Has the Championship Committee, or other entity within USMS ever discussed having a more strict policy of enforcement in regards to the NQT's?
Why do we state that you must have 3 cuts, in order to swim more events? Why not require a swimmer to have 6 cuts in order to swim 6 events?
Just like to understand more from a historical point of view. I have read post that asked, or suggested how to control the size and length of the National meets. Would not having a stricter enforcement of this policy help? Or would it cause swimmers to shy away from these meets?
Just a curious thought.
Thank you.
I compare these two statements:
Originally posted by Paul Smith
...
It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion.
...
2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?
...
1) The first one (i.e.: "It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion."), is barely true in NQTs for men ages 40 to 44:
the NQT being 10% slower than the average of the last three years' tenth times, allows competing by the ones with a 'legitimate' shot at being a national champion, plus a few other ones who are close behind;
as a late starter in swimming who joined my first swimming club at age 28, I don't measure up to these NQT standards, no matter that I trained and train harder and smarter than the national top ten swimmers;
it is because a late starter at 28 who raises to a higher level than mine -for example someone who started at 28 to become a Michael Phelps (U.S.) alike and make the Olympic Team-, doesn't exist through history;
physiology specialized for swimming -like striated tissue defending joint ligaments from the water pounding a swimmer's body- develops in the teenage years of age-group swimming, not later than that;
also, most USMS clubs that I saw and see in California, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee are not instilling a competitive swimming spirit in workouts, like the age-groups clubs do;
the USMS clubs address mostly the encompassing of non-competitive masses of members;
a late starter in swimming finds the competitive spirit of swimming in USMS clubs, only when looking almost with a flashlight -like I do- for the exceptionally competitive USMS coach and club;
2) The second one (i.e.: "2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?"), is true in an exaggerated way:
someone with a time of one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds for the 1650 freestyle, hasn't done a proper work to be in shape;
I say this, since even by being a late starter in swimming but doing consistent workouts to be in shape, I produce a 1650 in less than twenty-two minutes;
3) Then, what is a fair NQT, between two extremes, one in 1) (of former top age-groupers, now in USMS making competitive NQTs) and one in 2) (of a slob)?
I think it is slower than the average time of the last three years' tenths times plus 10% -so that it includes competitive late starters like me-, but is less than one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds;
it should also consider how non-standardized across U.S. the local meets are, since the notion of 'regional' and 'zone' meets is not uniform throughout U.S. to provide the same climbing ladder anywhere in U.S..
4) I notice that the NQTs for men 45 to 49 are easier;
however that won't last for much more than two years, because beasts like Fritz Lehman, Bill Specht, Tom McCabe, Paul Carter, Andreas Seibt, Brett Phillips, will graduate soon or just graduated from the 40 to 44, and will quickly raise the NQTs in the 45 to 49.
5) This topic is recycled by new members of the forum;
when it was discussed the last time, I remember that Hugh Moore stated that the Nationals needs money from a number of participants since it doesn't break even easily;
for example, I remember Michael (not Hugh) Moore stating that the 2001 Short Course Nationals in Santa Clara was assigned to Santa Clara;
because there were no bids.
I compare these two statements:
Originally posted by Paul Smith
...
It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion.
...
2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?
...
1) The first one (i.e.: "It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion."), is barely true in NQTs for men ages 40 to 44:
the NQT being 10% slower than the average of the last three years' tenth times, allows competing by the ones with a 'legitimate' shot at being a national champion, plus a few other ones who are close behind;
as a late starter in swimming who joined my first swimming club at age 28, I don't measure up to these NQT standards, no matter that I trained and train harder and smarter than the national top ten swimmers;
it is because a late starter at 28 who raises to a higher level than mine -for example someone who started at 28 to become a Michael Phelps (U.S.) alike and make the Olympic Team-, doesn't exist through history;
physiology specialized for swimming -like striated tissue defending joint ligaments from the water pounding a swimmer's body- develops in the teenage years of age-group swimming, not later than that;
also, most USMS clubs that I saw and see in California, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee are not instilling a competitive swimming spirit in workouts, like the age-groups clubs do;
the USMS clubs address mostly the encompassing of non-competitive masses of members;
a late starter in swimming finds the competitive spirit of swimming in USMS clubs, only when looking almost with a flashlight -like I do- for the exceptionally competitive USMS coach and club;
2) The second one (i.e.: "2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?"), is true in an exaggerated way:
someone with a time of one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds for the 1650 freestyle, hasn't done a proper work to be in shape;
I say this, since even by being a late starter in swimming but doing consistent workouts to be in shape, I produce a 1650 in less than twenty-two minutes;
3) Then, what is a fair NQT, between two extremes, one in 1) (of former top age-groupers, now in USMS making competitive NQTs) and one in 2) (of a slob)?
I think it is slower than the average time of the last three years' tenths times plus 10% -so that it includes competitive late starters like me-, but is less than one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds;
it should also consider how non-standardized across U.S. the local meets are, since the notion of 'regional' and 'zone' meets is not uniform throughout U.S. to provide the same climbing ladder anywhere in U.S..
4) I notice that the NQTs for men 45 to 49 are easier;
however that won't last for much more than two years, because beasts like Fritz Lehman, Bill Specht, Tom McCabe, Paul Carter, Andreas Seibt, Brett Phillips, will graduate soon or just graduated from the 40 to 44, and will quickly raise the NQTs in the 45 to 49.
5) This topic is recycled by new members of the forum;
when it was discussed the last time, I remember that Hugh Moore stated that the Nationals needs money from a number of participants since it doesn't break even easily;
for example, I remember Michael (not Hugh) Moore stating that the 2001 Short Course Nationals in Santa Clara was assigned to Santa Clara;
because there were no bids.