Has anyone noticed a difference in times or other related changes due to the
new suits?

Micheal

"Micheal Artindale" wrote:

>Has anyone noticed a difference in times
>or other related changes due to the new
>suits?

>Micheal

Too many other factors to consider when comparing times and changes from
past to present. Evolving innovations in coaching, training, nutrition,
pool design, to name a few, in addition to new suit designs, are all
considerations to be taken into account for any meaningful comparison.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>
>> Has anyone noticed a difference in times
>> or other related changes due to the new
>> suits?
>
> Too many other factors to consider when comparing times and changes
> from past to present. Evolving innovations in coaching, training,
> nutrition, pool design, to name a few, in addition to new suit
> designs, are all considerations to be taken into account for any
> meaningful comparison.

Uh, just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce times.

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:aGKsk.1019$hp4.237@fe085.usenetserver.com...
> Steve Curtis wrote:
>> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone noticed a difference in times
>>> or other related changes due to the new
>>> suits?
>>
>> Too many other factors to consider when comparing times and changes
>> from past to present. Evolving innovations in coaching, training,
>> nutrition, pool design, to name a few, in addition to new suit
>> designs, are all considerations to be taken into account for any
>> meaningful comparison.
>
> Uh, just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce
> times.
>
>

But... did anyone realy prove that they did?

Micheal

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Micheal Artindale" wrote:

>>>Has anyone noticed a difference in
>>>times or other related changes due to
>>>the new suits?

>>Too many other factors to consider
>>when comparing times and changes
>>from past to present. Evolving
>>innovations in coaching, training,
>>nutrition, pool design, to name a few, in
>>addition to new suit designs, are all
>>considerations to be taken into account
>>for any meaningful comparison.

>Uh, just about everyone in swimming is
>in agreement that they reduce times.

Uh, just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that other factors
as well contribute to reduced times along with new suits. Guess you
missed the inclusive phrase: "in addition to new suit designs" and its
connection to "meaningful comparison" in the previous post.
Comprehension problems?

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>
>>>> Has anyone noticed a difference in
>>>> times or other related changes due to
>>>> the new suits?
>
>>> Too many other factors to consider
>>> when comparing times and changes
>>> from past to present. Evolving
>>> innovations in coaching, training,
>>> nutrition, pool design, to name a few, in
>>> addition to new suit designs, are all
>>> considerations to be taken into account
>>> for any meaningful comparison.
>
>> Uh, just about everyone in swimming is
>> in agreement that they reduce times.
>
> Uh, just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that other factors
> as well contribute to reduced times along with new suits. Guess you
> missed the inclusive phrase: "in addition to new suit designs" and its
> connection to "meaningful comparison" in the previous post.
> Comprehension problems?

Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly widely
accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times. The fact that other
factors may also do so is irrelevant.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>"Micheal Artindale" wrote:

>>>>>Has anyone noticed a difference in
>>>>>times or other related changes due
>>>>>to the new suits?

>>>>Too many other factors to consider
>>>>when comparing times and changes
>>>>from past to present. Evolving
>>>>innovations in coaching, training,
>>>>nutrition, pool design, to name a few,
>>>>in addition to new suit designs, are
>>>>all considerations to be taken into
>>>>account for any meaningful
>>>>comparison.

>>>Uh, just about everyone in swimming
>>>is in agreement that they reduce
>>>times.

>>Uh, just about everyone in swimming is
>>in agreement that other factors as well
>>contribute to reduced times along with
>>new suits. Guess you missed the
>>inclusive phrase: "in addition to new
>>suit designs" and its connection to
>>"meaningful comparison" in the
>>previous post. Comprehension
>>problems?

>Nope. My post stands. The OP was
>asking about suits. It is clearly widely
>accepted in swimming circles that the
>new suits lower times. The fact that
>other factors may also do so is
>irrelevant.

Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP was asking about a "difference in
times" (i.e. quantifiable amounts) "or other related changes due to the
new suits," but those differences in times between former swimming
performances and present performances have to be compared taking other
contributory factors into account along with the suit effects. Again,
you've missed the "meaningful" in "meaningful comparison" when comparing
past with present times.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>>>> Uh, just about everyone in swimming
>>>> is in agreement that they reduce
>>>> times.
>
>>> Uh, just about everyone in swimming is
>>> in agreement that other factors as well
>>> contribute to reduced times along with
>>> new suits. Guess you missed the
>>> inclusive phrase: "in addition to new
>>> suit designs" and its connection to
>>> "meaningful comparison" in the
>>> previous post. Comprehension
>>> problems?
>
>> Nope. My post stands. The OP was
>> asking about suits. It is clearly widely
>> accepted in swimming circles that the
>> new suits lower times. The fact that
>> other factors may also do so is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP was asking about a "difference in
> times" (i.e. quantifiable amounts) "or other related changes due to
> the new suits," but those differences in times between former swimming
> performances and present performances have to be compared taking other
> contributory factors into account along with the suit effects.

Wrong. If swimmers, coaches, etc. are correct that the new suits lower times
then times were lower at the Olympics where the suits were used than they
otherwise would have been. It's as simple as that.

> Again,
> you've missed the "meaningful" in "meaningful comparison" when
> comparing past with present times.

No I have not missed it. Do you think I'm only talking about tiny fractions of
improvement? Obviously, in swimming circles the effect of the suit is believed
to be significant.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP was
>>asking about a "difference in times" (i.e.
>>quantifiable amounts) "or other related
>>changes due to the new suits," but
>>those differences in times between
>>former swimming performances and
>>present performances have to be
>>compared taking other contributory
>>factors into account along with the suit
>>effects.

>Wrong. If swimmers, coaches, etc. are
>correct that the new suits lower times
>then times were lower at the Olympics
>where the suits were used than they
>otherwise would have been. It's as
>simple as that.

You're dismissing the fact that lower times at the Olympics were a
result of better training, coaching, nutrition, pool design, etc. along
with the advanced suit technology. All of those factors contributed to
improved times.

>>Again, you've missed the "meaningful"
>>in "meaningful comparison" when
>>comparing past with present times.

>No I have not missed it. Do you think I'm
>only talking about tiny fractions of
>improvement? Obviously, in swimming
>circles the effect of the suit is believed to
>be significant.

No one is denying the effect of the suit, but when comparing times past
with times present, all contributory factors have to be considered,
including suit effects, to develop a meaningful comparison. Would you
claim that the suits provide the same amount of reduction in times for
all swimmers wearing them?

On Aug 26, 6:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Steve Curtis wrote:
> > "DavidW" wrote:
>
> >> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
> >>> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>
> >>>> Has anyone noticed a difference in
> >>>> times or other related changes due to
> >>>> the new suits?
>
> >>> Too many other factors to consider
> >>> when comparing times and changes
> >>> from past to present. Evolving
> >>> innovations in coaching, training,
> >>> nutrition, pool design, to name a few, in
> >>> addition to new suit designs, are all
> >>> considerations to be taken into account
> >>> for any meaningful comparison.
>
> >> Uh, just about everyone in swimming is
> >> in agreement that they reduce times.
>
> > Uh, just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that other factors
> > as well contribute to reduced times along with new suits. Guess you
> > missed the inclusive phrase: "in addition to new suit designs" and its
> > connection to "meaningful comparison" in the previous post.
> > Comprehension problems?
>
> Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly widely
> accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times. The fact that other
> factors may also do so is irrelevant.

