How to improve your swimming

Here's an idea: Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't matter to me
which you do first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences. Terry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's an idea:

Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't matter to me which you do
first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences<<

That is a wonderful idea. Better yet would be a randomized, controlled trial, but pilot anecdotal
information and feedback are a very useful start.

Thanks for making the suggestion.

- Larry

Totalswimm said:

Here's an idea: Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't matter to
me which you do first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences. Terry

My approach - go to the pool regularily for 60 days. Period. Keeping a log would help too - the
human mind is amazingly good at forgetting how much slacking off the human body does.

--Mike

My experience with helping others is minimal and amateurish. I conducted a masters group for several
years. One third of the group was former collegiate swimmers who were beyond my ability to help, but
when we had a few minutes extra time, I called on them to help the next group of one third, some of
whom helped the next group who were unfamiliar with the whole idea of doing workouts rather than
laps, various strokes, and the use of toys. That was only in the last 5 or so minutes.

I enjoyed writing workouts, and with my limited abilities, I was often able to point the way for
eager learners to help themselves. Using the right words that each inexperienced swimmer could
translate into action was a challenge that I especially enjoyed. As I read over T.L.'s list of Do's,
I was reminded of one phrase that everyone seemed to understand quickly: Don't get in your own way.
It corresponds to T.L.'s Swim through a small hole and it also makes clear the need to keep a kick
within the dimensions of one's shoulders.

Ruth Kazez

Re: another subject, totally OT. I'm back from Texas and, as I predicted, I was singled out, led
away from my clearly middle-eastern companion of the same name. Arabs and Israeli's were all
around us but Ashcroft in his infinite wisdom clearly has alerted all airport security personnel
to be on the lookout for anyone like me. I think it may be the aura of chlorine, my suspicious
Asics, my tiny Ironman pack, who knows what, but somehow it's clear that I am more interested in
the tales of 1001 nights than that other tale recently recited in Baghdad and quoted here as
punishment for OT posters.

rtk said:

Re: another subject, totally OT. I'm back from Texas and, as I predicted, I was singled out, led
away from my clearly middle-eastern companion of the same name. Arabs and Israeli's were all
around us but Ashcroft in his infinite wisdom clearly has alerted all airport security personnel
to be on the lookout for anyone like me. I think it may be the aura of chlorine, my suspicious
Asics, my tiny Ironman pack, who knows what, but somehow it's clear that I am more interested in
the tales of 1001 nights than that other tale recently recited in Baghdad and quoted here as
punishment for OT posters.

I'm guessing, but there is a sinister way to make sense of your being singled out. As we know,
profiling is frowned upon, so the question for airport security becomes, how can we achieve the
result of profiling without it being visible? If your middle eastern companion of the same name were
actually a terrorist, or a drug smuggler, etc, it stands to reason that he would use you as a mule
before he would use himself. So they check you. Furthermore, if you say anything at all that can in
any way be interpreted as criticism or sarcasm against this inspection or the US, then they can
reasonably take your middle eastern partner aside and inspect him, too.

Some years ago, I had a colleague working here from the Maldives. She was married to a Norwegian
named Peterson, but she wanted to use her own family name for most purposes. In particular, she used
her family name on her luggage tags. She couldn't figure out why the airlines *alwasy* lost her
luggage when she traveled on international flights, but that is what happened. Her family name is
Abas. I explained to her that Abu Abas was one of the world's worst terrorists at the time, and that
it would be standard operating procedure for security to simply hold her bags aside until her flight
reached its final destination, so that if they blew up, they would blow up in a warehouse set aside
for the purpose. She didn't believe me, so I asked my brother, a special agent in the FBI, and he
said the way I explained it is a common practice. Her name matched a terrorist's name, so they kept
her bags off the plane until it landed. Then they sent them on the next flight.

Well, maybe I am too suspicious of the state, but this happened several years ago, and the situation
certainly hasn't improved in recent years.

martin

M.W.Smith said:

I'm guessing, but there is a sinister way to make sense of your being singled out. As we know,
profiling is frowned upon, so the question for airport security becomes, how can we achieve the
result of profiling without it being visible? If your middle eastern companion of the same name
were actually a terrorist, or a drug smuggler, etc, it stands to reason that he would use you as a
mule before he would use himself. So they check you.

That really does make sense to me. It seems plausible.

Quoted message said:

Her name matched a terrorist's name, so they kept her bags off the plane until it landed. Then
they sent them on the next flight.

I actually find that reassuring. We hear so much about the inadequacy and truly shocking failures of
the security procedures. This is an excellent example of good methods.

Ruth Kazez

rtk said:

M.W.Smith said:

I'm guessing, but there is a sinister way to make sense of your being singled out. As we know,
profiling is frowned upon, so the question for airport security becomes, how can we achieve the
result of profiling without it being visible? If your middle eastern companion of the same name
were actually a terrorist, or a drug smuggler, etc, it stands to reason that he would use you as
a mule before he would use himself. So they check you.

