-
The Delousing of a Movement
February 9, 2012 | 316 comments
-
Exit Newt
February 2, 2012 | 426 comments
-
Our Bill Clinton
January 26, 2012 | 488 comments
-
Obama vs. Christie and the Future
January 19, 2012 | 93 comments
-
Thank You, God, for Tim Tebow
January 12, 2012 | 357 comments
The Current Crisis
Progress Thwarted
The NCAA's continuing war on swim fins.
WASHINGTON -- Vindication is sweet! During last summer's Olympics, I wrote in this space that the high-tech swimming suits worn by competitive swimmers in the events and manufactured by Speedo with the assistance of NASA scientists were irrelevant to sport and destined for further controversy. In fact, I argued that the suits, known as the Speedo LZR racer, were as inappropriate for competitive swimming as wearing swim fins in the pool. Now a rising chorus of swimming coaches and competitors at this week's NCAA Division I swimming championships seems to agree.
The LZRs are made of high-tech material. They cover a competitor's body from shoulders to ankles. The material allows the body to float higher in the water. It also offers less resistance to the water than human skin, allowing those who encase themselves in it to glide through the water faster. Consequently, in championships everyone wants to wear an LZR. Those who do obviously have an unfair advantage over those who, for whatever reason, do not. Not surprisingly, since the arrival of the LZR the incidence of world records has increased -- though this does not mean that today's champions in their high-tech suits are really faster than pre-high-tech swimmers.
In fact, the use of the high-tech suits by Michael Phelps last summer casts doubt on the claim that his performance was greater than that of Mark Spitz's in 1972. Phelps won eight golds, one more than Spitz. But Spitz, wearing a pre-tech suit best described as a brief, set world records in every event he won. Phelps equaled Spitz's 7 world records, but the records he beat were set in olden times, before the advent of the LZR. It is estimated that the LZR improves a swimmer's time by at least 3%. Did Phelps best each world record by at least 3%? He did not. Spitz's Olympic performance is arguably history's best.
We can thank the inventers of this idiotic aquatic contraption for this idiotic debate. Also we must thank NCAA officials who last September decided to allow its use in intercollegiate swimming. Why did they not allow the use of swim fins too?
Now coaches are grumbling that the high-tech suits have introduced a variable into the sport that detracts from the essence of competitive swimming: stroke mechanics, rigorous training, and competitive drive. Dennis Dale, the swimming coach at the University of Minnesota, told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm very disappointed that our sport has come to a point where I have to be as concerned with swimsuits as I am with the swimmers." Said Phil Whitten, executive director of the College Swim Coaches Association: "It's like having one pole-vaulter using a fiberglass pole and another using a wooden pole. It's an absolute mess."
Moreover, the introduction of high-tech suits not only gives an advantage to those who wear them. The LZR gives a special advantage to fat swimmers -- yes, I said fat swimmers. The suits compress competitors' flesh, making their bodies more buoyant and allowing them to float higher in the water. Yet when the fat of corpulent swimmers is compressed their bodies become more buoyant than the body of a lean, dense-muscled swimmer. Thus the fatties, according to the Journal, "float higher in the water and swim faster."
Another problem is that the LZR suits are tremendously expensive. Whereas the ordinary brief that most swimmers still wear costs around $25, the LZR costs $550. Equally appalling, it is good for only a few races before it is worn out and falls apart. This adds thousands of dollars more to cost of athletic programs that might better use their money on scholarships. The LZR redirects competitive swimming from sport to technological experimentation. It causes athletic programs to place a swimmer's swimsuit above an athlete's education.
At the heart of the matter we see a clever swimsuit manufacturer expanding its profits hugely by bringing out a hitherto unimagined product. What allowed Speedo to get away with this? Doubtless the officials at the NCAA assume that they are part of history's march to progress. Well, if it is progress when swimmers wearing a high-tech swimsuit break world records, it would be even more progressive if the swimmers took up my suggestion and wore swim fins. With them the swimmers would swim even faster and at much less cost. A standard pair of fins goes for about $30, and they last for years.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (59) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/26/progress-thwarted
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael Blumenthal| 3.26.09 @ 7:36AM
Why just fins? Bring back steroids!Sure they kill,but the choice is glory or long life. Let them choose!
Dan Hirsch| 3.26.09 @ 9:17AM
Mr. Tyrrell;
A suit that reduces the volume of the swimmer's body without reducing its weight INCREASES the density of the swimmer's body.
You might have inadvertently swallowed some Speedo hype.
And don't we have more important fish to fry right now, like who is really #1 in college football, Senator Hatch?
Anybody notice that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is in the shredder?
Sheesh!
Pingback| 3.26.09 @ 9:48AM
Swimming pools | Pool Cleaning Service links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Doctor Right| 3.26.09 @ 10:21AM
My first reaction to this article was "The Constitution is being shredded daily, and I'm supposed to care about this?".
But after reading the article, I enjoyed the simple fact that it allowed me to FORGET, for a few brief moments, the the Constitution is being shredded daily. So I'll chime in...
These LZR suits are, in my humble opinion, a further example of the degradation of "amateur" sports. As a 6-year old in 1972, I remember well the joy of watching Mark Spitz win those 7 Golds in Munich. Watching Michael Phelps, however, left me with a huge sense of ennui, despite the fact that I'm also from Baltimore, and grew-up in the same Rodgers Forge neighborhood as he did.
And it's not even the LZRs, really. Perhaps I'm naive, but I seem to remember that at one time, Olympic athletes competed for the sheer joy of competing. Oh, to be sure, there was always the spectre of politics lurking in the background, especially in the classic Olympic match-ups between the USA and the USSR, whether in hockey, basketball, gymnastic, or boxing (On a side note, the dissolution of the USSR was a serious blow to my interest in the Olympics...Maybe that's one reason to embrace Putin?). But the competitors still wanted to win because they wanted to be the best, and really, regardless of nationality, we can all appreciate a winner.
Nowaday, however, it seems that the REAL objective is to win Gold medals in order to land HUGE private-sector endorsements and make millions of dollars as a pitchman. Now, let me say up front that I'm a die-hard capitalist, and I don't begrudge these athletes a single penny of what they can make in endorsements. I'm only saying that for me, it detracts from the drama. Gone are the days when the networks would do special expose's on the suffering endured by a struggling athlete to get to the Olympics ("Despite being born without legs, Pedro's dream was ALWAYS to be an Olypic sprinter..."). We get the human-interest stories today, but they're simply not as...Interesting.
And the athletes themselves often leave something to be desired, too. Say what you will about the Soviet sports machine, but they taught their athletes to win AND lose with class. I don't ever remember seeing a Soviet athlete complain, whine, or bitch about a bad call. Nor did I ever see one engage in an embarrasing, self-indulgent "victory lap", with their nation's flag draped about their shoulders like a sweaty towel, mugging for the cameras. Additionally, they never classlessly taunted the other team in the way that the US and Australian men's swim teams have been going at each other for a few years.
And now, the high-tech LZR suits..? It's too much, really. If these suits truly give a swimmer an advantage, then any world records attained by a swimmer who wears them should be asterisked if that swimmer breaks the record of a swimmer who did NOT wear one - Phelps included (And I'm consistent on this, as I also beleiev that the home-run records of Roger Maris, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and ANY record set by A-Rod should be asterisked, too).
And if LZRs are allowed, what's to be disallowed, and with what justification? As Mr Tyrell eloquently states "Why NOT swim fins?"
Wow...For an article I didn't initially want to read, I sure had a lot to say...
Austin Scott| 3.26.09 @ 11:09AM
The Greek Olympians competed naked. An obvious solution.
Doctor Right| 3.26.09 @ 11:46AM
"The Greek Olympians competed naked. An obvious solution."
Barney Frank would certainly approve.
Ba-DA-ba-da-BA-BING!!!!!!!!!!
Paul from SA| 3.26.09 @ 11:46AM
I swam competitively for 11 yrs, started in the late 1960's. Progress began with swimmers using goggles to see the wall better, improving the turns. Then men started wearing bathing caps, only in big swim meets since it was a little embarrasing. It helped since most of us in those days had long hippie hair. In addition to reduced drag, you could get some air trapped in the cap that made your head feel like it 'floated' higher in the water. Then people started using oil to coat their skin to make it slipperier. This was quickly prohibited. Then we shaved down, shaving all hair from neck to toes. But this was a one-time occurance reserved for the finals on the last day of the biggest meet. I did this once and can attest, the reduced drag effect in the water is dramatic. Mark Spitz, my hero in 1972, had a big mustache that cost him some time. Swim suit material progressed from nylon to lycra, which you could practically see through -- which caused a large distraction for the boys. It helped the girls.
Seeing neck-to-ankles swim suits has meant the material was no longer a drag on even the smoothest skin. Wearing larger suits just didn't seem right.
Approving the newer high-tech super expensive suits was a big mistake. Now they can't go back. The new world records are permanent.
