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.
Ion, I'm trying to understand. I write to you about "training" to be a better "racer" and you show me your quote that lists the Top 10 in the Ms 40-44 100 free? OK, so this group comes from varying degrees of age group swimming and most likely would be at the top of the results.
Is your point that Masters swimming should somehow "handicap" qualifying times based on how long you've been swimming? Isn't that done now in how NQT times are selected?
I think a far more appropiate comparison is:
- Ms 40-44 100 free NQT time = 54.52
- 67 people entered
- 49 surpassed this time
The question then is 54.52 fair?
Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?
My point to you which was ignored is "what are you"? A sprinter? Middle distance? Distance? I know very few people of any swimming background that would choose events as diverse as the 100 free and 1000 free to train for and compete in (and/or expect to make NQTs, Top 10, etc.).
My point being; specialize more in your training, go to lots of smaller meets practicing those events and see if you make more of a progression!
Ion, I'm trying to understand. I write to you about "training" to be a better "racer" and you show me your quote that lists the Top 10 in the Ms 40-44 100 free? OK, so this group comes from varying degrees of age group swimming and most likely would be at the top of the results.
Is your point that Masters swimming should somehow "handicap" qualifying times based on how long you've been swimming? Isn't that done now in how NQT times are selected?
I think a far more appropiate comparison is:
- Ms 40-44 100 free NQT time = 54.52
- 67 people entered
- 49 surpassed this time
The question then is 54.52 fair?
Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?
My point to you which was ignored is "what are you"? A sprinter? Middle distance? Distance? I know very few people of any swimming background that would choose events as diverse as the 100 free and 1000 free to train for and compete in (and/or expect to make NQTs, Top 10, etc.).
My point being; specialize more in your training, go to lots of smaller meets practicing those events and see if you make more of a progression!
