4 ms·

Really would love to see a true freestyle category — with the 15m rule removed. I'm curious why it's not a thing.

NooneAtAll3 1y ago
let's start by not disallowing butterfly underwater restriction at least makes safety sense - stroke restrictions do not
onlypassingthru 1y ago
I think the rule was created because underwater racing is not that interesting to watch for spectators and more difficult to officiate from the surface. Maybe all we need is a bunch of GoPros stuck around the pool and we can see a new race category?
- fouronnes3 1y ago
  Being interesting for participants is not enough?
  - onlypassingthru 1y ago
    Aside from swimmers themselves, nobody else cares about competitive swimming outside of the Olympics.
- viburnum 1y ago
  A swim coach told me that in 1950s people used to do the first lap of breaststroke underwater but people kept passing out. It wasn't safe for youth sports.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- xhkkffbf 1y ago
  The real reason is safety. People have known about the efficiency of swimming under water for the longest time, but competitors would pass out or even die when they held their breath too long. So the rules changed to force people to the surface.
aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> I'm curious why it's not a thing. According to onlypassingthru in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542370 "The optics of an underwater race were not good". Additionally consider (as was pointed by swarnie in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542285 ) that there exist clothing restrictions in Olympic swimming - in my opinion this is also a contradiction to the spirit of "freestyle".
- noahjk 1y ago
  > there exist clothing restrictions in Olympic swimming My argument against this is that there are already so many activities where less wealthy are priced out. Most prospective athletes (or families) don't have a bunch of money to shell out for stuff like hydrophobic full-body suits, or hockey gear, or whatever.
- ekr____ 1y ago
  The usual argument against clothing restrictions (see also supershoes in running and various aero stuff in cycling) is that you want the sport to reward the best athletes rather than turning into a technological arms race. This is especially complicated in sports where people don't get to choose their own gear and so (for instance), whether you have access to the best shoes depends on who your sponsor is. Back when Nike was first rolling out the first supershoes, you would sometimes see athletes sponsored by other brands actually wear Nikes with the logo blacked out, because it was just such a big advantage. As another comparison point, look at Formula 1, where technology is a huge part of the competition, with the result that a driver can be dominant one year and then fall way back the next because of some technological shift. Of course, even F1 does tinker with the rules a lot to try to preserve competition, as when they banned electronic stabilization.
  - gerdesj 1y ago
    F1 is a weird one. Technology can make a massive difference. I remember the 1970s when a car with a skirt destroyed the opposition by sticking to the ground and the six wheeled beasties and the other wacky stuff. Sponsored by fags (obviously) F1 is all about the drivers except it is also all about the marques (who pay quite a lot for it and need to show a return). The rule book for F1 is pretty daunting these days and I'm not too sure how much is driver and how much is car these days. I do know that F1 drivers do abuse themselves badly during a race - they experience G forces that would make you and I weep and probably pass out. It's all for our entertainment so all good 8)
Azrael3000 1y ago
There is a sport called finswimming which has underwater speed disciplines (apnea or with bottles). But as the name implies it comes with the use of fins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finswimming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finswimming

let's start by not disallowing butterfly underwater restriction at least makes safety sense - stroke restrictions do not

onlypassingthru 1y ago

I think the rule was created because underwater racing is not that interesting to watch for spectators and more difficult to officiate from the surface. Maybe all we need is a bunch of GoPros stuck around the pool and we can see a new race category?

fouronnes3 1y ago
Being interesting for participants is not enough?
- onlypassingthru 1y ago
  Aside from swimmers themselves, nobody else cares about competitive swimming outside of the Olympics.
viburnum 1y ago
A swim coach told me that in 1950s people used to do the first lap of breaststroke underwater but people kept passing out. It wasn't safe for youth sports.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
xhkkffbf 1y ago
The real reason is safety. People have known about the efficiency of swimming under water for the longest time, but competitors would pass out or even die when they held their breath too long. So the rules changed to force people to the surface.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> I'm curious why it's not a thing. According to onlypassingthru in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542370 "The optics of an underwater race were not good". Additionally consider (as was pointed by swarnie in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44542285 ) that there exist clothing restrictions in Olympic swimming - in my opinion this is also a contradiction to the spirit of "freestyle".

noahjk 1y ago
> there exist clothing restrictions in Olympic swimming My argument against this is that there are already so many activities where less wealthy are priced out. Most prospective athletes (or families) don't have a bunch of money to shell out for stuff like hydrophobic full-body suits, or hockey gear, or whatever.
ekr____ 1y ago
The usual argument against clothing restrictions (see also supershoes in running and various aero stuff in cycling) is that you want the sport to reward the best athletes rather than turning into a technological arms race. This is especially complicated in sports where people don't get to choose their own gear and so (for instance), whether you have access to the best shoes depends on who your sponsor is. Back when Nike was first rolling out the first supershoes, you would sometimes see athletes sponsored by other brands actually wear Nikes with the logo blacked out, because it was just such a big advantage. As another comparison point, look at Formula 1, where technology is a huge part of the competition, with the result that a driver can be dominant one year and then fall way back the next because of some technological shift. Of course, even F1 does tinker with the rules a lot to try to preserve competition, as when they banned electronic stabilization.
- gerdesj 1y ago
  F1 is a weird one. Technology can make a massive difference. I remember the 1970s when a car with a skirt destroyed the opposition by sticking to the ground and the six wheeled beasties and the other wacky stuff. Sponsored by fags (obviously) F1 is all about the drivers except it is also all about the marques (who pay quite a lot for it and need to show a return). The rule book for F1 is pretty daunting these days and I'm not too sure how much is driver and how much is car these days. I do know that F1 drivers do abuse themselves badly during a race - they experience G forces that would make you and I weep and probably pass out. It's all for our entertainment so all good 8)

Azrael3000 1y ago

There is a sport called finswimming which has underwater speed disciplines (apnea or with bottles). But as the name implies it comes with the use of fins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finswimming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finswimming