That really does make sense to me. It seems plausible.

Quoted message said:

Her name matched a terrorist's name, so they kept her bags off the plane until it landed. Then
they sent them on the next flight.

I actually find that reassuring. We hear so much about the inadequacy and truly shocking failures
of the security procedures. This is an excellent example of good methods.

Yes, but a real terrorist wouldn't use his real name. Still, I take your point. It raises an
interesting way to solve a couple of problems. Suppose that from now on, no one is allowed to travel
with luggage. Instead, you must always send your luggage separately, either before you travel, so it
is there when you arrive, or let it be sent after you leave, effectively in parallel but perhaps
delayed by a day or two. Luggage would all be sent via cargo planes like the ones used for FedEx and
DHL. The airlines would convert some of their planes for this purpose, and they would simply pool
their resources and cooperate to send the baggage around in a few hub and spoke systems like the
ones used by the cargo carriers. Then Passenger planes could either be much lighter and faster, or
they could carry more passengers. And there would be no bombs to worry about. This would require
some re-engineering of the airlines, but it would effectively eliminate the terrorist threat there.
You get on the plane with nothing more than a purse or a diaper bag or a computer case.

martin

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

My experience with helping others is minimal and amateurish.

Not at all. Your lack of experience -- let's call it baggage -- allowed you to implement intuitive
solutions that were elegant and effective.

Thank you thank you! I would be lying if I played the humble card too strongly. I read extensively,
including your book and video, Counsilman, Maglischo, and Colwin as well as lesser names that come
and go. I have the truly useful experience of having had almost every fault imaginable in my own
strokes and having overcome most of them, so I have a bag of tricks that a less faulty swimmer would
not have. I love to make up workouts. They're like menus or concert programs: a short crowd pleaser
before the Bartok, the equivalent of a cheese course, finishing with a sweet Mozart. I put 50 of
them on the web and I'm pleased that they're used a lot. I just restarted the numbers and they're
going up quickly. You can see them if you go to Kazez.com, click on Ruth, then click on Swim
Workouts. One more thing I can pat myself on the back for is an ability to recognize what a swimmer
can do, how many fifties they can go past the point when they say No More. Above all, we really had
fun. Our swimdowns were often silly, dog-paddling for example. We had relays in which everyone had
to swim their worst stroke or we combined best and worst swimmers or best women with worst men. I
filmed them and we made a party out of watching the film. Several times I got a coach from Penn
State to come and give a class on one stroke. That was valuable!

Ruth Kazez

(Totalswimm) said:

Here's an idea: Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't matter to me
which you do first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences. Terry

Interstingly enough I have.

Initially as a new swimmer I joined masters. I recieved instruction similar to what Larry
states here in step one. The problem for me was "finding one's balance", maybe I'm dull, was
much more complex than any one excersice or concentrating on any one portion of my body.
After spending about 4 months in masters, getting only minimally faster and becoming
maximally frustrated, I found TI. (Terry's method)

I spent several months "drilling only" 4 or 5 to be exact and finally become what I would
describe as Larry's fore and aft balanced. Probably not what Larry would consider perfect
"lumbar arch" but none the less fairly balanced.

Now the problem becomes more complex. Frankly I see less and less difference between
Larry's approach and Terry's approach after step one. TI espouses drilling and "Swimming
through the smallest hole" which in essence is exactly what step two is on Larry's list.
Yes some differences, Larry - swim don't drill, Larry - roll not so much, but to me a
novice swimmer the same.

Step three I see a bit more difference as Larry is saying more hand less arm, as TI states
more arm will lead to more hand (Fist Glove Usage). One very curious thing here is that,
maybe inadvertantly, TI and Larry are in agreeance and stressing something that goes against
almost all other coaching methods, and that is, "forget the high elbow". TI states something
along the line that if you get the roll, hand entry and stroke count right, the elbow will
take care of itself. Larry says something on the order of the same thing yet emphasies the
hand position.

Well Step 4 TI really doesn't even deal with the exception to say that continuing to master
step 1-3 will be step four. Larry pretty much says the same, with the methodology slightly
different. Larry - Swim , TI - Drill.

So being somewhat unbiased toward either method here's my conclusion.

If you are a beginning swimmer with little or no swimming experinace TI is IMO the easiest
method to learn to swim. The simplicity of the drills and the "build from the bottom up"
methodology is easy to grasp and understand.

After your basic swim technic is created one must then decide the method to continue to improve and
"flaws" to change in ones stroke. In my experiance at some point you'll have to ween from drilling
and start working out. This does not mean stop drilling just less drilling more working out. Even
the best swimmers I know still drill and frankly some of the swimmers I know that swim the most
aren't teh best swimmers so a balance must be found.

Again IMO Larry's methods contain ideas that are very worthwhile. I've seen improvements from paying
attention to my lower back ridgidity.

My point here is that to the average swimmer could probably get along just fine with either method.
Even a stronger point is the differences between the two methods is so small as to be indicernable
by the average beggining swimmer.

And finally IMO what ever method you decide upon the key to swimming is spending time in the water.
You can argue until your tongue falls off on methodology, but if you don't spend time in the water
you aren't going to get better. Everyone is different and learns differently so what works for you
may not work for me. I try to keep an open mind and try different suggestions and so far have
gleaned things from both of the present camps as well as several that aren't represented here.

My wish for the holidays... Lets quit argueing about swimming (Among other things) and do our best
to see the other sides point. I think if people would actually care to take a peek they may just see
they almost agree.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

(Totalswimm) said:

Here's an idea: Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't

matter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to me which you do first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences. Terry

I've already done this as well. For about 6 months I did nothing but swim long and slow swim
drills. I usually averaged around 12 strokes per 25 yds. with very little push off (otherwise my
HR chest strap would come off). I developed a huge slow and deep arm stroke in order to receive
maximum results for my efforts while using fewer strokes. I use a weak 2 beat kick, so
fortunately, this drill helped me immensely with balancing such as getting a feel at the entry
that didn't throw me off balance. However, the hand being close or at the surface eventually put
too much pressure on my shoulders and lower back. As with any learning process, I modified my
stroke in order to start the catch a little lower by forcing my hand into the water with much
more authority. I immediately became faster. Some time later someone mentioned to me that my
hand was actually extended and slightly stagnate under water at the end of my stroke and not
finishing with increasing power. Instead it was slowing down. So then I started shortening my
arm at the end of the stroke for a quicker exit and immediately felt a surge of power that I had
never had unless sprinting. This surge almost looks like a whipping motion when observed on
Elites. I also noticed that this motion seemed to incorporate my back a little more, causing it
to arch. Not much different than Larry's scenario. I've eventually raised my catch back up a
little closer to the surface but with some sculling motion while I'm feeling like I'm winding up
for a big backwards softball pitch with a nice even and quickened surge at the end of the
stroke. Except now my arm doesn't extend until it has just come out of the water. The kick
board? I'm not a good kicker. However, the kick board after a month or so definitely helped me
strengthen core muscles which now allows me to start my catch a little higher. How's that for
"It's all good!"

Rick Swanger

Option 3. Larry, our coach is putting on a tri-swimmer clinic in January. Come to the clinic!

Starts and turns is this weekend, sunday. I believe freestyle clinic is later in december.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's an idea:

Try my approach for a month. Try Larry's approach for a month. Doesn't

matter

Quoted message said:

to me which you do first. In 60 days, report to the group on your experiences<<

That is a wonderful idea. Better yet would be a randomized, controlled

trial,

Quoted message said:

but pilot anecdotal information and feedback are a very useful start.

Thanks for making the suggestion.

- Larry

(Totalswimm) said:

Quoted message said:

TI and Larry are in agreeance and stressing something that goes against almost all other coaching
methods, and that is, "forget the high elbow". TI states something along the line that if you get
the roll, hand entry and stroke count right, the elbow will take care of itself.

I need to clarify that. The problem isn't the "dreaded dropped elbow." It's that people lean on
their forearm to compensate for lack of balance. When they lean on the forearm the hand scoops
toward the surface, making the elbow appear "dropped."

When you improve your balance, you gain options for choosing the position of your hand and elbow.
If you don't have the shoulder range of motion to achieve the radical upper arm rotation that Janet
Evans and Brooke Bennett were/are able to achieve, your best course is to slice your hand down at a
steeper angle and make sure you tip your fingers down as you do.

So long as your hand is below your elbow, you'll have a much better catch. So focus on 1) balance
and 2) tipping your hand down and you don't have to worry about your elbow.

I may have been unclear here. I wasn't trying to disagree with either of your methods. I
agree worrying about the "dreaded dropped elbow" is symptom of other problems. Fix the cause
and the elbow will fix itself, pretty much. I was rather pointing out the actual
similarities, that I see, between the TI approach and the Larry, loping approach. Overall,
again as a novice, If I were to read what Larry wrote, with an open mind, and then what TI
teaches, I would guestimate 90% of it is the same thing worded differently. Even some of the
points that the two camps vehimantly argue about, seem similar to me. One such point would
be the "arched lumbar issue". In my experinace once Larry pointed it out to me and I
experimented with it I found it actually enhanced my "TI" type "buoy/Downhill" swimming.
After playing with it, it is nearly impossible to swim without some "stress" in the lower
back. The legs sink, the back muscles or kicking keeps them up. TI stress the kicking is not
to keep the legs up, so I hold my legs up using the lower back muscles and balance of the
core, not kicking. So IMHO Larrys, "Lower Lumbar Arch" theory is right inline with TI.

But of course I'm not willing to argue the minutia<SP?> of mine or anyone elses stroke, as IMO,
many/most have fairly large flaws that could be worked on before working on the exact angle/arch of
ones lower back. For me, for now, being aware of the effect of tight versus loose lower back is
plenty to worry about.

~Matt