Is it easier to swim with your legs cut off or your arms cut off?

Question

Me and a colleague have ran into an stupid argument whether it is easier to swim if you had your legs cut off or with your arms cut off. I need answers from people who actually swim on a regular basis and can imagine both scenarios, please.

Answer 1

its not easy if anything is cut off for that matter :-p

for freestyle-legs cut off

for breast stroke- arms cut off

for butterfly - niether

for backstroke- arms cut off

Answer 2

With your legs cut off. If you lost control slightly, and went underwater, if you had no arms, then it would be really hard to get back up, and you would probably drown. If you were going for speed, have your arms cut off. If you were going for "Staying in control and not trying to drown" then have your legs cut off

Answer 3

hahahaha god you must be bored at work.

Legs cut off cos if you didnt have arms I doubt very much you would be able to keep your head above water.

hahahaha thats tickled me

Answer 4

You're right. It is a stupid argument.

I suppose that you could do without hands, if you compensated by wearing flippers.

Answer 5

Its easier to swim with the legs cut off..

Because if you didnt have arms, you really cant tread water and control where you are moving.. Also, if you went underwater, you will have a problem getting back up.. and you cant reach for the rails or the sides..

Without legs, you can still move and swim and stay afloat..

Answer 6

legs cut off

Answer 7

Yeah, it is a stupid argument.  That said, easier with your legs cut off.

Have you ever seen a swimmer use a float between their ankles?  This essentially renders their legs useless.  Also, without arms it would be very difficult to keep your head above the water (needed to breathe).

Answer 8

hands down. it is easier to swim with your arms cut off. i swim and most of the time when i get lazy i just do dolphin kicking with my arms on my side while im on my back and it's not hard to maneuver around either.

Answer 9

I would say you need your arms to swim more than your legs, I have a knee injury and often swim arms only to rest the knee but I have taught a child to swim who has no arms and managed really well. Also when you "life save" your arms are busy and you often swim legs only so I guess it depends on the stroke and the individual. - unresolved argument!!

Answer 10

You use your legs for speed, but your arms/hands for steering and stability.  Therefore I would have to say that it would be easier to swim without legs than without arms.

Hopefully, you never have to encounter either scenario because that would be sad.

Answer 11

i think it will be easier to swim with no legs, considering a female south african swimmer came 16th in the 10km swim at the olympics, despite only having one leg

Answer 12

with your legs cut off! imagine jumping into some water without your arms, you would probably go head first flouder for a bit and then just sink to the bottom! i would say keep your arms as you can have control and also use speed! theres acturally a swimming champion who has no legs but theres no swimming champion who has no arms! legs off all the way!!!

Answer 13

As a triathlete, I will use more of my arms in the swim in order to save my legs for the bike and the run. With that in mind, I would say it would be easier to swim without legs. You would also have more control of your breathing.

Oh, yea, and I just saw Russian Natalie du Toit, swim in the Olympic 10K open water swim. She is missing 1/2 her left leg. I'm not sure she could have pulled that off if it had been her arm.