The Propulsion Paradox

[tomoy]

One thought: if you were to take the butterfly stroke, and disect it, since it's a symmetrical stroke, just looking at half of the body - arm enters, spear, catch, then there's this powerful core undulation and dolphin kick during the anchor phase. What if we conceived of freestyle as asynchronous butterfly. One side, then the next. Maybe that's a little bit of where the bobbing technique came from (I know there's a better word for that).

[Janos]

This is where I have been focusing my attention on for quite a while now. I think it is far too simplistic to say the strokes are either long-axis or short-axis. I believe the butterfly is the fundamental around which the other strokes revolve. Watch Popov training using fly techniques in his drills.
The leading arm entering the water and the opposite leg kicking is half a butterfly stroke, and the catch is a compromise with only one hand catching rather than two, but it is a whole body movement, that incorporates both rotation and undulation to transmit power across the body.

[Zenturtle]

We are all in agreement? That doesn't include me. Pressing back against water back is not the only part of propulsion, and paraphrasing Boomer, pushing water back will not make you go forward very well. It's whole body movement, directing energy forward whether throwing from the hip or driving from the hip. On the pull impulse, if hand moves back faster than the body moves forward, you're slipping and pushing water back.

You seem have a very binary outlook, abstract is foreign. I recall you dismissing pressing or leaning on the armpit or collarbone, pivoting about center of buoyancy to lift the hips. In the black or white world, that seems impossible, until you try it and feel the pivot. The same goes with driving momentum forward, not sending it backward or behind the body. Most of which Terry has been trying to tell us for years now.

All in all, we, (and others) keep this thread going rather nicely.
Its the mixup of halfright physical explanations, swim perceptions, facts and near nonsense in the coach language that makes understanding what he is precisely is trying to say dificult.
Wy cant we first make a difference between swim perceptions and swim facts for a start to make the communication more clear?
Maybe thats black and white thinking, I have no problem to say that there is a lot going on in swimming that cant be explained in a simple physical model, but dont talk about it in physical terms if thats the case, and use proper physical explanations if you describe it as a physical model.

examples:

Talking about pushing water back is a physical description.
In the physical model pushing water back in relation to the body is exactly the same as pushing the body forward against the water.
You could say: it FEELS like you are pushing your body forward anchoring the hand in the water.
You are talking about perceptions, not facts.

Near nonsense: , if hand moves back faster than the body moves forward, you're slipping and pushing water back.
Show me one swimmer that isnt kicking like crazy, is moving forward at a reasonable pace and is not slipping his arm through the water when he imagines he is anchoring his arm and moving forward.
Why the if? whos hand is not moving back faster than the body is moving forward? Are you talking about the handspeed relative to the body or relative to the water?

Shaky physical descriptions presented as explanations:
It's whole body movement, directing energy forward whether throwing from the hip or driving from the hip.
I have waisted a lot of time interpretating similar description of power from the hips too literally and rotating the hips more than needed without a well tensioned core and kick attached to it.
So be very carefull with words because they can do more harm than good.
If not black or white, make it at least clear for most people to understand as good as possible. Again, make clear if we are talking about facts or feelings.(sometimes they go together, sometimes they dont).

Directing energy forward whether throwing from the hip or driving from the hip.
I have a sense what you are talking about. Its a swim feeling.
If I try to use this explanation to form a physical picture how propulsion works.....no idea what you are talking about. Directing energy? Energy is a value without direction. What kind of energy? Forward from the hip... So the hip is the foundation..... Is it the mass of the hip, ....or the connection of hip with the leg that is the foundation...If I throw something forward.. something else is going back. How can the hip stop that?... etc...etc..
Maybe its all clear in your abstract world. Nice for you, but thats not clearing things up in my world, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one with unanswered questions.

[Mike Wray]

Originally Posted by CoachStuartMcDougal

We are all in agreement? That doesn't include me.


You seem have a very binary outlook, abstract is foreign. I recall you dismissing pressing or leaning on the armpit or collarbone, pivoting about center of buoyancy to lift the hips. In the black or white world, that seems impossible, until you try it and feel the pivot. The same goes with driving momentum forward, not sending it backward or behind the body. Most of which Terry has been trying to tell us for years now.

I'm sure we'll continue to disagree - and that's ok, it's not a majority rules.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,
For a start I didn't say we all agree. I was directing that comment to Zenturtle who had agreed with a particular point that the momentum change of the arm, or rod in his example, wasn't providing the propulsion.
Also I have never said that the "idea" of pressing the buoy or the "idea" of directing the body forward doesn't work. I know it does. I do not dispute that it may be more productive to focus on areas other than pushing water back. However the fact remains that the only actual forward force involved in swimming is the reaction of a back force against the water. That goes for humans, eels, skates and anything else except perhaps the octopus which uses jet propulsion!
Mike

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Zenturtle

Talking about pushing water back is a physical description.
In the physical model pushing water back in relation to the body is exactly the same as pushing the body forward against the water.
You could say: it FEELS like you are pushing your body forward anchoring the hand in the water.
You are talking about perceptions, not facts.

