Subject: Re: Perkins and Popov Freestlye and it's relation to
long-distance freetyle efficany.
>swim with an 'S' pull. Someone being told to swim with an S pull, as
>opposed to pulling without such an instruction, is likely to confuse an S
>shape movement pull with an overall force of variable direction pull. You
>can swim with an S shape with virtually all of the applied overall force to
>the water in one direction
>I reckon there is a good chance swimmers in the trial below made this
>lateral direction, then you are moving in an S path with minimal deviation
>of overall force from a single direction, an action that is likely to be
>natural. If you move in an S path in such a way there is some 'catch' in
>the lateral direction then you have introduced pulling with an overall
>force that varies in direction, an action that is likely if you are told to
>pull with an S shape.
>If you do not understand these points and want to, then I suggest you take
>up some introductory applied mathematics.
> swimming is more efficient.
are you for real? you gotta be kidding... so a car that use 500ml or
petrol per KM is not more effeciant than one that uses 700ml on the same
KM of road? at a higher speed with less revs? who are you kidding mate?
you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC SWIMMING PRINCIPALS, LET ALONE PHYSICS if
you ignore this point.
> 10 You stated 'swimmers found..', not that tests found. This suggests
> whatever the results you want.
> You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high
> school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.
> (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,
> previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay
> near the surface of the water. You indicate in a vague and
> straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the
> curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present. You
> hand. You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'
> their pull, they slow down their pull. A pull in which there is slip is
> faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very
change is a part of the straight pull, I have allways referred to a lack
of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral. A straight pull with no "slip"
(now there's a scientific term
for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
pull. Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force. YOU HAVE JUST
CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER. At least you acknowledged
that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
You have given no
> efficiently impart momentum changes to water. You have given no
> for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if
propulsion, but I believe and have proved time and again that it this
method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier
basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even
EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull. I have acknowledged
lateral hand movements.... have you even bothered to read my posts, and
those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and the exageration
of that movement*
> Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid
> propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate
> contact points. Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is
> not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or
> aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying
propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on
non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.
Here are some things for you to reaserch John, it might help your
http://www.usswim.org/science/perkins.htm an analysis of perkins, at
Atlanta, with poor technique (I must add here that although perkins won,
his technique, not overall fitness was more of a factor in his poor
time, and yes, that small "s" shape is what poor technique for perkins
is) revealing a small "s" shape, but very distant from what you find in
most swimming text-books or what they shove down your throat at a level
1 coaching course, or what people like you believe to be superior
http://www.usswim.org/coaches/russian.htm here the American take notes
from the Coaches of Popov and Evgueni Sadovyi, on the importance of
streamlining, which "s" shapes donot promote, and transerefing power as
effectively as possible, once again something that for the majority of
simmers, "s" shapes with horizontal movement donot promote. And finally
to complete your basic education on some of the new (last 20 or so
years) idea's in freestlye swimming
> Having said all this I am not taking a position that S motion is more
> efficient than no lateral hand movement swimming. There may be no
> significant difference. I dislike seeing shoddy standards and people
> claiming more authority than they deserve.
except...swap lateral with horizontal and that comment could have come
from MY mouth! :-> (as it stands, I can agree) John, All I am interested
in as a coach, swimming educator and debator is exsposing swimmers and
coaches to new ideas! we/I
have hard proof that the MAJORITY but not ALL swimmers benifit from a
"straight" pull, and yet new enthusiastic coaches doing thier level one
courses around Australia are being kept in the dark on the different
theories with ALL strokes! there is only one Tutor Coach that I am aware
of in Australia who teachs...3 different styles of fly pull, 3 timing
models for br/s and 2 theories on FS, his name is Peter Freney, who has
coached a world SC record holder and 2 AIS scholarship holders, all from
an AGE group squad with no assistance from the AIS or goverment, federal
> rowing. Do all the best rowers row with a largely straight path, a
> insignificant for rowers just as it is possibly insignificant for
Interesting point John, but oars can't move like a arm can, it is a
fixed object. (the oar that is)
> I guess with your style of results their is a good chance you work with
> in getting your 'results'. Certainly these Institutes have in no way
> justified their existence in terms of return on public money. They
> are significant.
> John Heenan
the private sector will fund it? or perhaps myself and a few other
coaches are conducting a long-term study, booking and hiring lanes and
equipment neede to prove convincingly to the majority of narrow-minded
coaches that there is more than one answer to one problem, and to be
prepared to teach more than one thoery. It took a series of shoulder
injuries to some of my swimmers a long time ago to convince ME that my
FS couldn't work for everyone! and I allways considered myself pretty
Jaan, Coach, Canberra
| I will not respond to any Posts, Email |
| or other forms of communication which |
| incorparate personal insults or |
read more »