When you've got chemicals going on...

See, that's the thing, though: there isn't a standardized set of equipment used in swimming, so there's leeway to allow new suits into the sport. I agree that there should be a strict standardization in the playing field and the equipment, but most sports simply don't have that. It sounds to me like it is survival of the most intelligent designer, not survival of the fittest.

Please, don't put words into my mouth.

Bluejay responds to me:

quote:

---

But, I highly doubt that this is common across the world.

---

But the people for whom it is most important, the atheletes, there is no doubt that they understand exactly what is going on.

quote:

---

In reality, the world record isn't comparing equal quantities, so it's misleading to those people who missed the five-minute segment about the new pools and the new suits.

---

And since they care for approximately 14 minutes every four years, they're not that important.

quote:

---

I guess this isn't really just for comfort, is it? So, yeah, maybe they should, unless the purpose of the track is to prevent shin splints and stuff.

---

There's lots of reasons why. One is that it provides a standardized surface. But the way the surface works has increased speed.

quote:

---

I don't know anything about the differences here [ice], but I'm sure there are some.

---

Did you notice that a lot of records fell in Salt Lake City and Torino in speedskating? There wasn't a lot of advancement in the equipment on the athletes. Clap skates have been around for some time.It was the ice. Ice in indoor arenas isn't made by just pouring water on the floor and freezing it. It is done in lots and lots of layers of ice. If it's done right, along with other factors regarding the maintenance of the temperature of the ice, you can make it fast or slow.

quote:

---

I did distinguish between equipment that changes for medical reasons and equipment that changes for performance enhancement.

---

Who said they were separate? Sometimes they're both.

quote:

---

Still, it seems inappropriate to remove someone's world record because of technological advancements.

---

But everybody knows it's going to happen. The athletes don't seem to mind. Spitz was on the air with Phelps cheering him on.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi, Rrhain. All right. If you want to be that way. So, why did they standardize it to a surface that improves performance over the surfaces that were used before? Couldn't they just as easily have standardized it to dirt with a specified density and hardness?Moreover, when they standardized it, were they aware that the standardized surface enhances performance over previous athletes? In this case, I suspect they were, but I still thought I should throw that out there in case it applies in other instances, such as the new pool dimensions. Right. I got to listen to some engineering student do a presentation on Zambone machines in a technical writing class a while back. I wasn't aware that the ice could be made faster or slower, though.But, you seem to be taking this from the perspective that I wouldn't have complained about things like this if I had known about them. I just happened to be more up-to-date on the swimming incident, so I'm using that as an example of the overall perspective I'm taking.So, do you disagree with my perspective? Or, do you just think I'm equivocating? Does this apply in the case of the swimsuit? Or in the case of the pool's dimensions?If not, I think that's the line that needs to be drawn: if it doesn't cause injury or health problems, why change it? Especially if changing it would influence the general level of performance across the field.-----Look, I realize that it's pretty much impossible to perfectly offset the effect of increasing knowledge, but I think more effort needs to be made to standardize a sporting event that focuses on comparing athletes across multiple decades.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Bluejay responds to me:

quote:

---

So, why did they standardize it to a surface that improves performance over the surfaces that were used before?

---

Lots of reasons. "Ooh! Shiny!" is one of them. The new surface, so high-tech, self-healing rubbers, ease of care, etc., etc., who wouldn't want it?

quote:

---

Couldn't they just as easily have standardized it to dirt with a specified density and hardness?

---

And maintain it over a couple weeks of competition, guaranteeing that every single runner in every single lane had the same thing?

quote:

---

Moreover, when they standardized it, were they aware that the standardized surface enhances performance over previous athletes?

---

I'm sure they did. "Energy return," and all that.

quote:

---

So, do you disagree with my perspective?

---

Yes. Since the advance of technology crosses all sports, the idea of a "pure" version is a fool's errand.

quote:

---

if it doesn't cause injury or health problems, why change it? Especially if changing it would influence the general level of performance across the field.

---

Because the point of the sport competition is to achieve as much as possible. Why should the swimmers on the outer lanes have to deal with a penalty of swimming next to the wall that the swimmers in the inner lanes don't have to deal with?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi, Rrhain. Are you fundamentally against the idea of "pure" sporting, or are you just arguing from practicality? And who is supposed to achieve it? Isn't it the point for the athlete to achieve as much as possible? As kjsimons said earlier, better equipment reduces the required skill level, so people at big schools that have big budgets can automatically play better than 1-A schools, even if both schools had equal access to talent.It's too much like "No Child Left Behind." (That's a bit of an exaggeration, so don't take it too seriously, please).

