Changing waters

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

"Recalled that you wrote as if you knew what you were talking

about,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when
we discussed the possibility of using the techniques of surf

swimming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
survive a tsunami"

Funny, but that's what I saw in your writtings and what I was

trying to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do was find out just what is it that you wanted to convey.
I did manage it in the finish, so in that sense I knew what I was

doing.

Quoted message said:

But what you learned in the end is exactly what I said the first

time.

Incorrect. What I learnt was how to better understand what you first
said.

Quoted message said:

You just made me repeat myself several times, but I'm used to that.

Actually, I kept looking for answers to question that your answers had
missed. The missing significant details were such that as to be
indicating you didn't really understand what you first said either.

What were the missing details. I asked: If you were in the water, out
past the surf line, say, 100m from shore, and you were wearing fins,
could you use the well-known technique odf swimming under the waves to
survive a tsunami?

There are no details missing.

Quoted message said:

The

Quoted message said:

real problem was you didn't know anything at all about the subject,

"anything at all" is a gross exaggeration. And I tended to detail
references to better convey my concerns.

You don't even know what it is like to float in the sea. "anything at
all" isn't an exaggeration at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you wrote as if you did. For example, you didn't begin by saying
"I've never actually swam through surf, and in fact, I don't even

know

Quoted message said:

what it is like to float in the sea, and I don't even know what

stroke I

Quoted message said:

should swim underwater, but I think you are wrong about trying to
survive a tsunami in the water because..."

Thats just plain rubbish because I did outline precisely what I saw and
how it compared it with my personal experience.

What you saw? You didn't see anything. I asked a hypothetical question.
You have since asked how floating in the sea is different from floating
in the pool. You don't have any experience.

Quoted message said:

Further more I did point at least once that you'd probably know beter
than me. At one satge somewhere along the line i also mentioned the 20
years since i was last swimming at sea.

But none of that really matters does it?
What matters is now and what I see is that I've asked question the
answers to which neither you nor your big idiot twin seem to be able to
provide in spite of the impression you give to the contrary.
Or,seeing as how you're yet again underling your attitude... your not
interested in any real discussion centred purely on the topic of
swimming. But then, we've become accostomed to that.

You asked this: "If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the
event of the unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who
can do several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency
as the 1-stroker?"

Better chance? What are you talking about? Better chance at what? Better
chance at swimming the English channel? No. Better chance at surviving
at sea? No. Better chance at not getting disqualified in the 200 meter
IM? Yes.

You then asked: "Would someone who is not all that good at any stroke,
but capable of demonstating it, stand as much chance... or less... than
someone who is equally not that good, but can only do 1 stroke?"

Stand as much chance of what? Getting a date with Mira Sorvino? Yes.
Swimming across the Pacific ocean? Yes? Winning a 200 meter IM? Yes.

Finally, you asked: "To what advantage is capacity for variation?
Or even, is there any advantage?"

What are you talking about? Put your wquestions in some context. They
are meaningless without a context. A swimmer who can swim the four
competition strokes has a decided advantage over a one stroke swimmer in
an Individual Medley. A swimmer who can swim breaststroke has a huge
advantage over a swimmer who can only swim crawlstroke in a 200 meter
breaststroke race.

I don't think any of those is the situation you meant. What situation
did you mean?

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the event of the
unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who can do
several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency as the
1-stroker?
Would someone who is not all that good at any stroke, but capable of
demonstating it, stand as much chance... or less... than someone who is
equally not that good, but can only do 1 stroke?
To what advantage is capacity for variation?
Or even, is there any advantage?

Below, a copy of a post I made 3 years ago.
Good backstroke proficiency saved my life...

