7 year old swims Alcatraz

email hidden (Larry Weisenthal) said:

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade. The 7 year old has a great
heart and pretty remarkable courage.

He did, however, wear a wetsuit. Not that I recommend having 7 year
olds swim Alcatraz in May wearing only jammers or whatever, but there
are literally hundreds of 7 year olds who could do that swim in a
wetsuit, were their parents equally inclined to seek such publicity.

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

The average person can't know how different a cold water 1.4 mile swim
is in a wetsuit as opposed to without a wetsuit. There are lots of 7
year olds who do more impressive things in colder water on surfboards
all the time.

I'm just grumpy that people don't realize that wetsuit swims aren't
really swims, but are rather comfort-controlled paddles.

- Larry Weisenthal

What he said.

In article <[email hidden]>,

LouF said:

email hidden (Larry Weisenthal) said:

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade. The 7 year old has a great
heart and pretty remarkable courage.

He did, however, wear a wetsuit. Not that I recommend having 7 year
olds swim Alcatraz in May wearing only jammers or whatever, but there
are literally hundreds of 7 year olds who could do that swim in a
wetsuit, were their parents equally inclined to seek such publicity.

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

The average person can't know how different a cold water 1.4 mile swim
is in a wetsuit as opposed to without a wetsuit. There are lots of 7
year olds who do more impressive things in colder water on surfboards
all the time.

I'm just grumpy that people don't realize that wetsuit swims aren't
really swims, but are rather comfort-controlled paddles.

- Larry Weisenthal

What he said.

Me too. But fins are ok. They should have races with fins.

Martin Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

LouF said:

email hidden (Larry Weisenthal) said:

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade. The 7 year old has a great
heart and pretty remarkable courage.

He did, however, wear a wetsuit. Not that I recommend having 7 year
olds swim Alcatraz in May wearing only jammers or whatever, but there
are literally hundreds of 7 year olds who could do that swim in a
wetsuit, were their parents equally inclined to seek such publicity.

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim

Alcatraz

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

The average person can't know how different a cold water 1.4 mile

swim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is in a wetsuit as opposed to without a wetsuit. There are lots of 7
year olds who do more impressive things in colder water on surfboards
all the time.

I'm just grumpy that people don't realize that wetsuit swims aren't
really swims, but are rather comfort-controlled paddles.

- Larry Weisenthal

What he said.

Me too. But fins are ok. They should have races with fins.

Martin, what type of fins?
You got your zoomers, your long flexible, duck feet, morey boogie fins,
split fin, etc. etc. Each has it's place and provides different
propulsion -- and yet none are gonna help me beat the thorpedo.

I wore a wetsuit (second time ever for a swim event) last weekend. Not
because the water was cold (61 F), but because everyone else was and I
wanted to have an even chance. Knowing I could outswim them without a
wetsuit and then get ym butt kicked on the run would not be comparing
apples to apples if they wore suits and i didn't. So I suited up and can
feel really good about my finish after the run.

I personally seek out swim event that exclude wetsuits and fins. I do a
3-miler (actually 1 mile followed by the 3 miler in the afternoon) in
September that forbids them. I am looking to do a 10-miler 2 weeks after
that which does allow fins (I would wear duck feet probably) but wetsuits
are a totally separate division; then again they also have relay
divisions.

Steph _CUT said:

Martin Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

LouF said:

On 22 May 2006 12:53:01 -0700, "[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>Don't want to rain on anyone's parade. The 7 year old has a great
>heart and pretty remarkable courage.
>
>He did, however, wear a wetsuit. Not that I recommend having 7 year
>olds swim Alcatraz in May wearing only jammers or whatever, but there
>are literally hundreds of 7 year olds who could do that swim in a
>wetsuit, were their parents equally inclined to seek such publicity.
>
>I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim

Alcatraz

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.
>
>The average person can't know how different a cold water 1.4 mile

swim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>is in a wetsuit as opposed to without a wetsuit. There are lots of 7
>year olds who do more impressive things in colder water on surfboards
>all the time.
>
>I'm just grumpy that people don't realize that wetsuit swims aren't
>really swims, but are rather comfort-controlled paddles.
>
>- Larry Weisenthal

What he said.

Me too. But fins are ok. They should have races with fins.

Martin, what type of fins?
You got your zoomers, your long flexible, duck feet, morey boogie fins,
split fin, etc. etc. Each has it's place and provides different
propulsion -- and yet none are gonna help me beat the thorpedo.

Scubapro swim fins are the only brand for me. Well, zoomers and split
fins are good for training too.

Quoted message said:

I wore a wetsuit (second time ever for a swim event) last weekend. Not
because the water was cold (61 F), but because everyone else was and I
wanted to have an even chance. Knowing I could outswim them without a
wetsuit and then get ym butt kicked on the run would not be comparing
apples to apples if they wore suits and i didn't. So I suited up and can
feel really good about my finish after the run.

