Enforcement of NQT's for National Championships

Matt: I think you are right about where we can best use our volunteer time. Of the people entering Nationals, about 85% will enter 4 or more events. There is a suggestion that all the information would go into a National database. Who is going to design this little puppy? Once we get it, how is it going to be enforced? Where do we prioritize it? While it is nice to think that meet directors would want to send the information to the national database, Pacific, which has about 25% of the membership, does not use Hy-Tek at most of its meets. The SDIF that is generated from the contractors program, is having problems interfacing with the HyTek team manager program. I am sure it will be resolved shortly, but this is just a nit in this grand db project. The other question is: is there a problem with the current "honor" system? How many people are abusing it? If we institute it what will the savings be? Is the cure worse than the problem? I dont know. If someone wants to volunteer there time to do a little (I am lieing) there will be a lot of work in the basic analysis, I would greatly appreicate it. michael, member championships committee

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!

Greetings- Ion- My background is as follows. I have swum since age 6. I swam for a few USS clubs, summer league, and High School. I have made Jr. National & YMCA Nationals cuts. Then I swam in college for 4 years, which I did swim in the Conference Champs & NCAA's. 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. As discusses in the other forum 'Average Weekly Training?' from the 'General Discussion' “My workouts depend on the season. In short course yards season (winter) I try to get in 12K per week in 4 workouts”. This is because I don’t need to workout that much because I know myself and what I am capable of. I am no where near to my times as a Division I swimmer. And frankly I could care less. Masters for me is about having fun again just like it was in age group and summer league. Other's started inquiring about the size of meets. I tried to provide some provoking thoughts. My original question is still "Is there a better way to enforce OR ENHANCE the NQT's? The bottom line is yes, there needs to be change. But what is realistic, fair and obtainable? Again just trying to gather thoughts of all swimmers with all abilities. I am not try to attack anyone ability, training patterns (past or present) or goals. I don't know many of these people on the forum; therefore I have no right to attack them or thier character. I think you could and will make the several NQT’s for your age group. Don’t get caught up in the numbers. Just go to meets, large or small and swim as many races as you can. You will become faster. I like the topics and potential solutions that people are bringing to the forum. Thanks, CJ Southwest Ohio Masters Ohio LMSC Secretary

Matt can use the Rowdy Gaines comparison. I can use the Shirley Babashoff comparsion. She did start swimming I think a couple of years before me. At age 14, she had been on several world class teams back in the 1970''s like Phillips-66 and Lakewood and Fast. I started on the Cal-novice and B-C AAU teams until the end of 1971 when I started on Phillips-66 Huntington Beach. I swam there for about almost 2 years and took off probably more seconds in the 200 yards than the 100 yards. But Shirley B was swimming about a 52.0 100 yard Free in those days and I a mediocre 1:05. In the breastroke I did a 1:16.1 and Babashoff probably a 1:08. In Fly, I did a 1:07.5 and Babashoff a 59.0. Even after going to a more elite team, I still couldn't get close to Babashoff. I think that I might be able to make more Qualifying times in masters if I keep at it and moved into the an older age group like the 50-54. Gail is probably right that we can qualify for the standards eventually but sometimes we have to wait until we get into the older age groups to do it. In the 45-49 I qualify only in the 50 meter breastroke and I think meters is easier than yards because less people swim the meter races.

Ion, I think a few people started 20 plus and made the olympics, the last was in 1956, a pre-modern period. But like I said before if starting as an adult prevents you from beating people that swam as a kid, how is it that someone older than me and who didn't start on a masters team until 50 was able to beat me the one time I swam a 50 meter butterfly. I realized that I can beat the same person several seconds in the breastroke. Maybe, the same woman that beat me in the 50 meter fly could have donet a sub-30 second fly if she was on a team as a kid and swam on masters teams earlier when she was 50 years old. As for Jeff, I think that during high school he competitive in water polo. I know that's not the same as swimming everyday but polo does keep people in shape for swimming. At my high school, the guys were a lot better swimmers than the girls because they did water polo during the school session and summertime and swam in the spring while the girls only swam in the spring.