If that's true, then swimmers who used the suits in the Olympics knew
they were cheating.

SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.

Unless that rule was changed, then even if the suits were officially
allowed, using them was cheating by rule SW 10.7. It means swimmers
were trying to cheat.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP was
>>> asking about a "difference in times" (i.e.
>>> quantifiable amounts) "or other related
>>> changes due to the new suits," but
>>> those differences in times between
>>> former swimming performances and
>>> present performances have to be
>>> compared taking other contributory
>>> factors into account along with the suit
>>> effects.
>
>> Wrong. If swimmers, coaches, etc. are
>> correct that the new suits lower times
>> then times were lower at the Olympics
>> where the suits were used than they
>> otherwise would have been. It's as
>> simple as that.
>
> You're dismissing the fact that lower times at the Olympics were a
> result of better training, coaching, nutrition, pool design, etc.
> along with the advanced suit technology. All of those factors
> contributed to improved times.

*groan* Did I say that _all_ the improvement in times was due to suits? The OP
asked about suits, not about training or nutrition. The suits improve times.

>>> Again, you've missed the "meaningful"
>>> in "meaningful comparison" when
>>> comparing past with present times.
>
>> No I have not missed it. Do you think I'm
>> only talking about tiny fractions of
>> improvement? Obviously, in swimming
>> circles the effect of the suit is believed to
>> be significant.
>
> No one is denying the effect of the suit,

Then what are you arguing about?

[irrelevant material removed]

Who lets these people on Usenet?

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP
>>>>was asking about a "difference in
>>>>times" (i.e. quantifiable amounts) "or
>>>>other related changes due to the new
>>>>suits," but those differences in times
>>>>between former swimming
>>>>performances and present
>>>>performances have to be compared
>>>>taking other contributory factors into
>>>>account along with the suit effects.

>>>Wrong. If swimmers, coaches, etc. are
>>>correct that the new suits lower times
>>>then times were lower at the Olympics
>>>where the suits were used than they
>>>otherwise would have been. It's as
>>>simple as that.

>>You're dismissing the fact that lower
>>times at the Olympics were a result of
>>better training, coaching, nutrition, pool
>>design, etc. along with the advanced
>>suit technology. All of those factors
>>contributed to improved times.

>*groan* Did I say that _all_ the
>improvement in times was due to suits?
>The OP asked about suits, not about
>training or nutrition. The suits improve
>times.

The OP asked about a "difference" in times and "changes" with the suits.
You're claiming that the "difference" is, in your words, "significant."
So tell me "Einstein" how "significant" is the improvement in times with
the suits alone, ignoring all the other contributing factors involved?
At best the contribution of the suits is relatively minor compared to
all the other factors.

>>>>Again, you've missed the
>>>>"meaningful" in "meaningful
>>>>comparison" when comparing past
>>>>with present times.

>>>No I have not missed it. Do you think
>>>I'm only talking about tiny fractions of
>>>improvement? Obviously, in swimming
>>>circles the effect of the suit is believed
>>>to be significant.

>>No one is denying the effect of the suit,

>Then what are you arguing about?

Again, tell me the contribution of the suits alone.

>[irrelevant material removed]
>Who lets these people on Usenet?

Pot, kettle,.... This coming from someone who posts the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>>>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>>>> Nope. Your post is bogus. The OP
>>>>> was asking about a "difference in
>>>>> times" (i.e. quantifiable amounts) "or
>>>>> other related changes due to the new
>>>>> suits," but those differences in times
>>>>> between former swimming
>>>>> performances and present
>>>>> performances have to be compared
>>>>> taking other contributory factors into
>>>>> account along with the suit effects.
>
>>>> Wrong. If swimmers, coaches, etc. are
>>>> correct that the new suits lower times
>>>> then times were lower at the Olympics
>>>> where the suits were used than they
>>>> otherwise would have been. It's as
>>>> simple as that.
>
>>> You're dismissing the fact that lower
>>> times at the Olympics were a result of
>>> better training, coaching, nutrition, pool
>>> design, etc. along with the advanced
>>> suit technology. All of those factors
>>> contributed to improved times.
>
>> *groan* Did I say that _all_ the
>> improvement in times was due to suits?
>> The OP asked about suits, not about
>> training or nutrition. The suits improve
>> times.
>
> The OP asked about a "difference" in times and "changes" with the
> suits. You're claiming that the "difference" is, in your words,
> "significant." So tell me "Einstein" how "significant" is the
> improvement in times with the suits alone, ignoring all the other
> contributing factors involved? At best the contribution of the suits
> is relatively minor compared to all the other factors.

The explosion of world records since the suit became available suggests that the
suit is very significant compared with other factors.

In any case, in this thread I've been consistent in relying on the general
belief in swimming circles that the suit reduces times significantly. I've
clearly qualified my statements on the suit in that respect.

>>>>> Again, you've missed the
>>>>> "meaningful" in "meaningful
>>>>> comparison" when comparing past
>>>>> with present times.
>
>>>> No I have not missed it. Do you think
>>>> I'm only talking about tiny fractions of
>>>> improvement? Obviously, in swimming
>>>> circles the effect of the suit is believed
>>>> to be significant.
>
>>> No one is denying the effect of the suit,
>
>> Then what are you arguing about?
>
> Again, tell me the contribution of the suits alone.

Ask swimmers, coaches etc.

>> [irrelevant material removed]
>> Who lets these people on Usenet?
>
> Pot, kettle,.... This coming from someone who posts the following:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source

I don't understand why you keep reminding the newsgroup of your deliberate
ignorance of etiquette.

"Well, this is from one of your posts:

"Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly widely
accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times. The fact that
other
factors may also do so is irrelevant."

I, for one, do NOT believe that "other factors" are irrelevant. Your
statement makes it appears that the record times are due to the suits and
nothing else. I think that is what he was questioning. It is like the
statement in Physics "all other things being equal" when we know that in
real life 'all other things' are never equal. I doubt you would find any
other person who would stand behind the statement that the suits and suits
alone were responsible for the record times.

Pat in TX

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>The OP asked about suits, not about
>>>training or nutrition. The suits improve
>>>times.

>>The OP asked about a "difference" in
>>times and "changes" with the suits.
>>You're claiming that the "difference" is,
>>in your words, "significant." So tell me
>>"Einstein" how "significant" is the
>>improvement in times with the suits
>>alone, ignoring all the other contributing
>>factors involved? At best the
>>contribution of the suits is relatively
>>minor compared to all the other factors.
>The explosion of world records since the
>suit became available suggests that the
>suit is very significant compared with
>other factors.

No, the "explosion" suggests that the level of competitiveness was
greater with the help of all factors combined.

>In any case, in this thread I've been
>consistent in relying on the general belief
>in swimming circles that the suit reduces
>times significantly. I've clearly qualified
>my statements on the suit in that
>respect.

But, you haven't quantified your statements. You might want to re-think
your definition of "significant."

>>>Then what are you arguing about?

>>Again, tell me the contribution of the
>>suits alone.

>Ask swimmers, coaches etc.

I'm asking you.

>>>[irrelevant material removed]
>>>Who lets these people on Usenet?

>>Pot, kettle,.... This coming from
>>someone who posts the following:

>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source

>I don't understand why you keep
>reminding the newsgroup of your
>deliberate ignorance of etiquette.

Wrong, the newsgroup is being reminded of the nature of your character
as revealed in that post.

