[UPDATED] Per Ted's suggestion regarding my choice of bicycles
Pictured above: Introducing the Nike LunarGlide+ :
LunarLite Foam
Nike first introduced LunarLite foam in the summer of 2008 in Beijing as the mid-sole cushioning system of the Nike LunaRacer and Nike Lunar Trainer running shoes and in the Nike Hyperdunk basketball shoe. Traditional cushioning systems only absorb energy upon impact while LunarLite foam has proven to provide superior cushioning and significant energy return.
When compared to swimming, that last sentence is the moral equal of alleged buoyancy in swimming. Energy return from a shoe makes your run easier plain and simple.
A "purist" from two centuries ago could argue that running barefoot is better for track & field since high-tech shoes make it easier for the "lesser athletes" to win.
Track & Field still adopted technology from rubber shoes to rubber tracks to draw interest to the sport and look how it grew.
Why should swimming be any different?
Here are some examples of other individual sports. Below are two bicycles, one competed in the tour de France in 1939, the other is a prototype:
Above and to the left is a bicycle ridden in the 1939 Tour de France called the Super Champion, a technological achievement due to the fact it had a derailleur so as to allow the rider to ride through the hills more effectively by choosing his gearing.
Cycling moved into the future and the Tour de France is an epic battle between men and not machines. Yes, there are discussions regarding equipment but it is Eddy Merckx, Lance Armstrong, and Miguel Indurain who are discussed not their equipment.
The FS range of rackets uses 7000 series aluminium, a graphite reinforced throat. They are 'honker' big when compared to the vintage model.Can you say Serena Williams? Do you know what equipment she uses? I don't and I am not asking what racket she uses when she plays, are you?
With her strength, coordination and a racket in her hand like that, she is both beauty and the beast and her games rock!
The lighter frame and enlarged area allows Serena to drill that ball with all her strength, Hence, a player of today is not a stylist but rather an athlete.
The weight reduction and larger contact area is once again the moral equal to alleged buoyancy in swimming.
Above is the TYR Titan made with the same style of fabric that the blueseventy and RocketScience suits are made from. It was banned under very mysterious circumstances. I have to leave it at that.
So unlike running, cycling, and swimming. Swimming under FINA is destined to embrace an "Amish existence" in regards to growth, technology and fun!
That must change!
17 comments:
We get it, we get it, you're pro technology. I like cool sneakers and fancy tennis rackets too. But embracing the newest speed suits isn't really embracing technology. It's more like allowing kids to use Excel on math tests -- suddenly everyone can calculate quickly. And the standouts, if you can even identify them, might not be the best at math...they might be the best at, well, Excel.
I have to give you some sh*t here Tony, because you seem to base your argument on the assumption that these suits make the sport more exciting. Yet most of your posts this week have been about the suits, not the sport. I think you're just psyched to throw on a polyurethane suit at a master's meet and see how fast you can go. Sorry buddy, I'm calling your bluff here. ;-)
In all seriousness, there's a line to be drawn here, and it's silly of us to ignore that in the name of "technology." A sport that doesn't regulate itself implodes on itself. Have the banking, real estate, and auto industries taught us nothing about exercising a little common sense and accountability?
i was just kinda thinking... whats wrong with breaking world records at EVERY swim meet? isnt that the point of the hours and hours of training everyday? to break records and set new standards? what if FINA said that there can be NO further advancements in suit technology, and the suits that we are using today are the suits we have to wear for the rest time? i think this is a better solution than "wiping" the slate clean of all suits and trying a "throw" back to older technologies...
even if we get rid of these suits, what will happen if swimmers DO swim times comparable to those swam in the techsuits? are we going to start banning pool technologies? as mentioned in previous posts, the pools that are utilized during competition these days are made for FAST swimming. deeper pools, better lane lines & gutter systems, and soon only indoor competition! are we going to go back to shallow pools and flat starts off the pool side outdoors come rain or shine?
companies will look for a way to make money whether is a swimsuit, training gear, pool systems, etc. and swimmers wil continue to look for ways to have an edge over their competition. if athletes dont have these suits to give them the "extra boost" that they feel they need to be competitive, they might turn to PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCES! id rather have a swimmer wear a suit than take drugs, because this sends the WRONG message to younger athletes who want to be on the Olympic podium someday. it would be much easier and safer to buy an (expensive) suit, than take ANY substance!
also, i think another reason why these suits are talked about more than other swim technology is because they are the most noticeable. how many people that watch swimming would notice that the pool is deeper, the lane lines & gutter system is better, or that training has changed over the years?
how common was it for a swimmer to have a coach, personal trainer, nutritionist, massage therapist, etc in the 60s? 70s? 80s? or even the 90s?!?! i'm sure many of the people who are speeking out against these suits arent taking these factors into consideration. swimming these days is almost like a temporary careers. you hear of many of these successful swimmers practicing about 5-6 hours a day! how many professionals do you know physically exert themselves to the max for this long 5 to 6 days a week?