I've gotta agree with Mike and Emmett. I believe the vast majority of swimmers are following the format for entering nationals and to attempt to design some kind of formal qualification paper trail is really counterproductive. There are enough items requiring time and talent already, without adding this potential silly deal. So what if a couple of individuals enter something they shouldn't have. They'll get their reward in heaven or that other place. Remember when we used to complete deals with a handshake? Isn't a signature, certifying our commitment to honesty, adequate? Oh, and for what it's worth to anybody, I learned to swim when I was 9 and started to train/compete in swimming when I was 16yrs and 7mos old. What do I win?

Matt, looks like you got sucked in again! Me to..... To Ion's "debate" about late starters; An important point is being overlooked and that is "meet swimming" vs. "race swimming". I give Ion credit for what he has done as a late starter, in particular some of the kicking sets he has managed to pull off. However I have also seen him race and it is here that he has not been able to "transfer" his physical ability. To that end, my advise has been for him to "train" by swimming more meets. Learning proper relaxation, meet day diet, starts, turns, finishes, etc. doesn't come from swimming 1 or 2 national meets a year. Ion, you and I have also discussed more specialization. If you want to make NQTs you will be very challenged if you don't focus your training; are you a 50-100-200 specialist? Or a 200-500-1000? Big difference! Ion's case is a perfect example of my "position" on NQTs, far more is gained if people work to make the times than if they are "given" them (as is everything in life).

Sorry Cynthia, didn't even play water polo in High School (as a matter of fact my High School didn't have a swim team or a water polo team). As for Ion, following your rhetoric I would be justified in petitioning the PGA in order to play on the tour with Tiger Woods. The reason he is better than me is because he has the unfair advantage of learning to play when he was a few years old while I was in my teens when I started playing golf. Since I had such a late start my golf VO2 max is not as developed as his. Ion your times are improving, have to assume the new coaching program is working, so enough with the age group swimming conspiracy theories. Jeff

Greetings, I think we are all starting to get "sucked" in. I don't know of anyone cheating the NQT's. I don't think there are any to tell you the truth. I hope to reiterate that NQT's are a good thing. However there is a need to make some adjustments. For Ion, couple of points to ponder. 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. I believe a possible solution is to find either another club/team or some very dedicated swimmers to workout on your own. My 1000 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a quality 'B' time for me, but still got me a #14 ranking. I did not think that they were "A" or "B" times for USMS. But this would be a good addition to the NQT's.:D I think we need to table this discussion for the Convention. Thanks, CJ Southwest Ohio Masters OHIO LMSC Secretary

I'm curious how many people KNOW of (not just suspect) people who are cheating on NQT's. My impression is that it is a VERY small percentage of Nats participants that cheat. Personally, I'm not aware of any. I've been coaching Masters swimmers a long time and I sense an almost universal desire to follow the rules. Putting a system in place that is man-hour intensive (either in creation or operation) to solve a very small problem would simply be squandering our thinly layered resources. If we SUSPECT cheating is a big problem we should PROVE it is a big problem before we go to great lengths to solve it. How about this - I'll bet that the meet software vendor can spit out a report of all swimmers who fail to meet or beat the NQT in any event entered by NQT. Then, these swimmers are asked (perhaps by a note by their performance in the posted results) to show proof that they have, in fact, accomplished the NQT (we could state in the entry info that swimmers who are entering by NQT must bring their proof with them to Nats). If, after a couple of Nats we see that there are LOADS of individuals cheating, THEN (and only then) it might make sense to police the thing in a less casual way. Heck, we could even post a listing at Nats of those unable to show proof and let peer pressure work its magic. As to the other foolishness in this thread....I will not get sucked in....I will not get sucked in.....I will not....