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Bluejay writes:

quote:

---

Are you fundamentally against the idea of "pure" sporting, or are you just arguing from practicality?

---

Practicality, but from two directions. That is, there is no way to guarantee that every single competitor has identical conditions so the idea of "pure" sport is impossible. Too, how does one define "pure" to begin with? Since it is necessarily a question of you against an environment, there needs to be a way to manipulate that environment in an attempt to make things equal which is done via technology. So since you are necessarily introducing the artificial, the idea of "pure" is again impossible.That is, "pure" is impossible to define and even if you could, it is impossible to achieve.

quote:

---

And who is supposed to achieve it?

---

The competitor's, of course. The rules are laid out beforehand. Everybody knows what is going on. Nothing is hidden.

quote:

---

As kjsimons said earlier, better equipment reduces the required skill level

---

I disagree. Better equipment doesn't help those with no skill play against those with. There's a reason Sampras was #1 in the world for six years straight and Federer for over four. It isn't because of the racquets or the shoes. Everybody else has the same equipment. They're simply better players.

quote:

---

people at big schools that have big budgets can automatically play better than 1-A schools, even if both schools had equal access to talent.

---

Wait a minute...I thought we were talking about world records and the Olympics. When did we get to college ball? Of course I'm not saying equipment has no effect. I'm saying that equipment doesn't change the point behind sport since everybody has the same equipment.There's a reason they have those divisions, after all: To avoid "equipment" being the deciding factor. But even then, it's more to do with programs than equipment. The bigger schools have more money, can recruit better players with that money, and spend a great deal of resources in training the players to play well. When you're further down the ladder, your players don't get to spend their days doing nothing but their sport...they really do have to work on their studies. It's part of the reason that the Olympics started opening up their sports to professionals: The countries that didn't have state-sponsored programs were at a disadvantage compared to those who did. The "amateurs" couldn't spend their days focused on their sport but instead had to earn a living. When the state picks up the tab, you can train better, even if you don't have the best equipment.(And yes, I know perfectly well that top tier schools have players who work hard on their academics, but let us not play dumb.)

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

As far as tennis goes, I still disagree. The changes to equipment (not improvement per se, but changes) caused the men's tennis game to become almost strictly a power game. John McEnroe in his prime could not compete with the players of today due to this change. It acutally makes men's tennis less interesting and I now prefer to watch women's tennis as it hasn't quite become a power game only.I used to race Class E Scows back when they were wooden boats with canvas decks with wooden masts. Then they went to aluminum masts and the wooden masted boats couldn't compete and there was a (costly) scramble to re-equip older boats or be non-competetive. Then they went to fiberglass hulls and again you needed either buy a new boat or lag behind in the races. Now a captain's sailing skill still made a big difference, but the new boats had a large advantage over the old ones and it was costly to keep up with the changes, but if you didn't you would lose races even if you were the better sailor. The sport suddenly was all about buying new boats and constantly upgrading them rather than just the skill of one sailor against another and it became much more expensive. It ruined the sport for me. So I now race model boats where we strictly control what's allowed in the class so it's mostly the sailor's skill and not how much money he spends on his boat. I have a twenty year old boat that's competitive with the brand new boats, as it should be IMO.Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

Hi, Rrhain. Isn't this the same logic as, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything?" I think I understand what you're saying.My complaint is that one doesn't have to be an athlete to compete with the environment. An engineer can also manipulate the environment. So, when you allow the environment to be manipulated creatively, you allow engineers to compete in an athletic competition.While creativity is certainly laudable and important to science and society, it is not the point of sports like running and swimming. But, you've still left it open for the engineers and scientists to influence the outcome. I think the competitors should be the athletes, not the engineers. Come on, Rrhain. Why can't I use an example from college sports?Yes, the point is about the Olympics, but college sports serve as a good analogy for the general idea of comparing athletes. Since the people in my example are not competing head-to-head, but across time, it serves my argument well to provide a head-to-head example like college sports. And what I'm saying is that everybody doesn't have the same equipment. Mark Spitz didn't have the equipment that Michael Phelps has.So yes, the point is changed when you try to compare people across different generations. When two men race head-to-head with the same technology, everybody can tell who won. But, when you compare two men's performances across time, with different technology, everybody just has to speculate on who would win. Only the recorded times can tell you how to compare them, and, once the environment has been manipulated, the times are no longer equivalent, so the only means of comparison is lost.That's why world records are completely phony (okay, so they're not completely phony, but there is a good measure of phoniness to them).

