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.
Ken,
Hmm, that is an interesting approach. Keep the three freebie entries, but verify the NQT for events 4, 5 and 6. I am not opposed in principal to the idea, but I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I think expecting that every meet director of every USMS-sanctioned meet will be diligent enough to get their meet's results into the USMS database is ... more of a challenge that you may first anticipate. I ask the question I have asked before, how do you want to spend the limited resource of volunteer hours that are available to USMS? On the other hand, meet directors who are really serious about running a first rate event can advertise that swims at their meet will be USMS verifiable, and follow through, and swimmers can chose the meets they will attend accordingly. How do we know what is feasible if we do not give it a try? Eventually, Masters Swimming is likely to get big enough and "important" enough that the temptation to cheat will outweigh ethics and group pressure. Shouldn't we start working on these issues now, before the Masters equivalent of the East German swim team hits the water?
Gail: there is much to what you say, but I'm sorry. No matter how diligently I worked for however many years when I was a youngster, or how hard and smart I work today, there are still people who could fall off a log after years of inactivity, and beat me going away. I cite as an example Rowdy Gaines. We both began competitive swimming at age 15, but there the similarity ends. The best 200 free I ever managed, after 7 years of year round swimming, was 1:58.84. Rowdy, on the other hand, demonstrated to his coaches he was probably a sprinter when after one year of competitive swimming, he went 1:48 (!) for a 200, IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1000 FREE!!!! Yes, he was in a real, first rate USS Club whose training methods far exceeded my rinky-dink summer league, high school and Div III college programs, BUT AFTER ONLY ONE YEAR?! Puhlease! Talent is talent, and it's blatantly obvious who has world-class talent after a fairly short time frame. I remember seeing David Wharton as a 10 year old at Pennsylvania YMCA Championships. He swam one IM event, lapped the field, and left. There was an expectant atmosphere the moment he entered the building (as a 10 year old, for the love of Pete!) Everyone in the building knew this kid was special.
So work ethic is fine, intelligent planning is fine, desire is fine, but talent rules. Period.
Matt
Ken,
Hmm, that is an interesting approach. Keep the three freebie entries, but verify the NQT for events 4, 5 and 6. I am not opposed in principal to the idea, but I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I think expecting that every meet director of every USMS-sanctioned meet will be diligent enough to get their meet's results into the USMS database is ... more of a challenge that you may first anticipate. I ask the question I have asked before, how do you want to spend the limited resource of volunteer hours that are available to USMS? On the other hand, meet directors who are really serious about running a first rate event can advertise that swims at their meet will be USMS verifiable, and follow through, and swimmers can chose the meets they will attend accordingly. How do we know what is feasible if we do not give it a try? Eventually, Masters Swimming is likely to get big enough and "important" enough that the temptation to cheat will outweigh ethics and group pressure. Shouldn't we start working on these issues now, before the Masters equivalent of the East German swim team hits the water?
Gail: there is much to what you say, but I'm sorry. No matter how diligently I worked for however many years when I was a youngster, or how hard and smart I work today, there are still people who could fall off a log after years of inactivity, and beat me going away. I cite as an example Rowdy Gaines. We both began competitive swimming at age 15, but there the similarity ends. The best 200 free I ever managed, after 7 years of year round swimming, was 1:58.84. Rowdy, on the other hand, demonstrated to his coaches he was probably a sprinter when after one year of competitive swimming, he went 1:48 (!) for a 200, IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1000 FREE!!!! Yes, he was in a real, first rate USS Club whose training methods far exceeded my rinky-dink summer league, high school and Div III college programs, BUT AFTER ONLY ONE YEAR?! Puhlease! Talent is talent, and it's blatantly obvious who has world-class talent after a fairly short time frame. I remember seeing David Wharton as a 10 year old at Pennsylvania YMCA Championships. He swam one IM event, lapped the field, and left. There was an expectant atmosphere the moment he entered the building (as a 10 year old, for the love of Pete!) Everyone in the building knew this kid was special.
So work ethic is fine, intelligent planning is fine, desire is fine, but talent rules. Period.
Matt
