4 ms·

There are a couple things going on with this story: One is the role of technology in sports which is really interesting. In other sports there is a lot of deba

There are a couple things going on with this story: One is the role of technology in sports which is really interesting. In other sports there is a lot of debate over what technology is allowed and what isn't. I would be really interested to see some things like how far someone could hit a golf ball if there were no restrictions on the club or ball or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits. The second thing, however, is that the text of the story and the video have different focuses. The text focuses on telling the story of how this is a grassroots movement by some athletes. The video, however, seems to have a more pronounced undercurrent that this might really be about one company, BalancePlus, trying to put pressure against an upstart competitor, icePad, who is eating into their market share. I think it is really interesting that the text doesn't emphasize this as much as the video does.

Someone 11y ago
"or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits." Define swim. If you don't, people will end up wearing a boat (the suits banned a few years ago started looking like them by providing floatation and being somewhat rigid) and having gloves on their legs and arms that resemble fins or paddles.
- mentat 11y ago
  That is exactly the point. You're implying that the current definition (as interpreted by you) is the only possible meaningful definition. History shows this doesn't work out for all definitions.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    I don't think he/she was. He/she was trying to explain how the technology is so advanced that it almost changes the very nature of what "swimming" is.
    - mentat 11y ago
      Does swimming have a nature? This may be a topic too deep for HN based on current down voting but there are substantial philosophical arguments not withstanding the historical one that such things do not have natures. The historical argument I think is pretty basic. Would people from a century ago recognize competitive swimming as swimming? How about 2 centuries ago? A millennium? When does the nature of swimming get fixed?
      - Nadya 11y ago
        This was settles centuries ago. Riding on the water in a boat is called "sailing" and using your body to move through the water is called "swimming". The nature of "swimming" is defined as the verb "to swim". Which curtails that one is not "sailing". So no boats involved. There is some to be said about "drifting" (e.g floating on ones' back) being a form of "swimming" but I think that's the only grey line and as for a competition I don't think "drifting" would ever win in a race. If one wishes to "drift" as their method of "swimming" they will lose the race.
        mentat 11y ago
        The things you don't realize you don't know...
    - Someone 11y ago
      My implicit statement was that few, if any, sports competitions can do without rules. See, for example, the "fastest car" competitions. Fairly free, but at some time they had to introduce a "powered through the axles" variant because real cars got beaten by earth-touching jet planes. Even extremes such as "who gets to Mars first" has implicit rules. If I had to drop a few hundred nukes on earth to win that, I doubt people would remember me as the first to get to Mars.
- jccalhoun 11y ago
  I think that would be cool. I'm not saying that the Olympics and other sports should eliminate restrictions. I just wonder what technology could come up with.
  - woah 11y ago
    A jetski.
  - ajross 11y ago
    A pedal-powered recumbant kayak, surely.
- rtkwe 11y ago
  For me it'd be to move through water mostly submerged under muscle power without significantly altering the length/leverage of any limb (trying to avoid tiny boats with oars or something here). Things like diving/'mermaid' fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not significantly amplifying the swimmers power just making it easier to apply it. It's a fuzzy line for sure if we're trying to define where it starts being more of a boat than a person moving through the water.