Pat wrote:
> "Well, this is from one of your posts:
>
> "Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly
> widely accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times.
> The fact that other
> factors may also do so is irrelevant."
>
> I, for one, do NOT believe that "other factors" are irrelevant.

Neither do I - to swimmers' times that is. However, they are irrelevant to this
thread.

> Your
> statement makes it appears that the record times are due to the suits
> and nothing else.

Only if you misinterpret it. According to this article:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20080810pb.html
"Studies have shown that its drag-diminishing properties lower racing times by
1.9 to 2.2 percent,..."
If that is true, then, with all the latest nutrition, training, coaching etc, if
you are capable of swimming 100m freestyle in 50s without the suit then you are
capable of swimming it in 49.05s with the suit. IMO, that is a significant
reduction.

The OP asked _specifically_ about the effect of the new suits. Do they lower
times? Yes, they do, according to available information. Why is that so hard to
grasp, FFS?

"DavidW" wrote:

>The OP asked _specifically_ about the
>effect of the new suits. Do they lower
>times? Yes, they do, according to
>available information. Why is that so
>hard to grasp, FFS?

No, the OP asked verbatim: "Has anyone noticed a difference in times or
other related changes due to the new suits?"

The "difference" in times is a little more complex than just the
addition of new suits, especially if one were to analyze the reasons
behind those time "differences" with attention to detail. Why is that so
hard for you to grasp?

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> The OP asked _specifically_ about the
>> effect of the new suits. Do they lower
>> times? Yes, they do, according to
>> available information. Why is that so
>> hard to grasp, FFS?
>
> No, the OP asked verbatim: "Has anyone noticed a difference in times
> or other related changes due to the new suits?"
>
> The "difference" in times is a little more complex than just the
> addition of new suits, especially if one were to analyze the reasons
> behind those time "differences" with attention to detail. Why is that
> so hard for you to grasp?

You are getting desperate. The new suits lower times significantly, according to
those in swimming circles. Therefore, there is a signifiant difference in times
due to the new suit. That's all you need to know to answer the OP's question.
Factors that lower times in addition to the suit are outside the scope of this
thread. Give up.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>The OP asked _specifically_ about the
>>>effect of the new suits. Do they lower
>>>times? Yes, they do, according to
>>>available information. Why is that so
>>>hard to grasp, FFS?

>>No, the OP asked verbatim: "Has
>>anyone noticed a difference in times or
>>other related changes due to the new
>>suits?"

>>The "difference" in times is a little more
>>complex than just the addition of new
>>suits, especially if one were to analyze
>>the reasons behind those time
>>"differences" with attention to detail.
>>Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

>You are getting desperate.

No, any desperation perceived in this thread is being made apparent by
you with your futile attempts at face-saving.

>The new suits lower times significantly,
>according to those in swimming circles.
>Therefore, there is a significant
>difference in times due to the new suit.

Define and quantify "significant."

>That's all you need to know to answer
>the OP's question.

No, one needs to know how all factors combined contribute to differences
in times. Suits alone are only one component of a complex set of factors
that account for differences in times.

>Factors that lower times in addition to
>the suit are outside the scope of this
>thread. Give up.

See above comment, same principle applies and is within scope. What
should be given up?

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>>> No, the OP asked verbatim: "Has
>>> anyone noticed a difference in times or
>>> other related changes due to the new
>>> suits?"
>
>>> The "difference" in times is a little more
>>> complex than just the addition of new
>>> suits, especially if one were to analyze
>>> the reasons behind those time
>>> "differences" with attention to detail.
>>> Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
>
>> The new suits lower times significantly,
>> according to those in swimming circles.
>> Therefore, there is a significant
>> difference in times due to the new suit.
>
> Define and quantify "significant."

You have access to the same information that I do. Define and quantify it
yourself.

Would you use the same inane arguing technique of insisting on a quantification
of the effects of modern nutrition and training before you accept that they are
"significant"?

>> That's all you need to know to answer
>> the OP's question.
>
> No, one needs to know how all factors combined contribute to
> differences in times.

No, one doesn't if one is only interested in the effect of the suits.

> Suits alone are only one component of a complex
> set of factors that account for differences in times.

Nobody asked about the total dfferences in times. Someone asked about
differences due to the suits. See original post.

>> Factors that lower times in addition to
>> the suit are outside the scope of this
>> thread. Give up.
>
> See above comment, same principle applies and is within scope. What
> should be given up?

If someone comes along here and asks if a swimmer's kick makes a difference to
his times I suggest that you don't respond, since the poster will probably want
a simple, clear answer.

On Aug 27, 6:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

> Nobody asked about the total dfferences in times. Someone asked about
> differences due to the suits. See original post.

The original question was "Has anyone noticed a difference in times or
other related changes due to the new
suits?"

"due to" means caused by or ascribable to, but your answer wasn't
about faster times being caused by or ascribable to the suits. You
said "just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce
times," which might be true but doesn't answer the question. Most
Americans were in agreement that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, but he
didn't. In this case, I'm not even sure most swimmers actually believe
the suits reduce times. I think what they believe is that in case the
suits do reduce times they have to wear one because the other swimmers
are wearing them.

On Aug 27, 11:09 am, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > Nobody asked about the total dfferences in times. Someone asked about
> > differences due to the suits. See original post.
>
> The original question was "Has anyone noticed a difference in times or
> other related changes due to the new
> suits?"
>
> "due to" means caused by or ascribable to, but your answer wasn't
> about faster times being caused by or ascribable to the suits. You
> said "just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce
> times," which might be true but doesn't answer the question. Most
> Americans were in agreement that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, but he
> didn't. In this case, I'm not even sure most swimmers actually believe
> the suits reduce times. I think what they believe is that in case the
> suits do reduce times they have to wear one because the other swimmers
> are wearing them.

I also think there are two other reasons why swimmers wear the suits.
One is probably money. If Speedo offers money and equipment to your
club in exchange for your top swimmers wearing the suits, you will
probably take the deal. Or if you are a swimmer who is offered paid
expenses to wear a suit, you will probably take that deal. I don't
know if such deals are being made, but there is a lot of R&D money
being spent on developing these suits, and they have to get a pay-
off.

The other reason, irrational though it may be, is modesty or religion.
How many times here have we had to listen to some idiot wailing on and
on about being ashamed to wear a speedo brief, or making fun of some
other swimmer for wearing a "banana hammock." These humanoids should
not be allowed in swimming pools along with human beings, but we
aren't allowed to discriminate. I suppose it is conceivable that a few
of them, as single-minded as they are, actually make it to the elite
level.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>The new suits lower times
>>>significantly, according to those in
>>>swimming circles. Therefore, there is
>>>a significant difference in times due to
>>>the new suit.

>>Define and quantify "significant."

>You have access to the same
>information that I do. Define and quantify
>it yourself.

So, that response is to be taken as an admission by you that you don't
know diddly squat about the amount of suit effects thereby establishing
that you're full of crap.

>Would you use the same inane arguing
>technique of insisting on a quantification
>of the effects of modern nutrition and
>training before you accept that they are
>"significant"?

Those things are quantifiable. Do your "homework."

>>>That's all you need to know to answer
>>>the OP's question.

>>No, one needs to know how all factors
>>combined contribute to differences in
>>times.

>No, one doesn't if one is only interested
>in the effect of the suits.

For comparing differences in times in swimming events, all factors have
to be considered for thorough analyses.

