DPC and SR at the Olympic Trials

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

(bunch of technical stuff)

Nowhere in your quote do you reveal what OTP stood for. Please re-post with this TLA spelled
out fully.

Quoted message said:

Distance swimmers should emphasize stroke rate in training, as this variables was most highly
correlated with speed.

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,
s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there in all swimmers naturally
without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers do instinctively. While
Stroke Length - or DPC as they referred to it - is a highly elusive and learned skill, which
always requires emphasis and mindfulness to be mastered. The real genius is in learning to
maintain SL at higher stroke rates. And to gain more SR than you give up in SL. Unless you are
truly gifted, that's extremely challenging. Terry

I think that the data are useful to a point, but that it is a mistake to take what I would term
"artificial" measures to achieve the characteristics described.

Firstly, I do want to point out that I have been, for at least 6 years, citing these exact data. The
way that I have summarized the data is as follows:

"Stroke length correlates with performance in all freestyle events, save for women's distance
swimming, where what correlates is the ability to maintain stroke rate throughout the race, while
stroke length does not correlate."

The above is a more nuanced interpretation of the data summarized by Eric. Female distance swimmers
are overwhelmingly short stroke length, high stroke rate; but what correlates even more strongly
than stroke rate, per se, is the ability to keep stroke rate from falling off as the race is swum to
completion. In order to keep up with the leaders, the women have to swim with a high stroke rate.
The ones in the lead at the end maintain this stroke rate; those that fall off have their stroke
rate decline. So what needs to be "practiced" is not just swimming with a high turnover, per se, but
rather to achieve the level of conditioning which allows the rapid stroke rate to be maintained. In
other words, to spend one's time on training and not on drilling.

Now, in the case of the men, it's more complicated. The correlation between distance per cycle and
performance is, by far, strongest in the sprint events. I personally believe that this is an index
of kicking effectiveness, more than anything else. The better you kick, the more effective it is to
swim with a long stroke. Ian Thorpe being an obvious example. If an average swimmer puts on fins, he
will swim with a very long stroke, like Ian Thorpe, because that is the way that feels most natural
and advantageous.

Now, with male distance swimming, it is all over the map. It is true that there is a statistical
correlation between both stroke length and performance and stroke rate and performance, with stroke
length being somewhat more significantly correlated than stroke rate. But the way in which male
distance swimmers get a high stroke length has nothing at all to do with the "TI" school of thought.

Some male distance swimmers (Eric Vendt being the poster boy) have prodigious kicks, just like
sprinters, that they can hold for the entire race. Thus, sub-6 foot Erik Vendt has a
signficantly longer stroke (34 strokes per 50 meters) than does 6'6" (or more, I'm not sure how
tall, but he's very tall indeed) Chris Thompson, the American record holder, who takes closer to
39-40. I've written before how Kieran Perkins credited his gold medal in Barcelona to decreasing
his stroke length from 42 per 50 in prelims (where he only went about 15:20) to 46 in finals
(where he went sub-15).

In the case of Grant Hackett, he owes his long stroke length to his height (6'8"😉 and to his very
unusual swimming style, in which he has an accelerating application of force with his left hand
throughout a full stroke, with a VERY pronounced "rear quadrant" push back. Hackett also has very
little elbow bend on the left (which has been criticized by Dr. Brent Rushall as being inefficient,
compared to his right elbow, which assumes a very pleasing bent/high elbow position well in front of
his head). But Hackett basically uses the left arm as a very long oar, which sweeps in a very long
arc, assisted strongly by his body and head rotation back to the neutral position, with the coup de
grace of a very strong, rear-quadrant push back.

On the right side, Hackett is completely different. He basically has 1/2 of a classic sprinters
stroke (beautiful high elbow catch and strong 6 beat kick...actually 1/2 stroke cycle worth of 6
beat kick...3 powerful kicks coincident with the right arm pull, with the right arm pull being a
"front quadrant" style, in contradistinction to his left.

Yet another factor which affects stroke length is conditioning. Better conditioning will tend to
produce a longer stroke in almost everyone.

The problem with all of the above comes from just starting with one or two simple generalizations.

First "female distance swimmers have a high stroke rate; therefore you should practice increasing
your stroke rate." But the stronger correlation, as noted, is the ability to MAINTAIN stroke rate,
so the focus should be on conditioning, rather than on "practicing" a high stroke rate.