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    > Things like diving/'mermaid' fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not significantly amplifying the swimmers power just making it easier to apply it. I disagree with this point. As an avid swimmer of 20+ years, fins/flippers make a _substantial_ difference in speed. Its actually very enjoyable to swim for a bit without flippers/fins, and then slap some on and feel like you're flying through the water.
    - rtkwe 11y ago
      They definitely do make moving through water much easier. What I was trying to get at was that things like fins mostly just allow swimmers to get their natural muscle power into the water better without really providing mechanical advantage where things like oars provide a clear advantage and increase because they're basically levers.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    There are lots more rules than that for swimming. The big rule is that swimming must occur at the surface. The fastest means of moving is dolphin-kicking underwater, usually on one's back. [Insert physics discussion re wetted surface and/or buoyancy.] The rule that swimmers must return to the surface quickly after leaving a wall/dive is to keep swimming healthy, to prevent it becoming a breath-holding event. These rules are pushed. More than a couple champion breaststrokers have admitted to two or more dolphin kicks when leaving a wall underwater (sw 7.1) and the stroke itself is evolving towards dolphin-style kicking. Freestylers really push the 15m limit for underwater travel after dives/turn (SW 5.3). http://www.fina.org/content/swimming-rules http://www.fina.org/content/swimming-rules Any evolved sport needs rules else it become a meaningless free-for-all, which normally results in unhealthy situations. If these new brooms are damaging ice and diminishing the skills needed to compete then they too should be ruled away.
jkyle 11y ago
> I would be really interested to see some things like how far someone could hit a golf ball if there were no restrictions on the club or ball or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits. Sometimes restrictions actually serve to amplify the technology used. For example, in cycling there are lower weight limits on the bike. If not for that, all the research would go into making bikes as light as possible since it directly translates into lower power for a given speed. By putting a restriction on how light a bike can be, research gains in materials to reduced weight allowed companies to put other augmentations on the bike. Like electronic shifters and the growing popularity of disc brakes on road bikes. Restrictions are just a formal declaration of what's "fair". I'd say they're necessary for any sport to be successful. For example, if there were literally zero restrictions on swim suits you'd see motorized swim suits or air jets, etc. And it wouldn't be what we think of as a "swimming" competition anymore.
- jdietrich 11y ago
  >For example, in cycling there are lower weight limits on the bike. If not for that, all the research would go into making bikes as light as possible since it directly translates into lower power for a given speed. Aero is much more important than weight. Pro bikes often come in slightly above the UCI weight limit, because an extra few hundred grams is a worthwhile tradeoff for a reduction in drag. In other forms of cyclesport, the weight limit is irrelevant. The weight limit was introduced primarily for safety reasons, and the UCI are considering abolishing it after the introduction of frame homologation testing. >the growing popularity of disc brakes on road bikes This has nothing to do with racing. Disc brakes are currently banned in road racing, with limited exceptions for ProTour teams performing testing. Road discs were driven by marketing, not competition. >Sometimes restrictions actually serve to amplify the technology used. The UCI's technical regulations have been a consistent barrier to progress, from the recumbent ban of 1934 to the aspect ratio rules of 2009. The UCI explicitly declared their opposition to technological progress in the Lugano charter. There is now considerable pressure for the UCI to abolish the charter, both from within and without the organisation. http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano%20charter.pdf http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano...