So what method would you propose for just comparing differences in times
for suits alone? Go ahead, enlighten me.


>>Suits alone are only one component of
>>a complex set of factors that account
>>for differences in times.

>Nobody asked about the total differences
>in times. Someone asked about
>differences due to the suits. See original
>post.

There's nothing "total" about differences in times. Differences in times
are just that, changes in times that are compared for each particular
swimming event. Those changes are a result of all the aforementioned
factors and a few more that haven't been mentioned.

>>>Factors that lower times in addition to
>>>the suit are outside the scope of this
>>>thread. Give up.

>>See above comment, same principle
>>applies and is within scope. What
>>should be given up?

>If someone comes along here and asks if
>a swimmer's kick makes a difference to
>his times I suggest that you don't
>respond, since the poster will probably
>want a simple, clear answer.

A "simple, clear answer" would be that a swimmer's kick in addition to
other related swimming factors would account for differences in times.

I would suggest to you that you don't advise others as to whether they
should respond to posts or not.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> Nobody asked about the total dfferences in times. Someone asked about
>> differences due to the suits. See original post.
>
> The original question was "Has anyone noticed a difference in times or
> other related changes due to the new
> suits?"
>
> "due to" means caused by or ascribable to, but your answer wasn't
> about faster times being caused by or ascribable to the suits. You
> said "just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce
> times," which might be true but doesn't answer the question. Most
> Americans were in agreement that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, but he
> didn't. In this case, I'm not even sure most swimmers actually believe
> the suits reduce times. I think what they believe is that in case the
> suits do reduce times they have to wear one because the other swimmers
> are wearing them.

I have been quite clear in qualifying my statements on the suit. I am not saying
that swimmers, coaches etc. are right. I've said that if they are right the suit
lowered times at the Olympics. Doesn't anyone here _read_?

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>>>> The new suits lower times
>>>> significantly, according to those in
>>>> swimming circles. Therefore, there is
>>>> a significant difference in times due to
>>>> the new suit.
>
>>> Define and quantify "significant."
>
>> You have access to the same
>> information that I do. Define and quantify
>> it yourself.
>
> So, that response is to be taken as an admission by you that you don't
> know diddly squat about the amount of suit effects thereby
> establishing that you're full of crap.

Swimmers, coaches etc. believe that it makes a significant difference. I've been
saying that all along.

>> Would you use the same inane arguing
>> technique of insisting on a quantification
>> of the effects of modern nutrition and
>> training before you accept that they are
>> "significant"?
>
> Those things are quantifiable. Do your "homework."

Then how about you quantify them for us.

>>>> That's all you need to know to answer
>>>> the OP's question.
>
>>> No, one needs to know how all factors
>>> combined contribute to differences in
>>> times.
>
>> No, one doesn't if one is only interested
>> in the effect of the suits.
>
> For comparing differences in times in swimming events, all factors
> have to be considered for thorough analyses.

No, they don't. A suit that reduces drag compared with other suits will produce
lower times independently of other factors.

> So what method would you propose for just comparing differences in
> times for suits alone? Go ahead, enlighten me.

Ask the researchers, manufacturers. I'm relying on the general belief in
swimming circles that the suits make a significant difference, and have done all
along. I haven't said they're right.

>>> Suits alone are only one component of
>>> a complex set of factors that account
>>> for differences in times.
>
>> Nobody asked about the total differences
>> in times. Someone asked about
>> differences due to the suits. See original
>> post.
>
> There's nothing "total" about differences in times. Differences in
> times are just that, changes in times that are compared for each
> particular swimming event. Those changes are a result of all the
> aforementioned factors and a few more that haven't been mentioned.

A suit that reduces drag compared with other suits will lower times.

>>>> Factors that lower times in addition to
>>>> the suit are outside the scope of this
>>>> thread. Give up.
>
>>> See above comment, same principle
>>> applies and is within scope. What
>>> should be given up?
>
>> If someone comes along here and asks if
>> a swimmer's kick makes a difference to
>> his times I suggest that you don't
>> respond, since the poster will probably
>> want a simple, clear answer.
>
> A "simple, clear answer" would be that a swimmer's kick in addition to
> other related swimming factors would account for differences in times.

No, a simple, clear and correct answer would be "Yes." Or, are you claiming that
kicking makes no difference? Well, then, let's tell all swimmers not to bother.
Just a waste of energy.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 26, 6:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly
>> widely accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times.
>> The fact that other factors may also do so is irrelevant.
>
> If that's true, then swimmers who used the suits in the Olympics knew
> they were cheating.
>
> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
> may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
> webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>
> Unless that rule was changed, then even if the suits were officially
> allowed, using them was cheating by rule SW 10.7.

I disagree. A high-tech suit only aids speed relative to a lower-tech suit, say
by reducing drag on the swimmer, but it has no locomotion capabilities of its
own and does not aid the swimmer's locomotion (as, e.g., flippers would). The
rule describes no reference suit with which a given suit may be compared to
determine if it breaches the rule. If the LZR breaks this rule (ignoring the
debate concerning buoyancy) then so does every other swimsuit.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>>>The new suits lower times
>>>>>significantly, according to those in
>>>>>swimming circles. Therefore, there
>>>>>is a significant difference in times
>>>>>due to the new suit.

>>>>Define and quantify "significant."

>>>You have access to the same
>>>information that I do. Define and
>>>quantify it yourself.

>>So, that response is to be taken as an
>>admission by you that you don't know
>>diddly squat about the amount of suit
>>effects thereby establishing that you're
>>full of crap.

>Swimmers, coaches etc. believe that it
>makes a significant difference. I've been
>saying that all along.

What swimmers, coaches, and how much is "significant"? Hundredths of a
second, tenths of a second? What?

>>>Would you use the same inane
>>>arguing technique of insisting on a
>>>quantification of the effects of modern
>>>nutrition and training before you
>>>accept that they are "significant"?

>>Those things are quantifiable. Do your
>>"homework."

>Then how about you quantify them for
>us.

Do your own research on calorie counting etc.

>>>>>That's all you need to know to
>>>>>answer the OP's question.

>>>>No, one needs to know how all
>>>>factors combined contribute to
>>>>differences in times.

>>>No, one doesn't if one is only
>>>interested in the effect of the suits.

>>For comparing differences in times in
>>swimming events, all factors have to be
>>considered for thorough analyses.

>No, they don't. A suit that reduces drag
>compared with other suits will produce
>lower times independently of other
>factors.

But, the OP was asking about differences in times for swims with the new
suits. Those differences in times were a result of all factors coming
into play, including the reduced drag provided by the suits, fast pool
design, etc. An accurate accounting of why the times improved from past
to present for each swimming event would have to take into consideration
all contributing factors. If one were to analyze why swimmer "X" swam a
1:40 200 free 4 years ago in Athens and swam a 1:38 200 free in Beijing,
they would have to consider changes in X's training regimen and
preparation between then and now, nutritional diet, any physiological
changes, and yes, the type of suit design changes, to name just a few of
the considerations. Time improvement in a particular swimming event
cannot be attributed to one factor alone.

>>So what method would you propose for
>>just comparing differences in times for
>>suits alone? Go ahead, enlighten me.

>Ask the researchers, manufacturers.

I'm asking you since you're claiming expertise on the subject.

>I'm relying on the general belief in
>swimming circles that the suits make a
>significant difference, and have done all
>along. I haven't said they're right.