ZT, you are right that no one can truly anchor their arm when swimming, but the notion of anchoring one’s arm still has a rigorous physical meaning, even if only in a relative sense. You want to minimize the backward speed that your arm is moving through the water while maximizing the forward speed that your body is moving through the water. This is what I would call anchoring. The question then becomes how do you do this? First of all, the larger the mass of water you move backwards with your arm, the smaller the velocity of that water must be in order to give you the same amount of forward momentum, so obviously you want to use as much of your forearm for pressing on the water as possible. Second, the more streamlined your body is, the less force it takes to move it through the water and this is another tool at your disposal. I think we can all teach ourselves to sense how fast our arm is moving through the water as well as how fast our body is moving through the water in response to the arm motion. Once we can sense this, we can try to optimize it as well, and this is what is meant by anchoring our arm.

[WFEGb]

Hello Zenturtle,

just a puristic remark: Water is more or less incompressible, so "moving water backwards" is not a (physical) precise description too. Most we really do than moving water backwards is producing (unwanted) turbulences.

And yes, I agree, it might be helpful for some of us to find realized thresholds between physics-metaphores-feelings-joking-exoteric. (BTW this is bopping up here sometimes and Haschu33 put it together in a detailed post nearly the same way as you.). But for others, I think, just the unchecked mixing of all might be as helpful and others might find their improvements just in focusing in the grey zones between them.

Best regards,
Werner

PS: Yes, "throwing or steering energy in any direction" will cause frowning to a physician... when not in a TI-context... :-)

[CoachStuartMcDougal]

ZT:

You seem to drift on both sides on this, but still have your foot (or hand) firmly in the pulling camp. "Non sense", interesting choice of words. It may be non sense to you at the moment, but makes sense to others. Much like a car spinning its wheels on ice, if wheels move faster than the vessel moves forward, it's slipping.

Thanks for your warning, but I'm not sure how my challenge, descriptions, explanations will cause harm, but happy to see they have provoked a lot of thought - that can't be harmful, other than maybe rattling some egos.

Coaches like Terry and Boomer really have turned conventional wisdom, and accepted coaching norms on its head. This is very tough pill to swallow for those heavily invested in pulling and kicking propulsion model, written books about it, creating dvds, etc, as well as taught that way for years both with and without success. Those most invested will reject any notion outside their current bubble. Since if they do, it may discredit what they done over several years possibly hitting them financially, their learning/improving process comes mostly to a halt.

This what I truly admire from both Terry and Boomer is their admission after 10 and 8 years of coaching respectively, they had it all wrong. 10 years is a heavy investment and takes a very secure person to say and recognize the filter of accepted norms was preventing them seeing a much bigger picture and learning something new. The picture being how the human vessel moves through the water and solving that problem by much different methods other pulling and kicking impulses. These impulses are primal to us humans and we all resort to arms and legs for stability first. It takes time a patience, a learned skill, to move stability to the core, core stability (as Terry notes) or tone in the middle, soft in the limbs (as Boomer notes)

Now what I find fascinating is how biologists are discovering and admitting how they have had it all wrong all these years when understanding the propulsion of aquatic creatures like jellies, and eels. It order for us to move out of the -a- to -b-, black or white binary world of accepted norms, it takes those willing to risk challenging those norms to offer other explanations and solutions that are contrary to conventional wisdom. They will always face pressure and often ridicule because change is hard, accepting change - even harder.

Stuart

[Zenturtle]

I fully agree on the importance of the core and connection in swimming.
Aquatic posture, proper connection, timing..... AND shaping a good paddle/reasonable kick are the main priorities in all my swims.
I posted a few times about the resemblence with Chapmans lotus elan Xframe.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-co...bone-frame.jpg
Chapman was a guy like Boomer, Thinking ahead of the pack.
Building good roadholding from a very solid and stiff foundation and light weight body instead of putting a big engine in a crappy chassis. Swimming is more than a solid backbone, but the basic idea of the importance of a sound foundation to optimally use/control the forces of the extremities is more or less the same.
Its all right to connect and maybe even fire from the core outwards, but in the end a human has to use arms and legs to provide propulsion. I never have seen a fast swimmer without arms and legs.
And the control of these extremities requires skill to get the most out of them.
Starting from the core may be a good starting point, but its not the end.
Arms and legs dont automatically do what they are supposed to do, certainly not in the water, so a lot of time is needed to teach that part too.

[CoachStuartMcDougal]

No arm fly, Tao Zheng ParaOlympian I believe: https://www.facebook.com/yasserGhall...1/?pnref=story . Thanks to Coach Todd E for posting on facebook, inspirational indeed.

Another from Zheng: 50 free, 30.2 secs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtPEC5b-MA

Push (water back), pull (suction forward) - or a bit of both?

Stuart

[Danny]

Originally Posted by CoachStuartMcDougal

No arm fly, Tao Zheng ParaOlympian I believe: https://www.facebook.com/yasserGhall...1/?pnref=story . Thanks to Coach Todd E for posting on facebook, inspirational indeed.

Another from Zheng: 50 free, 30.2 secs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtPEC5b-MA

Push (water back), pull (suction forward) - or a bit of both?

Stuart

I winced when I saw him hit the clock at the end of the lap, since it seems he has to do it with his head, having no arms. His resonant frequency is much higher than the swimmers with arms.