Is Steven Right in his New Article?

bobswims

Steven published an article in DNOWS asking:

"So we pondered, what causes open water swimmers to get riled up - either positively or negatively - about other swimmers? With hundreds of channel swimmers and thousands of marathon swimmers populating the world's waterways, what is the catalyst for a particular swimmer garnering so much attention?

Is there any commonality among these swimmers?

It appears to us that a minimum of three circumstances must be met for a swimmer or swimmer to reach this tipping point among the global swimming audience:

1. When a good portion of information is provided, but not absolutely everything leading to sharing of speculation, questions and assumptions.
2. When swimmers realize it is possible to do [the swim/tactic], but they didn't do it themselves, either because of lack of knowledge or self-choice.
3. When the swim is documented and distributed visually.

When this trio of circumstances occur, then a greater-than-average amount of negative criticisms and positive comments hit the social media. Without all three, issues can be raised by a handful of individuals, but the momentum of discussions on the global social scale continue."

Do you agree with his conclusions?

The article can be found at:
http://dailynews.openwaterswimming.com/2012/11/catalyst-of-online-discussions-in-open.html?m=1

evmo

Interesting that he chooses to focus on the criticism/praise element, rather than the more interesting debate about rules and "assistance" in marathon swimming, and the fluid dynamics of boat wakes.

But, I suppose this is what we have come to expect.

I'm not sure marathon swimmers are any different than any other niche sporting group. This isn't about swimmers. Just the nature of social media.

loneswimmer

My read of Steve's article seemed to indicate it was somehow Trent (and me, since I was named, but not linked) against others. I don't like the implied privilege this grants me, just because I write regularly, which I don't do to create opinion, only because I, and I hope others, enjoy the writing and I don't think it's the case of Trent & I against others.

Steve use the phrase "When a good portion of information is provided, but not absolutely everything". I tried to put everything I could think of, in the Trent report. Unlike, for example the Diana Nyad coverage, where getting true, complete and accurate information was like finding hen's teeth and to this day I don't feel we have it all.

As I said in the other thread, I see it as two distinct issues;

• That of discussion of Trent specifically and the different types of boat assistance in the English Channel, in which case yes I was and am unhappy that people with, to my mind, no such entitlement, incorrectly called his record into question;
  
• The broader question of possible assistance from boats in locations where the subject is open to discussion.

Edit: grammar.