it because we like it.

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple

pleasure.

Quoted message said:

"The language of greedy capitalism?" That's stretching
things just a bit, don't you think?

While the viability of the sport may not be important to
you.......it is

to

Quoted message said:

others. There are many people who depend of the
'viability' of the sport

to

Quoted message said:

provide a basic income....note - I'm not talking about a
huge income - I'm talking about earning enough to keep a
roof over your head and pay the utility bills.

The average swim coach in the US is far from wealthy -
most likely he/she needs to find a second job just to pay
the bills. I can't speak for

coaches

Quoted message said:

from other nations, but I doubt they are making much more.
These people

who

Quoted message said:

coached me in my youth....and the youth of
today.....depend on a steady stream of new swimmers to
join and stay with the sport.

I seem to recall you've been involved in swimming the
channel.....if so,

did

Quoted message said:

the guy who drove the boat while you were taking a
leisurely swim do it

for

Quoted message said:

free? How forked over the cash to pay for his time? The
gas? How about all the other people in involved? As I said
- it might be a leisure activity

for

Quoted message said:

you - for others it isn't.

So, next time you want to take your high and mighty stance
regarding

"greedy

Quoted message said:

capitalism" as it pertains to swimming.....you might want
to keep this in mind.

I paid for my channel swims out of my own earnings from a
proper job. The pilot was a fisherman, earning a bit
extra. Turning swimming in to a profession is like turning
walking or breathing in to a profession. It's not a proper
job. I can't expect professionals to agree, for obvious
financial reasons, but they should know that there are
plenty of amateurs like me who view them mostly as hangers
on, and largely unnecessary. And no, I've never paid a
coach in my life.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

And no, I've never paid a coach in my life.

How nice that you think of only yourself.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Turning swimming in to a profession is like turning
walking or breathing

in

Quoted message said:

to a profession. It's not a proper job. I can't expect
professionals to agree, for obvious financial reasons, but
they should know that there are plenty of amateurs like me
who view them mostly as hangers on, and largely
unnecessary.

So, based on your statement above - being a professional
swim instructor &/or swim coach is not considered to be a
'proper job'.....you must be kidding!

If not, who died and left you King?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to list those jobs you do
consider 'proper' so the rest of us can do some much-needed
career planning........

diablo said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:4076a77d$1_1@mk-nntp-
2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple pleasure.

No, Duncan, Swimming *to you* is a leisure activity. To
others its a sport and a profession.

Martin - by visibility and exposure of the sport i'm
talking about getting kids into competitive swimming and
keeping them in, which is incredibly hard to do.

ok, but that isn't visibility. The kids know competitive
swimming is there. They just don't want to do that kind of
competition. I didn't either, actually. I got into
competitive swimming because I was a fat kid and I wanted
to be fit.

I think swimming should be promoted as a fitness activity
rather than a competitive one. If I were running the PE
program at a junior high or high school, I would organize
before-school workouts in the pool, gym, and outside on the
track and road. I would attempt to provide a fitness club
atmosphere. I would train kids as aerobics instructors.

I would offer the kids the choice of replacing their PE
class with this before-school fitness program, and then it
could be run as part of the curriculum, perhaps also using
the first period of the day. I would also then provide a
light, healthy breakfast for the participating kids.

I would run the swimming component of this fitness program
as a Masters swimming workout, with emphasis on fitness
and fellowship. I would organize Masters-style
competitions on the occassional Saturday morning, not so
much for competition but for time trials for measuring
personal achievement for those who wanted it. Some of the
kids would stand out and would get interested in competing
for the school.

martin

Bill Geiser' wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:4076a77d$1_1@mk-nntp-
2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Quoted message said:

Swimming is a leisutre activity, not a business. It does
not need to be 'viable'. That is the language of greedy
capitalism, not simple pleasure.

"The language of greedy capitalism?" That's stretching
things just a bit, don't you think?

While the viability of the sport may not be important to
you.......it is to others. There are many people who depend
of the 'viability' of the sport to provide a basic
income....note - I'm not talking about a huge income - I'm
talking about earning enough to keep a roof over your head
and pay the utility bills.

The average swim coach in the US is far from wealthy -
most likely he/she needs to find a second job just to pay
the bills. I can't speak for coaches from other nations,
but I doubt they are making much more. These people who
coached me in my youth....and the youth of
today.....depend on a steady stream of new swimmers to
join and stay with the sport.

I think the basic approach is wrong, because coaches
emphasize attracting kids or adults to swimming for
competition. They should emphasize swimming for
fitness instead.

For an analogy, look at auto racing. People don't take
up driving a care because they get excited about
watching Formula 1 on TV. They take up driving because
they need to get around town each day. Auto racing came
out of the interest in driving for transportation, not
the other way around.

So it is with swimming. What interest in swimming
competition there is comes from people who are interested in
swimming as a fitness and recreational activity. Promote
swimming that way, and the interest in competitive swimming
will rise later.

martin

Duncan Heenan said:

And no, I've never paid a coach in my life.

Nevertheless, coaching is an important profession and mostly
for reasons other than producing competitive swimmers.

martin

Duncan,

for someone who occassionally posts very insightful
thoughts, i really have to ask whether you were in your
right mind when you wrote this.

its one of the most disappointing, arrogant and ignorant
passages i've ever come across.

how dare you say that coaches, who change the lives of
billions of children through sports are "hangers on". How
dare you say that? Thankfully, you are FIRMLY in the
minority. i very much doubt there are many amateurs who
would agree with you , nevermind professionals.

turning swimming into a profession is *not* like turning
breathing or walking into a sport - i'd like to see who
popped out the womb and swam butterfly. its a skill that
needs to be learned and trained. and if you tink all
swimming coaches do is teach kids how to swim up and down a
pool, well, you're even more ignorant than i thought.

now if you'll excuse me, i have to go to work. quite why i'm
writing to you instead of luxuriating in my 50+ hrs a week
job on deck and in the office is beyond me...i'd much rather
be there earning my HUGE paycheck.

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:40771d74_2@mk-nntp-
2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Quoted message said:

I paid for my channel swims out of my own earnings from a
proper job. The pilot was a fisherman, earning a bit
extra. Turning swimming in to a profession is like turning
walking or breathing

in

Quoted message said:

to a profession. It's not a proper job. I can't expect
professionals to agree, for obvious financial reasons, but
they should know that there are plenty of amateurs like me
who view them mostly as hangers on, and largely
unnecessary. And no, I've never paid a coach in my life.

Fred S. said:

I have a question about bodysuits ...

I've read the following warnings about bodysuits:

- bodysuits may not make you faster at all, or may do so
only because of increased flotation, which would violate
the rules,

- if they do make you faster, they rely so much on perfect
fit that you can't just buy them off the shelf, or over
the internet,

- even if you can afford to have them perfectly fitted,
the full-arm models may may stretch enough during one
race that they are no longer tightly-fitted afterwards.
For someone that goes years on a few briefs, frequent
replacement of an expensive bodysuit would be an
onerous burden.

As far as the business aspect, I find a parallel between
these suits and aero bike gear. AIUI the use of aero bike
gear was severely restricted a few years ago.

Another parallel is with hi-tech tennis racquets. These
racquets earned a lot of money for Wilson and Head but IMO
turned tennis into a far less telegenic sport.

The only good thing I see about bodysuits is that they may
encourage some modest lads to stay in the sport. I could see
paying for jammers, or even an armless suit if the swimmer
would get a decent amount of use from the thing.

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name
to reply by e-mail)

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

And no, I've never paid a coach in my life.

How nice that you think of only yourself.

No doubt you're a coach. And because you think only of
others, no doubt you do it for free?

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Duncan Heenan" <[email hidden]>
wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Turning swimming in to a profession is like turning
walking or breathing

in

Quoted message said:

to a profession. It's not a proper job. I can't expect
professionals to agree, for obvious financial reasons,
but they should know that there

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plenty of amateurs like me who view them mostly as
hangers on, and

largely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unnecessary.

So, based on your statement above - being a professional
swim instructor &/or swim coach is not considered to be a
'proper job'.....you must be kidding!

If not, who died and left you King?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to list those jobs you do
consider 'proper' so the rest of us can do some much-
needed career planning........

A real job is one which has intrinsic value. In my view
teaching swimming does, coaching does not. Here are some
thoughts based on my experience of coaches

When I was small, I used to think that a coach (used in
England to also mean 'bus', for US readers) was a large
thing with four wheels which was smelly and belched out
smoke, took you all over the country, cost a lot and made
you sick. Since I have grown up (in body at least), I
realise I was wrong about the four wheels. I know full well
that it is probably a career termination move to take a
swipe at coaches in their own journal, but having been their
victim for so many years, and with so little to show for it,
I just can't resist it. First let's define our terms. A
teacher is someone who takes a non-swimmer and convinces
them that they can swim, whereas a coach is someone who
takes a swimmer and convinces them that they can't.

I am of course properly qualified to comment on coaches,
having never been one. You may think this strange logic, but
it is every bit as logical as the convention which seems to
debar coaches from ever swimming. Unfair accusation? Well,
when did you last see your coach in the water? There are a
few exceptions of course, like the coach I once had who had
competed in 3 Olympics and even had a bronze medal to show
for it - but I call that showing off. No. Mostly, coaches
plead that they have no time to swim themselves, thereby
avoiding ever being rumbled as non-swimmers. The magic words
'do what I say, not what I do' maintains their authority in
the face of any swimmer who may question it. Take it from
me, coaches can't swim. The ones who will write to Swimming
Times incandescent with 'letter rage', are of course rare
exceptions to this otherwise universal truth. [applies also
to those who post on this group].