I personally seek out swim event that exclude wetsuits and fins. I do a
3-miler (actually 1 mile followed by the 3 miler in the afternoon) in
September that forbids them. I am looking to do a 10-miler 2 weeks after
that which does allow fins (I would wear duck feet probably) but wetsuits
are a totally separate division; then again they also have relay
divisions.

I've never understood the whole open water scene. We have the
technology of wetsuits to make it more pleasant, and safer. Yet I
believe a wetsuit is an automatic D.Q. Last year in Southern
California, the water was unseasonably cold. At the pier-to-pier swim
in Orange County, it was in the low 50's. Two very lean, 50 year old
studs from my Master's group had to abandon. One said his arms were so
heavy he feared that if he hadn't headed to shore when he did, he might
have been overcome with hypothermia and drowned. Made me want to sign
up for this years event. Or not. We have the technology to make it
more about swimming instead of enduring cold temperatures, but we
choose not to do that. What's the point of that?

Do people climb Everest still just using wool garments or do they use
the latest technology? Does it lessen their accomplishment? Should
all technology in cycling, which has revolutionized the sport be
banned? Since oil is so expensive, why don't we not heat the pools if
it's all about who can be the most macho?

What am I missing?

Eric

Quoted message said:

I've never understood the whole open water scene. We have the
technology of wetsuits to make it more pleasant, and safer. Yet I
believe a wetsuit is an automatic D.Q. Last year in Southern
California, the water was unseasonably cold. At the pier-to-pier swim
in Orange County, it was in the low 50's. Two very lean, 50 year old
studs from my Master's group had to abandon. One said his arms were so
heavy he feared that if he hadn't headed to shore when he did, he might
have been overcome with hypothermia and drowned. Made me want to sign
up for this years event. Or not. We have the technology to make it
more about swimming instead of enduring cold temperatures, but we
choose not to do that. What's the point of that?

Do people climb Everest still just using wool garments or do they use
the latest technology? Does it lessen their accomplishment? Should
all technology in cycling, which has revolutionized the sport be
banned? Since oil is so expensive, why don't we not heat the pools if
it's all about who can be the most macho?

What am I missing?

Nothing. You are right. But wetsuits don't just protect from the cold.
You are more bouyant in a wetsuit. You can swim faster in a wetsuit.
And if you wear a wetsuit in cold water, you can swim a lot longer.

The bottom line is that if you allow wetsuits, you should also allow
fins. Fins also protect you from the cold by getting you out of the
water a lot sooner.

Maybe they could have different classes, like they do in motorsports.

"Stock": No modifications allowed: swimsuit only.

"Modified": Wetsuits only.

"Open": wetsuit, fins, paddles ... lifeguard buoy, (as long as it
doesn't have a propeller, you can use it)

Eric

Quoted message said:

Maybe they could have different classes, like they do in motorsports.

"Stock": No modifications allowed: swimsuit only.

"Modified": Wetsuits only.

"Open": wetsuit, fins, paddles ... lifeguard buoy, (as long as it
doesn't have a propeller, you can use it)

Exactly. There should be a standard division for swimming with no
aids, and there should be a division for swimming with aids, and the
particular aids allowed could be specified for that race. For example,
wetsuits, or fins, or both.

The point is using these equipment items does give a swimmer a real
advantage over a swimmer who doesn't use them.

Just like steroids.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 22:32:32 -0700, ekurth wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Do people climb Everest still just using wool garments or do they use
the latest technology? Does it lessen their accomplishment? Should all
technology in cycling, which has revolutionized the sport be banned?
Since oil is so expensive, why don't we not heat the pools if it's all
about who can be the most macho?

What am I missing?

Eric

"Over the border lies Mt Kilimanjaro, the tallest mountain in the world.
It is to the peak of Kilimanjaro that the expedition is intending to
climb. A small bunch of Englishmen out walking miles a day in the midday
sun and taking turns at wearing a large rhino costume. Mad dogs have
thrown in the towel long ago.

What's all this, I expect you're thinking, about the tallest mountain in
the world? Everest surely deserves at least an honourable mention in this
category. Well it all depends upon your point of view. Certainly Everest
stands a sturdy 29,028' above sea level which, in it's way, is impressive
but if you were going to climb Everest you would probably start, if you
were using a reliable guide, somewhere in the Himalayas. Anywhere in the
Himalayas is pretty damned high to start with and so, to hear some people
tell it, it's just a smartish jog to to do the last little bit to the top
of Everest. The way to keep it interesting these days is to do it without
oxygen or in your underpants or something.