-- Olivier

It was in Marrocco, on the Atlantic coast (Rabat).
Big waves and wind.
I wanted to swim here because I like to swim everywhere. Was the only one
swimming on this beach.
Was caught by a strong stream, preventing me to return to the beach despite
swimming at full speed, and taken toward big rocks with waves almost
crushing me on them.
At the last moment, the current slowed, and I could swim back to the beach.
I instinctively swam backstroke: it made me loose some speed, but made be
able to observe at the same time coming waves (to dive under them) and
rocks,
while swimming parallel to the shore.
Age at that time: 35
Proficiency level: 100m @ 1'04"
Lesson learned: streams cannot go THROUGH the rocks. Try to know the stream
before you swim. If you can't, try to permanently check your position
relatively to fixed points to be able to react ASAP.

-- Olivier

Silver0l said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the event of the
unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who can do
several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency as the
1-stroker?
Would someone who is not all that good at any stroke, but capable of
demonstating it, stand as much chance... or less... than someone who is
equally not that good, but can only do 1 stroke?
To what advantage is capacity for variation?
Or even, is there any advantage?

Below, a copy of a post I made 3 years ago.
Good backstroke proficiency saved my life...

-- Olivier

It was in Marrocco, on the Atlantic coast (Rabat).
Big waves and wind.
I wanted to swim here because I like to swim everywhere. Was the only one
swimming on this beach.
Was caught by a strong stream, preventing me to return to the beach despite
swimming at full speed, and taken toward big rocks with waves almost
crushing me on them.
At the last moment, the current slowed, and I could swim back to the beach.
I instinctively swam backstroke: it made me loose some speed, but made be
able to observe at the same time coming waves (to dive under them) and
rocks,
while swimming parallel to the shore.
Age at that time: 35
Proficiency level: 100m @ 1'04"
Lesson learned: streams cannot go THROUGH the rocks. Try to know the stream
before you swim. If you can't, try to permanently check your position
relatively to fixed points to be able to react ASAP.

-- Olivier

Nothing so harrowing as Olivier's experience, but I did all of the swim
leg of Triathlon World Championships in Wellington on my back. The
water temperature was 57 degrees, cold enough even with wetsuits to
cause hypothermia in some of the pros. The sea was so rough I thought
I'd never be able to breathe. Even on my back the waves ran over my
head, so I had to time my breaths carefully. It was a cold day and a
hilly ride, with freezing downhill portions. Not a fun race. I made up
for it with a nice trip to the South Island of New Zealand for a three
day trek in the mountains, some sea kayaking and whale watching. I've
also used breaststroke for sighting purposes frequently in open water
swims. I can't think of any disadvatage to having more skills.

Ruth Kazez

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You asked this: "If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the
event of the unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who
can do several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency
as the 1-stroker?"

Better chance? What are you talking about? Better chance at what? Better
chance at swimming the English channel? No.

The first swimmer to cross the channel was a 1-stroke swimmer. For
something like 40 years, no one else was successful.

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You asked this: "If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

event of the unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can do several strokes, but not to quite the same level of

proficiency

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as the 1-stroker?"

Better chance? What are you talking about? Better chance at what?

Better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chance at swimming the English channel? No.

The first swimmer to cross the channel was a 1-stroke swimmer. For
something like 40 years, no one else was successful.

That's a very good point. Any footage I've seen of someone swimming
across that stretch of water was doing crawl-stroke, though I wonder if
certain adjustments might have to be made, such as swimming underwater.
You don't say which 1-stroke it was.
Some people are 1-stroke junkies, but it's not crawl.
Perhaps I can adjust my question.
Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

rtk said:

Silver0l said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de

news:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the event of the
unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who can do
several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency as

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1-stroker?
Would someone who is not all that good at any stroke, but capable

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

demonstating it, stand as much chance... or less... than someone

who is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

equally not that good, but can only do 1 stroke?
To what advantage is capacity for variation?
Or even, is there any advantage?

Below, a copy of a post I made 3 years ago.
Good backstroke proficiency saved my life...