It'a a real drag.
bluecollarbytes| 3.26.09 @ 11:52AM
I see a market for swimmers' 'foot stockings'....which just so happen to be webbed between the toes.
Paul from SA| 3.26.09 @ 12:14PM
Russians years ago reportedly pumped nitrogen or helium gas up their butts to increase bouyancy!
Who knows, maybe if you eat beans before each event....
bluecollarbytes: you're right... maybe some type of cosmetic surgery will become standard fare. Webbed fingers and toes, breast removal, ear and nose trimming, pointed skulls.... Every swimmer will have to be x-rayed before each meet.
Joe| 3.26.09 @ 12:18PM
2 Comments.
First Michael Pheleps did not ware a head to toe suit and in some cases only a speedo.
Second if everyone was waring them then his record 8 Gold is still a record. Maybe not the times, but certainly the wins.
Eric| 3.26.09 @ 2:04PM
I love sports as much as the next guy, and am in many ways a bit of the purist. But all of this talk of how the current swimsuits are cheapening the records is a crock of self righteous, overly nostalgic crapola!
There might be an argument to be made if these suits were only being manufactured for one athlete, but they are available to the people who want to wear them. Since anyone can get ahold of the suit, then there is nothing unfair about winning in one. Saying that Michael Phelps' records are somehow illegitimate simply because he lives in a time of technological advancement is foolish. There is no sport being played now that has not benifitted and changed because of technological advances through the years; does that mean that we are supposed to discount today's accomplishments because things have changed?
Heather| 3.26.09 @ 2:49PM
I was incensed at the poor treatment of Mark Spitz during last summer's Olympics. Why was there so much media hostility toward him? CNN absolutely trashed him. Spitz was a true American hero in 1972, is a loving husband and father, and has had a successful career as a dentist. I was barely a teenager in 1972, but I still remember that he was damned fine looking, too.
L. Ross| 3.26.09 @ 3:12PM
It seems to me that in order to have a level playing field, ALL competitors must be wearing standardized swimming suits. Not asking for much, is it? And speaking of floating higher in the water, why don't they just put some foam rubber down the front of these super suits. That should give them a few MORE pounds of positive bouyancy.
I can appreciated the wind tunnel testing of race cars, and America's Cup boats, and even those long distance ski jumpers, but it seems to me that for human racing sports, technology should not be allowed to drive new records. Just my thought.
Paul from SA| 3.26.09 @ 3:16PM
But Eric,
There must be standards. Just think if golf allowed rubber balls? Or baseball allowed titanium bats? Or track & field allowed spring-loaded shoes? These are all related to equipment, not talent or hard work, which makes comparing accomplishments invalid. And many sports are dependent on records, like swimming and baseball. As a former swimmer, one's times were often more important than winning, except for that last big meet. Or in baseball, it's not who won the World Series, but who finished with the highest batting avg. or who had the most home runs.
These new swim suits are a huge advantage to those who are very, very rich.
Ned| 3.26.09 @ 4:51PM
Swim naked!
wanumba| 3.26.09 @ 5:18PM
This swimsuit tech argument is easily applicable to the problem of computers in schools. Schools dump zillions now into computerized classrooms. "Teachers" expect studetns to teach themselves from the computer while they sit on the corner reading something else. Training and the discipline of training goes out the window. Mediocre students have the ability thanks to the computer to appear to perform at the level of strong students. The technology gives the illusion of a higher level of accomplishment, but in fact, students rely on cut and paste of other people's work - adults no less - to produce slick documents with lots of snazzy pictures. The old days one sat and wrote out ten page papers or painstakingly typed them on typewriters with ample supplies of White-Out nearby. No bells and whistles, and one had to form thoughts, develop arguments and articulate them, and spell it all right. So-called "educators" or "facilitators" now push the argument that "why is it necessary to teach handwriting any more when everything is done on computers?" That's a quote heard directly from a number of teachers. EVERYBODY has computers? In what universe? Remove a kid from his or her sleek Powerpoint presentation on, say, the Barbary Wars, and plunk them in front of a blank pad of paper. They can't compose, their grammar is appalling and they can't even hold the pen correctly in their hands to form the letters on the page. Oh, and the only thing that's exaggerated is that they've never heard of the Barbary Wars, a period in US history when US foreign policy for the next 200 years was shaped, fighting aginst Islamic dictatorships which had declared war on the USA. Can't imagine why that'd be relevent to today.
