Dear Francine,
I have received a proposal of the new rules for the monofins. I have got following comments:
1. there is not mentioned the author of the proposal,
2. there are not mentioned the technical arguments to justify the proposal,
3. to the particular points:
- ad a) the whole thing is a nonsense – especially the material and the measures must be defined
- ad b) what is meant by this? Does it apply for the foot protection against scratching? And what is exactly needed to fix the foot – the definition is missing.
- ad c) the reason for this is missing – the suggested position is not physiological
- ad d) the requirements of 5 mm thickness of the material needed to fix the foot to the fin does not correspond with any monofin, the fixing materials hasn’t got sufficient firmness and they are torn by the powerful strokes of the competitors. Just this relevant defect is possible to get rid off by increasing its thickness.
- ad e) this is not a definition
- ad f) without a comment to the definition, but according the fin protection, it doesn’t make sense because it is slowing down the forward motion. I think that it is mostly the side borders which stabilize the fin motion in horizontal direction ( they prevent from the side swings)
- ad g) because the material is not defined in a), it is not possible to speak about different additional material
For me it is, from the attached proposal, clear, that it is only an amateur and not serious proposal, which is by no means possible to approve.
It was agreed, at the meeting of the commission for the fin swimming CMAS in Monaco, that there will be the working commission created, to determine the parameters for the monofins. There should be a doctor, a technician and a trainer in this commission. I have received, besides the mentioned proposal of the rules for the monofins, three expert opinions, all of them from the members of the French federation ( including Mr. Grammaticos, who is a member of the Greek and French federation and who hasn’t got any objections against the new type of monofins. I quite agree with the report from the technical adviser of the Greek federation in the technical part, not the price part. ) There is missing any other opinion and there is no consideration of the monofins in the whole, only the monofins of the new type. If we want to achieve something in this sport, we have to be serious and we have to elaborate the technical conditions for the use of monofins and their structure on the technical and even scientific base.
1. Were there, in the past, the fins defined in any way?
2. When the monofins started to be used, which was really the revolution in the fin swimming, were there their parameters defined?
If yes, it is necessary to come out from these old definitions.
If not, how do we want to continue? Did anyone approve the shape and the material of the monofins which are in use now? If not, who and what gives us the right to forbid the new types and to slow down the development?
What will happen if the monofins, the most competitors are swimming with today (and there are few types already), won’t suit the new rules for the monofins? Won’t they be suitable from the moment of defining the fin parameters? Do we have the technical and medical reasons for the fin parameters definition? Can we forbid something what we didn’t limit in the past? Definitely not. How will be damaged the competitors who have bought the new expensive monofins and they have bought them in good will?
When I compare the old and new type of monofins, I have to say that the old monofins cause the serious health problems to the competitors – first, there are frequent feet scratches, often bleeding, Achilles heel damages, the growths on the instep and toe bones of the feet, which have to be operatively removed, the feet deformation are arising because only the front foot part is striking, there are damages of the bottom part of the foot in the part where the blade is ending, the ankle is being extremely strained if the swimmer is drawing his feet to the parallel position to the blade while returning legs to the water level.
It is not spoken about this. The new type of the monofin removes the most of these health problems. The use of these monofins requires new style of swimming but the rules don’t forbid that. The rules only define the movement of the swimmer on the water level or under the water. At the every competition, i.e. gymnastics, jumps to water, figure-skating or others, the competitors come up with some new thing, which nobody else can do. And that is power of success. If somebody comes up with the new style, who keeps the rules to have a part of the swimmer’s body on the water level ( which can be a part of his equipment as well ) and who is faster, CMAS cannot forbid this and nor can anybody else.
Take a look at the monofin history. They were invented in former Soviet Union. Many types of blade were tried ( wide, narrow, long, short ) – they were adapted to the shape of the fish tails. The swimmer’s movement imitates the movement of the water animals as well. The monofin business has started. The materials were cheap in then Soviet Union, nobody else was producing the monofins. The foot-pockets were made by cutting the ordinary rubber fins and glued to the blade of monofin. Later, some of the companies started to make the monofins industrially – in former Germany and in Italy – the homogenous foot-pockets were of good quality, but the laminated blades didn’t reach the quality of the Russian blades.