Second, "male swimmers have a long stroke length; therefore you should practice increasing your
stroke length." This leads to artificial measures to cosmetically increase stroke length, most
prominently gliding. What produces the long stroke length in successful competitive swimmers is
kicking, conditioning, and some rather striking stroke peculiarities (e.g. Hackett) which bear no
resemblance at all to gliding.

And this doesn't even include considerations of such factors as head positioning/lifting, body
posture (maintaining lumbar lordosis), and "cheating" or "gaming" the bow wave.

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

Distance swimmers should emphasize stroke rate in training, as this variables was most highly
correlated with speed.

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,
s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there in all swimmers
naturally without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers do
instinctively.

Well... everybody *has* a stroke rate, but to say it is natural to keep increasing it is stretching
things. For one thing, increasing stroke rate without the extra strength required to do so will
result in "naturally" changing the aerodynamics of the hand to pull less water, which is
counter-productive.

Quoted message said:

While Stroke Length - or DPC as they referred to it - is a highly elusive and learned skill, which
always requires emphasis and mindfulness to be mastered. The real genius is in learning to
maintain SL at higher stroke rates. And to gain more SR than you give up in SL. Unless you are
truly gifted, that's extremely challenging. Terry

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Firstly, I do want to point out that I have been, for at least 6 years, citing these exact data.

Were the 2000 trials held in 1997?

<snipped>

Quoted message said:

And this doesn't even include considerations of such factors as head positioning/lifting, body
posture (maintaining lumbar lordosis),

BTW, I've heard this term twice outside this group, both times on CSI.

The first time, Grissom eliminated one little person from suspicion of hanging another little person
because he "suffered from lumbar lordosis" and couldn't have reached that high.

The second time, they only found parts of a body. The "vic" had had a spine implant and Grissom
mentioned the angle of lordosis.

Quoted message said:

and "cheating" or "gaming" the bow wave.

I suppose it follows that the butterfly stroke and the wave breaststroke also "cheat" the bow wave,
until the bow wave re-forms around your lower body.

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

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

Quoted message said:

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

(bunch of technical stuff)

Nowhere in your quote do you reveal what OTP stood for. Please re-post with this TLA spelled
out fully.

Yes, I realized that later. I'll tell you what OTP means if you tell me what TLA means 🙂

SR is Stroke Rate. DPC is Distance Per Cycle. OTP is Olympic Trial Participant. OTP is used to
denote the swimming technique of the less skilled swimmers at that meet. For example, for a given
race, if they compare Stroke Rate of OTP to the finalists, and find out that the finalists had
higher SR overall, then they consider SR in that context a good thing, since the fastest swimmers at
the meet had it.

Anyways, I'm kind of sorry I posted the quote. That's because on the men's side of things, it will
just continue the confusion. The female side is something that has been well understood by our own
Dr. Weisenthal for a while, and he has many posts on it. That is, that female distance swimmers with
high SR's and therefore fairly low DPC's win the races.

On the men's side, the conclusion of the study that men should focus on Distance Per Cycle for all
races is not clear cut. I just received my copy of "Swimming Fastest" by Maglischo last night. As an
aside, I certainly didn't expect the book so be so big! I haven't been this intimidated by a
textbook since Freshman chemistry. Anyways, he has a whole chapter on Stroke Rate versus Distance
Per Cycle. He has a very balanced approach to the whole topic. That is, it's fairly obvious that
they are somewhat mutually exclusive. You can't increase Stroke Rate without decreasing Distance Per
Cycle to some extent. So he's much more balanced than the "TI" folks, who stress DPC a great deal
and say little to nothing about Stroke Rate. Maglischo also points out that in the 1992 1500 meter
race by the men, the top three finishers have lower DPC than the next 5 men who finished the race.
So DPC is therefore probably not the Holy Grail of men's swimming, and for sure we know that's the
case on the female side.

So anyways, DPC and SR need to both be discussed at the same time. The best combination of the two
is going to be different for every swimmer.

-Eric

Brief correction on my citation for the Kieran Perkins data. These were, if memory serves, from the
Atlanta Olympics (1996) and not the Barcelona Olympics
(1992).

