Who made the order of events for Fort Lauderdale Nationals?
Former Member
Who's bright idea was it to have the 1,000 free and the 500 free back to back with less than 24 hours rest?
John Smith
(1,000 and 500 free participant)
Mark arrogant? I don’t think so, Paul.
So I went to my Funk & Wagnall to look up arrogant, and found the following…
Main Entry: ar•ro•gant
Pronunciation: -g&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner
2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance
synonym see PROUD
- ar•ro•gant•ly adverb
See photo below:
Not only would seeding by time & age help control the enterants but what about having one half on one day and the other half on another day. Say the 1000 yd has half of the heets on Thursday. After those heets you could run some other event. Then on Friday, the second half and then run some events. Then on Saturday morning run half of the 1650. And finally, on Sunday the second half. It would probably even be okay to do them very early. By doing this more people would be involved in all days of the event. The hotels woudl certainly be more grateful! Has this ever been done.
Something I've frequently noticed at local meets is that if many very simular events are held close together, I frequently sit around. I will also enter events I don't swim just to have something to do or because of spacing/timing. I was at a meet and I didn't begin until, I think, the 17th event then swam in the 22nd, 25th, and the last.
As for sandbaging, a way to possibly stop this is to require proof onthe entry form. If the person has to write down where & when the time was made, they are less likely to lie about it. Especially since it is very verifiable because almost all results from local events end up on some computer spot.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
Has USMS considered putting on a National caliber meet that caters primarily to the distance swimmers?
Lindsay, the answer is yes! And in fact USMS puts on 10 national championships each year that caters primarily to the distance swimmers. These National Long Distance Championships meets range from 1 mile to 10K and beyond. Information about these meets can be found at www.usms.org/longdist/ldchamps.php
If we followed the suggestion of splitting the 1650 and 1000 each over two days, what would we do with the other distance events? We would have the 500 free and 400 IM on the same day as another distance race. Having them on back to back days is the complaint that started this thread. Imagine what having the races on the same day would do?
The idea of proof of times is right in line with the thinking of the championship committee. Currently, a swimmer is required to put down the date they met the qualifying time. We haven't gone with requiring proof of entry yet. For this to really work, we would need to have all meet results sent to a central database. We are not there yet. We are looking at a rule that will require sandbaggers at nationals to submit proof of time when they have great swims (the person who has a 10 minute PR in the middle of the day rather than swim in the fast heat at night sort of great swim).
I hate to inject religion in this but-JESUS! The original complaint was why are the three longest men's races the first three events, all within 24 hours?
I have not seen one cogent reply and I would suggest that is because this kind of scheduling is indefensible. Period.
Has USMS considered putting on a National caliber meet that caters primarily to the distance swimmers? It sounds like it would be more expensive to enter, but perhaps the swimmers wouldn't mind, what is a $20 event fee compared to travel and hotel costs? I have no idea if the demand is there, just a thought.