Viewing these authority figures goose-stepping about on the
poolside from the water, the poor swimmer is on a
psychological hiding to nothing. They tower over you and
make you feel like a primary school kid again. This
particular form of intimidation only works however if they
dress for the part. I recall the loss of dignity to one lady
coach who, on her way to a barn dance, turned up in a skirt,
only to have her undies thoroughly appraised by the below-foot-
level swimmers. Perhaps that's why they're so wedded to
their track suits. There is no logic to wearing a track suit
- none of them ever goes near a track- but they mostly do,
don't they? Especially when travelling, the track suit is
the uniform which lifts them above normal mortals. I suppose
too, they think it looks racy and hints at a prowess that
they are too modest to disclose.

To call all coaches closet Nazis would be unfair. I heard of
one who wasn't ( - he was thrown out of the Nazi party for
cruelty). However, the power which accompanies the job has
to be one of their main turn-ons. As well as enabling them
always to nick the front seat in the bus on the way to
galas, this can easily lead to a sadism second only to that
of a Parking Warden. The setting of exercises is a field day
for their love of others' suffering. I once laboured under a
coach who was so obsessed with 'throw-overs' and 'catch-
ups', that we re-named them 'catch-overs and throw-ups',
with good reason. On one occasion I recall the pool had to
be cleared because of the after effects of this nauseating
(sic) exercise. IM's stood for Individual Maladies in our
club. Also, I wonder if coaches carry on shouting when they
get home? It can become a bit embarrassing outside the pool,
especially when she shouts across the pub that she didn't
recognise you with your clothes on. Leastways, I told my
wife she was the coach.

To add mystique to this control freaky, many coaches also
become equipment junkies. These ones think of all sorts of
extra kit their swimmers should have. We had a coach once
who had acquired a job lot of heart rate monitors and
insisted we use them. The sensor was supposedly held on by a
thing resembling a twisted bra. The men, being used only to
handling bras on the people for whom they were designed,
could not get the hang of this. Consequently the damn things
slipped, and most of the men were pronounced dead after 400
metres, as the sensors could find no pulse in their
backsides. My vast belly stopped mine slipping, but I was
nevertheless condemned by the coach for not trying, as my
heart rate actually slowed as I started swimming, in
recovery from the effort of putting on the bra. You could
say I got the booby prize. Incidentally, the best electronic
training aid I have come across was a simple video camera.
At least seeing myself in action gave me some slight
sympathy for the hosts of coaches who have given up on me.

Jargon comes close to equipment in coaches' affection.
Don't be bamboozled in to thinking they know what it means
though. Make them explain. Once, overhearing a coach going
on about a VO2 max, I called for an explanation and was
told that it was a milder version of VO5 shampoo. The same
coach told me that aerobic exercise was a warm up done with
your dressing gown on.

A coach is a professional critic, which explains in part why
I love them about equally with literary critics and
haemorrhoids. I shall however prove with this short article
that they can not themselves take criticism from swimmers.
Now you've heard it I await your response. Coaches who write
in complaining that I am wrong will prove my point. Those
who write in agreeing also prove my point. Those who say
nothing allow my point to go unchallenged by their silence.
This self justifying argument is based on the same logic
which allows the coaches always to be right about my
training. They say "do what I say,

Heenan, and you will improve.". I do, and I don't improve.
So they say "you didn't do what I said, or else not well
enough." See what I mean? When did your coach ever say ,
"oops, sorry! I got that wrong."

Much of the jaundice in my view comes, of course, from being
a straight cross of those two least of tameable breeds - the
master swimmer and the open water swimmer. Master swimmers
have all 'been there, done it' - and got not only the tee
shirt but the truss as well. Once Prime Ministers start
being younger than you, there's nothing much anyone can tell
you. We were swimming before Pontius Pilate even started his
flying lessons, after all. As for open water swimmers, we're
all a bit weird anyway; brainwashed from the hours of
sensory deprivation. We're so practised in the masochism
necessary for our branch of the sport that we need no sadist
on the poolside to help us. At best we will trade insults
with some poor devil stuck for hours in a rowing boat, with
blistered hands, freezing cold and dying for a loo. Add to
this already powerful combination of delinquency a naturally
stroppy nature, and you can see why coaches leave me alone
nowadays. Anyway, one thing's for certain I shall never be
allowed to become a coach if this article ever gets
published, so now you can all breath a sigh of relief.

© Duncan HeenanDecember 1998

Published in Swimming Times December 1999

I await the wrath of coaches, proving that they have no
sense of humour (though I think they've already
demonstrated that).