Last November I wrote a short editorial about my feelings toward the seeding rules for masters nationals. Between now and then I have been trying to get the editorial published in one of our two swimming publications, but to no avail.
So I am "publishing" it here, for all masters swimmers to read as we approach the spring nationals in Fort Lauderdale.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please excuse all the question marks in this column, but I have a lot to ask.
Why are the 400 IM and distance freestyle events seeded by time at nationals, while the other events are seeded by age first, then time?
Here’s the rule, from the United States Masters Swimming Rule Book, about seeding events at nationals: “Pre-seeded events shall be seeded, with oldest age groups first, slowest heats swum first in each age group.” Not “... may be seeded...” No room for leeway there.
Why is this a steadfast rule that applies to every national championship, but only an optional policy for regional, state and local meets? An option that, I might add, is never used.
How much longer can we stand to watch another man or woman win a race by three body lengths, then watch another man or woman win a race by the same amount three heats later? To make matters worse, we don’t notice -- or don’t care -- that often the swimmers (in different age groups, obviously) finish the race with times less than a second apart?
Case in point: At the 2004 masters long course nationals in Georgia, Razvan Petcu and Michael Ross set world records in the 100 fly in the 30-34 and 35-39 age groups, respectively. Ross was faster than Petcu by less than two tenths. Imagine the sub-56 second times both would have posted if they had raced in the same heat -- the fastest heat consisting of the top eight 100 flyers at the meet. Imagine the crowd’s enthusiasm at witnessing a great race between two extraordinary swimmers -- and the other six who would have definitely fed off their energy.
I’ll give you another example. I was one of hundreds to watch in amazement as the 25-29 100 yard freestyle at last year’s short course nationals featured a race that had three swimmers break 45 seconds. And yet, by that time, many had forgotten that two swimmers in the 40-44 age group, John Smith and Paul Smith, weren't too far off the pace, swimmig under 47 seconds.
How great it would have been to have the Smiths swim in the same heat as Sabir Muhammed and Gary Hall Jr. Would the Smiths have moaned about swimming against people 15 years younger? Doubtful. Would the younger swimmers have laughed at two men in their 40s racing them? Highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, that is a race we will most likely never see. And if the rule makers at FINA and USMS can’t see the inherent advantages of erasing this current rule, then we’ll never see races of that caliber.
We’ll continue to see Bobby Patten race all alone in the 200 fly, instead of getting pure competition from swimmers in other age groups who would jump at the chance to race one of master swimming’s best.
I’ve only been a part of masters swimming for five years, so I wasn’t around when this rule was passed. So can someone please tell me the logic behind it?
Are the older swimmers scared of getting their butts whipped by a 28-year-old? Did someone complain that they miss the days of age group swimming and wanted to return to that?
Please tell me the logic behind that rule -- if there is any logic.
And while you’re thinking of an explanation, think about what would happen if this rule were in effect in USA Swimming and Olympic/World Championship meets. It would mean that Michael Phelps and Ian Thorpe would never get to race because Phelps belonged in the 19-24 age group. Would Katie Hoff be relegated to the 15-18 age group, while Amanda Beard swims all alone in the 19-24 bracket?
Yep, that’s a bunch of baloney, but that what I’m seeing in masters swimming. And as some of us begin to map out our training and competition plans leading up to next year’s master’s world championships, I fear we’ll never get the kind of exciting matchups we take for granted in the Olympics.
Wouldn’t you rather see four swimmers duke it out for the overall title in the 200 free at nationals than to watch them one by one in their respective age groups? (Don’t worry. They’d still get their first place medals for winning their age groups.) And wouldn’t it be better for all swimmers to race people of their own ability?
What would it take to make this policy change? Would it just take one person to finally vocalize what so many have whispered about on decks around the world? OK, I’ve done that. What’s next?
I’ve asked a lot of questions here, and the answers (read: the future of US Masters Swimming) lie within you.
Originally posted by justforfun
Connie, thanks for your comments that come from the pragmatic point of view.
As to your first point, I don't think that dropping the 6th event would be an equivalent trade-off for adding 1 finals heat to each event. On this year's SCY order of events, there are 5-6 individual events each day, which translates to 10-12 extra heats. At an estimated average of 3 minutes per heat, we're talking about 30-36 minutes. Dropping the 6th event means striking 1 swim for nearly everyone in the meet. This translates to eliminating 1500-2000 swims from the meet, which is roughly 188-250 heats.
3 minutes per heat? I don't know anyone so fast that they can swim a 1500 in 3 minutes. How about a 400 IM, what's a fast time for that?
Do you suggest we do a final heat only for the 100's and the 50's and not for the 200 and the 400 and 800 and 1500 or whatever the case might be?
By doing that you've just ticked off about half the swimmers in the meet, those who prefer the distance.
You need to account for on heat for each event, and then double that, for men's and womens, so, what's a fast heat for 1500.. some 15-18 minutes times two, then 400 IM times 2, then 800 free x 2, then 400 free x2, then 200 free x 2... add it all up (anyone adding this?) Then add some time in between the hneats, and make sure that all finalists have had enough of a chance to rest between teir prelim and final, and don't have back to back events... I bet you're looking at adding another half a day or so to the timeline. Not mere 30-35 minutes.
Your second point is the key one, in my opinion. I don't know how many competitors would be interested in swimming head-to-head against swimmers outside their age groups. Perhaps many would scratch from the final heat, not wanting to do an additional swim. In that case, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I can tell you of the people on my team, we have a national champion in 45-49 age group, and we have a world record holder, and about 3-4 other top contenders, in fastest age groups.