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Quoted message said:

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,
s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there in all swimmers
naturally without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers do
instinctively. While Stroke Length - or DPC as they referred to it - is a highly elusive and
learned skill, which always requires emphasis and mindfulness to be mastered. The real genius is
in learning to maintain SL at higher stroke rates. And to gain more SR than you give up in SL.
Unless you are truly gifted, that's extremely challenging.

I strongly disagree with this statement which is nothing new. I have undoubtedly gotten swimmers to
swim faster by focusing on increasing stroke rate. Hayley Peirsol won a bronze at last summer's Pan
Pacs based on this kind of work. Other distance swimmers have made breakthroughs to the national
level by keying on this factor.

I'm not alone. Brooke Bennett won two Olympic gold medals in Sydney. How was her stroke different
from Atlanta? (where she also won the 800 - but was about 10 seconds slower) Faster rate. No change
in distance per stroke.

We're not talking about beginners here. At the international level, particularly for females, stroke
rate is a very important variable. And it can be changed by feedback in training.

Brent

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

By the way, getting back to our debate about "lordosis" being a normal (which it is) versus
pathological (which it can be, if exaggerated beyond normal):

Quoted message said:

You say that Medical Dictionaries should be the final arbitrator of correct usage.

Actually what I concluded, and wrote, was that usage clearly depends on the situation. When I shop
for lumber, I will discard boards that are twisted or bowed. Certainly all pieces are twisted and
bowed, to some extent, but some appear straight enough for my purposes.

So while I could say that some twisting is normal for a milled board, I can also clearly reject a
twisted board, with no contradiction.

And while Grissom could casually mention the lordosis angle of a normal spinal implant, he can also
recognize that someone suffered from lumbar lordosis.

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

Quoted message said:

Faster rate. No change in distance per stroke.

Am I missing something here?

You say you "strongly disagree" then go on to cite, as Brooke's reason for going faster, exactly
what I said above.

To wit: "The real genius is in learning to maintain SL at higher stroke rates."

Quoted message said:

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,

Quoted message said:

s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there

in

Quoted message said:

all swimmers naturally without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers do
instinctively.

I think is the part that you emphasized (and emphasize in your books, videos, workshops, etc) and
that I took issue with.

I gave examples of swimmers who specifically worked on stroke rate and then improved significantly.

I would further argue that at times it might be beneficial to sacrifice some stroke length for
stroke rate, particularly in distance swimmers.

In the past I have used the cycling analogy which some people take issue with. The current rage a la
Lance is high cadence. Even without the extremes he takes it to, most all cyclists utilized pedal
cadences well above the optimum in terms of efficiency. Why? fatigue considerations.

The same can be true for swimming. I acknowledge that stroke length is indicative of technical skill
and propelling efficiency. However, for an elite swimmer, I think the analogy is valid.

Brent

(BLorenzen) said:

Quoted message said:

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,

Quoted message said:

s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there

in

Quoted message said:

all swimmers naturally without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers
do instinctively.

I think is the part that you emphasized (and emphasize in your books, videos, workshops, etc) and
that I took issue with.

I gave examples of swimmers who specifically worked on stroke rate and then improved significantly.

I would further argue that at times it might be beneficial to sacrifice some stroke length for
stroke rate, particularly in distance swimmers.

I believe the reason for that is because swimming at a given speed, such as 1 m/sec. requires more
anaerobic effort if it is done at a lower stroke rate than a higher one, even though you get more
recovery time at a lower stroke rate.

A good analogy is weight lifting: it would be a whole lot easier to bench press 100 lbs every 30
seconds than to bench press 200 lbs every minute, even though both result in the same output of
power. If one were to use the bench press as a mechanism for generating electrical power, every user
would have some optimal rate of bench presses and amount of weight they lift. If they lift a weight
10% heavier than their optimal weight, the rate at which they lift it will drop by more than 9.09%
and they'll end up generating less power because they cannot recover quickly enough between
repetitions. If they lift a weight 10% lighter than optimal, then their rate of repetitions will not
increase by the necessary 11.1% because of the wasted energy spent on additional repetitions from
the movement of the arms.

I think a similar rule applies to stroke rates in swimming - everyone has an optimal stroke rate for
a given distance, which is probably affected by both training and genetic factors.

Quoted message said:

In the past I have used the cycling analogy which some people take issue with. The current rage a
la Lance is high cadence. Even without the extremes he takes it to, most all cyclists utilized
pedal cadences well above the optimum in terms of efficiency. Why? fatigue considerations.

The same can be true for swimming. I acknowledge that stroke length is indicative of technical
skill and propelling efficiency. However, for an elite swimmer, I think the analogy is valid.

Brent

Quoted message said:

The same can be true for swimming. I acknowledge that stroke length is indicative of technical
skill and propelling efficiency. However, for an elite swimmer, I think the analogy is valid.

Brent This is the first time I've seen someone on RSS make that important distinction. I absolutely
agree that making an "intelligent and advantageous" trade of SL for SR can help you go faster. Those
who have the innate physical intelligence to make those trades advantageously are the same ones with
the other gifts to reach elite status. For lesser swimmers - like myself and 99% of the thousands of
swimmers I've coached - it's a learned (but very learnable) skill. I am simply trying to provide
swimmers with a rational basis for learning it.

The reason we have put so much emphasis on developing SL is that it's a fairly rare skill. Just go
to any public pool -- or any age group or HS team workout -- and watch for 10 minutes. What
percentage can make the choice to swim with a long, fluent stroke at any speed? Very few.

However, once a swimmer has learned the balance, slippery positions, fluent propelling motions, etc
that contribute to achieving optimal SL, then I strongly advocate that they learn to "play" SL with
as much facility as a piano student learns to play scales.

In my most recent book, Triathlon Swimming Made Easy, I devoted two chapters to exercises on trading
SL for SR in a sufficiently discriminating fashion that you could always do it to advantage and
basically "program" your nervous system to choose the optimal blend of SL and SR for any stage of a
race. It involved doing exercise I call "Gears" and doing Swim Golf at a variety of spl counts, then
taking HR's to see what is the most economical spl for any speed or effort level.

However, rather than using the cap mounted beeper that dictates rate, I suggest swimmers do it
simply by learning to change stroke counts on the fly.

For instance, if your stroke count range for freestyle is from 10spl, while doing "superslow and
superprecise" to 14 spl at max speed and effort, it's important to learn to swim fluently at all 5
counts. The SR will result naturally from swimming at different speeds at each count. Doesn't
require any expensive technology and provides the swimmer with an autonomic control skill they can
easily employ while racing.

I'll send you copies of those two chapters to give you a better sense of it.

As I've said previously, a lot of the "authoritative" discussion of TI on this forum is by people
whose knowledge of what we teach is rather limited. Cheers, Terry

(Totalswimm) said:

The reason we have put so much emphasis on developing SL is that it's a fairly rare skill. Just go
to any public pool -- or any age group or HS team workout -- and watch for 10 minutes. What
percentage can make the choice to swim with a long, fluent stroke at any speed? Very few.

I've been going in to the pool earlier, so I've been watching this swimmer who is there when I show
up. He's average height, a little bit thick in the middle, but swims hard and for at least half an
hour straight. He uses an open turn, but turns around quickly and travels a good distance
underwater. I have timed him at 35, then 40 and today, almost 45 seconds to cover 25 yards.

Today, I counted him taking 42 strokes for one 25 yard length, which is 0.6 yards per stroke.

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

Martin W. Smith said:

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

Distance swimmers should emphasize stroke rate in training, as this variables was most highly
correlated with speed.

If the person who wrote this analysis at USS had given it a minute's thought,
s/he would have realized that stroke rate never needs emphasis. It's there in all swimmers
naturally without emphasis. It's not a learned skill. It's what all human swimmers do
instinctively.

Well... everybody *has* a stroke rate, but to say it is natural to keep increasing it is stretching
things. For one thing, increasing stroke rate without the extra strength required to do so will
result in "naturally" changing the aerodynamics of the hand to pull less water, which is
counter-productive.