Who are these "swimming circles" you keep referring to, and why are you
accepting anecdotal information that the difference is "significant" as
being irrefutable proof?

>>>>Suits alone are only one component
>>>>of a complex set of factors that
>>>>account for differences in times.

>>>Nobody asked about the total
>>>differences in times. Someone asked
>>>about differences due to the suits. See
>>>original post.

>>There's nothing "total" about differences
>>in times. Differences in times are just
>>that, changes in times that are
>>compared for each particular swimming
>>event. Those changes are a result of all
>>the aforementioned factors and a few
>>more that haven't been mentioned.

>A suit that reduces drag compared with
>other suits will lower times.

Nobody's denying that, but differences in times for individual swimming
events when being compared are the result of a combination of things,
including advancement(s) in suit design.

>>>>>Factors that lower times in addition
>>>>>to the suit are outside the scope of
>>>>>this thread. Give up.

>>>>See above comment, same principle
>>>>applies and is within scope. What
>>>>should be given up?

>>>If someone comes along here and
>>>asks if a swimmer's kick makes a
>>>difference to his times I suggest that
>>>you don't respond, since the poster
>>>will probably want a simple, clear
>>>answer.

>>A "simple, clear answer" would be that
>>a swimmer's kick in addition to other
>>related swimming factors would
>>account for differences in times.

>No, a simple, clear and correct answer
>would be "Yes." Or, are you claiming that
>kicking makes no difference?

No such claim was made, and spare me the patronizing attitude, one that
you've carried all along in the "Very Unusual WR Record for Lenton"
thread into this one.

>Well, then, let's tell all swimmers not to
>bother. Just a waste of energy.

See above comment regarding patronization.

>>No, they don't. A suit that reduces drag
>>compared with other suits will produce
>>lower times independently of other
>>factors.
>
> But, the OP was asking about differences in times for swims with the new
> suits. Those differences in times were a result of all factors coming
> into play, including the reduced drag provided by the suits, fast pool
> design, etc. An accurate accounting of why the times improved from past
> to present for each swimming event would have to take into consideration
> all contributing factors. If one were to analyze why swimmer "X" swam a
> 1:40 200 free 4 years ago in Athens and swam a 1:38 200 free in Beijing,
> they would have to consider changes in X's training regimen and
> preparation between then and now, nutritional diet, any physiological
> changes, and yes, the type of suit design changes, to name just a few of
> the considerations. Time improvement in a particular swimming event
> cannot be attributed to one factor alone.

Ok... smart A@#, If ythe same swimmer were to swim using the oder suit, new
though, would they be slower, or did the suit, along with everything else
make that swimmer faster?

I wrote:

>...spare me the patronizing attitude, one
>that you've carried all along in the "Very
>Unusual WR Record for Lenton" thread
>into this one.

Make that "Very Unusual WR for Lenton" thread for the sake of accuracy.

"Micheal Artindale" wrote:

><insult snipped>, If ythe same swimmer
>were to swim using the oder suit, new
>though, would they be slower,...

Who can say with certainty, it would depend on many conditions. The
older suit would probably introduce more drag, but the comparative
effect between the older one and the newer suit would likely be
miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

>...or did the suit, along with everything
>else make that swimmer faster?

A reasonable assumption might be that everything combined, including the
use of more efficient drag reduction suits, has the potential to provide
an opportunity for improving times. This relatively uncomplicated
concept is not exactly "rocket science."

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>
>> <insult snipped>, If ythe same swimmer
>> were to swim using the oder suit, new
>> though, would they be slower,...
>
> Who can say with certainty, it would depend on many conditions. The
> older suit would probably introduce more drag, but the comparative
> effect between the older one and the newer suit would likely be
> miniscule

minuscule

> in the grand scheme of things.
>
>> ...or did the suit, along with everything
>> else make that swimmer faster?
>
> A reasonable assumption might be that everything combined, including
> the use of more efficient drag reduction suits, has the potential to
> provide an opportunity for improving times. This relatively
> uncomplicated concept is not exactly "rocket science."

You're waffling. It was a simple question. Why make it so complicated? Open your
eyes. Read media reports. Here's an idea: try Google.

All the indications are that the LZR suit has had far more than a minuscule
effect. One report says it reduces times by 1.9 to 2.2 %. That is _significant_,
wouldn't you say? Maybe you don't believe the reports until you've conducted
your own tests, but a reasonable answer at this stage is that if what is being
said about the suit is true then times are _significantly_ lower because of it -
by anyone's definition of "significant" except yours.

On Aug 27, 11:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 6:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> Nobody asked about the total dfferences in times. Someone asked about
> >> differences due to the suits. See original post.
>
> > The original question was "Has anyone noticed a difference in times or
> > other related changes due to the new
> > suits?"
>
> > "due to" means caused by or ascribable to, but your answer wasn't
> > about faster times being caused by or ascribable to the suits. You
> > said "just about everyone in swimming is in agreement that they reduce
> > times," which might be true but doesn't answer the question. Most
> > Americans were in agreement that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, but he
> > didn't. In this case, I'm not even sure most swimmers actually believe
> > the suits reduce times. I think what they believe is that in case the
> > suits do reduce times they have to wear one because the other swimmers
> > are wearing them.
>
> I have been quite clear in qualifying my statements on the suit. I am not saying
> that swimmers, coaches etc. are right. I've said that if they are right the suit
> lowered times at the Olympics. Doesn't anyone here _read_?

Yes. I read. Your original reply did not answer the original question.
So we still have the original question: "Has anyone noticed a
difference in times or other related changes due to the new suits?"

You don't have an answer then?

On Aug 28, 1:55 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 6:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly
> >> widely accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times.
> >> The fact that other factors may also do so is irrelevant.
>
> > If that's true, then swimmers who used the suits in the Olympics knew
> > they were cheating.
>
> > SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
> > may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
> > webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>
> > Unless that rule was changed, then even if the suits were officially
> > allowed, using them was cheating by rule SW 10.7.
>
> I disagree. A high-tech suit only aids speed relative to a lower-tech suit, say
> by reducing drag on the swimmer, but it has no locomotion capabilities of its
> own and does not aid the swimmer's locomotion (as, e.g., flippers would). The
> rule describes no reference suit with which a given suit may be compared to
> determine if it breaches the rule. If the LZR breaks this rule (ignoring the
> debate concerning buoyancy) then so does every other swimsuit.

That's nonsense. If the suits reduce drag, they aid endurance. The
rule doesn't say anything about your relativity claim. In particular,
if the suit has less drag than human skin, and it covers a lot more
skin, then it both aids speed and endurance.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 28, 1:55 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 6:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope. My post stands. The OP was asking about suits. It is clearly
>>>> widely accepted in swimming circles that the new suits lower times.
>>>> The fact that other factors may also do so is irrelevant.
>>
>>> If that's true, then swimmers who used the suits in the Olympics
>>> knew they were cheating.
>>
>>> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
>>> may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such
>>> as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>>
>>> Unless that rule was changed, then even if the suits were officially
>>> allowed, using them was cheating by rule SW 10.7.
>>
>> I disagree. A high-tech suit only aids speed relative to a
>> lower-tech suit, say by reducing drag on the swimmer, but it has no
>> locomotion capabilities of its own and does not aid the swimmer's
>> locomotion (as, e.g., flippers would). The rule describes no
>> reference suit with which a given suit may be compared to determine
>> if it breaches the rule. If the LZR breaks this rule (ignoring the
>> debate concerning buoyancy) then so does every other swimsuit.
>
> That's nonsense. If the suits reduce drag, they aid endurance.

Reduces drag relative to what?

> The
> rule doesn't say anything about your relativity claim.

It doesn't have to. The language demands it. Something can only "aid" you
relative to something else.

> In particular,
> if the suit has less drag than human skin, and it covers a lot more
> skin, then it both aids speed and endurance.

The rule doesn't mention human skin. There is no reference given. But if human
skin were the reference, are you aware of a swimsuit that conforms?

On Aug 28, 7:04 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:

> > That's nonsense. If the suits reduce drag, they aid endurance.
>
> Reduces drag relative to what?

You can't be serious. You wrote: "I disagree. A high-tech suit only
aids speed relative to a
lower-tech suit, say by reducing drag on the swimmer,"

If the suit reduces drag, there are two possible causes: 1. the
friction of the water over the suit is less than the friction of water
over the skin the suit covered; 2. The suit changes the shape of the
swimmer. So, if wearing the suit reduces drag, it reduces drag
realtive to not wearing the suit. You can read all about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

> > The
> > rule doesn't say anything about your relativity claim.
>
> It doesn't have to. The language demands it. Something can only "aid" you
> relative to something else.

Yes, wearing the suit aids speed, buoyancy, and endurance relative to
not wearing the suit.

> > In particular,
> > if the suit has less drag than human skin, and it covers a lot more
> > skin, then it both aids speed and endurance.
>
> The rule doesn't mention human skin. There is no reference given. But if human
> skin were the reference, are you aware of a swimsuit that conforms?

There aren't any. Had you been paying attention, that point has been
one I have been making all along. This same issue applies to goggles,
swim caps, drugs, altitude training... you name it.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Micheal Artindale" wrote:

>>><insult snipped>, If ythe same
>>>swimmer were to swim using the oder
>>>suit, new though, would they be
>>>slower,...

>>Who can say with certainty, it would
>>depend on many conditions. The older
>>suit would probably introduce more
>>drag, but the comparative effect
>>between the older one and the newer
>>suit would likely be miniscule

>minuscule

Would you like a standing ovation for pointing out a typo? Interesting
that you didn't point out the typos in the posted question. Got a
plausible answer for that?
>>in the grand scheme of things.

>>>...or did the suit, along with everything
>>>else make that swimmer faster?

>>A reasonable assumption might be that
>>everything combined, including the use
>>of more efficient drag reduction suits,
>>has the potential to provide an
>>opportunity for improving times. This
>>relatively uncomplicated concept is not
>>exactly "rocket science."

>You're waffling. It was a simple question.
>Why make it so complicated?

Complicated for who? For you? Poor comprehension skills getting in your
way? The answer was well reasoned enough and satisfactory for a question
that has no simple answer.

>Open your eyes. Read media reports.
>Here's an idea: try Google.

Don't have to, I'm already familiar with the suit's characteristics.

>All the indications are that the LZR suit
>has had far more than a minuscule
>effect. One report says it reduces times
>by 1.9 to 2.2 %. That is _significant_,
>wouldn't you say?

Only one report? Source reference(s)? Go ahead, enlighten us.

Again, nobody's denying the drag reduction properties of the LZR suits,
but to compare times in Athens with times in Beijing, more has to be
taken into account to suggest a reasonable explanation for the improved
times than just the addition of new suits. The suits are only one
component of a complex set of contributing factors. Logic and common
sense would lead anyone to this conclusion.

>Maybe you don't believe the reports until
>you've conducted your own tests, but a
>reasonable answer at this stage is that if
>what is being said about the suit is true
>then times are _significantly_ lower
>because of it - by anyone's definition of
>"significant" except yours.

Again, credible source reference(s)? Test data? Your "It is so, because
I said so" argumentation doesn't cut it.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "Micheal Artindale" wrote:
>
>>>> <insult snipped>, If ythe same
>>>> swimmer were to swim using the oder
>>>> suit, new though, would they be
>>>> slower,...
>
>>> Who can say with certainty, it would
>>> depend on many conditions. The older
>>> suit would probably introduce more
>>> drag, but the comparative effect
>>> between the older one and the newer
>>> suit would likely be miniscule
>
>> minuscule
>
> Would you like a standing ovation for pointing out a typo?

It wasn't a typo. That's how you spell it. That word is misspelled that way by
many others besides you.

>> All the indications are that the LZR suit
>> has had far more than a minuscule
>> effect. One report says it reduces times
>> by 1.9 to 2.2 %. That is _significant_,
>> wouldn't you say?
>
> Only one report? Source reference(s)? Go ahead, enlighten us.
>
> Again, nobody's denying the drag reduction properties of the LZR
> suits, but to compare times in Athens with times in Beijing,

The usual comparisons are between the times in the year or so before the suit
and the times since the suit's release. AFAIK, no one is reaching any
conclusions about the suit by comparing Beijing times with Athens times.

> more has
> to be taken into account to suggest a reasonable explanation for the
> improved times than just the addition of new suits. The suits are
> only one component of a complex set of contributing factors. Logic
> and common sense would lead anyone to this conclusion.
>
>> Maybe you don't believe the reports until
>> you've conducted your own tests, but a
>> reasonable answer at this stage is that if
>> what is being said about the suit is true
>> then times are _significantly_ lower
>> because of it - by anyone's definition of
>> "significant" except yours.
>
> Again, credible source reference(s)? Test data? Your "It is so,
> because I said so" argumentation doesn't cut it.

Remember: Google is your friend.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 28, 7:04 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>
>>> That's nonsense. If the suits reduce drag, they aid endurance.
>>
>> Reduces drag relative to what?
>
> You can't be serious. You wrote: "I disagree. A high-tech suit only
> aids speed relative to a
> lower-tech suit, say by reducing drag on the swimmer,"
>
> If the suit reduces drag, there are two possible causes: 1. the
> friction of the water over the suit is less than the friction of water
> over the skin the suit covered; 2. The suit changes the shape of the
> swimmer. So, if wearing the suit reduces drag, it reduces drag
> realtive to not wearing the suit. You can read all about it here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
>
>>> The
>>> rule doesn't say anything about your relativity claim.
>>
>> It doesn't have to. The language demands it. Something can only
>> "aid" you relative to something else.
>
> Yes, wearing the suit aids speed, buoyancy, and endurance relative to
> not wearing the suit.

AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been conducted with naked
swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness is the reference. I really doubt
that the rulemakers were thinking along those lines.

>>> In particular,
>>> if the suit has less drag than human skin, and it covers a lot more
>>> skin, then it both aids speed and endurance.
>>
>> The rule doesn't mention human skin. There is no reference given.
>> But if human skin were the reference, are you aware of a swimsuit
>> that conforms?
>
> There aren't any. Had you been paying attention, that point has been
> one I have been making all along. This same issue applies to goggles,
> swim caps, drugs, altitude training... you name it.

Okay.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>minuscule

>>Would you like a standing ovation for
>>pointing out a typo?

>It wasn't a typo. That's how you spell it.
>That word is misspelled that way by
>many others besides you.

"Miniscule" and "minuscule" are actually both accepted spellings.

>>>All the indications are that the LZR
>>>suit has had far more than a
>>>minuscule effect. One report says it
>>>reduces times by 1.9 to 2.2 %. That is
>>>_significant_, wouldn't you say?

