Clark's Freestyle Stroke

Larry Weisenthal said:

Finally saw Wesley Clark swim on Wednesday night's "60 Minutes II"

Dove into the water very nicely, then a full stroke before the scene transitioned. He looked quite
long, smooth, and proficient. He swims an hour a day. Later on, it showed him doing pushups. He
says he can do a hundred, and it sure looks as if he can.

Clark, Bush, and Schwarzenegger are all quite fit; all are in their late 50s. Don't know how well
the latter two swim.

In my opinion, the only one who looks fit is Clark. Arnold looks overweight and President Bush
looks, I don't know, kind of wasted. Clark actually does look fit, and he carries himself as if he
is fit. I'm sure Arnold still has great strength, but the recent magazine pictures I saw, which
showed him in shorts without a shirt... not fit.

Quoted message said:

If Clark's poll numbers go up, I'm thinking that investing in swimming-related stocks might not be
a bad idea. A President who swims an hour a day with such fluid proficiency might well trigger a
swimming boomlet.

I'll see if I can get him to publish one of his workout programs.

martin

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Finally saw Wesley Clark swim on Wednesday night's "60 Minutes II"

Dove into the water very nicely, then a full stroke before the scene transitioned. He looked quite
long, smooth, and proficient. He swims an hour a day. Later on, it showed him doing pushups. He
says he can do a hundred, and it sure looks as if he can.

Clark, Bush, and Schwarzenegger are all quite fit; all are in their late 50s. Don't know how well
the latter two swim.

If Clark's poll numbers go up, I'm thinking that investing in swimming-related stocks might not be
a bad idea. A President who swims an hour a day with such fluid proficiency might well trigger a
swimming boomlet.

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally despise physical fitness and
regard those who value it to be a joke. What they want in a politician is someone who is smooth on
TV, is well-connected, and will not hesitate to use military force against anyone who might stand
between them and cheap gasoline for their fat SUVs.

Schwarznegger was elected because he's a popular icon, and there is some question as to whether Bush
was elected at all. If he was, it's more because of his business and family connections than his
physical fitness. Clark will be lucky to survive the primaries.

We enjoy our bloated lifestyle here, and want a president who will keep it going. Physical fitness
is for a (fortunately mostly harmless) lunatic fringe.

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

If Clark's poll numbers go up, I'm thinking that investing in swimming-related stocks might not be
a bad idea. A President who swims an hour a day with such fluid proficiency might well trigger a
swimming boomlet.

A swimming boom would be great for the country! But sadly, financially you'd be much better off
investing in the military industrial complex and voting for the incumbent.

Eric

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally despise physical fitness and
regard those who value it to be a joke. What they want in a politician is someone who is smooth on
TV, is well-connected, and will not hesitate to use military force against anyone who might stand
between them and cheap gasoline for their fat SUVs.

Your impression is wrong. What on earth makes you think you know what 'american voters' think about
physical fitness? Has there been a poll when I wasn't looking? I find your statement ignorant.

Quoted message said:

Schwarznegger was elected because he's a popular icon, and there is some question as to whether
Bush was elected at all. If he was, it's more because of his business and family connections than
his physical fitness. Clark will be lucky to survive the primaries.

Funny, I saw some interviews with CA voters and they said they wanted Schwarzenegger because they
wanted a change from the "politicians as usual." Not one person said, "Oh, it's because he's a
popular icon!" And Bush? Elected because of warm feelings about his father and because the
Republican faithful vote a straight ticket...

Quoted message said:

We enjoy our bloated lifestyle here, and want a president who will keep it going. Physical fitness
is for a (fortunately mostly harmless) lunatic fringe.

Oh please get a grip! You sound like you're depressed. Such simplicity in thinking doesn't reflect
well on you.

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally

despise physical fitness and regard those who value it to be a joke. <<

I was thinking of Eisenhower. The two people who turned golf into a mass participation sport in the
USA were Eisenhower, followed by Arnold Palmer. Tiger Woods came along more recently to give it a
boost. Now that Tiger is "struggling," golf is in a bit of a slump. But maybe it's because we've
become too lazy even for golf, even when riding around in a cart.

Larry Weisenthal said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally

despise physical fitness and regard those who value it to be a joke. <<

I was thinking of Eisenhower. The two people who turned golf into a mass participation sport in
the USA were Eisenhower, followed by Arnold Palmer. Tiger Woods came along more recently to give
it a boost. Now that Tiger is "struggling," golf is in a bit of a slump. But maybe it's because
we've become too lazy even for golf, even when riding around in a cart.

That's sort of the problem with trying to lead an athletic 'boomlet' - it's a growth industry. If
you can't keep one upping yourself, providing greater & greater spectacles, the public loses
interest. I'd rather see a push for swimming in physed curriculums, being that swimming is not only
a life skill but one of the few sports with a strong worldwide masters infrastructure that doesn't
require a team or ownership of expensive equipment. I just might be preaching to the choir though,
so I think I'll shut up 😉.

--Mike

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:45:26 -0600, Pat wrote:

Granted I'm an outside looking in - but not from that far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally despise physical fitness
and regard those who value it to be a joke. What they want in a politician is someone who is
smooth on TV, is well-connected, and will not hesitate to use military force against anyone who
might stand between them and cheap gasoline for their fat SUVs.

Your impression is wrong. What on earth makes you think you know what 'american voters' think
about physical fitness? Has there been a poll when I wasn't looking? I find your statement
ignorant.

Because time & time again the messages that seems to be most popular are
1)Money
2)Fame
3)Winning
4)Money
5)Money
6)Money
7)Athletic performance

Nowhere on that list is *)Wow I bet that NBA/NHL/NFL player sure will make a fit 70 year old. Esp in
10-15 years when today's cream of the crop start dropping dead of heart attacks. Drugs are bad,
m'kay? Please don't try to tell me that either of our countries, as a whole, place any kind of
importance on physical fitness. We don't care about it in our 'heros' and we certainly (take a trip
through your local middle school, or pub for that matter) don't care for it in ourselves. Looking
good maybe but we do a pretty damned poor job of encouraging the things that contribute. </rant>

Schwarznegger was elected because he's a popular icon, and there is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some question as to whether Bush was elected at all. If he was, it's more because of his business
and family connections than his physical fitness. Clark will be lucky to survive the primaries.

Funny, I saw some interviews with CA voters and they said they wanted Schwarzenegger because they
wanted a change from the "politicians as usual." Not one person said, "Oh, it's because he's a
popular icon!" And Bush? Elected because of warm feelings about his father and because the
Republican faithful vote a straight ticket...

California? Sure they wanted something different. If Arnold hadn't run they'd prob have elected a
stripper. Wanting something different and wanting anything at all in particular are two different
things all together. As far as the whole Bush thing goes I have a hard time believing, given the
fact that a loser won over a candidate that actually had a record of productive service (like Gore
or not, I don't particularly, he did alot of work in federal government. Stuff that matters) let
alone in such a questionable way, that the election was won by anything more then superior
marketing. Personally that's not really how I'd like the 'leader of the free world' to be selected.
Call me old fashioned but competency is important to me. Oh, I guess I should be a little more
specific - not many are questioning Cheney's abilities, but I rather thought the idea was to elect a
leader for the people, not to simply let the Halliburton CEO control the missiles he needs to get
his oil. <shrug/>.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We enjoy our bloated lifestyle here, and want a president

who will keep

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it going. Physical fitness is for a (fortunately mostly harmless) lunatic fringe.

Oh please get a grip! You sound like you're depressed. Such simplicity in thinking doesn't reflect
well on you.

Pat in TX

Nope but it does certainly reflect the level of 'thinking' a 'culture' does as a whole.

--Mike

Quoted message said:

That's sort of the problem with trying to lead an athletic 'boomlet' - it's a growth industry. If
you can't keep one upping yourself, providing greater & greater spectacles, the public loses
interest. I'd rather see a push for swimming in physed curriculums, being that swimming is not
only a life skill but one of the few sports with a strong worldwide masters infrastructure that
doesn't require a team or ownership of expensive equipment. I just might be preaching to the choir
though, so I think I'll shut up 😉.

--Mike

Ain't gonna happen--the putting swimming in the curriculum. We don't have that many pools! There is,
for example, in Fort Worth, 1 pool for all of the high schools. And, it's not anywhere near any of
the schools--it's off in an "athletic park." In another town nearby, the high school swim teams use
the YMCA pool at 0600 in the morning. They share.

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Pat in TX

"Mike Edey" <>

Quoted message said:

Granted I'm an outside looking in - but not from that far.

Yes, you're definitely on the outside. I'm in Texas, remember? We had Bush as governor for a while.
Generalities and stereotypical remarks do not replace accuracy. I'm sorry you are so jaded in your
outlook, but you cannot attribute your speculations to an entire culture or nation. It may be easy;
it may be fun--but it's not accurate. Americans are just too diverse to pigeon-hole that easily.

Pat in TX

Where I went to school, every high school has a pool as did the grade school I attended. Chicago. In
my present small town, the high school has a pool which it shares with the lower level schools, the
Y does and so does the athletic club. There are also public hours at the 5 university pools. There
are two outdoor community pools. At the much smaller towns nearby, the high schools have pools and
many of the communities support an outdoor pool. These are not wealthy little towns; most are farm
areas. Swimming is usually required and there are several school, Y, and independent teams from 1st
grade through high school.

Ruth Kazez

Pat said:

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Pat in TX

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

That's sort of the problem with trying to lead an athletic 'boomlet' - it's a growth industry. If
you can't keep one upping yourself, providing greater & greater spectacles, the public loses
interest. I'd rather see a push for swimming in physed curriculums, being that swimming is not
only a life skill but one of the few sports with a strong worldwide masters infrastructure that
doesn't require a team or ownership of expensive equipment. I just might be preaching to the choir
though, so I think I'll shut up 😉.

--Mike

Ain't gonna happen--the putting swimming in the curriculum. We don't have that many pools! There
is, for example, in Fort Worth, 1 pool for all of the high schools. And, it's not anywhere near
any of the schools--it's off in an "athletic park." In another town nearby, the high school swim
teams use the YMCA pool at 0600 in the morning. They share.

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Where I was in the 60's, Tacoma, Washington, every high school but one had a pool, and swimming was
in the curriculum. But we had [censored] Hannula as the driving force for swimming in the northwest.
People found it hard not to listen to him. We had two 50 meter pools built in the mid 1950's largely
because of him, in a town that back then was about 100,000 people. He convinced the political
leaders that being able to swim is as important as being able to walk in a state like washington,
which has a very long coastline, lots of boating, and lots of fishing. You have to have someone like
[censored] Hannula to champion swimming in the community. Otherwise it won't happen.

martin

In rtk said:

Where I went to school, every high school has a pool as did the grade school I attended. Chicago.
In my present small town, the high school has a pool which it shares with the lower level schools,
the Y does and so does the athletic club.

My goodness, Ruth. You have a Y, several schools, and an athletic club, and you still call it a
small town? :-)

My town doesn't have a pool. Anywhere. We do have a grade school, but it's getting cut back from K-6
to K-3 due to budget problems. The high school (12 miles away in the middle of a cornfield, a
consolidated school shared by several towns spread out over 3 counties) has a pool, but they're
closing it due to budget problems.

I swim (and work) at the university 11 miles the other direction in a large town. It has no public
pool hours, but there is a Y (another 3 miles away) with some public hours. My kids don't get to
swim very often.

Ross

In Ross Bogue said:

school shared by several towns spread out over 3 counties

^^^ should be 5

Oops. I was reminded that our school district catches parts of two other counties. :-)

Ross

The following is a response not to Mike but to the previous poster (Pat?), which my newsreader
somehow does not show...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your impression is wrong. What on earth makes you think you know what 'american voters' think
about physical fitness? Has there been a poll when I wasn't looking? I find your statement
ignorant.

I'll overlook the personal insult here, and just state that I took my poll by looking around and
noticing that fully half of the people I saw were overweight. A number of the rest were of normal
weight but sadly lacking in physical fitness. But my figures are apparantly low. In 1999, the
Surgeon General released a report stating that 61% of adults in the United States were overweight or
obese. I doubt things have improved significantly since then.

I also have had a son and a daughter in school and was dismayed to find that physical education is
not only not required but is widely viewed as a class for jocks. In a recent tour of my high school,
I was told that the showers in the boys locker room were rarely used. Back when I was in school,
they were used every day and virtually all boys used them. So I don't think we can look for anything
better from the coming generation.

What *is* ignorant is believing that some idealistic view of how life should be represents the
actual state of play. The bottom line is that the average american watches 4 hours of television per
day, and fully one half of all households have the TV on for six hours per day or more. But less
than one third of all adults get the recommended 30 minutes of exercise 3 to 4 times per week, a
duration that is now suspected of being marginal.

Having said that, I will also affirm that I have a world of respect for the people on this
newsgroup, who *are* concerned about physical fitness and are prepared to put in the time and energy
to look after theirs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, I saw some interviews with CA voters and they said they wanted Schwarzenegger because
they wanted a change from the "politicians as usual." Not one person said, "Oh, it's because
he's a popular icon!" And Bush? Elected because of warm feelings about his father and because
the Republican faithful vote a straight ticket...

... And because Al Gore was tainted by association with the Clinton administration, which finished
out its term in the throes of a disgraceful scandal. Not that we should have been scandalized, given
that what was transpiring in the oval office was transpiring on the screens of America's beloved
TV's pretty much every night, at least by suggestion. But American voters, like California voters
three years later, wanted something different.

And I'm sure the California voters did indeed want something different, given the dismal state of
the California's tax burden and economy, and the divisiveness of some of the issues there. So who do
they choose? A fantasy action hero figure, capable of smashing through everything from diabolical
cyborgs to, hopefully, state legislatures and red tape, by sheer force. An icon with supreme name
recognition with whom they feel very well connected given the number of hours they spend watching
him on television.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We enjoy our bloated lifestyle here, and want a president

who will keep

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it going. Physical fitness is for a (fortunately mostly harmless) lunatic fringe.

Oh please get a grip! You sound like you're depressed. Such simplicity in thinking doesn't
reflect well on you.

Hmm... Another personal attack. No matter. I have to admit to trolling a bit. I certainly do not
try to paint everyone with the same brush, especially the people in this group, who *do* value
physical fitness.

However, I stand by my original contention. The american public does *not* value physical fitness in
anything other than an abstract sense. Americans may pay lip service to physical fitness. They may
even idolize elite athletes who *are* physically fit. But in a large majority of cases, the degree
to which they value it does not translate into action. And therein lies the divide between those who
actually do value it, and those merely pay lip-service to it, or simply don't care.

Don't believe it, Pat? Take a look around. Do your own tally. If you want hard numbers, do a web
search. The actual figures made my own personal tally seem like I'd been looking around through
rose-colored glasses. Then if you still don't agree, then on this count, we'll agree to disagree.

Quoted message said:

However, I stand by my original contention. The american public does *not* value physical fitness
in anything other than an abstract sense. Americans may pay lip service to physical fitness. They
may even idolize elite athletes who *are* physically fit. But in a large majority of cases, the
degree to which they value it does not translate into action. And therein lies the divide between
those who actually do value it, and those merely pay lip-service to it, or simply don't care.

Don't believe it, Pat? Take a look around. Do your own tally. If you want hard numbers, do a web
search. The actual figures made my own personal tally seem like I'd been looking around through
rose-colored glasses. Then if you still don't agree, then on this count, we'll agree to disagree.

Here's the problem: you have asked around in your small neighborhood and somehow you projected what
you deduced (or believed) for an entire country! You are trying to say that your belief is the way
everybody thinks. Now, if you had said that a certain number of people are considered "obese" and
then looked up the criteria and found the way the researchers used the word obese, you would find
that it doesn't reflect what anybody would say is truly obese. A person, say, 5'7" could weigh 150
and be considered "obese" because no ratio of muscle to fat was made---they just used height and
weight. I said your original comments were "sad" because you are trying to label everybody in an
entire country based on your depressive thoughts. No one could possibly "know" if Americans "pay lip
service" or if Americans "value physical fitness" based on what you read or the small number of
people you interviewed. People are individuals, not stereotypes as you seem to want to think. I
don't do generalities because it's a useless way to speculate on what is in the minds of people you
don't even know.

Pat

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

That's sort of the problem with trying to lead an athletic 'boomlet' - it's a growth industry. If
you can't keep one upping yourself, providing greater & greater spectacles, the public loses
interest. I'd rather see a push for swimming in physed curriculums, being that swimming is not
only a life skill but one of the few sports with a strong worldwide masters infrastructure that
doesn't require a team or ownership of expensive equipment. I just might be preaching to the
choir though, so I think I'll shut up 😉.

--Mike

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Pat in TX

Nope, Not even close, though There's prob a couple square meters of hockey rink for every person 😉.
I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make though. I'd like to see greater
investment in teaching our children useful athletic skills, and in the infrastructure required to
make that possible, then continuing to push 'sporting heros'. It may be just my opinion but it's
fiercely held that if spend too much time encouraging people to watch athletes we may miss
oportunites to encourage them to participate.

I'm not sure what things are like where you are, but I'm just a little south of Edmonton scene of
Saturday's 'first out door NHL game'. I think Gretzky, when asked about the support shown by fans
who braved -20 to -25C temperatures to watch some hockey, said something like 'In the state's it's
different - you've got Baseball, Basketball, [something else, this is from memory] and they're all
equal. Here we have hockey and there's nothing else". And y'know, save for 3 weeks every 4 years
when we (as a country) [censored] about poor performances, he's right. We (as a sport) could def use a
charismatic 'figure-head' but I still think we'd be better off encouraging more children to swim.
Nothing we do now is going to help Swimming Canada with any of the athletes in the system. We've got
a cultural problem. Maybe, just maybe, if we act now, we might be able to field competitive teams in
13 years with the 4-8 year olds that should be entering the sport. There just isn't anyway to help
the depth _now_ - public profile or no.

</rant>

--Mike

ps - yeah I'm just a little biased 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Pat in TX

Nope, Not even close, though There's prob a couple square meters of hockey rink for every person
😉. I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make though. I'd like to see greater
investment in teaching our children useful athletic skills, and in the infrastructure required to
make that possible, then continuing to push 'sporting heros'. It may be just my opinion but it's
fiercely held that if spend too much time encouraging people to watch athletes we may miss
oportunites to encourage them to participate.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

--Mike

I'd like to see greater investment in infrastructure too, but it's not going to happen in this "no
tax ever!' atmosphere. We even have people writing to the newspaper sayiing that since they don't
have children in school, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools! I think we in the US
could take a page from the Germans and separate athletics from schools. What they do is have
athletic clubs supported by taxpayers' dollars. This is a good after school program and children
(and adults) can pay a small fee to sign on for the sport they would like to pursue. As it is now,
in Texas, the school facilities are closed to taxpayers. I remember trying to use a school's running
track for a walking program and being told to get off of "school property." On the other hand, some
schools do allow people to use the track--but nothing indoors!

Pat in TX

Another model I found interesting was the clubs in Canberra. We spent a few days there on a training
camp and swam with a local team. In the city, I guess, there isn't much in the way of bars or pubs
like we have here but instead these clubs. For a minimal investment one can go to their club for
drinks. Many will also have bingo slots & other gaming. Most server food, many have restaurants or
cafes. They all have a minimal dress code. In turn profits from the clubs tend to get invested in
athletic teams or other local endeavors. As opposed to, say, gaming in Canada. The money doesn't
just stay local, it stays local to the borough/neighborhood.

--Mike

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where you are, does every high school or lower level school have its own swimming pool?

I didn't think so.

Pat in TX

Nope, Not even close, though There's prob a couple square meters of hockey rink for every person
😉. I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make though. I'd like to see greater
investment in teaching our children useful athletic skills, and in the infrastructure required to
make that possible, then continuing to push 'sporting heros'. It may be just my opinion but it's
fiercely held that if spend too much time encouraging people to watch athletes we may miss
oportunites to encourage them to participate.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

--Mike

I'd like to see greater investment in infrastructure too, but it's not going to happen in this "no
tax ever!' atmosphere. We even have people writing to the newspaper sayiing that since they don't
have children in school, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools! I think we in the US
could take a page from the Germans and separate athletics from schools. What they do is have
athletic clubs supported by taxpayers' dollars. This is a good after school program and children
(and adults) can pay a small fee to sign on for the sport they would like to pursue. As it is now,
in Texas, the school facilities are closed to taxpayers. I remember trying to use a school's
running track for a walking program and being told to get off of "school property." On the other
hand, some schools do allow people to use the track--but nothing indoors!

Pat in TX

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Finally saw Wesley Clark swim on Wednesday night's "60 Minutes II"

Dove into the water very nicely, then a full stroke before the scene transitioned. He looked
quite long, smooth, and proficient. He swims an hour a day. Later on, it showed him doing
pushups. He says he can do a hundred, and it sure looks as if he can.

Clark, Bush, and Schwarzenegger are all quite fit; all are in their late 50s. Don't know how
well the latter two swim.

If Clark's poll numbers go up, I'm thinking that investing in swimming-related stocks might not
be a bad idea. A President who swims an hour a day with such fluid proficiency might well
trigger a swimming boomlet.

I wouldn't bet on it. My impression is that american voters generally despise physical fitness and
regard those who value it to be a joke. What they want in a politician is someone who is smooth on
TV, is well-connected, and will not hesitate to use military force against anyone who might stand
between them and cheap gasoline for their fat SUVs.

Schwarznegger was elected because he's a popular icon, and there is some question as to whether
Bush was elected at all. If he was, it's more because of his business and family connections than
his physical fitness. Clark will be lucky to survive the primaries.

We enjoy our bloated lifestyle here, and want a president who will keep it going. Physical fitness
is for a (fortunately mostly harmless) lunatic fringe.

For me it's fairly obvious that the fast track to political success is to have appeared on one of
the reality TV episodes or Star Search. Barring either of those, being mentioned by Oprah, even if
only in passing, might do the trick. Bearing a physical resemblance to a popular video game
character might not hurt, either.

- Al