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.
Originally posted by Bill Volckening
In fact, I have seen so little variance from one year to the next (DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS...sorry to shout...) -- :) -- that I hope the Championship Committee will pursue my suggestion to fix the qualifying times for three years at a time rather than rewriting them every year.
Gee, Bill, I compared the 2001 to the 2003 SCY NQTs and did not get the same results that you did.
There are 504 NQTs for each of the two years. Of those, 345 showed a faster NQT time. 133 showed a slower NQT time 4 were ties and 22 had no NQTs so I did not count them.
If you group NQTs by age group as to how many had more faster times than slower times, 20 had a majority of faster times, 7 had a majority of slower times and 1 had 9 faster times and 9 slower times.
There were three age groups that had all faster times (W 40-44, W 50-54 -Laura Val aged up-, and M 60-64), there were seven age groups that had 16 or 17 faster times.
If you mean stabilize to mean that the NQTs have reached some sort of equilibrium, I dont think that has happened yet, as the numbers demonstrate.
Due to the size of the Nationals, the Championships Committee has been considering ways to make the NQTs more competitive. I do not think the Championship Committee at this time would consider "fixing" the NQTs for three years - although I am speaking for myself and not the committee.
I do not think that you can made a good comparison between the 1993 NQTs and the current NQTs as they had different populations. The '93 NQTs were just swimmers who competed at Nationals (in 1990,1991, 1992, where the current NQTs determined by the entire Masters population.You might want to recompute the '93 NQTs (information is readily available) to see how the '93 compares to the '03 NQTs.
michael
Originally posted by Bill Volckening
In fact, I have seen so little variance from one year to the next (DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS...sorry to shout...) -- :) -- that I hope the Championship Committee will pursue my suggestion to fix the qualifying times for three years at a time rather than rewriting them every year.
Gee, Bill, I compared the 2001 to the 2003 SCY NQTs and did not get the same results that you did.
There are 504 NQTs for each of the two years. Of those, 345 showed a faster NQT time. 133 showed a slower NQT time 4 were ties and 22 had no NQTs so I did not count them.
If you group NQTs by age group as to how many had more faster times than slower times, 20 had a majority of faster times, 7 had a majority of slower times and 1 had 9 faster times and 9 slower times.
There were three age groups that had all faster times (W 40-44, W 50-54 -Laura Val aged up-, and M 60-64), there were seven age groups that had 16 or 17 faster times.
If you mean stabilize to mean that the NQTs have reached some sort of equilibrium, I dont think that has happened yet, as the numbers demonstrate.
Due to the size of the Nationals, the Championships Committee has been considering ways to make the NQTs more competitive. I do not think the Championship Committee at this time would consider "fixing" the NQTs for three years - although I am speaking for myself and not the committee.
I do not think that you can made a good comparison between the 1993 NQTs and the current NQTs as they had different populations. The '93 NQTs were just swimmers who competed at Nationals (in 1990,1991, 1992, where the current NQTs determined by the entire Masters population.You might want to recompute the '93 NQTs (information is readily available) to see how the '93 compares to the '03 NQTs.
michael