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

More so than you think.I gurantee you that someone has already sprinted 100m faster than Mr. Bolt's recorded World Record.I gurantee you that someone has swam all those distances and styles faster than Mr. Phelps' recorded World Record.Maybe they weren't organized, maybe they weren't monitored, maybe it was even themselves during a personal untimed practice run.Anyone who understands the meaning of sport understands that it's a personal battle. Doing the best you can. Seeing how you match up with all other great, available atheletes is fun, interesting, competition-building, and glorious. But the essence of sport is a personal battle.Sometimes I find it difficult to know what's breaking the rules and what isn't. What's "in the spirit of the sport" and what isn't.Basketball foul shot... the crowd (and sometimes players) yell and scream at the most inopportune time to try and get you to miss. Is this "in the spirit of the sport"?Maybe not. You'd think it's only fair to let someone concentrate to do what they need to do.Mabye. It's obvious that someone who can still sink that shot "under extra pressure" is better than someone who needs complete silence to gain the required concentration.So what's correct? Does it even matter?Then look at tennis where fans are removed if they get too loud during service or play. Is treating the atheletes like little children "in the spirit" of the sport?What the hell is "the spirit"?It's a personal battle. Plain and simple. Everything else is just for kicks, to attract competitive opponents, or money/ego of the people hosting the thing.Personally... that's what I think the current WR smashing was all about. Making sure some WRs were broken so that spectators would feel better about seeing "something amazing" and the IOC comes out looking great (and selling lots of seats).(/end conspiracy thinking)

Hi, Stile.It seems we'll have to find out what the real purpose of sports is in order to resolve this issue:I believe that the purpose of sports is to showcase raw physical talent.Rrhain believes that the purpose of sports is to elevate achievement.And you believe that the purpose of sports is to improve oneself.-----Obviously, we should expect opinions to vary widely in the general population too. And it probably varies just as widely (if not more so) among professional (and Olympic) athletes. We could probably find athletes who felt the purpose of sports was anything from the three viewpoints above, to relieving one's surplus aggression, to entertaining the general populace, to achieving fame and fortune and celebrity status, and to simply supporting one's family with a nice paycheck.Perhaps it's just my viewpoint that sports are for comparing raw talent that leads me to the conclusion that sports should be conservatively regulated.So, do you think the current system of regulation might represent a sort of compromise between the many different viewpoints people have on the purpose of sports?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I agree with what you've said about viewpoints. Although I'd argure that Rrhain's "elevate achievement" and my "improve oneself" is rather the same thing... I agree with your point that there certainly are different "purposes of sport" and we may not be able to agree on which is the "correct" one. I more just wanted to toss in my 2-cents. I haven't posted much recently and had a bit of a splurge today I always thought that for what the Olympics are supposed to represent... equipment (including jerseys and clothes and footwear) should be provided by the IOC. I don't think that's very practical, though. It would cost the IOC a lot of money. Maybe they could have the atheletes "buy" the equipment from the IOC? Then we're back to the "what if they can't afford it" arguement, though...

It seems the purpose of sports as far as most competitors are concerned is to win. The "purpose" of sport is a very interesting question.Why for example do nations take great pride in the sporting achievements of their national teams? Even when said national team can be comprised of individuals who have barely set foot in the nation that they apparently represent.Edited by Straggler, : Dazed and confused

Hi Jay, I can remember when sports were about some of those things that have been mentioned.But as I see it today it is all about the dollar.Just think of the millions Phelps will get and has already got since he set those records in the Olympics.The other athletes will be paid huge appearance fees to show up and participate in track and field events around the world.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

kjsimons responds to me:

quote:

---

The changes to equipment (not improvement per se, but changes) caused the men's tennis game to become almost strictly a power game.

---

I disagree. Power certainly has become very important to the game but if what you say were true, Ivo Karlovic would be #1 since he's 6'10" and has only one thing going for him: His serve.Instead, you see Nadal and Federer and Djokovic at the top because in addition to their serve, they have great returns and are capable of running down everything that gets thrown at them.It's why the Williams sisters have been so dominant. They have amazing serves, yes, but they're not the only ones with power and they often lose control. Instead, Venus has amazing reach and Serena can fly across the court.

quote:

---

The sport suddenly was all about buying new boats and constantly upgrading them rather than just the skill of one sailor against another

---

But you had to be racing on something. To complain that the something has changed over time doesn't hold that much water. Since everyone is racing on the same equipment at the levels we're talking about, it still is the skill of one sailor against another.If you want to go back to older materials, set up a tournament for the type of equipment you want to have. Nobody is stopping you or anybody else from doing so.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.