I think it depends in which context you say natural. For a beginning/non swimmer increasing
SR is very natural to a point of degridation. Every see anyone panic or heavens forbid
drown? SR goes way up as fear goes up. I think this probbaly comes from our natural
fear/discomfort and I'd have to think that this natural fear still plays some minor factor
even at elite levels. Obviously the more comfortable we are in the water less and less this
becomes a factor. For those of you here that have been swimming for ever does that fear go
away? What about the times when you turn to breath and someone's splash or a wace covers
your mouth, does that moment of semi-panic ever go away? Just curous.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While Stroke Length - or DPC as they referred to it - is a highly elusive and learned skill,
which always requires emphasis and mindfulness to be mastered. The real genius is in learning to
maintain SL at higher stroke rates. And to gain more SR than you give up in SL. Unless you are
truly gifted, that's extremely challenging. Terry

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

Donal Fagan Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com said:

(Totalswimm) said:

The reason we have put so much emphasis on developing SL is that it's a fairly rare skill. Just go
to any public pool -- or any age group or HS team workout -- and watch for 10 minutes. What
percentage can make the choice to swim with a long, fluent stroke at any speed? Very few.

I watched two other swimmers this morning. I mentioned before that the lifeguard told this one
fellow to swim flatter. He's a very athletic young man, around 30. He was doing long swimming today,
taking about 35 seconds and 29 strokes to do a length. (Last week he was using my backstroke to set
his pace.) That would be 0.86 yards per stroke.

He keeps his hairline at water level, rotates onto his side and takes a big round recovery on the
right, breathing side. He doesn't rotate to his left and barely clears the water with his left hand.
His left upper arm ploughs into the water before his hand enters.

A young woman of average build got into the lane next to him. She also took 29 strokes, but was
somewhat faster needing only 30 seconds for a length. I assumed she would overtake him, but the next
time I looked, he was swimming under 30 seconds, taking only 25 strokes (1 yard per stroke).

She switched to Breaststroke and he, having asserted male dominance, slowed down to about 33 seconds
and took about 27 strokes.

She gets her right elbow up nice and high, but even though she breathes to the left, her left arm
recovery is more straight-armed and very low to the water.

Other than another masters swimmer and a fellow who I know swims for SCSU, I haven't seen anyone
with particularly long strokes.

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

MJuric said:

Martin W. Smith said:

Well... everybody *has* a stroke rate, but to say it is natural to keep increasing it is
stretching things. For one thing, increasing stroke rate without the extra strength required to
do so will result in "naturally" changing the aerodynamics of the hand to pull less water, which
is counter-productive.

I think it depends in which context you say natural. For a beginning/non swimmer
increasing SR is very natural to a point of degridation.

That would mean, for example, that for a beginning walker increasing step rate is natural to a point
of degradation. Walkers don't keep increasing their step rate until they are running as fast they
can. And chewers would increase their chew rate until their teeth smash to pieces.

Quoted message said:

Every see anyone panic or heavens forbid drown? SR goes way up as fear goes up.

I have, and it doesn't. A drowning person will grab onto anyone nearby and crush the life
out of them.

Quoted message said:

I think this probbaly comes from our natural fear/discomfort and I'd have to think that this
natural fear still plays some minor factor even at elite levels. Obviously the more
comfortable we are in the water less and less this becomes a factor. For those of you here
that have been swimming for ever does that fear go away? What about the times when you turn to
breath and someone's splash or a wace covers your mouth, does that moment of semi-panic ever
go away? Just curous.

When I first started swimming lessons at age 6, I could not stand in the shallow end of the pool
because of panic. 30 years later, I was on the north shore of Oahu, at a beach which the lifeguards
had closed due to high surf. It was about 20 feet. I "swam" out through the surf, and back in again,
just to feel the power of the waves. Yes, the fear goes away.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

Martin W. Smith said:

MJuric said:

Martin W. Smith said:

Well... everybody *has* a stroke rate, but to say it is natural to keep increasing it is
stretching things. For one thing, increasing stroke rate without the extra strength required to
do so will result in "naturally" changing the aerodynamics of the hand to pull less water, which
is counter-productive.

I think it depends in which context you say natural. For a beginning/non swimmer
increasing SR is very natural to a point of degridation.

That would mean, for example, that for a beginning walker increasing step rate is natural to a
point of degradation. Walkers don't keep increasing their step rate until they are running as fast
they can. And chewers would increase their chew rate until their teeth smash to pieces.

