I’ve had this discussion behind the scenes with some swimmers recently and felt their challenge to bring up this topic more in the open. So here it is…
I want to address ‘the elephant in the room’ (as one of them put it) regarding the apparent rivalry between TI and another program’s approach to the speed problem.
The Speed Problem
The question is: what’s the program’s solution for making a swimmer faster (while maintaining efficiency)?
Many swimmers seems to summarize it as: TI is about getting swimmers to use a Longer Stroke while Program B is about getting swimmers to use a Faster Tempo.
[Note: it seems to be an implied agreement between the rival programs and between coaches in our org to not mention the rival’s name directly in public. So I am going to carry on that policy to maintain the peace. And I am bringing up this topic in the attempt to reason and find the common ground between the perspectives and maintain professional respect in the discussion.]
Where does this impression of two programs sitting at two ideological poles come from? Perhaps some of it comes from how the companies present themselves and how they frame their competitors. And, some of it may come from how the general public has been traditionally taught to view How Swimming Works, which is becoming increasingly outdated. Then there are those, like my friend, a retired engineer (who’s provoked me to post this blog essay), who dig in with critical eyes and actually start crunching the performance equations and cataloging the assumptions behind the view points, working on a more responsible evaluation of each program’s claims.
This essay is not going to address how the impression has been made, it is going to confront the accuracy of that impression. Of course, I spend a lot of blog space explaining what we actually teach and practice in TI in order to clarify gaps in understanding and to correct misinformation.
What Does TI Teach?
If it has not become clear to those who regularly study my blog let me review again: TI teaches what we understand to be the proper use of both SL and SR in relation to each other. in order to achieve desired speed at desired energy expense. As our method for swimmer development shows, we see that it is usually better to develop SL before developing SR for physiological reasons.
I actually have a hard time believing that studious swim coaches in other programs can disregard the role of stroke length in speed training. Yet, I wonder if or how these other programs teach swimmers to achieve and control stroke length. I rarely see it discussed by other programs – or if it is mentioned, I don’t see reference to it being taught in a systematic way. (If you do know of specific treatments on the topic by coaches outside of TI, please pass on links to those, because I want to believe others are following the same physics though we might differ on emphasis).
Quick clarifying definitions: SPL = number of strokes taken per length (in your pool), while SL = stroke length (how many meters you travel on each two-arm stroke cycle). SR = stroke rate (how many strokes taken per minute, which is the mathematical inverse of Tempo). We might casually use terms interchangeably in other discussions, but I will stick to SL and SR in this essay.
Let’s review:
The Speed Equation
You know that our speed is governed by this equation: SL x SR = Speed (or the mathematical inverse: SPL x Tempo = Pace)
In TI we are concerned about achieving – not the longest stroke, nor the fastest tempo – but the optimal stroke length combined with the optimal stroke rate which will create the pace we want at the energy cost we can afford. For each swimmer, in each event, in each kind of condition (like triathlon versus pool racing) there is an optimal SL x SR combination to use, or a small range of them. So, for each person, there is a point at which stroke length is too short and a point at which it becomes too long – for efficiency (in terms of energy expense) and for speed effect (with or without concern for energy expense). And the same can be said of stroke rate – it can be too slow or it can be too fast for the context. But because of the relationship in that speed equation, the SL and SR settings only have meaning in relationship to each other. Training for one cannot be done well without respect to its effect on the other variable.
Physiology Drives Development Order
Furthermore, we recognize physiological principles which urge us to establish appropriate stroke length before trying to establish appropriate stroke rate. In TI the first step is to establish appropriate SL. That emphasis on the first step comes from the understanding of how the body develops superior control and strength for complex movement patterns. And it comes from the observation of thousands and thousands of humans in the water – it is much more common to find under-developed swimmers (all the way to Olympic level swimmers) who suffer from severely shortened strokes, or quickly deteriorating stroke length, who then try (unsuccessfully) to compensate with inappropriately fast and energy-wasteful SR – though not all of them, for sure.
It is this land-based instinct we must over-ride with stroke length programming first. Stroke length is first and foremost built through body-shaping. And body-shape is the center piece of technique. Thus we return to the idea that stroke length reaching an optimum is a good external indicator of how much body shape is improving. And, TI is well-known for effectively teaching this aspect of technique.
For a brief, persuasive summary of the superiority of stroke length control over stroke rate increase read Coach Terry’s recent article Pro swimmer Katie Ledecky’s Three Steps To Better Swim Efficiency.
So naturally, to cover the more common problem seen by TI Coaches over the last 40 years (which amounts to 100’s of thousands of hours of live observation) that ‘improvement of control over stroke length’ needs to come first in our standard process for developing a swimmer. Then, once there is a reasonable level of control over that, we add SR work with respect to SL. There is complete understanding here that once the swimmer has made the initial gains from improved SL, SR has to be improved eventually if one is going to achieve a new personal record.
Why The Differing Emphasis?
It may be that Program B sees more swimmers with a bigger problem with stroke rate and therefore has developed an emphasis on increasing SR right away in most of their swimmers. And it may be that TI coaches, for whatever reason, see more swimmers with a bigger problem with stroke length and so get to work on it first, then address SR second. I don’t know how certain kinds of problems tend to show up in more statistical frequency in this program while other kinds of problems show up more often in that program. That phenomenon may lead to an earnest view that ‘most swimmers have this/that problem and need this/that solution’. Maybe coaches see what they want to see. Or it may mean that one program feels the need to distinguish itself from the features of the rival, so it picks a point and tries to make it seem like there is a difference when there is none, or should be none.
Regardless of whether one is a TI fan or not, physics rules the discussion. The development of speed (and speed with efficiency) cannot focus only on SL or only on SR. The swimmer’s weak spots in the whole SL x SR equation must be addressed. To achieve her desired personal record in the swim, the swimmer has to be able to achieve both an optimal SL and an optimal SR and then hold those consistently (or shift them intentionally) over the swim. And the energy expense for each SL x SR combination has to be examined so that the swimmer can find the combination which produces the desired speed at an acceptable cost. It is not about being loyal to SL increase or SR increase, nor about being dogmatically loyal to this program or that one, but about prescribing the correction for each swimmer’s weakness and setting up a training process that works to affect those changes.
To say that TI only focuses on making strokes longer and longer is an innocent misunderstanding or an intentional distortion – because in all our certified training events and materials, we teach and train by that whole SL x SR equation. Likewise, I have a hard time believing that other programs can only see faster and faster tempo as the solution, without regard for improving stroke length (and stroke length endurance) when it is a problem.
Is There Agreement?
For the speed-oriented swimmer, I advocate that weaknesses in both short SL and slow SR have to be addressed. Yet, physiologically it doesn’t work well to correct both at the same time in the initial coaching intervention – one has to be corrected first, then the other with respect to the first.
Perhaps Program B totally agrees – but there may be a void in the public awareness about how much TI offers SR solutions and how much Program B offers SL solutions. It would behoove each program to recognize the public perception and provide more material to fill in that void. I do what I can for those I reach with my media.
Or maybe the program promoters are too easily caught up in the bubble of their paradigm (and marketing tactics) at the expense of swimmers’ understanding…
As a consumer of the information the various coaching programs provide, what do you think is going on?
<
p style=”text-align: center;”>~ ~ ~
Send me a note if this has confirmed your understanding, challenged it, or you have more perspective you think I should know about.
© 2016, Mediterra International, LLC. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Mediterra International, LLC and Mediterraswim.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Hello Mat,
some views from me as a convinced TI-swimmer, if not too arrogant with this statement.
– Sometimes it seems, and I do hope so, good schools are far more on the same asymptotic best way than they would admit. (In psychology a study showed the most successful therapists show more similarities than differences, no matter which school they came from…)
– Think RPE and Ramptest, GZ and CSS swimming can be viewed from very similar points of view.
– Same with Kaizen and do your best every day… Last but not least each one has to decide by herself, if swimming the same time with one SPL less and feeling better or swimming a PB with 5sec less with totally exhaustion is the better for himself. Both may be interpreted as (Kaizen like) major step forward.
– And parting swimmers into four classes with special comprehensive direction-hints to their best stroke is partly an individualization similar to the TI-like individual work with highly customizable FPs.
– Finding measurements that seem to confirm, most swimmers are able to swim a 5% higher SR is in measurable result not so far from going from the upper limit of GZ to middleline or lower limit with same TT.
– Every school has some model atheletes where the others wouldn’t say: Oh, what a bad stroke! And every school will find again some of their primary points in some of the world’s best (Ledecki, Yang, Phelps…)
– Seems the market is urging different schools to put blinkers on and will adjust them just to focus the alleged weaknesses of the other. VERY glad you tried another way! (At least for me this is very TI-like…) Afraid you’ll be the voice in the wilderness.
Best regards,
Werner
Program B devotees see only TI’s focus on stroke length and don’t bother to understand it more (perhaps because most public domain material is of people doing drills slowly).
TI devotees see only Program B’s focus on stroke rate and don’t bother to understand it more.
Of course, there are differences, but both ‘schools’ look at the same elite swimmers and say “He/she is an example for the very best…” Open minded exponents from both ‘schools’ see the similarities.
I think that is a profound key – to remain open to learn, even or especially from those who seem to think quite differently. It doesn’t mean we need to accept what is being promoted, but to seek out good and useful insights, even from an opponent’s viewpoint, is a discipline of mind and heart for sure. Being insecure and feeling a threat by another’s ideas or success is a common experience in business, but to rise above it – I would like to think that the true master learns from his students and from his opponents, rather than waste his time trying to prove he is the master of the topic. However, the capitalist culture urges us business owners to prove superiority to our competitor. This is where swim coaching business crosses the line from public health service based on science to commercial enterprise based on competition. It’s hard to avoid the conflict of interest as a coach vs business.
So, we’ve got potential for a closed-minded-problem in both the devotees and in the gurus.
I debated this within myself for months. I settled on the TI approach to swimming because it fits the way I think and the way I view swimming.
However, I can see that others have a tough time of it and suit Program B more. Personality matters.
The classic endurance athlete knows that you need to train hard to succeed, even through pain (true or false doesn’t matter). Those that engage in that kind of training do it because it rewards them in ways they need. I find that doesn’t work with swimming – water always wins the fight. You still need grit, but it more psychological, and most amateur endurance athletes glaze over whenever you get into that soft fluffy stuff.
People who wish to learn skill or skill mastery have a different approach to swimming, and enjoy the prospect of a life-long Kaizen journey. These people love TI and do well with it.
My opinion is that Program B suits the former and helps them to improve to the limit of their ability, but TI moves the limit (and takes longer).
Choose your medicine!
I agree that it is very likely that different programs attract different kinds of people, and we see that in the mindsets of the ‘devotees’. (By the way, I was at a meeting of TI Coaches a few years ago and I suddenly realized everyone in the room were introverts! Interesting!) It is hard to leave it at ‘different programs for different kinds of people’ when one competitor suggests that the others not merely offer an alternative approach to high performance, but a substantially inferior approach. Yet, certainly, not all programs are equal. There must be qualitative difference in the approaches, but all we do is debate it with anecdote and highly selective evidence. As the engineer (who inspired my post) said, we just cannot run a definitive experiment on a swimmer, taking him through Program A, wipe the slate clean, then run him through Program B to prove which one works better – even if we could, would that decide one was better for everyone or only for types like him?
But, from my own testimony, I was in the traditional style (which I feel Program B is an attractive, modern version of) for the first 13 years of my training swimmer life and I actually have a good tolerance and attitude about pain. I really don’t mind ‘suffering’ in sport. However, it simply was not taking me any further. It was the discovery of TI that unlocked more potential and showed me my acceptance of suffering was not only no longer necessary (see my recent essay on Pain And Peace), it was a waste of precious energy and a set up for more injury. So, unlike most opponents of TI that I hear, I have in fact spent time in both camps, and chose TI based on experience with both. But, as you say, I may have been drawn to it and found success with it because of a stylistic/philosophical compatibility which also had a performance enhancing effect.
There is lots to consider!
Among other things I do have a computer engineering background. I started swimming at 41, in 2014. I could say that initially, as I started learning and self-teaching the drills, it was a nightmare; I was subliminally subjected to hostility by the lifeguards and other “expert swimmers.” The comments and ridicle-centred around being too analytical with the process, using no kick-board and trying to swim pretty. Now I get compliments and many of them have been silenced. My attraction to TI was the patina of efficiency it brought to the table. I think that was appealing to my engineering side. I actually feel like I was looking for it before I found it. Perhaps it is my analytical background that attracted me. There is a video on Youtube, I just saw where they label and critique “overgliders” like its a disease and all the swimmers in it swim Ti-ish.
I am grieved to hear of another story of such persecution – but it is common for those who step outside the orthodox mindset. On one hand, I think I recognize the temptation in any of us to mock things that are not like our own way of doing things. But on the other hand, why should they care what you choose to do in the water? It’s your body, your life.
I do spend a lot of effort writing and clarifying and trying to explain why and how we do what we do, but in the end, it’s what happens in the water that matters. If our process really produces better results that can be seen and admired, eventually this will catch on. So, we can put our better effort into just swimming and letting results prove what they will prove.
And, it also may be helpful to first ask the critics what goal their advice is aimed at, then ask how they assumed so much about my process and goal. I would like to think that a true master probably remains silent until asked for help (with someone’s words or eyes), but if they are tempted to broach the topic with a swimmer they will start by asking questions to make sure they understand the swimmers need and desire rather than offer advice out of context. So, those who mock, and those who throw out advice before first inquiring to know the heart and mind of the person – these kind are instantly positioning themselves as not worthy of my attention.
I am back in a local pool and, of course, being noticed by all the swimmers. It only took a couple days and I was receiving kind comments, and inquiries. I really practice non-judgment in the pool with others, smile alot, offer to share a lane, and just let them be, as I want to be. And, if they start talking and asking, I just keep asking them questions to get to know their mind and context. I resist offering advice until someone really begs for it, and even then I try to be gentle and positive. If they want more I will then show them where to look – and then I can test whether they are a ‘tire-kicker’ or truly desire to learn something new, if they come back telling me what they discovered.
But, your comment and Isaac’s and others (and the gal I chatted with in the pool this morning) suggest that certain kinds of people will be attracted to TI’s style and process, while others just won’t find it appealing (however helpful it might be). Birds of a feather…
Hello Mat,
just another thought..
“…I do spend a lot of effort writing and clarifying and trying to explain why and how we do what we do, but in the end, it’s what happens in the water that matters. …”
If only this matters think you’re cutting off the TI-part that changes our lifes. Convinced this will matter too. And what happens in water is much more worthy when “totally immersed” in people who have similar experience, scientific-humorous-exoteric -exchanges and last but not least generous coaches like you, who offer to share their deeper thoughts and investigations.
Thank you very much for this,
Werner
Hey Werner,
That is the one claim in TI that has the potential to rise above the technical debates. And I think that is TI’s trump card to help us stand firm in why and how we teach. But we cannot use that extraordinary feature as an excuse to neglect the practical need for speed for which many people seek out a swim program for help. Some people are instantly attracted to the ‘life changing’ properties of TI’s values and methods, but others only discover and become interested in those after first getting what they came for – speed or endurance. So, delivering results on a lower level (with external result like speed and endurance) can establish credibility and attraction for the process that produces higher level results – life satisfaction. I think that is the route I followed to appreciate the deeper qualities of this training path.
Then there are those who didn’t need to get speed and endurance first, but went straight for the satisfaction that a certain set of values and accompanying method produce. And that is a valid path too!
I definitely do not have personal experience of TI swimmers tending to be introverts!
Hey James! My observation was of TI coaches (several leaders among us) at a particular meeting being introverts. I have not seen this pattern among swimmers. But the kind of organization, process and attention that promised TI results requires seems to attract those who like that structure and focus, and possibly repel those who do not.
I feel that it is very important that TI Clinics are followed up by intermediate and “advanced” clinics. This will help those who made a good start in TI but are ready to start working on speed. (Triathlon athletes are highly competitive people, as a swimmer I have experienced it many times when swimming with them at 1SOMS) I have begged our South African TI coach for that to no avail.
Therefore I am doing your online course and find it most beneficial. But I know where I am heading and although now focussing on stroke length and how to preserve it under different situations this is the foundation for eventually working on stroke rate. By that time SL will (hopefully) be well trained so that gradually increasing Stroke Rate will not harm my efforts to preserve SL.
Congratulations on bringing this subject into the open. Yet, the SR Vs SL issue, in the manner that it is publicly “debated”, is almost silly. If it ever comes to an open debate, we may find that there are no substantive disagreements. I think Tony’s comment above is very true:
” Open minded exponents from both ‘schools’ see the similarities.”
However, to become knowledgeable and open-minded takes effort, and many students may not have the time or the inclination to do so. It is TI’s challenge as a business enterprise to educate its target audience, and explain the benefits of its program. Coach Mat mentioned a few points that, in my opinion, TI should work on clarifying. However, one blog does not a marketing strategy make.
Aiming at intermediate (and above) swimmers, I would recommend focusing on the following marketing points.
1. TI is about performance (not style).
Words such as, “easy”, “effortless”, etc. may be counter productive.
2. A student should choose the superior teaching methodology. (Not SR Vs SL)
Results and testimonials could serve as tools.
TI worked for me. After finding Coach Mat I came to agree with point “1” and I continue with TI because of point “2”. Not that my eyes are closed. I am interested in the other viewpoint. I just think that for a successful learning experience, it is better to follow one, not multiple teachers.
Quoting a statement near the end of your post:
As the engineer (who inspired my post) said, we just cannot run a definitive experiment on a swimmer, taking him through Program A, wipe the slate clean, then run him through Program B to prove which one works better – even if we could, would that decide one was better for everyone or only for types like him?
I seem to recall that there were twins who started swimming, but one learning technique first and the other more sr driven. In the first couple of years, the sr driven twin surpassed his brother. But after that, the one that was trained by the sl method left his twin in the dust. Wish I could remember where I read that, but that example was what drew me to the TI method.
I could draw an example from learning to play a musical instrument, let say trumpet. The very basic things are the ability to be able to read music, and then find the right combinations of pushing down the valves to get the right notes. Once that is learned, then you can move on to the finer aspects. However in the case of some musicians, like Louis Armstrong, he was completely self taught. He never took a lesson, but somehow he became one of the forerunners in Dixie land music. But that is the exception and not the rule. For us mere mortals, I think that the TI method, even tho it is slower, is better and more satisfying.
“Where does this impression of two programs sitting at two ideological poles come from?” When you look at a lot of the TI YouTube clips — some of which may understandably be promo-tools– the viewer gets some sense that it is lifestyle oriented. It is for people who just want to swim leisurely, effortless, cleverly and consequently, inflict little or no long-term wear and tear on the body. The postulation of the glide-phase does seem to preclude it from being perceived as performance or intensity orientated. It is interesting that Matt also observed that a lot of TI- disciples tend to be introverts. That has been my observation too, however, with a slightly more dressed-down assessment. If the swimmer is someone who feels that success in any endeavor is predicated on bruteness or mostly an extension of sheer will-power, as opposed to a set of pre-existing principles and techniques, then TI may not seem too appealing or gratifying. In my arrogant opinion, one acid test, is a how portable a principle is to other disciplines or can be discerned in them. I put up a post last year on the TI website from an epiphany I had on Terry’s adage “Swimming From The Inside,” wrt the core: singers are trained to sing from it– not so much the throat; boxers punch from it; tennis players swing from it.
I think that is an important distinction of something that is truly a ‘principle’ – it applies to a broad range of activities or situations. For example, ‘balance’ is a principle in movement arts and sports, which everyone is aware of.
And, training ‘from the inside out’ is also a profound principle across complicated movement patterns, as you point out. Yet, it is extremely hard to teach by watching videos that display only external features of movement, or under practice conditions where the coach only gives goals in terms of external objectives (“10x 50 on the 50” for example).
The more paradigm-confronting case we are making in TI is that the same foundation that makes swimming easier and more enjoyable also happens to be the foundation for swimming faster and longer. Yes, we slow people down and simplify things so they can get a grasp on the new controls – and many people decide to park it there with slow, easy swimming. But, for those who actually want to see how far they can go, we use that same foundation and start carefully increasing the loading, neurologically and metabolically. That’s the part that is not getting media attention, unfortunately.
Hi Mat
I think those who are working to see how far they can go with TI principles don’t get attention because there are very few examples in the public domain. Who are the successful masters 1500 m swimmers who’ve grown out of TI? Who are the successful open water swimmers (other than Terry Laughlin)? etc. And that’s not even considering the other strokes.
This is not a criticism, just an observation that most of the material in the public domain shows people learning skill rather than swimming fast.
(As an aside, my conviction that the TI principles are effective has taken me to the goal of being a successful adult onset 400m IM swimmer in the 2017 World Masters Champs! Sorry, I just had to put that out there to increase my chances of seeing it through.)
Hey Tony, the right kind of criticism is just good observation anyway. Wow. The perspective being shared here is really helpful I think. On the other side, TI Coaches are talking about this too.
It’s true – there is just a mysterious void in information about what TI accomplished for swimmers beyond a certain point. That void leaves it wide open for skeptics and opponents to fill in with their own interpretation, if TI won’t fill it. We can speculate all we want where those success stories are hiding, but they do us no good unless they are brought out of hiding. Monastic swimming or not TI needs to strut its stuff, if it really has stuff, and that is the challenge the public is presenting to us. (I personally like to keep rather private about my life and accomplishments, but business requires I demonstrate some results of what I teach).
Matt, Thanks for the post. I’ve been swimming for over 60 years (yikes), and over the last 3 years have improved my swimming dramatically due to TI, but I’m just at the beginning. The principles of TI that you discuss have worked for me and I know for many. Why the public relations problem or conflict with ‘Program B’? I think there are at least 3 reasons: 1) TI does not put forward that the goal is to swim faster, the emphasis is on ease of swimming (this is not bad, but there is a profound shift in mindset that has to take place to replace ‘physically’ hard workouts/training with disciplined and focused mental/physical training); 2 TI swimming is a very challenging discipline — with instruction, swimming 25M or 50M with acceptable TI form can occur in a reasonable amount of time, beyond that, you must embrace ‘kaizen’ principles; 3) Finally, the great swimmers and triathletes using TI techniques are no where to be found in TI promotional literature or websites, why is that?
Hey Joe,
I agree that there is an image conflict between trying to make a targeted appeal to the niche of ‘how can I swim easier?’ and trying to make a targeted appeal to the niche of ‘how can I swim faster?’. In my own education efforts I try to explain that the foundation for both is the same, but it doesn’t help that most of the materials and testimonies seem to make the image of EASIER stand out far more prominently than FASTER.
And, I’ve felt that the emphasis on EASIER is too easily misunderstood or distorted – because a kaizen practice is anything but easy. It may be mentally enjoyable – which adds the energy to motivation- but it takes dedication and effort in many dimensions to continually examine, refresh perspective, and revise one’s actions for continual improvement. That’s why I’ve several times made the statement “Traditional mindless training is hard work, but mindful swimming is even harder work.” Why is it harder? Because it require the all the systems of the person to unify and cooperate. Eventually, it becomes a glorious experience, but at first some may need to work at it like a discipline in order to break through. Mindfulness is not a gift or a personality trait- it is an invaluable mental skill that must be cultivated.
There are old references to TI speed/sprint oriented competitors – Terry’s tour with West Point sprinters and Tharp’s Over-Achiever’s Diary with the Army Tri Team. But in today’s world, old is anything 1 year ago, unfortunately. Those newly acquainted with TI may expect regular, fresh examples of speed accomplishments.
By the way, there are TI coaches cranking out tri and swim champions each year, and making their own accomplishments – I see the announced on Facebook among those coaches. But that is as far as the announcements seem to go.
Hi Matt, read this article the other week but only just finding time to reply. Personally I think that both programs are mis-understood by each other and the swimmers – and I like the first comment about there being more similarities than we realise…..I think we could learn more from each other rather than constantly picking at each other.
I choose to be a TI coach because that’s what’s made the most difference to me as a swimmer and when I started there was nothing else around. But as a “coach” I also learnt so much from “program B” (I’m not sure why we don’t use their name?) which has made me a better TI coach. They offered a short affordable CPD program without any licensing fees or ongoing costs……so it was very accessible.
Program B definitely talks about spls and stroke rates, they just come at it from a ramp test. They were the first people to teach me the idea of there being a sweet spot where speed, effort and efficiency come together. I understand it better with TI, and have an effective way of using with TI but its definitely a key part of their coaching.
Personally my journey to a TI coach has involved learning from lots of different schools of swimming and there are useful things in all of these approaches that make sense to TI….knowing what stuff doesn’t make sense also makes me a better coach.
How many TI coaches have actually bothered to go and experience these things and meet other coaches to learn from them with an open mind as part of their CPD? Actually the head coaches from Program B – are incredibly talented coaches .
I’m not entirely convinced that there’s a personality thing to TI or Program B. There’s a personality thing to having the patience to learn, and a growth mind set to practice and develop – and you need this whatever program you follow.
There are lots of myths and misconceptions out there about TI – I’ve even misunderstood information myself. And I think we need to actively address these myths directly in our marketing and information dissemination.
HI Penny,
I agree – there are really a lot of overlapping values and methodology, which would be apparent to those ‘outside the bubble’, those uninitiated into any particular program especially. Even your own perspective is ‘fresh’ as someone coming to TI relatively recently, and that is a good thing to bring to the discussion. Then there are those (including myself) that have been so steeped in TI for so many years, that we can lose touch with what it’s like to think and train outside this bubble.
But, I think one thing that is coming up from your comment and others, is that there is effort being put out by various entities (still left unnamed directly) to emphasize differences between two or more particular programs, which requires ignoring the similarities and common ground. And, perhaps only a small portion of those swimmers who study the materials of these programs really care to track those differences or get excited about them. While other searching swimmers, if they keep encountering this ‘bubble’ debate, might just get confused or frustrated by the way the conversations are always ‘warning the unaware of the dangers of Program X’s foolish advice’. Obviously, I could be indicting myself by this comment – I am constantly working to improve my own awareness and conduct in this way.
From my acquaintance with TI Coaches around the world, newer and old timers, there is a very wide range of background and experience with other traditions and programs, and especially so many who bring professional experience from other fields outside of athletics. And the discussions on Facebook among coaches represents just a small portion of the total network and collective experience. TI has been building for 40 years and have pooled understanding from hundreds of coaches to reach its current understanding. The un-voiced viewpoints of some of those ‘old timers’ might also be really insightful.
But there is more going on behind the scenes between certain programs than mere differences in swim education, and debating in some academic way – there is business interest and commercial competition at play and that factor is also taken into the equation of what is being said and how it is being said.