And there is when we start to talk about the price – the cheap material – low price, big demand – price is increasing according to the lack of the monofins on the market. After the politic system changes in the Eastern Europe, the material prices were rapidly increased 10 – 20 times. That’s why their price was increased too. Compare the prices in different years:
The monofin prices
| Year |
Eastern Europe
|
Western Europe |
German |
Italian |
Chinese |
| 1982-1985 |
20 DM |
40-50 DM |
30 DM |
- |
- |
| 1990 |
25 DM |
50-60 DM |
- |
220-250 DM |
300 USD |
| 1992 |
50 DM |
60-100 DM |
- |
220-250 DM |
300 USD |
| 2002 |
80-100 EUR |
80-100 EUR |
- |
from 100 EUR |
from 100 EUR |
| 2002 (new type) |
500-1000 EUR |
We all have to realize that together with the technology development the new materials are using for the improvement of the technical parameters of all things, not only the sport ones, which we use in everyday life. Every research costs something, every new material is more expensive than the previous one. The prices of everything which is new are rapidly increasing. However, as the time goes by and by filling the market, they are decreasing to the acceptable level. This is a business and nobody will avoid that. Nor the new type of monofins.
The producers offer the monofins for the prices, which the sportsmen are willing to pay. If there are more producers, the prices will decrease rapidly. The argument that the price is too high cannot stand up. Nor can the problems of the black market, if I don’t want, I won’t buy on the black market. There are still companies in Russia and Ukraine, which produce the monofins and sell the high quality for adequate prices and the most important, officially. If the parameters of monofins are defined, there will be more producers which will produce the monofins industrially. So far nobody besides the producers from the countries of former Soviet Union and China can so precisely propose and to produce the monofin for the different track length and for the particular competitor ( as far as his foot size, weight and physiological possibilities are concerned ). It is a genuine individual production. The industry can cover only public, it cannot cover the top competitors.
The Greek trainers say that there were used steel springs in the new type of monofins, which help to return the monofin to the starting position after the stroke. Is it only slandering or somebody has proved that there really are the springs inside the fins? We have to realize that if there is no proof, there is no blame. Such a weighty decision can be judicially attacked. And after all, what forbid the use of the springs? It is not an independent force, the competitor has to overcome the spring resistance in the first place and only than the spring would work on the way back to the starting position. The spring set in the rubber foot cover cannot have the sufficient length to provide this kind of movement. If there is something from metal in the fin, which nobody has proved yet, the probable reason is to provide the constant stretch of the foot, especially with the returning the legs to the starting position ( many competitors haven’t got enough strength to keep the common monofins and the feet stretched while returning to the water level, which is unconditionally necessary to increase speed of the swimmer ). Compare the technical means of other sports – inside the tennis and squash rackets, hockey sticks and baseball bats are put the steel pipes with the lead balls to avoid the vibrations. There are new football balls which increase the speed of the shot, there are new football boots which increase the ball rotation twice, there are new aerodynamic ski boots. Sport is becoming more technical and we have to respect that.
Let us have more time to approve the monofin parameters and define them on really serious expert basis. Especially the doctors has to express themselves and the technicians has to define the parameters according to doctors opinion:
1. the monofin blade size – width, length, thickness ( including the restrictions for the age categories )
2. the monofin blade material – polyester, epoxid, the use of carbon fibres or other material
3. the foot-pocket shape, to define the lining inside the foot-pocket
4. the shape of the bottom part of foot-pocket – in the interest of the competitor before and during the start
5. the foot-pocket material
6. the weight of the whole monofin ( with the restrictions for the age categories )
7. the ways of parameter measurement – the equipment, methodologies (for example we have defined the snorkel sizes today, but not the way of measurement and that’s why there are different ways of measurement on different competitions and the snorkels which are suitable on one competition, are not suitable on the other ).
Unless the rules are completely clear and unless all the consequences of the restrictions according the past and the future are think about, CMAS will make a fool of itself in the sports world with the proposal of the new rules for the monofins.
24th October 2002, Bratislava
Helena Studenikova
Our address:
Ukraine, 02160, Kiev, Kharkivske shosse, 18/50,
Tel. (380) 44- 552-64-03. Fax. (380) 44 - 559-81-57
e-mail:morozmax@dsnews.com.ua
e-mail:max_moroz@mail.ru
|