Quite the contrary. We are land animals stopping on land is not only completely natural but
our preffered state. With running/walking, at least in most cases that I've been involved
with the person has a tendancy to under cycle, not have a high enough SR. Many people hav
eto work at increasing SR. In water however stopping is not a natural, and for alot of
beginneers leads to a fear of sinking. So to keep from sinking they stroke faster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Every see anyone panic or heavens forbid drown? SR goes way up as fear goes up.

I have, and it doesn't. A drowning person will grab onto anyone nearby and crush the life
out of them.

Granted tehy grab whatever or whoever is near. However in the case of nothing present to
grab they flail, very high SR.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think this probbaly comes from our natural fear/discomfort and I'd have to think that this
natural fear still plays some minor factor even at elite levels. Obviously the more comfortable
we are in the water less and less this becomes a factor. For those of you here that have been
swimming for ever does that fear go away? What about the times when you turn to breath and
someone's splash or a wace covers your mouth, does that moment of semi-panic ever go away? Just
curous.

When I first started swimming lessons at age 6, I could not stand in the shallow end of the pool
because of panic. 30 years later, I was on the north shore of Oahu, at a beach which the lifeguards
had closed due to high surf. It was about 20 feet. I "swam" out through the surf, and back in
again, just to feel the power of the waves. Yes, the fear goes away.

Granted I haven't been "swimming" in the organized sense of the word for very long, however
I've been in and around water nearly my whole life. I've lived near lakes etc. I'm very
comfortable in the water, but no matter what for some reason when I suck down a lung full of
water, a sense of panic comes over me. I no longer really react to it but that, palpitory
second of panic still comes.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

MJuric said:

Martin W. Smith said:

That would mean, for example, that for a beginning walker increasing step rate is natural to a
point of degradation. Walkers don't keep increasing their step rate until they are running as
fast they can. And chewers would increase their chew rate until their teeth smash to pieces.

Quite the contrary. We are land animals stopping on land is not only completely natural
but our preffered state.

Says you. Where is this demonstrated? And why is it natural to stop on land but not in the water?
I've never felt them to be any different, even as a beginner.

Quoted message said:

With running/walking, at least in most cases that I've been involved with the person has a
tendancy to under cycle, not have a high enough SR. Many people hav eto work at increasing SR. In
water however stopping is not a natural, and for alot of beginneers leads to a fear of sinking. So
to keep from sinking they stroke faster.

Fear of sinking? No. One of the first thing a kid learns is how to be comfortable just being in the
water, SR = 0. First standing, then floating. On his back, on his stomach. SR = 0. Fear is
eliminated first. If it wasn't in your case, some people call it child abuse.

After learning to float, I usually taught flutter kick, first at the edge, then with a
board. SR = 0.

When stroke was finally added, in some cases kids moved their arms too fast; in other cases kids
moved their arms too slow. I noticed no natural tendency to increase stroke rate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Every see anyone panic or heavens forbid drown? SR goes way up as fear goes up.

I have, and it doesn't. A drowning person will grab onto anyone nearby and crush the life out
of them.

Granted tehy grab whatever or whoever is near. However in the case of nothing present to
grab they flail, very high SR.

That is panic. Panic and fear have nothing to do with swimming. Put another way, panic and fear have
no more to do with swimming than they do with walking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think this probbaly comes from our natural fear/discomfort and I'd have to think that this
natural fear still plays some minor factor even at elite levels. Obviously the more comfortable
we are in the water less and less this becomes a factor. For those of you here that have been
swimming for ever does that fear go away? What about the times when you turn to breath and
someone's splash or a wace covers your mouth, does that moment of semi-panic ever go away? Just
curous.

When I first started swimming lessons at age 6, I could not stand in the shallow end of the pool
because of panic. 30 years later, I was on the north shore of Oahu, at a beach which the
lifeguards had closed due to high surf. It was about 20 feet. I "swam" out through the surf, and
back in again, just to feel the power of the waves. Yes, the fear goes away.

Granted I haven't been "swimming" in the organized sense of the word for very long,
however I've been in and around water nearly my whole life. I've lived near lakes etc. I'm
very comfortable in the water, but no matter what for some reason when I suck down a lung
full of water, a sense of panic comes over me. I no longer really react to it but that,
palpitory second of panic still comes.

If it becomes a problem, there are therapists who specialize in dealing with that. I've not noticed
it to be common.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway