The main reason that women's breastroke drop from a cut off of 1:20 in 1993 versus 1:17 in the 100 yard for the top ten times is that a different generation is a little faster than those that swam in the 1960's as kids. So the person who was top ten at 1:17 this year, swam faster than last year. The national qualifying time was 1:27 which was 10 seconds slower and as you stated Matt, this is a three year average and it takes time for this to drop. On the other hand, the 200 yard is a lot slower for qualifying times because us masters have trouble swimming good 200 swims outside of freestyle. As for what the time was in 1993 for 100 yard breastroke for national qualfying I don't know. I just play around the computer and look at the preceding top 10 times going back in time. However, I'm not currently able to find this. I also think that 100 yard fly for 45 to 49 women drop from 1:10 to 1:07 during the same time period.
FYI, the procedure for determining National Qualifying Times is now different than the procedure USMS followed when the NQTs were first initiated. The change in procedure is probably one of the more significant reasons why the NQTs look slightly different now than they did 10 years ago.
Back then, the NQTs were simply 10% slower than the 10th place time in the USMS Top Ten for each age group in each event. The NQTs were calculated each year, and there was a fair amount of variance in some age groups based on the number of participants and level of competition each year.
A couple years ago, the procedure changed. Now, NQT's are determined in the following manner:
The qualifying times shall be 10 percent slower than the average of the previous three years' tenth place time on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than ten swimmers on the Top Ten list for one of the previous three years, the qualifying times shall be 10 percent slower than the average of the other two years' tenth place times on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than ten swimmers on the Top Ten list for two or three of the previous three years, the qualifying times shall be 15 percent slower than the average of the previous three years' fifth place time on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than five swimmers in the Top Ten list for one of the previous three years, the qualifying time shall be 15 percent slower than the average of the other two years' fifth place time. If there are fewer than five swimmers on the Top Ten list in two or three of the previous three years, there shall be no qualifying time.
So, while it may be true that the depth of competition is faster now in certain age groups, I don't think we can necessarily say that this observation is true for all age groups. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not true in my age group. I think it's more likely that the change in procedure for determining NQTs has raised the bar for qualifying standards because of the way the times are now averaged.
By the way, I have produced every USMS Nationals entry form for SWIM Magazine since 1999, and having typed-in most of the times by hand, I have noticed very little variance in qualifying times (especially in age groups with a large number of participants). When I typed-in those times, I would start with the previous year's entry form, then replace the time with the new time. This year, I started to place the whole table as a graphic rather than typing-in the times, so I don't have a sense of how the NQTs have changed from 2002 to 2003.
:) Bill
FYI, the procedure for determining National Qualifying Times is now different than the procedure USMS followed when the NQTs were first initiated. The change in procedure is probably one of the more significant reasons why the NQTs look slightly different now than they did 10 years ago.
Back then, the NQTs were simply 10% slower than the 10th place time in the USMS Top Ten for each age group in each event. The NQTs were calculated each year, and there was a fair amount of variance in some age groups based on the number of participants and level of competition each year.
A couple years ago, the procedure changed. Now, NQT's are determined in the following manner:
The qualifying times shall be 10 percent slower than the average of the previous three years' tenth place time on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than ten swimmers on the Top Ten list for one of the previous three years, the qualifying times shall be 10 percent slower than the average of the other two years' tenth place times on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than ten swimmers on the Top Ten list for two or three of the previous three years, the qualifying times shall be 15 percent slower than the average of the previous three years' fifth place time on the USMS Top Ten list. If there are fewer than five swimmers in the Top Ten list for one of the previous three years, the qualifying time shall be 15 percent slower than the average of the other two years' fifth place time. If there are fewer than five swimmers on the Top Ten list in two or three of the previous three years, there shall be no qualifying time.
So, while it may be true that the depth of competition is faster now in certain age groups, I don't think we can necessarily say that this observation is true for all age groups. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not true in my age group. I think it's more likely that the change in procedure for determining NQTs has raised the bar for qualifying standards because of the way the times are now averaged.
By the way, I have produced every USMS Nationals entry form for SWIM Magazine since 1999, and having typed-in most of the times by hand, I have noticed very little variance in qualifying times (especially in age groups with a large number of participants). When I typed-in those times, I would start with the previous year's entry form, then replace the time with the new time. This year, I started to place the whole table as a graphic rather than typing-in the times, so I don't have a sense of how the NQTs have changed from 2002 to 2003.
:) Bill
