Reflexes in newborn and young babies

As described by Freedman¹⁰  accustoming very young newborns and babies to swimming and diving succeeded earlier and easier than expected. Increasing safety against drowning was a result because partaking parents learned to realise risks for little children not realised before. The basic reflexes are recognised in almost all ‘starters’:

 1. Breath holding

 2. Lizard’ like swimming movement

 3. Legs moving to turn and

 4. Surfacing

 5. (Secondary) always open eyed

 
Ethologically it is comparable to normal interactions of babies, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. Important are differences in acceptance of adaptive reflexes in newborns: are babies ‘only subjects’ that can train anyway, or is it an innate resource of newborns to adapt to aquatic behaviour? The reflexes were already related to physiology and neurobehavioral development and McGraw’s conclusions started further research in development ³³:

The swimming reflex in normal infants was first described by McGraw, who developed a three phase classification of aquatic behaviour development: a) reflex  swimming, b) disorganized motor activity, c) deliberate voluntary movements.
 These three phases were developed from 445 observations of 42 infants (11 days to 2 1/2 years of age) to identify the amphibian motions used by children of varying ages during spontaneous prone propulsion through water without swimming instructions.”

 
McGraw described three-phases of babies in water, all documented on film. This shows clearly early childhood development, pertained to psychomotor abilities. She called this swimming reflexively” ^{21 22}. The classification of phases is depicted in a drawing (fig. 3) ²². Original film footage still is available where the basic movement is envisioned (fig 5).

     Fig. 3. After McGraw, modified (Meijers)

Three phases a, b and c are visible. If c is really voluntary remains not fully accepted. In my view it is activation of locomotive innate properties and once started lead to more. With 1, 2, 3 and 4 added we see something that is also recognized in the film Drowning prevention strategy for infants and young children (fig. 6) ISR ^17b.  Only reflective and not voluntary is not useful here. Maybe an available innate property of babies is a better definition.

Discussions about baby swimming resulting in really sound toddlers and little child swimmers are important. Langendorfer and Bruya¹⁹ mention it explicitly and point to (two) different views and consequences. An example are Committee Sports Medicine and Fitness & Committee Injury and Poison organisations (SMF and IP) warning that it is not the case⁵, a reason for YMCA of USA national organizationto publish their disagreement in Pediatrics Letters to the editor ¹¹. 

  SMF IP: Generally children are not until their fourth birthday developmentally ready for swimming lessons. ⁵
  YMCA: Neither the terms "developmentally ready" nor "formal swimming lessons" are sufficiently well-defined in the policy statement to prevent serious disagreement  and misunderstanding among medical and aquatic professionals and misinterpretation by the public at large. Moreover, to our knowledge, no current research data exist to  support the use of the "fourth birthday" (or any other such age) as a cut-off for  nitiating swimming lessons.¹¹

 
SMF and IP⁵ are fixed on swimming abilities only. They judge four years as acceptable starting point. YMCA ¹¹ takes into account the difference between ‘formal swimming lessons’ and baby swimming activities. The purpose of baby and toddler courses is not purely swimming but realising water safe behaviour early in the first year. 
Langendorfer and Bruya ¹⁹ seem to take sides with SMF IP. Baby swimming training is okay, but very early starts are not. They warn to overestimate a very early start as McGraw with her twins.

Changing of opinions is happening (2010). ISR mentioned this and it is positive for babyswimming:

OK to teach toddlers to swim