Different Strokes for the Same Folks

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

Quoted message said:

But maybe it's not that important - their inherent
strength, flexibility and size define their skill in the water, not the
exact particulars of their stroking and kicking.

Do be sure to let us know when you (or anyone else) can prove this one way
or the other...

At least to some extent skill definitley crosses over. There's this
incredible swimmer that I swim with that won state this year 100
breast, but he easily could have made it to state in almost any event.

I've got the TI video featuring Shane Gould. Her kick is wicked
effective. She could swim with any number of techniques and still be a
great swimmer in my opinion. Same as I can put on fins and emulate
just about any elite. "All that glitters is not Gould" - remember that
battle cry?

Eric

To Ian:

What's important is that Gould "smacked" the youngsters. Why is that?
Is it because her technique was so much better than theirs? I doubt
it. Let's look again..

Ian wrote:

..>>Shane won everything and held all the freestyle
world records plus the 200IM world record all at the same time (no one
else
has ever done that). <<

Now let's look at this:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now I'm not saying Shane could get anywhere near that girl head to

head over
200m (see above), but she has since set more world records and won more

titles, US & Aus, in her Masters age group. <<

So, it is all supportive of what I wrote earlier: In distance
swimming, training trumps technique and genetics trumps training.

No one ever said that technique wasn't important. The most important
part about technique is that it shouldn't produce injury. Job number
one for the swimming stroke is not to injure the swimmer. We've spent a
whole lot of time arguing about what constitutes good technique for a
distance swimmer. I stated that, for distance swimming, pretty much
anything goes and that there is no universal, "best" technique for
every swimmer. I think that the trend over the past 10 years to
homogenize technique has been harmful to the sport. One only has to
look at the finals of the 1500 in Athens to see two athletes, Davies
and Jensen, both about the same size, with very different techniques,
and then to look at the greatest female distance swimmer of all time
(Evans), who lifted her head clear out ot the water with every stroke,
to realize how futile it is to argue the importance of swimming in any
particular way, particularly without regard to the natural attributes
of the swimmer (size, ankle flexibility, etc.).

Different strokes for different folks. And, for distance swimming,
training does trump technique and genetics (e.g. Gould) trumps
training.

The main advantage of changing Tiger's swing for Tiger was that it
allowed him to overcome his back pain. The main advantage of changing
Gould's technque for Gould was that it allowed her to overcome her
shoulder pain. With either of Tiger's swings and with either of
Gould's strokes, Tiger would still be Tiger and Gould would still be
Gould.

- Larry Weisenthal

Well, I'd put it this order:
Elite swimmers:
1) have the genes,
2) have the desire,
3) have good enough technique to avoid injury and get noticed by the
coaches,
4) get access to hours of swim time every day,
5) by training from an early age, develop their upper body muscles for
aerobic work, and
6) don't burn out mentally or physically.

Leave any of those out and you don't have an elite swimmer.
Identifying one as more important than another seems foolish to me.

More importantly, what kind of dog are you? Hmmm?

"Nice thing about being an old swimmer...there's really no hurry"

But don't you feel like the clock is ticking? I want to be a 1:20
swimmer, and it must have been an easier goal at age 30 than age 42.
And it will be even tougher at age 50.

Eric

"Those very few individuals that boil through to elite level only have
short
careers so there is no way they are going to be willing to take a
couple of
years out to improve their technique."

Rick Say of Canada is my favorite "Coach's challenge". He's a 200m
freestyle specialist - made finals in Sydney and finished maybe 6th.
You can download video of him from Donald Graft's site. His stroke is
"arm-centric", kicks only once during his breathing side pull. Uses
that for 150 meters, and then for the last 50 meters, huge whitewater
at his feet, so you know he's abandoned his early, no kick technique,
and is kicking like mad.

So he trains like crazy for four years, makes the finals at Athens in
the 200m, and swims slightly faster than 4-years earlier and gets maybe
6th again. Awesome swims but still "out of the money".

