Talk:Butterfly stroke

WP:CITE
I've added the template to the head of the article, because it's full of opinions, particularly to how difficult butterfly stroke is. There needs to be at least one reliable authoritative source which comments on the technical difficulty of the stroke cited, which would justify a lot of what is wrong with the article. BigBlueFish 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, IMost students' is ambiguous and not true. I swim breaststroke and I can tell you that I think breaststroke is every bit as hard, because as fly techniqure gets better it gets easier, but it's the opposite for breaststroke. Not to mention, most of my team is in agreement. It's harder to take fly slow, but easier to go fast. So let's avoid such words.Collun 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the section on the difficulty of the butterfly stroke. Here is the breakdown of why:
 * "The breaststroke, backstroke, and front crawl can all be swum easily, even if the swimmer's technique is not the best." - Opinionated, depends on the person, how they learn the stroke and what counts as "swimming" these strokes.
 * "The butterfly, however, is unforgiving of mistakes in style; it is very difficult to overcome a poor butterfly technique with brute strength." - Once again opinionated, depends on your definition of what counts as "swimming butterfly". There is no commonly agreed upon definition for this.
 * "Many swimmers and coaches consider it the most difficult swimming style." - Probably is true at a low level, but I can't find any statistic that could be used as a source, and it has been 17 years since this was flagged as needing a citation, but nobody has added one. At a high level, I don't think anyone would agree with this (hence the previous reply)
 * "Beginner swimmers struggle with synchronous over-water recovery, particularly when incorporating breathing." - Opinionated, blanket statement with no citation in 17 years. Depends on definition of beginner. As an aside, although my opinion should not matter, I disagree with this.
 * "This requires lifting both arms, the head, shoulders, and part of the chest out of the water." - This does not count as a justification for the previous statement if it was intended as that. If it is intended as a separate fact, then yes, this is true but does not have a citation. However, since this sentence refers to the previous opinionated sentence on why beginners "struggle" with butterfly, it can be easily read as a justification for the uncited opinion.
 * "However, with proper technique, the stroke becomes fluid and swift. Once the efficient technique has been developed, it becomes a smooth, fast stroke." - This says the same thing twice in two different sentences and is an uncited opinion.
 * Edit: I forgot to mention that there was a single citation to a dead YouTube link, hence I am unable to verify any of the claims as anything more than opinion. It is a wonderful world (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

speed?
Something seems to be wrong with the speed listed here. This article states that front crawl swimmers can achieve ~3.5 km/h, which is less than 1m/s. The breaststroke article states that breaststroke swimmers can achieve ~1.6m/s, and breaststroke is obviously slower than the front crawl. 83.8.24.64 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If I swim butterfly will I have a top speed of 3.168 km/h? I had no idea that all who swim butterfly, freestyle or breastroke have the same top speed...makes the Olympics a bit pointless doesn't it?  Not only that but butterfly's "top speed of 3.168 km/h (1.98 MPH), [is] slightly under freestyle at 3.472 km/h" even though the "peak speed of the butterfly is even faster than that of the front crawl" (which is the only stroke used in freestyle).  Life continues to amaze. Constan69 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a swimmer, freestyle is by far the fastest stroke, then butterfly and backstroke are about the same, and then breaststroke is the slowest by far, LISTEN TO ME I AM SPEAKING THE TRUTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.17.215 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

diagram
This article needs a diagram like the following: http://xc8.xanga.com/b72c241669435153854927/b114990784.gif --Rajah (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

terminology
Twice now I've changed "freestyle" to "front crawl". The name of the stroke is "front crawl". The name of the event in which it's typically performed is "freestyle". In "freestyle" events, one may swim any of a set of strokes, including the front crawl. Therefore, to insist on changing "front crawl" back to "freestyle" in an article discussing various strokes is moronic. Go read the other swimming articles and edify yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.234 (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for harsh words, but please stop reverting this change. The term freestyle simply does not belong in a list of swimming strokes. If you must, put (a.k.a "freestyle") or something similar next to it. It is true that many people call the front crawl "freestyle" because it is the stroke typically swum in freestyle events, but this is slang and can be misleading (one has no obligation to swim the front crawl in a freestyle event). The other swimming articles on wikipedia bear this out. 99.172.15.234 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

'' copied from WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) '' Freestyle swimming is plainly not a redirect. In that article, it is noted that the two terms are synonymous in essence, especially when referring to competitive strokes. Having been a competitive swimmer for the past 9 years and having learned lessons long before, I haven't heard it referred to as the front crawl since I was in the lessons stage. The usage of the term in context with the rest of the paragraph means that it doesn't really matter which, and as freestyle was the term first used, I am unsure why it needs to be changed. As for your lack of good faith... /shrug. I've had worse. Ncm: Feel free to move this to the talk page of butterfly stroke if you wish. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.121.49.70, 23 June 2010
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.

Use of the word "swum" is incorrect. Instead, you need to use the word "swam". Although swam and swum are both past tense verbs for swim, swum is only used when a "helping verb" such as have or has is used with it.

75.121.49.70 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's correct as it is, defining "to be swum". mechamind  9  0  05:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.68.180.100, 23 August 2010
The section on technique has ==Technique== ==Arm movement== ===Leg Movement=== I feel it should be ==Technique== ===Arm Movement=== ===Leg Movement===

66.68.180.100 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion diagram
In the speed and ergonomics section, it seems to me that the dynamic diagram on the left is wrong. It seems to show the power stroke as taking place in the air, and the recovery taking place under water. 208.50.124.65 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the media article by the Telegraph "How much should we trust wikipedia"
This is yet another article which fits into the category of: Vandalize wikipedia, wait for no one to revert the changes because editors are not obligated to peer review every edit, and then boast about it.

Wikipedia works on the generosity of editors to spend their time spreading as much accurate information as possible, and allows anyone to improve the wiki. That is was makes it so great.

Wikipedia trusted you to edit, you broke that trust. That is not something to be proud of. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Demotion to C class article
I have demoted the article to "C" class, because of lack of citations, and lack of clarity. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Promotion to Top importance
This article is one of the four competitive strokes. It is seen in every major swimming competition, linked in 100s if not 1000s of pages on wikipedia and external sites. Therefore, I have upgraded it's importance to Top. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)