Tony,
Be careful when you talk about other sports. FYI, no way you would ever be able to ride that "NUIJA" in the Tour de' France.
There's actually pretty strict regulations as to what the UCI considers a racing bicycle. For example, they can't weigh less than 15 pounds. At that's just one reg.
Hey Tony:
This is the seocnd time FINA has "mysteriously" ruled against TYR.
Have any ideas???
I don't have just an idea but I can't publish it till I get a hard letter in my hands from an attorney who does not work for tyr
Ted, I revised my choice of bicycles and updated the article. I used Lance Armstrong's time trial bike from the 2009 Tour de France.
Recumbent bicycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle) were banned by international federation in 1930's. They are still the fastest bikes, but ruled out from the competitions.
You are refering Nike's marketing for the sneakers. Sure they are fancy. In tennis you don't have records.
IAAF rules about shoes in track & field:
"Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage."
(Rule 143 in http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/95/59/20090303014358_httppostedfile_CompetitionRules2009_printed_8986.pdf)
Check out for an example IAAF rules about running track measurements and stop whining.
What to do with the current records? In the javelin throw rules has been changed several times. Just wipe the charts clean and the best result with new rules in the end of the 2010 will be the new world record.
I am not going to read the IAAF document because it is obvious and demonstrable that this NIKE shoe would be more effect in a middle distance sprint or a marathon than bare feet or sandals could ever be.
Nice analogies. There are some differences(I think)with swimming. First, for bicycling and tennis, the athletes are mostly competing against eachother so the equipment advantages are disguised. Its true that Nadal would crush Borg because of a better racket--but we just count grand slams mostly where they are competing against people who are similarly equipped. Second, in track, they have regulated equipment to limit the advantage it gives. Composite poles for pole vaulting have specific performance requirements so that the records advance slowly. The pace of record setting in tracke and field has continued to be slow over the last 50 years even with improvements in technology.
FINA has really mis-calculated the whole technology issues because it just didn't anticipate or understand the amount of advantage. It may sound silly but Libby Trickett's 52.9 last August was a continued modest advance. Steffen's 52.2 in a non-Olympic year was too much, too soon. I realize that is a subjective evaluation, but I think the key is that seeing modest incremental advances is OK--dramatic drops as have been seen across the board in almost every event seems wrong.
Kerry said:
::::Yet most of your posts this week have been about the suits, not the sport. ::::
I think that's the crux of the issue, for me. I understand the financial arguments in favor of keeping the suits, but I'm quite sick of discussing fabric and rips and brands. I would like to discuss strokes, to see more underwater slow motion photography, to compare techniques. That's what the beauty of the sport is for me, and that's what makes it exciting for me.
thank you for the nice comment. I take anything you post seriously. I suppose the crux is how to regulate technology much like the Fed Reserve, when rational, modulates interest rates.
I must admit, when I see your comments, I think, oh no, what did I screw up now! 0_o
This will probably be the last meet we ever see these suits again. They are part of the story are they not?
I don't know - I am kind of in the middle of this. You could have gone either way --
Sure all the records are being broken this year - but that would probably not be the case next year and the year after that. Records are good for the sport - I don't like watching some of the track events where the records may never be broken. Maybe Phelps would have only set 1 record at Bejing without the LZR - so be careful what you wish for.
On the other hand -- I think it should be more about the racing than the suit. I thought the 100 Free was an epic showdown race -- I really don't care about the time all that much. Cielo vs Bernard, Bousquet in lane 8.
I do think that Phelps is a very poor sport - the playing field last year was not equal -- not everybody was able to wear the LZR, but that was all great. Now this year the playing field is even, but he chooses to be stubborn and starts whining about the suits. I am certain Speedo would rather have him wear a differnt suit for a few races than hearing over and over how the LZR is not competitive ...
I guess like track and cycling it should be about measured technology.
When I wrote this I thought no one was going to read it - there goes 4-hours! and then I thought, am I turning into an alternate universe Craig Lord.
"I am not going to read the IAAF document because it is obvious and demonstrable that this NIKE shoe would be more effect in a middle distance sprint or a marathon than bare feet or sandals could ever be."
Whatever. Keep the faith.
Post a Comment