Does make a great PowerPoint, though - dramatic paintings of US frigates pounding away at the sultan's palaces on the exotic shores of North Africa, with real live US Navy officers looking more dashing and engaging in braver actions than the Brit's fictional 18th Century hero Horatio Hornblower. All done without computers. Their tech advantage was tomahawks for close combat.
PCP Smoker| 3.26.09 @ 6:59PM
Might be a harbinger of things to come, and you might be right about it, BUT that suit gave the US that extra advantage to win over the cocky and arrogant french, and that was a delight to see.
Interloper| 3.26.09 @ 7:23PM
Another clever, pithy comment by PCP Smoker. You go, dude!
D S Sammis| 3.26.09 @ 7:32PM
Nothing new here. In the 60's I participated in amateur sports car racing. Initially, it was stock MGs and Jaguars. Then came the purpose built racing spors cars. No problem, they raced in separate classes, although in the same race. But eventually the BIG money arrived and thinly disguised all out racers arrived and the sport went down hill from there
Eric| 3.27.09 @ 10:39AM
Paul from SA,
FINA allowed the suits prior to the Beijing Olympics and swimmers from other countries wore the suits during the games. So what standards aren't being met by wearing the LZR if the international body that oversees swimming allows the suit to be worn?
And your baseball analogy is a bit off as well. In swimming even the team events are just a series of individual races linked together. Baseball is a sport where offense is individual to a great extent, but defense has to be a team effort. So while players do love to lead the league in homers, batting, or strikeouts the ultimate goal of all the players on every team is not to set their personal bests, but to win the World Series. Swimming is unlike that in that, according to you, winning is secondary to setting your personal best times. Which begs the question, if setting your own personal best time is a goal on par with winning a meet, why all the angst over the LZR suit in the first place? What another swimmer wears to achieve his personal best time has no bearing on what a competitor does when he is in the water, since it is not about winning but beating your own time. Right?
Harry| 3.27.09 @ 10:43AM
The LZR suit is the maple bat of the swimming world.
Paul from SA| 3.27.09 @ 11:27AM
So if an athlete improves their best time or breaks a world record using new equipment, how can you compare that accompliment with the previous bests? Was it the equipment or something else?
Although steriods are not equipment, the logic holds for baseball. The home run record is tarnished. If they suddenly allowed new bats, available to all, that result in more home runs, does that not invalidate any comparisons with the previous record? Ok, though I guess it depends on the pitcher, so that is a flawed example.... And swimming, to get technical, the water and pool do make a difference too.....
With so many new world swimming records set suddenly all at one time, all with swimmers using the new suit, it had to be due soley to the new suits.
If you win first place, maybe the competition that day was inferior. How do you compare with history's best? With new equipment, you can't.
Maybe I didn't state it well, my point is comparing world records is what matters in swimming and track. Winning 8 gold medals is tremendous, but....
Richard Baker| 3.28.09 @ 12:47PM
If the men swim naked does that mean the women will too?
Daphne| 3.28.09 @ 12:59PM
Why go there, Baker? EW!
GoDaddy| 3.31.09 @ 2:33AM
Swimming is the act of pulling one's body through water...the suit decreases friction and improves muscle power and efficiency. It can increase buoyancy if it traps air in the fibers.
Bicyclists and sprinters wear aerodynamic suits and helmets for exactly the same reason. Marathon runners don't because it has no effect over a 2 hour race.
But next year some company will come out with a super-slippery material that increases speed by another 1-2%.
What was overlooked in this article were the significant technical improvements to wave reduction in the swimming pools, particularly at The Cube (Beijing Aquatics center) also making faster swimming possible.
But that is all science...my own vote is the organization in charge of swimming simply specify the minimum amount of skin that must be directly exposed to the water for both men and women and let Speedo and whomever else go off and get the slipperiest material possible. Then most of the gains in speed will result from conditioning and training rather than from science.
As for baseball, science solved the problem of excessive home runs at Coors Field...now the game balls are stored in humidors and pre-conditioned before each game, which leveled the playing field for everyone. I dread to think what Barry Bonds would have done had he spent any time in the Rockies organization before that was understood.
Sport should be about human achievement rather than technical breakthroughs.
Kim| 3.31.10 @ 9:29AM
Geotrust QuickSSL Premium Certificate
Anny smith| 6.30.11 @ 5:47AM
I completely agree with GoDaddy. Swimming is about physical competition and helps to improve body's efficiency to stay active. Its not about the hi-tech swimming gadgets.
Geotrust QuickSSL Premium Certificate