They all know and have created a friendly rivalry with other people they compete against in their age group, and are all adamant about competing against each other, rather than someone outside their age group they hardly know.
I know our nation champion wouldn't even bother to swim if she couldn't compete against a specific gal in her age group. Right now, they are so close in the 200 and 400 free that one holds a title in the 200, and the other in the 400.
Well, their votes about how they like it are just as valid as a 26 year old sprinter t the top of his age group, as a 75 year old distance swimmer at the top of her age group.
I don't think we should specifically take "spectators" into consideration--no one has suggested that. Any change in format like this would be purely to satisfy our competitive spirits.
According to whom? Last time USMS did the polling, it was a minority.
With that in mind, I don't think anyone will forget the excitement on the pool deck at Indianapolis last year when we saw Gary Hall Jr, Sabir Muhammed, et al duke it out in the sprints. Those heats were different than the rest of the meet and the energy spread to everyone watching...I think that maybe these finals heats could do the same thing.
I doubt it. There were many other super fast heats that weren't that far behind Gary Hall and Sabir, and they didn't generate that kind of an atmosphere. If I remember right, the heat with Gary Hall and Sabir in Indy ( I was there) wasn't even the fastest heat in one of the events.
I bet you that if Michael Phelps just entered the room, and didn't even swim, you'd still get that kind of an atmosphere. It's not how the swim is seeded, it's who is in it.
We have a kid that swims 20-21 seconds in 50 free SCY, and locally has swum against and sometimes beats Eric Hockstein, and even though in same age groups they are often seeded 3 and 4 in local championships. You don't get that kind of an atmosphere from just fast swims and a very minor celebrity.
Do you know who Eric Hockstein is? Would you have the same reaction to watching him swim vs. Hary Hall Jr? Even if they're only half a second apart?
Heck, having Paul Smith swim in a meet should generate that kind of excitment considering his acomplishments, but it doesn't.
Originally posted by justforfun
Connie, thanks for your comments that come from the pragmatic point of view.
As to your first point, I don't think that dropping the 6th event would be an equivalent trade-off for adding 1 finals heat to each event. On this year's SCY order of events, there are 5-6 individual events each day, which translates to 10-12 extra heats. At an estimated average of 3 minutes per heat, we're talking about 30-36 minutes. Dropping the 6th event means striking 1 swim for nearly everyone in the meet. This translates to eliminating 1500-2000 swims from the meet, which is roughly 188-250 heats.
3 minutes per heat? I don't know anyone so fast that they can swim a 1500 in 3 minutes. How about a 400 IM, what's a fast time for that?
Do you suggest we do a final heat only for the 100's and the 50's and not for the 200 and the 400 and 800 and 1500 or whatever the case might be?
By doing that you've just ticked off about half the swimmers in the meet, those who prefer the distance.
You need to account for on heat for each event, and then double that, for men's and womens, so, what's a fast heat for 1500.. some 15-18 minutes times two, then 400 IM times 2, then 800 free x 2, then 400 free x2, then 200 free x 2... add it all up (anyone adding this?) Then add some time in between the hneats, and make sure that all finalists have had enough of a chance to rest between teir prelim and final, and don't have back to back events... I bet you're looking at adding another half a day or so to the timeline. Not mere 30-35 minutes.
Your second point is the key one, in my opinion. I don't know how many competitors would be interested in swimming head-to-head against swimmers outside their age groups. Perhaps many would scratch from the final heat, not wanting to do an additional swim. In that case, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I can tell you of the people on my team, we have a national champion in 45-49 age group, and we have a world record holder, and about 3-4 other top contenders, in fastest age groups.
They all know and have created a friendly rivalry with other people they compete against in their age group, and are all adamant about competing against each other, rather than someone outside their age group they hardly know.
I know our nation champion wouldn't even bother to swim if she couldn't compete against a specific gal in her age group. Right now, they are so close in the 200 and 400 free that one holds a title in the 200, and the other in the 400.
Well, their votes about how they like it are just as valid as a 26 year old sprinter t the top of his age group, as a 75 year old distance swimmer at the top of her age group.
I don't think we should specifically take "spectators" into consideration--no one has suggested that. Any change in format like this would be purely to satisfy our competitive spirits.
According to whom? Last time USMS did the polling, it was a minority.
With that in mind, I don't think anyone will forget the excitement on the pool deck at Indianapolis last year when we saw Gary Hall Jr, Sabir Muhammed, et al duke it out in the sprints. Those heats were different than the rest of the meet and the energy spread to everyone watching...I think that maybe these finals heats could do the same thing.
I doubt it. There were many other super fast heats that weren't that far behind Gary Hall and Sabir, and they didn't generate that kind of an atmosphere. If I remember right, the heat with Gary Hall and Sabir in Indy ( I was there) wasn't even the fastest heat in one of the events.
I bet you that if Michael Phelps just entered the room, and didn't even swim, you'd still get that kind of an atmosphere. It's not how the swim is seeded, it's who is in it.
We have a kid that swims 20-21 seconds in 50 free SCY, and locally has swum against and sometimes beats Eric Hockstein, and even though in same age groups they are often seeded 3 and 4 in local championships. You don't get that kind of an atmosphere from just fast swims and a very minor celebrity.
Do you know who Eric Hockstein is? Would you have the same reaction to watching him swim vs. Hary Hall Jr? Even if they're only half a second apart?
Heck, having Paul Smith swim in a meet should generate that kind of excitment considering his acomplishments, but it doesn't.
