Comments on: Swimsuits stir controversy

By: David

David — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:35:17 +0000

I like the no clothing alternative myself but one’s natural equipment could prove too big a drag on one’s progress through the water. By the way I really don’t think swimming formed part of the ancient olympics.

By: California Dolphin

California Dolphin — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:19:22 +0000

Swimming with your entire body covered with waterproof clothing??? Yeah right like taking a bath with your clothes on.

Now that tops the list of really “antithetical” ideas if I ever heard of one.

They used to make jokes about having sex while wearing a condom as like “Taking a shower while you’re wearing a raincoat”.

Now they can rephrase the condom joke as “Like swimming in an LZR or a Fastskin II”.

By: Bill Jones

Bill Jones — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:59:37 +0000

Perhaps the IOC should take the advice offered by “Alwaysobjective” and look to the ancient Olympaids to settle this controversey.

For the first 292 olympiads the swimmers as well as all the other athletes were, as i understand it, naked.

It would seem that in the 696th Olympaid the IOC could look to the past and make the swimming pool a level playing field (talk about a mixed metaphore) so to speak and have them all swim the way God made them, naked.

I am sure some of the effects this would cause would be an increase in the numbers of those who would want to watch as well as determining if the full body swimsuits were not giving unfair advantage to those who would use them.

By: Sean Smith

Sean Smith — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:34:38 +0000

My only response to all the people who are upset about more skin being covered is grow up. There are plenty of sources for you to get your skin fix. As for Jim’s worry of the suit not being available because of cost, that won’t be the main obstacle in swimmers having access to this suit. I have probably owned thousands of dollars worth of suits and never paid more than $20 for one. Once you get to the national level, the level when the suits could make a difference of being on an Olympic team or not, you get all of your competition suits for free. The problem with the Speedo LZR and the comparable suit by TYR is that they are both behind in their production schedules and will not be ready for all the swimmers at Olympic Trials in Omaha. They had similar problems in 2000 when the first Fastskin came out. So the elite athletes, the ones who helped develop the suits, will have access to these, but the Olympic hopefuls will not. That is something USA Swimming should deal with.

By: Tim C

Tim C — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:25:49 +0000

Does the fact that it’s water repellent give anyone else pause? It seems like you are removing one of the basic elements of the sport: the water.

By: canmark

canmark — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:24:55 +0000

I was reading that one of the benefits of the bodysuits is that they act like a corset (Spanx for swimmers!), keeping the torso in the ‘correct’ shape throught the stroke, and thus reducing drag.

The article said that there were presently only 5 suits in Canada (and they were being passed around and tested), but they would not be available for the Canadian Olympic trials. Presumably they would be available by the time of the Olympics, but to be fair they should be made available to all competitors.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:48:00 +0000

They make it sound like these ugly looking robocop bodysuits are going to help shave off fractions of a second in a swim meet. What nonsense. The only determining factors in speed and performance are the athlete’s skill in the sport, in this case swimming. Athletes who win are athletes who work continously hard by practicing their sport. All this bullshit nonsense that the latest in athletic wear will make you a better athlete is just another method for companies to peddle and sell their products. Its all about making money. Unfortunately, both the Olympics and professional sports are now dominated by big corporate money which is very sad.

By: California Dolphin

California Dolphin — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:06:02 +0000

From my understanding of the history of athletics, certain sports were considered to be “innate to the body” and not subject to aid from extraneous factors. In fact, the word “Gym” (as in gymnastics or gymnasium) is derived from the Greek “Gymnos” which literally refers to performing in near nudity and swimming is one athletic activity that lends itself quite well to the definition of a “Gym” activity.

It is the feel of being in the water with very minimal cover that makes swimming attractive and you have to agree that all the photos and videos of blue water flowing over bare skin are a very soothing and calming sight -whether it makes you horny or not.

Here’s an idea to swim faster without subjecting the swimmer to suiting up in an uncomfortable “costume”: Just add water softener to the pool to break the surface tension and reduce hydrodynamic friction. Anyone who has taken a bubble bath that contains a water softener knows how it makes the water feel wetter and slippery.

I’ve heard a saying something to the effect that “To take away the feel of swimming is to completely ruin the art”

Happy swimming

California Dolphin

By: AlwaysObjective

AlwaysObjective — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:37:27 +0000

I can solve this problem with no difficulty ! Everybody swims nekkid

By: California Dolphin

California Dolphin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:51:16 +0000

I was a swimmer back in my high school days in the 1960s and 70s when briefs were the standard suit.

I am somewhat of an “Aquaphile” and I was attracted to swimming, diving, and W-Polo because of the unique sensation of being almost nude in the water and I really loved these sports for that reason.

However, the sensation of swimming in a body suit is like “Taking a bath with your clothes on”. If you don’t like the look – you will hate the FEEL of actually being in them. They are absolutely horrible!