So as a Coach, what do you do with the guy? I mean clearly in the
200m, the majority of males in the finals are using the male pattern
6-beat the whole way. He must know that and still think that his
strategy of kicking very little for 3/4 of the race, and then kicking
like mad for 1/4 is still his best shot. Is he missing a chance to go
faster if he rebuilds his stroke? I don't know, but it seems obvious
that he is NEVER going to medal at the Olympics in the 200m the way he
is going.

Eric

Quoted message said:

"Nice thing about being an old swimmer...there's really no hurry"

But don't you feel like the clock is ticking? I want to be a 1:20
swimmer, and it must have been an easier goal at age 30 than age 42.
And it will be even tougher at age 50.

Eric

There is a rule of thumb in basketball: A good big man is better than
good little man.

In my opinion, the equivalent rule in swimming is: A good distance man
is better than a good sprinter.

I think the point of the article re the proper technique wars is that
there is no proper technique. There is whatever works, and what works
will have to depend a lot on each person's own body structure,
flexibility, genetics, training history.

<< I think the point of the article re the proper technique wars is that

Quoted message said:

there is no proper technique. There is whatever works, and what works will
have to depend a lot on each person's own body structure, flexibility,
genetics, training history.>>>

Sorry I don't agree. I think there is a 'proper technique' but then trade
offs to be made for the other variables at play "body structure,
flexibility, genetics" - "Training History" - to me that's not an issue,
just because someone has had no proper coaching or has had but developed
poor technique doesn't mean they can't learn great technique. And it
doesn't matter whether you're 8 or 80 if you're physically capable you can
be taught.

Ian

Ian S R Smith said:

<< I think the point of the article re the proper technique wars is that

Quoted message said:

there is no proper technique. There is whatever works, and what works will
have to depend a lot on each person's own body structure, flexibility,
genetics, training history.>>>

Sorry I don't agree. I think there is a 'proper technique' but then trade
offs to be made for the other variables at play "body structure,
flexibility, genetics" - "Training History" - to me that's not an issue,
just because someone has had no proper coaching or has had but developed
poor technique doesn't mean they can't learn great technique. And it
doesn't matter whether you're 8 or 80 if you're physically capable you can
be taught.

That wasn't my point. There are proper techniques. There is no one
proper technique. A particular swimer's proper technique is actually
just his optimal technique. There still may be more than one.

But teaching a swimmer any particular "proper" technique might not be
optimal for that swimmer, for the reasons given above. So technique
should be matched to the swimmer -- after the swimmer learns to swim.

Aww Larry come on mate. I set it up, I was there, Terry Laughlin was there
too. I know what I was seeing and so did Terry. Yes there is absolutely do
doubt that my mate Shane is genetically wired to be able to perform
fantastically well in the water and that, coupled with many many hours and
lots of beast sessions in the water made her unbeatable when she was 16-17.

Right from the off the difference between Shane and everyone else in the
pool that day was that she had got heads and shoulders the best technique.
The most economical, the most efficient, the most balanced, the most
streamlined, the best flow & rhythm. Now that wasn't down to the genetic
programming/ heavy training that won her all her world records and medals as
a kid, it was down to 'learning' how to swim with the best possible
technique as a 45 year old.

And, pardon my confident nature here, I am certain that I could teach that
female world champ - lets call her Ms B, how to swim with the same
attributes as Shane - the real question is would that then enable Miss B to
swim even faster in a 200m sprint final? Guess we'll never know the answer
to that one.

<<LW>> I stated that, for distance swimming, pretty much
anything goes and that there is no universal, "best" technique for
every swimmer>>>.

I would argue there is a best technique for every swimmer and that
inattention by either lazy or badly focused or badly educated/qualified
coaches results in senior swimmers being left what they are left with. Those
that boil through to the top and make it as elite swimmers often succeed,
IMOHO, despite the [censored] teaching/coaching they got as kids. And there is no
way that any coach in a World Class Potential Programme is going to work
with an iindividual to correct even very obvious stoke faults if that person
is being "successful" with the stroke they have. And if an individual has
not reached their potential because of poor coaching they would be very
lucky to find a coach to give that to them because the coaches are spending
all their time with those already winning.