Someone 11y ago

"or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits." Define swim. If you don't, people will end up wearing a boat (the suits banned a few years ago started looking like them by providing floatation and being somewhat rigid) and having gloves on their legs and arms that resemble fins or paddles.

mentat 11y ago
That is exactly the point. You're implying that the current definition (as interpreted by you) is the only possible meaningful definition. History shows this doesn't work out for all definitions.
- austenallred 11y ago
  I don't think he/she was. He/she was trying to explain how the technology is so advanced that it almost changes the very nature of what "swimming" is.
  - mentat 11y ago
    Does swimming have a nature? This may be a topic too deep for HN based on current down voting but there are substantial philosophical arguments not withstanding the historical one that such things do not have natures. The historical argument I think is pretty basic. Would people from a century ago recognize competitive swimming as swimming? How about 2 centuries ago? A millennium? When does the nature of swimming get fixed?
    - Nadya 11y ago
      This was settles centuries ago. Riding on the water in a boat is called "sailing" and using your body to move through the water is called "swimming". The nature of "swimming" is defined as the verb "to swim". Which curtails that one is not "sailing". So no boats involved. There is some to be said about "drifting" (e.g floating on ones' back) being a form of "swimming" but I think that's the only grey line and as for a competition I don't think "drifting" would ever win in a race. If one wishes to "drift" as their method of "swimming" they will lose the race.
      - mentat 11y ago
        The things you don't realize you don't know...
  - Someone 11y ago
    My implicit statement was that few, if any, sports competitions can do without rules. See, for example, the "fastest car" competitions. Fairly free, but at some time they had to introduce a "powered through the axles" variant because real cars got beaten by earth-touching jet planes. Even extremes such as "who gets to Mars first" has implicit rules. If I had to drop a few hundred nukes on earth to win that, I doubt people would remember me as the first to get to Mars.
jccalhoun 11y ago
I think that would be cool. I'm not saying that the Olympics and other sports should eliminate restrictions. I just wonder what technology could come up with.
- woah 11y ago
  A jetski.
- ajross 11y ago
  A pedal-powered recumbant kayak, surely.
rtkwe 11y ago
For me it'd be to move through water mostly submerged under muscle power without significantly altering the length/leverage of any limb (trying to avoid tiny boats with oars or something here). Things like diving/'mermaid' fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not significantly amplifying the swimmers power just making it easier to apply it. It's a fuzzy line for sure if we're trying to define where it starts being more of a boat than a person moving through the water.
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  > Things like diving/'mermaid' fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not significantly amplifying the swimmers power just making it easier to apply it. I disagree with this point. As an avid swimmer of 20+ years, fins/flippers make a _substantial_ difference in speed. Its actually very enjoyable to swim for a bit without flippers/fins, and then slap some on and feel like you're flying through the water.
  - rtkwe 11y ago
    They definitely do make moving through water much easier. What I was trying to get at was that things like fins mostly just allow swimmers to get their natural muscle power into the water better without really providing mechanical advantage where things like oars provide a clear advantage and increase because they're basically levers.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  There are lots more rules than that for swimming. The big rule is that swimming must occur at the surface. The fastest means of moving is dolphin-kicking underwater, usually on one's back. [Insert physics discussion re wetted surface and/or buoyancy.] The rule that swimmers must return to the surface quickly after leaving a wall/dive is to keep swimming healthy, to prevent it becoming a breath-holding event. These rules are pushed. More than a couple champion breaststrokers have admitted to two or more dolphin kicks when leaving a wall underwater (sw 7.1) and the stroke itself is evolving towards dolphin-style kicking. Freestylers really push the 15m limit for underwater travel after dives/turn (SW 5.3). http://www.fina.org/content/swimming-rules http://www.fina.org/content/swimming-rules Any evolved sport needs rules else it become a meaningless free-for-all, which normally results in unhealthy situations. If these new brooms are damaging ice and diminishing the skills needed to compete then they too should be ruled away.

jkyle 11y ago

> I would be really interested to see some things like how far someone could hit a golf ball if there were no restrictions on the club or ball or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits. Sometimes restrictions actually serve to amplify the technology used. For example, in cycling there are lower weight limits on the bike. If not for that, all the research would go into making bikes as light as possible since it directly translates into lower power for a given speed. By putting a restriction on how light a bike can be, research gains in materials to reduced weight allowed companies to put other augmentations on the bike. Like electronic shifters and the growing popularity of disc brakes on road bikes. Restrictions are just a formal declaration of what's "fair". I'd say they're necessary for any sport to be successful. For example, if there were literally zero restrictions on swim suits you'd see motorized swim suits or air jets, etc. And it wouldn't be what we think of as a "swimming" competition anymore.

jdietrich 11y ago
>For example, in cycling there are lower weight limits on the bike. If not for that, all the research would go into making bikes as light as possible since it directly translates into lower power for a given speed. Aero is much more important than weight. Pro bikes often come in slightly above the UCI weight limit, because an extra few hundred grams is a worthwhile tradeoff for a reduction in drag. In other forms of cyclesport, the weight limit is irrelevant. The weight limit was introduced primarily for safety reasons, and the UCI are considering abolishing it after the introduction of frame homologation testing. >the growing popularity of disc brakes on road bikes This has nothing to do with racing. Disc brakes are currently banned in road racing, with limited exceptions for ProTour teams performing testing. Road discs were driven by marketing, not competition. >Sometimes restrictions actually serve to amplify the technology used. The UCI's technical regulations have been a consistent barrier to progress, from the recumbent ban of 1934 to the aspect ratio rules of 2009. The UCI explicitly declared their opposition to technological progress in the Lugano charter. There is now considerable pressure for the UCI to abolish the charter, both from within and without the organisation. http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano%20charter.pdf http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano...