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.
This is the data that I am familiar with, and this is what I point out in regards to NQTs at the USMS Nationals:
Originally posted by cjr
Greetings-
...
Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life.
...
USMS is looking for legitimacy in the quality of its top swims, the top swims that fall into the U.S. Swimming standards or decline a little bit due to aging of participants, and these are the swims trumpeted in www.swiminfo.com and Swim magazine.
However, the fact is that most USMS programs do neglect the specialized preparation for swimming competitions when they cather to the 'stay in shape' uncompetitive masses, and the fact is that adult starters in swimming -like me- have less physiological potential to make NQTs than the early starters.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Ion, I'm trying to understand.
...
The question then is 54.52 fair?
Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?
...
To me, 54.52 is fair as NQT for 100 yards free in men ages 40 to 44:
.) I wrote in four of my previous posts in this thread that the USMS Nationals are inclusive (unlike the Olympics, since five days ago), because they give three mercy events to anyone, including to participants like me -who want to excel around the best there is out there, but don't have the youth developmental background-;
.) swimmers who make NQTs in USMS, they swim more events.
So, I like how the USMS Nationals and their NQTs are organized.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
...
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.).
...
I am a distance swimmer, and I train for distance.
My 1000 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a quality 'B' time for me, but still got me a #14 ranking.
(Also a #39 ranking out of 63 participants for the year 2003, but my faster time in the 1000 free from two weeks earlier didn't get reported to give me a ranking for it).
My plan at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was to get an 'A' time in the 1000 free, then next year to slip into the 1650 yards free; my plan got derailed by fact.
My 100 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a surprising quality 'A' time for me, and got a #59 ranking.
I don't expect my 100 free to make NQTs.
I comment in this thread on the 100 free, because I got a good time for me in the 100 free, and because the 100 free is what most people relate to.
For the Nationals, I train for distance and the sprints are a bonus making sure that I cultivate my speed and not let it degrade.
Regarding the number of competitions:
Paul, do what you preach;
Laura told me that she didn't race before the La Jolla competition, since last December;
I guess (I don't know for a fact) that you didn't either;
if this is true, then it must be no race in between the La Jolla competition from April 2003 and the Short Course Meters meet in Las Vegas from December 2002 (formerly the Long Beach meet);
so for you, in 2003, that could be two meets only, one meet in La Jolla and the Nationals;
well, I competed in five meets in 2003 so far;
that averages to one meet per month.
This is the data that I am familiar with, and this is what I point out in regards to NQTs at the USMS Nationals:
Originally posted by cjr
Greetings-
...
Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life.
...
USMS is looking for legitimacy in the quality of its top swims, the top swims that fall into the U.S. Swimming standards or decline a little bit due to aging of participants, and these are the swims trumpeted in www.swiminfo.com and Swim magazine.
However, the fact is that most USMS programs do neglect the specialized preparation for swimming competitions when they cather to the 'stay in shape' uncompetitive masses, and the fact is that adult starters in swimming -like me- have less physiological potential to make NQTs than the early starters.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Ion, I'm trying to understand.
...
The question then is 54.52 fair?
Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?
...
To me, 54.52 is fair as NQT for 100 yards free in men ages 40 to 44:
.) I wrote in four of my previous posts in this thread that the USMS Nationals are inclusive (unlike the Olympics, since five days ago), because they give three mercy events to anyone, including to participants like me -who want to excel around the best there is out there, but don't have the youth developmental background-;
.) swimmers who make NQTs in USMS, they swim more events.
So, I like how the USMS Nationals and their NQTs are organized.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
...
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.).
...
I am a distance swimmer, and I train for distance.
My 1000 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a quality 'B' time for me, but still got me a #14 ranking.
(Also a #39 ranking out of 63 participants for the year 2003, but my faster time in the 1000 free from two weeks earlier didn't get reported to give me a ranking for it).
My plan at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was to get an 'A' time in the 1000 free, then next year to slip into the 1650 yards free; my plan got derailed by fact.
My 100 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a surprising quality 'A' time for me, and got a #59 ranking.
I don't expect my 100 free to make NQTs.
I comment in this thread on the 100 free, because I got a good time for me in the 100 free, and because the 100 free is what most people relate to.
For the Nationals, I train for distance and the sprints are a bonus making sure that I cultivate my speed and not let it degrade.
Regarding the number of competitions:
Paul, do what you preach;
Laura told me that she didn't race before the La Jolla competition, since last December;
I guess (I don't know for a fact) that you didn't either;
if this is true, then it must be no race in between the La Jolla competition from April 2003 and the Short Course Meters meet in Las Vegas from December 2002 (formerly the Long Beach meet);
so for you, in 2003, that could be two meets only, one meet in La Jolla and the Nationals;
well, I competed in five meets in 2003 so far;
that averages to one meet per month.