As an example, I'm lucky enough to live right where the UK's biggest and
best WCPP operates (that's how I got Shane in there). When I've been to
watch them train what do I see? I squad of 22-24 swimmers all working off a
program that's been built around their "top" 3 or 4 swimmers. The other 20
or so have to keep up or get out, certainly not tailored to their needs at
all, and no chance of them ever progressing - you can see their strokes
breaking down right in front of your eyes as the laps of garbage yardage
pass by and you should see the bags of ice coming out towards the end of
those sessions, poor kids. But hey that's competitive swimming for you.

<<LW>>I think that the trend over the past 10 years to
homogenize technique has been harmful to the sport.>> I don't think it's
changed one iota - like I just said above. I'd love to see your evidence
for this Larry.

<<LW>> look at the greatest female distance swimmer of all time
(Evans), who lifted her head clear out ot the water with every stroke,
to realize how futile it is to argue the importance of swimming in any
particular way, particularly without regard to the natural attributes
of the swimmer (size, ankle flexibility, etc.).>>

Again, where's your real evidence for this. I can argue that she was pure
and simply the perfect example of what I said about a swimmer who was maybe
a genetic freak succeeding despite the worst efforts of swim teachers and
coaches she encountered along the way. Who is to say that had she not been
picked up at say age 15 by a coach with the imagination and insight of Terry
Laughlin, for example, that she would not have been even faster. Like I
say, we'll never know because it's so unlikely to ever be done. And there's
always a counter arguement/alternative explanation for all these things. Oh
and by the way, Miss B is another one of those genetic freaks who is able to
swim very fast despite all the inattention to her poor technique, so to
argue that Shane was better than her because of genetics (without even
seeing the kid yourself might I add) is a tad crass.

<<LW>> for distance swimming,
training does trump technique and genetics (e.g. Gould) trumps
training.>>

Yes, but, and there always is a "but" isn't there, no amount of extra
training is going to make a swimmer with poor technique match a trained
swimmer with great technique (assuming they are both genetically programmed
to be able to respond to training). Where genetics really comes into play
is in sprints - take your average 6'2" male swimmer with the "swimming gene"
(did I just make that up?), whats his chances in a flat out 50m against
another with the "swimming gene" who happens to be 6'6"?

<<LW>> The main advantage of changing Tiger's swing for Tiger was that it
allowed him to overcome his back pain. The main advantage of changing
Gould's technque for Gould was that it allowed her to overcome her
shoulder pain. With either of Tiger's swings and with either of
Gould's strokes, Tiger would still be Tiger and Gould would still be
Gould.>>

I think I already said that I believe Tiger's motivation was to be at the
very top of the tree for many years to come so I agree with you on that (why
did he feel the need to burn the coach that took him so far in order to do
it I wonder?). The real question is is the new Tiger a better player with
his new technique? Over the next few years that question could well be
answered in the form of his scores around the courses he's played on many
time before. Is Shane a better swimmer with her new technique than the one
who won all the plaudits? I know she thinks she is. But what we'll never
know is could the new Shane beat the old Shane head to head if they could
meet now (both aged 17). I think she would, I think Shane thinks she would.

Hey Larry, nice doing business with you again after so long. But this is
exactly why I dropped out of the group - I've spent ages on here now when I
should have been working on my pool :-)

Cheers

Ian

Hi Eric,

Lead me to him - lol.

Don't know the guy. Not looked at Donald's site for years! Is he still
around?

Trouble is, like with Shane, you can't wind back the years, so even if you
did take a couple of years changing Rick's technique would his body still be
able to handle the demands and respond to the training?

That's the trouble with this whole technique v training debate. The only
evidence I have is from low level competition. At elite level it's just
impossible to get in there - folks are just plain scarred that they will
lose their edge if they take the time out to really focus on their
technique.

Ian

Ian,
the site for Athens videos is here:

http://swimfastest.net/videos/athens2004/athens2004.html

The video of Say and Phelps is about halfway down the freestyle
section.

Eric

Terry didn't coach the distance swimmers at West Point. He asked to
coach an underperforming group and was given the sprinters.

We have no real proof that Davies' kicks are not propulsive or that
Jensen's kicks are propulsive.

Being contrarian for it's own sake is not a sign of intelligence. 🙂

Concentrate on the front part, then. Dave Davies's arms come in
already bent - not glide on out stretched arm. Less body roll than
Jensen.

Jensen glides on outstretched arm with locked out elbow for quite a bit
of time while the momentum from his prevoius arm stroke and his kick
keep him knifing through the water in a slipperly, side lying balance
position. (You've heard of that, right?)

Turnover rate of Davies far exceeds that of Jensen. Distance per
stroke of Davis much less than Jensen. If you swim like each of them
in a pool, it feels much different.

Davies kicks less and therefore gets less propulsion from his legs than
Jensen, hence the higher turnover and no glide. This ain't rocket
science.

Eric

I think that anyone can look at Davies' kicks and Jensen's kicks and
tell at a glance who has a continuous, powerful kick and who doesn't.
At the elite level, where everyone has flexible ankles, the size of the
roostertail is proportional to the strength of the kick. No, I don't
have the "proof," and if you want to maintain the belief that long, low
turnover swimming is optimum for people who don't have a propulsive
kick, then you will continue to believe it, but it is thinking like
this which is hurting distance swimmers at all levels, from triathletes
to elites.

"TI" style swimming makes all the sense in the world in the presence of
flexible ankles and propulsive kicking. "TI" style swimming was
developed from observations on these swimmers. The fatal error was
extrapolating observations made on strong kicking swimmers to weak
kicking swimmers, particularly those with flexible ankles.

Larsen Jensen has the greatest kick in the history of elite distance
swimming. Erik Vendt has the second greatest kick in the history of
elite distance swimming. Both of these swimmers are short in stature,
yet take 34-35 strokes per 50 meters. I am very confident that every
honest swim coach who compared Jensen's kick to Davies' kick would
conclude that Jensen's kick is vastly more propulsive than is Davies'
kick.

This is an assertion. It is not proof. But I am very confident in
making this assertion that I'll never get an argument to the contary
from any swim coach who makes a sincere and objective effort to
evaluate the two swimmers. Jensen is 34 strokes per 50 and Davies is
45 strokes per 50. Jensen's kick supports a "TI" style of swimming
while Davies' kick does not.

- Larry W

Well I don't think you can look at a kick and say that it is fast
unless the guy isn't pulling. You can assert anything, of course, but
it makes for poor scholarship.

Contrariwise, this ain't science at all, it is more assertion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well I don't think you can look at a kick and say that it is fast

unless the guy isn't pulling. You can assert anything, of course, but
it makes for poor scholarship. <<

Here's another example of poor scholarship:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Terry didn't coach the distance swimmers at West Point. He asked to

coach an underperforming group and was given the sprinters.<<

FASCINATING. All the times the legendary West Point days have been
brought up in the context of serving to validate the "TI" methods.
And, not
once, was the full story told. The West Pointers were only sprinters.

So here we have a set of principles and
methodology which is derived from elite sprinters with great kicks, and
it is validated in sprinters with great kicks. Well, that makes sense.
But the fatal error is in extrapolating this to a different situation;
distance
swimmers with non-existent to poor kicks (e.g. triathletes).

Here's an alternative idea. If you want to develop a method to improve
the swimming of people with inflexible ankles and non-existent kicks,
why
not look not at Alexander Popov but rather at David Davies and Janet
Evans and Brooke Bennett and other great distance swimmers with
weak to non-existent kicks?

Everything that I've been writing about this for all these years is
perfectly
consistent with the real world of successful competitive swimming. I
don't
need to raise the specter of genetic freakiness to explain away facts
which
are utterly inconsistent with my theory.

Scholarship begins with observation, inference, and theory. It is only
after the above have been performed and formulated that anyone will
even be motivated to test the theory. Theoretical physicists are
hardly poor scholars, simply because they lack access to particle
accelerators and space telescopes to prove their theories. I don't
think I'm a poor scholar, simply because I don't have a swim team
at my disposal. I think, however, that it is poor scholarship to imply
that experiments performed on sprinters with flexible ankles and great
kicks do anything at all to validate the approach and methodology
for application to distance swimmers with weak kicks and inflexible
ankles.

- Larry Weisenthal