>>Only one report? Source reference(s)?
>>Go ahead, enlighten us.

>>Again, nobody's denying the drag
>>reduction properties of the LZR suits,
>>but to compare times in Athens with
>>times in Beijing,

>The usual comparisons are between the
>times in the year or so before the suit
>and the times since the suit's release.
>AFAIK, no one is reaching any
>conclusions about the suit by comparing
>Beijing times with Athens times.

That may be, but I believe the OP was referring to a difference in times
(i.e. improvement) between the Olympics in Athens and those in Beijing
which is why the two were mentioned as a comparison. A previous post of
his also compared aspects of Athens' swimming to Beijing's swimming
which led to this assumption.

>>>Maybe you don't believe the reports
>>>until you've conducted your own tests,
>>>but a reasonable answer at this stage
>>>is that if what is being said about the
>>>suit is true then times are
>>>_significantly_ lower because of it - by
>>>anyone's definition of "significant"
>>>except yours.

>>Again, credible source reference(s)?
>>Test data? Your "It is so, because I said
>>so" argumentation doesn't cut it.

>Remember: Google is your friend.

Fine, then why didn't you use it and post a link?

>
> Ok... smart A@#, If ythe same swimmer were to swim using the oder suit,
> new though, would they be slower, or did the suit, along with everything
> else make that swimmer faster?

Well, isn't that the crux of the matter? The "along with everything else"
part of it. I read that the pool was constructed in different dimensions,
perhaps the water was deeper, etc. The characteristics of the pool might
have had an effect on the swim times.

Pat in TX
>
>

On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been conducted with naked
> swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness is the reference. I really doubt
> that the rulemakers were thinking along those lines.

I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule clearly
forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and endurance. If the
new suit reduces times, it aids speed and endurance.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>>>> minuscule
>
>>> Would you like a standing ovation for
>>> pointing out a typo?
>
>> It wasn't a typo. That's how you spell it.
>> That word is misspelled that way by
>> many others besides you.
>
> "Miniscule" and "minuscule" are actually both accepted spellings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule
USAGE The adjective 'minuscule' is etymologically related to 'minus', but
associations with 'mini-' have produced the spelling variant 'miniscule'. This
variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in
published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.

IOW, you are just the latest in a long line to have got it wrong.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been conducted
>> with naked swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness is the
>> reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers were thinking along
>> those lines.
>
> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule clearly
> forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and endurance. If the
> new suit reduces times, it aids speed and endurance.

Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and 'reduces'. Compared
with what? No suit at all means nakedness does it not?

"Pat" wrote:

>>Ok... smart A@#, If ythe same
>>swimmer were to swim using the oder
>>suit, new though, would they be slower,
>>or did the suit, along with everything
>>else make that swimmer faster?

>Well, isn't that the crux of the matter?
>The "along with everything else" part of
>it. I read that the pool was constructed in
>different dimensions, perhaps the water
>was deeper, etc. The characteristics of
>the pool might have had an effect on the
>swim times.

http://proteinos.com/feed/2008/08/deeper-beijing-pool-responsible-tumbling-swimming-records

Wonder if the London pool will be as "fast" in 2012?

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Miniscule" and "minuscule" are actually
>>both accepted spellings.

>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule USAGE The adjective
>'minuscule' is etymologically related to
>'minus', but associations with 'mini-' have
>produced the spelling variant 'miniscule'.
>This variant dates to the end of the 19th
>century, and it now occurs commonly in
>published writing, but it continues to be
>widely regarded as an error.

>IOW, you are just the latest in a long line
>to have got it wrong.

Key word here: "variant."

Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © &
(P)2007:

variant
var·i·ant [ vérree ənt ]
adjective Definition: 1. differing slightly: having or showing a
difference from the norm
variant pronunciations of common words
2. changeable: tending or likely to change
noun  (plural var·i·ants)Definition: 1. slightly
different form: something that differs slightly from the norm
2. linguistics different form or spelling of word: a form or
spelling of a word or phrase that differs from the standard one
3. statistics 
Same as  random variable
[14th century. French, < varier "vary" < Latin variare (see vary)]

------------------------------------------------------

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1987, page 1304:

variant n. (1848) : one of two or more persons or things exhibiting usu.
slight differences: as a : one that exhibits variation from a type or
norm b : one of two or more different spellings (as labor and labour)
or pronunciations (as in economics with a short "e" and a long "e")

Though not widely used, the "mini" spelling is still listed in Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1987, along with the "minu"
spelling with the same definition for both. "Mini" on page 756, and
"minu" on page 757. So, it wasn't a wrong usage as you claim, but rather
a variant usage not commonly used today.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "Miniscule" and "minuscule" are actually
>>> both accepted spellings.
>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule USAGE The
>> adjective 'minuscule' is etymologically related to
>> 'minus', but associations with 'mini-' have
>> produced the spelling variant 'miniscule'.
>> This variant dates to the end of the 19th
>> century, and it now occurs commonly in
>> published writing, but it continues to be
>> widely regarded as an error.
>
>> IOW, you are just the latest in a long line
>> to have got it wrong.
>
> Key word here: "variant."
>
> Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © &
> (P)2007:
>
> variant
> var·i·ant [ vérree ÉTnt ]
> adjective Definition: 1. differing slightly: having or showing a
> difference from the norm
> variant pronunciations of common words
> 2. changeable: tending or likely to change
> noun (plural var·i·ants)Definition: 1. slightly
> different form: something that differs slightly from the norm
> 2. linguistics different form or spelling of word: a form or
> spelling of a word or phrase that differs from the standard one
> 3. statistics
> Same as random variable
> [14th century. French, < varier "vary" < Latin variare (see vary)]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1987, page 1304:
>
> variant n. (1848) : one of two or more persons or things exhibiting
> usu. slight differences: as a : one that exhibits variation from a
> type or norm b : one of two or more different spellings (as labor
> and labour) or pronunciations (as in economics with a short "e" and a
> long "e")
>
> Though not widely used, the "mini" spelling is still listed in
> Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1987, along with
> the "minu" spelling with the same definition for both. "Mini" on page
> 756, and "minu" on page 757. So, it wasn't a wrong usage as you
> claim, but rather a variant usage not commonly used today.

Nice try.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Nice try.

That's your convincing (emphasis on "convincing") argument?

Sorry but your "serve" was a fault. Try again.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Nice try.
>
> That's your convincing (emphasis on "convincing") argument?

I won the argument several posts ago.

> Sorry but your "serve" was a fault. Try again.

You were wrong. Accept it.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>Nice try.

>>That's your convincing (emphasis on
>>"convincing") argument?

>I won the argument several posts ago.

Nope, see below.

>>Sorry but your "serve" was a fault. Try
>>again.

>You were wrong. Accept it.

Nope, the spelling of the word has an accepted and used variant
spelling. Both spellings appear in publications, much in the same vein
as "color" and "colour," etc.

http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/spelling/

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/mini.html

Again, key word: "variant."

Another "serve" attempt, another fault.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>>>> Nice try.
>
>>> That's your convincing (emphasis on
>>> "convincing") argument?
>
>> I won the argument several posts ago.
>
> Nope, see below.
>
>>> Sorry but your "serve" was a fault. Try
>>> again.
>
>> You were wrong. Accept it.
>
> Nope, the spelling of the word has an accepted and used variant
> spelling. Both spellings appear in publications, much in the same vein
> as "color" and "colour," etc.
>
> http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/spelling/
>
> http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/mini.html
>
> Again, key word: "variant."
>
> Another "serve" attempt, another fault.

I wonder how you'll be spelling it in future.

On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been conducted
> >> with naked swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness is the
> >> reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers were thinking along
> >> those lines.
>
> > I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule clearly
> > forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and endurance. If the
> > new suit reduces times, it aids speed and endurance.
>
> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and 'reduces'. Compared
> with what? No suit at all means nakedness does it not?

I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify any
reference.

SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.

Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in swimming
agree that they do. If they reduce times, they aid speed. By rule SW
10.7, that's cheating. I'm sure there is nothing in the rules that
specifically mentions suits because the suit manufacturers lobby to
keep it out, and FINA doesn't want to piss them off. And everyone
wants new world records.

Incidentally, I don't see anything in the rules about drugs either.

"DavidW" wrote:

>I wonder how you'll be spelling it in
>future.

I wonder how your grammar will be in the future and whether you'll
remember to include a definite article like "the" to precede a noun like
"future" to indicate that it has been specified by context.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
>>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness
>>>> is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers were thinking
>>>> along those lines.
>>
>>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule clearly
>>> forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and endurance. If
>>> the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and endurance.
>>
>> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
>> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness does
>> it not?
>
> I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify any
> reference.
>
> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
> may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
> webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>
> Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in swimming
> agree that they do.

Compared with previous suits.

"DavidW" wrote:

>MW Smith wrote:

>>Do the new suits reduce times? You
>>say that most people in swimming
>>agree that they do.

>Compared with previous suits.

You say "most" people in swimming agree. Out of curiosity, who are the
minority that disagree, and for what reason(s)?

On Sep 1, 12:58 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
> >>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
> >>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that nakedness
> >>>> is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers were thinking
> >>>> along those lines.
>
> >>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule clearly
> >>> forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and endurance. If
> >>> the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and endurance.
>
> >> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
> >> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness does
> >> it not?
>
> > I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify any
> > reference.
>
> > SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
> > may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
> > webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>
> > Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in swimming
> > agree that they do.
>
> Compared with previous suits.

Then, according to the rules, they aid speed and endurance and are
therefore illegal. And if you know they reduce times, you can finally
answer the original poster's questions.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:58 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
>>>>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that
>>>>>> nakedness is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers
>>>>>> were thinking along those lines.
>>
>>>>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule
>>>>> clearly forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and
>>>>> endurance. If the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and
>>>>> endurance.
>>
>>>> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
>>>> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness does
>>>> it not?
>>
>>> I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify
>>> any reference.
>>
>>> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
>>> may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such
>>> as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>>
>>> Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in swimming
>>> agree that they do.
>>
>> Compared with previous suits.
>
> Then, according to the rules, they aid speed and endurance and are
> therefore illegal. And if you know they reduce times, you can finally
> answer the original poster's questions.

The rule doesn't specify previous suits as the reference for comparison. It
doesn't specify any reference.

On Sep 1, 5:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 12:58 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
> >>> On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> MW Smith wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
> >>>>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that
> >>>>>> nakedness is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers
> >>>>>> were thinking along those lines.
>
> >>>>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule
> >>>>> clearly forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and
> >>>>> endurance. If the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and
> >>>>> endurance.
>
> >>>> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
> >>>> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness does
> >>>> it not?
>
> >>> I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify
> >>> any reference.
>
> >>> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
> >>> may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such
> >>> as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
>
> >>> Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in swimming
> >>> agree that they do.
>
> >> Compared with previous suits.
>
> > Then, according to the rules, they aid speed and endurance and are
> > therefore illegal. And if you know they reduce times, you can finally
> > answer the original poster's questions.
>
> The rule doesn't specify previous suits as the reference for comparison. It
> doesn't specify any reference.

Correct. Therefore, any reference that shows the harm shows the foul.
You can choose your reference to be nude swimming, or you can choose
your reference to be previously allowed suits. If the new suits reduce
times, they aid speed and are therefore illegal.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 12:58 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
>>>>>>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that
>>>>>>>> nakedness is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers
>>>>>>>> were thinking along those lines.
>>
>>>>>>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule
>>>>>>> clearly forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and
>>>>>>> endurance. If the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and
>>>>>>> endurance.
>>
>>>>>> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
>>>>>> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness
>>>>>> does it not?
>>
>>>>> I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify
>>>>> any reference.
>>
>>>>> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device
>>>>> that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a
>>>>> competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.).
>>>>> Goggles may be worn.
>>
>>>>> Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in
>>>>> swimming agree that they do.
>>
>>>> Compared with previous suits.
>>
>>> Then, according to the rules, they aid speed and endurance and are
>>> therefore illegal. And if you know they reduce times, you can
>>> finally answer the original poster's questions.
>>
>> The rule doesn't specify previous suits as the reference for
>> comparison. It doesn't specify any reference.
>
> Correct. Therefore, any reference that shows the harm shows the foul.
> You can choose your reference to be nude swimming, or you can choose
> your reference to be previously allowed suits.

You could also choose your reference to be an outboard motor. As you say,
because the rule doesn't specify one, you can choose anything.

> If the new suits reduce
> times, they aid speed and are therefore illegal.

A rule needs to be clear and unambiguous. An average law student would make
mincemeat of that one in a dispute taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

On Sep 2, 1:01 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 5:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
> >>> On Sep 1, 12:58 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> MW Smith wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2:35 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>>> MW Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 12:54 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> AFAIK, international swimming competitions have never been
> >>>>>>>> conducted with naked swimmers, but you are implying that
> >>>>>>>> nakedness is the reference. I really doubt that the rulemakers
> >>>>>>>> were thinking along those lines.
>
> >>>>>>> I'm not implying any such thing. I pointed out that the rule
> >>>>>>> clearly forbids the new suit if the new suit aids speed and
> >>>>>>> endurance. If the new suit reduces times, it aids speed and
> >>>>>>> endurance.
>
> >>>>>> Well, you are implying something with the verbs 'aids' and
> >>>>>> 'reduces'. Compared with what? No suit at all means nakedness
> >>>>>> does it not?
>
> >>>>> I don't get your point. The rule is clear, and it doesn't specify
> >>>>> any reference.
>
> >>>>> SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device
> >>>>> that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a
> >>>>> competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.).
> >>>>> Goggles may be worn.
>
> >>>>> Do the new suits reduce times? You say that most people in
> >>>>> swimming agree that they do.
>
> >>>> Compared with previous suits.
>
> >>> Then, according to the rules, they aid speed and endurance and are
> >>> therefore illegal. And if you know they reduce times, you can
> >>> finally answer the original poster's questions.
>
> >> The rule doesn't specify previous suits as the reference for
> >> comparison. It doesn't specify any reference.
>
> > Correct. Therefore, any reference that shows the harm shows the foul.
> > You can choose your reference to be nude swimming, or you can choose
> > your reference to be previously allowed suits.
>
> You could also choose your reference to be an outboard motor. As you say,
> because the rule doesn't specify one, you can choose anything.

You can't swim with an outboard motor. It would make you sink.

> > If the new suits reduce
> > times, they aid speed and are therefore illegal.
>
> A rule needs to be clear and unambiguous. An average law student would make
> mincemeat of that one in a dispute taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

I agree, but then blood doping is the same problem.