-- Olivier

It was in Marrocco, on the Atlantic coast (Rabat).
Big waves and wind.
I wanted to swim here because I like to swim everywhere. Was the

only one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swimming on this beach.
Was caught by a strong stream, preventing me to return to the beach

despite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swimming at full speed, and taken toward big rocks with waves

almost

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crushing me on them.
At the last moment, the current slowed, and I could swim back to

the beach.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I instinctively swam backstroke: it made me loose some speed, but

made be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

able to observe at the same time coming waves (to dive under them)

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rocks,
while swimming parallel to the shore.
Age at that time: 35
Proficiency level: 100m @ 1'04"
Lesson learned: streams cannot go THROUGH the rocks. Try to know

the stream

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before you swim. If you can't, try to permanently check your

position

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

relatively to fixed points to be able to react ASAP.

-- Olivier

Nothing so harrowing as Olivier's experience, but I did all of the

swim

Quoted message said:

leg of Triathlon World Championships in Wellington on my back. The
water temperature was 57 degrees, cold enough even with wetsuits to
cause hypothermia in some of the pros. The sea was so rough I

thought

Quoted message said:

I'd never be able to breathe. Even on my back the waves ran over my
head, so I had to time my breaths carefully. It was a cold day and a

Quoted message said:

hilly ride, with freezing downhill portions. Not a fun race. I made

up

Quoted message said:

for it with a nice trip to the South Island of New Zealand for a

three

Quoted message said:

day trek in the mountains, some sea kayaking and whale watching.

I've

Quoted message said:

also used breaststroke for sighting purposes frequently in open water

Quoted message said:

swims. I can't think of any disadvatage to having more skills.

Ruth Kazez

There's a bit in there that goes;"Even on my back the waves ran over my
head, so I had to time my breaths carefully."
Does that mean that the same thing happens when trying to float, say
5-20 metres from the beech, in say water no more than 2.5m deep?

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You asked this: "If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

event of the unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can do several strokes, but not to quite the same level of

proficiency

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as the 1-stroker?"

Better chance? What are you talking about? Better chance at what?

Better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chance at swimming the English channel? No.

The first swimmer to cross the channel was a 1-stroke swimmer. For
something like 40 years, no one else was successful.

That's a very good point. Any footage I've seen of someone swimming
across that stretch of water was doing crawl-stroke, though I wonder if
certain adjustments might have to be made, such as swimming underwater.
You don't say which 1-stroke it was.
Some people are 1-stroke junkies, but it's not crawl.
Perhaps I can adjust my question.
Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

You're a banana.

Quoted message said:

There's a bit in there that goes;"Even on my back the waves ran over my
head, so I had to time my breaths carefully."
Does that mean that the same thing happens when trying to float, say
5-20 metres from the beech, in say water no more than 2.5m deep?

You've never actually seen surf, have you?

What am I thinking... Yes! Yes! Go to the ocean, and wade out until you
are 5 or 10 meters in. The float on your back. Let us know how that
works out for you.

The Belgian Banana said:

Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

No.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Belgian Banana said:

Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

No.

Do you have a reference for this?

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Belgian Banana said:

Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

No.

Do you have a reference for this?

A reference? No, I don't have a reference. I do have an argument. The
banana asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes, but he never
specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming he
means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being proficient
in butterfly would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

Can you think of a situation in which a channel swimmer would be better
off swimming butterfly?

No. You can't.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Belgian Banana wrote:

>Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
>more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
>like swimming across the English Channel?

No.

Do you have a reference for this?

A reference? No, I don't have a reference.

That is usually the case.

Quoted message said:

I do have an argument.

So is that.

Quoted message said:

The
banana

So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing to
support your argument or credit your character.

Quoted message said:

asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

That's an unsupportable assumption - there are many strokes other than the
three competitive ones.

Quoted message said:

but he never
specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming he
means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being proficient
in butterfly

How easily you slide from your assumed four to only one.

Quoted message said:

would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

What if you were Vicki Keith?

Quoted message said:

Can you think of a situation in which a channel swimmer would be better
off swimming butterfly?

Yes (see above).

Quoted message said:

No. You can't.

Ohoh...

How easily you assume you are correct. I understand you are an American -
is this true?

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>The Belgian Banana wrote:
>
>
>>Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
>>more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
>>like swimming across the English Channel?
>
>No.

Do you have a reference for this?

A reference? No, I don't have a reference.

That is usually the case.

Were you expecting a reference to answer his question? When you ask a
person for directions to Winslow, Colorado, and they give you the
directions, do you then ask them for a reference? Or when you ask your
wife about her day, and she tells you how her day went, do you ask her
for a reference?

You do, don't you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do have an argument.

So is that.

I assumed you wanted me to support my answer to his question. That
requires a supporting argument. Yes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
banana

So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing to
support your argument or credit your character.

That's true, but it isn't relevant. Your pointing out is just a way for
you to make something out of nothing, but go ahead. You're going to lose
this argument the same way you've lost all the others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

That's an unsupportable assumption - there are many strokes other than the
three competitive ones.

I think there are four. Yes, there are four strokes performed at swim
meets. My assumption is supportable. I supported it. It is the most
reasonable assumption.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but he never
specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming he
means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being proficient
in butterfly

How easily you slide from your assumed four to only one.

By now you should understand how to prove a logical argument. But you
don't. He asked if being proficient in ALL strokes would benefit a
channel swimmer. He wrote "Would being fairly proficient at ALL
strokes..." emphasis mine. I answered No. You demanded a proof. To prove
the answer No is correct requires demonstrating that being proficient in
one of the strokes provides no benefit to the channel swimmer in
handling unforeseen situations. Being proficient in butterfly provides
no benefit to the channel swimmer in handling unforeseen situations.
Therefore, the answer No is correct. That's my argument.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

What if you were Vicki Keith?

You didn't even understand the question, did you? I assume she swam the
channel doing butterfly. The fact that she swam the channel doing
butterfly is irrelevant. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
unforeseen situation. She swam butterfly presumably to get into the
record book as having swum the channel doing butterfly. Bravo, Vicki.
Her amazing feat has nothing to do with the banana's question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can you think of a situation in which a channel swimmer would be better
off swimming butterfly?

Yes (see above).

Read the banana's question again. You got it wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. You can't.

Ohoh...

How easily you assume you are correct. I understand you are an American -
is this true?

I am correct. You haven't answered the question. Can you think of a
situation in which a channel swimmer qwould be better off swimming
butterfly? You haven't answered that question. She could have swum
crawlstroke, and it would have been a lot easier. She would have been
better off swimming crawlstroke. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
unforeseen situation. Am I spelling unforeseen right?

Yes, I am American. Why do you ask?

Martin W. Smith said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Belgian Banana wrote:

>Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>like swimming across the English Channel?

No.

Do you have a reference for this?

A reference? No, I don't have a reference. I do have an argument.

Well, at least you admit it!

The

Quoted message said:

banana asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.

Actually, that's quite right. I did ask "is being proficient in ALL
strokes..."
Though earlier, within the initial question, I had stuck with meaning
more than just one stroke and had specified that too. That is what I
meant this time, but you're quite right, I boobed and what I actually
wrote meant something quite different, albeit that anyone reading the
totality of that post and previous ones would most probably have
understood the spirit in which it was meant.

Quoted message said:

Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

Well actually no, the banana, being as he is entirely unlimited to just
those 4, had a much broader spectrum of skills in mind.
To begin with, it seems conclusive that open water swimmers, especially
of the cross channel variety, have to swim in conditions, which other
than temperature differences are quite different to hammering up and
down an indoor pool, irrepective of stroke.
Given the relative strictness applied to what is and is not allowable
within a swim meet, the definition of what makes a stroke just 1 of the
4 an official strokes seems dependant on officialdom.
That means that cross channel swimmers may have to make adjustments
that would have them disqualified if attempted at say, the Olympics
100m crawl stroke/ front crawl (or maybe even the 100m freestyle)
So, in fairness, the cross channel stroke(s) is not exactly the same as
it's text book pool side sister(s).
For that reason, I would have thought it logical not to assume that I
was just referring to the 4 official strokes.
Which in turn, for those who would have understood that, the reference
to "All strokes" would have being an obvious typo. If I can come
up with 35 'strokes', and I've seen things done that I've not
included, then it would probably be fair to suppose that arriving at a
single total number is highly improbable... and therefore no "all
strokes" total.

but he never

Quoted message said:

specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming

he

Quoted message said:

means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being

proficient

Quoted message said:

in butterfly would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

That would have to be an adjusted 'butterfly' I would think, but in the
spirit of the question, it would not be proficiency in just that stroke
that counts, but in being able to be more than a 1-stroke junkie.

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

banana asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.

Actually, that's quite right. I did ask "is being proficient in ALL
strokes..."
Though earlier, within the initial question, I had stuck with meaning
more than just one stroke and had specified that too. That is what I
meant this time, but you're quite right, I boobed and what I actually
wrote meant something quite different, albeit that anyone reading the
totality of that post and previous ones would most probably have
understood the spirit in which it was meant.

I did understand it. To be able to handle unforeseen situations while
swimming across the English Channel, I can see no advantage to being
able to swim multiple strokes. If you want to swim the English channel,
i recommend that you swim crawlstroke. It will be an advantage to be
able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for the
same reason, if the winds are calm and the water flat, and then you can
more easily take instruction from your crew. But these situations are
well-known, and you could just rest or take instructions from your crew
by stopping and treading water for awhile, so you don't need to know
breaststroke or backstroke, and there is no advantage in using them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

Well actually no, the banana, being as he is entirely unlimited to just
those 4, had a much broader spectrum of skills in mind.
To begin with, it seems conclusive that open water swimmers, especially
of the cross channel variety, have to swim in conditions, which other
than temperature differences are quite different to hammering up and
down an indoor pool, irrepective of stroke.
Given the relative strictness applied to what is and is not allowable
within a swim meet, the definition of what makes a stroke just 1 of the
4 an official strokes seems dependant on officialdom.
That means that cross channel swimmers may have to make adjustments
that would have them disqualified if attempted at say, the Olympics
100m crawl stroke/ front crawl (or maybe even the 100m freestyle)
So, in fairness, the cross channel stroke(s) is not exactly the same as
it's text book pool side sister(s).
For that reason, I would have thought it logical not to assume that I
was just referring to the 4 official strokes.

No, it isn't logical. You swim freestyle across the channel, which means
you can swim anything you want, but there is no advantage to swimming
sidestroke, say, or elementary backstroke, or any other variation you
want to choose. Just swim what you are comfortable swimming.

Quoted message said:

Which in turn, for those who would have understood that, the reference
to "All strokes" would have being an obvious typo. If I can come
up with 35 'strokes', and I've seen things done that I've not
included, then it would probably be fair to suppose that arriving at a
single total number is highly improbable... and therefore no "all
strokes" total.

Read this again: No. There is no advantage to swimming any of these
other strokes that are dancing like sugar plums in your head. Swim what
you are comfortable swimming. If you are comfortable switching between
dog paddle and polar bear paddle, do it. There is no advantage.

[...]

Quoted message said:

That would have to be an adjusted 'butterfly' I would think, but in the
spirit of the question, it would not be proficiency in just that stroke
that counts, but in being able to be more than a 1-stroke junkie.

What are you talking about? Yes, you have to adjust your stroke,
whatever that is, to swim in rough water. If it is adjusted butterfly, i
is still butterfly. There is no stroke judge. There is no advantage.

Martin W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

banana asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a

channel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen

circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, that's quite right. I did ask "is being proficient in ALL
strokes..."
Though earlier, within the initial question, I had stuck with

meaning

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more than just one stroke and had specified that too. That is what

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

meant this time, but you're quite right, I boobed and what I

actually

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote meant something quite different, albeit that anyone reading

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

totality of that post and previous ones would most probably have
understood the spirit in which it was meant.

I did understand it. To be able to handle unforeseen situations while

Quoted message said:

swimming across the English Channel, I can see no advantage to being
able to swim multiple strokes.

In the context of being more than a 1-stroke junkie, I see multiple
strokes as meaning more than one, though "multiple" would ordinarily
mean even more. Do you have a figure in mind?

If you want to swim the English channel,

Quoted message said:

i recommend that you swim crawlstroke. It will be an advantage

eh.. so now you say it will be an advantage, or was that a tyo and you
meant it will not be an advantage?

so.... that's 2 more strokes which may or may not be advantageous
depending on whether you meant to say it will, or will not be an
advantage.

to be

Quoted message said:

able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for

the

Quoted message said:

same reason,

so.... that's 2 more strokes which may or may not be advantageous
depending on whether you meant to say it will, or will not be an
advantage

if the winds are calm and the water flat, and then you can

Quoted message said:

more easily take instruction from your crew. But these situations are

Quoted message said:

well-known, and you could just rest or take instructions from your

crew

Quoted message said:

by stopping and treading water for awhile, so you don't need to know
breaststroke or backstroke, and there is no advantage in using them.

so you did mean 'will not'?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

Well actually no, the banana, being as he is entirely unlimited to

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

those 4, had a much broader spectrum of skills in mind.
To begin with, it seems conclusive that open water swimmers,

especially

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the cross channel variety, have to swim in conditions, which

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than temperature differences are quite different to hammering up

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

down an indoor pool, irrepective of stroke.
Given the relative strictness applied to what is and is not

allowable

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

within a swim meet, the definition of what makes a stroke just 1 of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4 an official strokes seems dependant on officialdom.
That means that cross channel swimmers may have to make adjustments
that would have them disqualified if attempted at say, the Olympics
100m crawl stroke/ front crawl (or maybe even the 100m freestyle)
So, in fairness, the cross channel stroke(s) is not exactly the

same as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's text book pool side sister(s).
For that reason, I would have thought it logical not to assume that

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was just referring to the 4 official strokes.

No, it isn't logical. You swim freestyle across the channel, which

means

Quoted message said:

you can swim anything you want, but there is no advantage to swimming

Quoted message said:

sidestroke, say, or elementary backstroke, or any other variation you

Quoted message said:

want to choose. Just swim what you are comfortable swimming.

Quoted message said:

Which in turn, for those who would have understood that, the

reference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to "All strokes" would have being an obvious typo. If I can come
up with 35 'strokes', and I've seen things done that I've not
included, then it would probably be fair to suppose that arriving

at a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

single total number is highly improbable... and therefore no "all
strokes" total.

Read this again: No. There is no advantage to swimming any of these
other strokes that are dancing like sugar plums in your head. Swim

what

Quoted message said:

you are comfortable swimming. If you are comfortable switching

between

Quoted message said:

dog paddle and polar bear paddle, do it. There is no advantage.

Perhaps those 2 do not offer a specific advantage in themselves, other
then of the 'change is as good as a rest sort', but I would have
thought the ability to make such adjustments indicates a more well
rounded swimming ability and what I wondering is ; does sticking to
being a swimming pool 1 stroke junkie limit that potential from
blossoming under just these circumstances.

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

That would have to be an adjusted 'butterfly' I would think, but in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spirit of the question, it would not be proficiency in just that

stroke

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that counts, but in being able to be more than a 1-stroke junkie.

What are you talking about? Yes, you have to adjust your stroke,
whatever that is, to swim in rough water.

yep, that is part of what I'm talking about

If it is adjusted butterfly, i

Quoted message said:

is still butterfly. There is no stroke judge. There is no advantage.

But, does being a 1-stroke junkie, (in a standard swimming pool) create
enough inflexibility to be unable to make just such adjustments?
Or, if you like, would not being a swimming pool 1-stroke junkie offer
greater possibilities that the making of such adjustments would occur
more naturally to the non- SP 1 stroke junkie?

Martin W. Smith wrote:
When you ask a

Quoted message said:

person for directions to Winslow, Colorado, and they give you the
directions, do you then ask them for a reference?

Ordinarily one would expect all relevant reference would have being
included within the directions.
If they were entirely omitted, then a question of reference might be
made, if the enquiree could be bothered. And it might go something like
this. Did you even understand the question?

Or when you ask your

Quoted message said:

wife about her day, and she tells you how her day went, do you ask

her

Quoted message said:

for a reference?

Not sure you'd call it a reference, but a little bit of interest does
tend to go down well, or so I believe.

Quoted message said:

In the context of being more than a 1-stroke junkie, I see multiple
strokes as meaning more than one, though "multiple" would ordinarily
mean even more. Do you have a figure in mind?

Multiple always means more than one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to swim the English channel,
i recommend that you swim crawlstroke. It will be an advantage

eh.. so now you say it will be an advantage, or was that a tyo and you
meant it will not be an advantage?

You don't even understand your own question. You asked about making
adjustments that might come up. You wrote: "Would being fairly
proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me more able to make
whatever adjustments might come up if doing something like swimming
across the English Channel?"

You don't specify what adjustments you are talking about, so I assume
you mean adjustments to unforeseen situations. How can anyone answer
that question except to say I can conceive of no unforeseen situation
where being a multi-stroke swimmer would be an advantage. I'm confident
there aren't any. Not only do you not specify the adjustments or the
situations, you don't specify the strokes. You don't actually specify
anything except the swimmer can swim more than one unspecified stroke.
That's all you are willing to say. There is no advantage then.

You can use multiple strokes in the way I explained to rest and to take
instructions from your crew, but you can rest and take instruction from
your crew without doing any stroke at all, so it isn't an advantage.

Quoted message said:

so.... that's 2 more strokes which may or may not be advantageous
depending on whether you meant to say it will, or will not be an
advantage.

I said it isn't an advantage in the sense you wrote. There is no
advantage. You can rest without swimming. You can take instructions from
your crew without swimming. There is no advantage.

Quoted message said:

so you did mean 'will not'?

Your level of English comprehension is the main problem here, and your
refusal to actually say what you mean is the other main problem.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps those 2 do not offer a specific advantage in themselves, other
then of the 'change is as good as a rest sort', but I would have
thought the ability to make such adjustments indicates a more well
rounded swimming ability and what I wondering is ; does sticking to
being a swimming pool 1 stroke junkie limit that potential from
blossoming under just these circumstances.

So your question is this: Whatever it is you really mean by "well
rounded swimming ability," does having it make you more likely to
succeed as a channel swimmer?

My answer is there is no advantage to being a multi-stroke swimmer with
respect to swimming the english channel. I don't have a reference. I
recommend that you ask the Channel Swimming Association.

Quoted message said:

But, does being a 1-stroke junkie, (in a standard swimming pool) create
enough inflexibility to be unable to make just such adjustments?

No.

Quoted message said:

Or, if you like, would not being a swimming pool 1-stroke junkie offer
greater possibilities that the making of such adjustments would occur
more naturally to the non- SP 1 stroke junkie?

No. You will be in cold misery for 9 to 15 hours or more, so you will
want to get to the other side and get out as quickly as you can. You
will swim rough water crawstroke all the way, unless you have some
special reason for swimming some other stroke. You will stop only to
refuel and to take instructions from your crew. You will tread water
while doing both.

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith wrote:
When you ask a

Quoted message said:

person for directions to Winslow, Colorado, and they give you the
directions, do you then ask them for a reference?

Ordinarily one would expect all relevant reference would have being
included within the directions.
If they were entirely omitted, then a question of reference might be
made, if the enquiree could be bothered. And it might go something like
this. Did you even understand the question?

You didn't understand jtaylor's question. He asked if I had a reference
in a situation where I gave an argument. Of course I don't have a
reference to my own argument. He didn't even understand the argument,
but the argument was correct. I understood his question. It's just that
his question was inappropriate, as it would be if you asked someone for
directions to a location, and after they gave you the directions you
asked for, you asked for a reference.

Do you have a reference for your remarks above, by the way?

Quoted message said:

Not sure you'd call it a reference, but a little bit of interest does
tend to go down well, or so I believe.

That isn't a reference. When you ask your wife how her day went and she
tells you, there is no reference.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
banana

So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

support your argument or credit your character.

That's true, but it isn't relevant.

Why do you do it then?