But Kilimanjaro is not part of a widespread upheaval like Everest. It was
a long time before people where able to workout which bit of the Himalayas
was actually the highest and the discovery was finally made, as I recall,
on a desk in London. No such problem with Kilimanjaro. It's volcanic and
stands on it's own surrounded by a few footling little hills. When
you finally get to see Kili, searching among the befuddling clouds on the
horizon, your blood suddenly runs cold. Oh, you say at last, you mean
above the clouds. Your whole head tilts upwards. "Oh my god". From base to
apex it is the tallest mountain in the world.

It's certainly a hell of a thing to climb in a rhino costume."

-- Douglas Adams, as I've badly transcribed from the audiobook edition of
"Salmon of Doubt"

--Mike

Martin Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe they could have different classes, like they do in motorsports.

"Stock": No modifications allowed: swimsuit only.

"Modified": Wetsuits only.

"Open": wetsuit, fins, paddles ... lifeguard buoy, (as long as it
doesn't have a propeller, you can use it)

Exactly. There should be a standard division for swimming with no
aids, and there should be a division for swimming with aids, and the
particular aids allowed could be specified for that race. For example,
wetsuits, or fins, or both.

The point is using these equipment items does give a swimmer a real
advantage over a swimmer who doesn't use them.

Just like steroids.

Except, of course, you can take the suit off.

--Mike

Michael Edey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:pan.2006.05.23.07.28.27.825720
@edey.org:

Quoted message said:

Martin Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe they could have different classes, like they do in motorsports.

"Stock": No modifications allowed: swimsuit only.

"Modified": Wetsuits only.

"Open": wetsuit, fins, paddles ... lifeguard buoy, (as long as it
doesn't have a propeller, you can use it)

Exactly. There should be a standard division for swimming with no
aids, and there should be a division for swimming with aids, and the
particular aids allowed could be specified for that race. For example,
wetsuits, or fins, or both.

The point is using these equipment items does give a swimmer a real
advantage over a swimmer who doesn't use them.

Just like steroids.

Except, of course, you can take the suit off.

--Mike

Ah man, I hate it when I get DQ'd after testing positive for neoprene
<w>

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

And what would the reason be if it was without a wetsuit?

Brian Christensen said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

And what would the reason be if it was without a wetsuit?

Yes, I have to say having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz without a wetsuit
might be a form of child abuse. In general, I think stunts by very
small children should be discouraged. It is not like a lot of the
inmates at Alcatraz were 7 at the time on incarceration.
madelaine

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

Quoted message said:

Brian Christensen said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

And what would the reason be if it was without a wetsuit?

Yes, I have to say having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz without a wetsuit
might be a form of child abuse. In general, I think stunts by very small
children should be discouraged. It is not like a lot of the inmates at
Alcatraz were 7 at the time on incarceration.
madelaine

Yes, lets encourage mediocrity.

Safety was not an issue, so why not?

None of the hardened criminals held there, including Al Capone, ever
escaped, and some were shot trying. And now a little 7 year old swims
off the island to "freedom". That's an interesting story even though
the fact that the kid wore a wetsuit evidently ruins it for Larry.

Eric

Brian Christensen said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

And what would the reason be if it was without a wetsuit?

Actually, I think the reason either way is to have at least one kid in
the U.S. who is pursuing goals that will lead him away from rather than
toward childhood obesity.

Bob

"Robert W. McAdams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian Christensen said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know of any other reason for having a 7 year old swim Alcatraz
in a wetsuit, save for the publicity angle.

And what would the reason be if it was without a wetsuit?

Actually, I think the reason either way is to have at least one kid in the
U.S. who is pursuing goals that will lead him away from rather than toward
childhood obesity.

This was about the parents and the other adults
around the kid, not the 7 yr old. Else, there wouldn't be all the
press about it, the kid could have gone to San Diego or
Newport or LA and done a pier to pier swim like hundreds of
other little kids do.

This kid could well end up fat in front of a Nintendo game
at age 15 flipping the bird at his parents who are
trying to get him to start swimming again.

Kids at age 7 don't need to pursue goals, they really
need to get out and play.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

None of the hardened criminals held there, including Al Capone, ever
escaped, and some were shot trying. And now a little 7 year old swims
off the island to "freedom". That's an interesting story even though
the fact that the kid wore a wetsuit evidently ruins it for Larry.

Eric

With a wetsuit, it isn't newsworthy, even for a 7 year old. Without a
wetsuit it would be newsworthy as reckless endangerment of a child.

Eric, I've done the Balboa/Newport Pier 2 miler many times. Some years
very cold. Some not so bad. I'm proud of the fact that all the So Cal
open water swims don't give you an official result if you wear a
wetsuit. Swimming with a wetsuit is just not swimming. You can raise
both feet clear out of the water and not lose any time. Try doing that
without a wetsuit sometime. It just changes things. It's more like
paddling a surfboard than true swimming. You could, in fact, just
slide a small surfboard underneath yourself and claim that this is a
technological improvement, which it would be, but, again, it wouldn't
be swimming.

- Larry Weisenthal