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
Perhaps we should revisit what we're talking about here. The original question was, essentially, should we seed nationals according to time rather than age group to allow people to swim against a heat full of competitors roughly their own speed? It seems as though there is not much desire on the part of most participants to do it that way (myself included). So, I suggested a format that might accomplish at least part of what Jeff wants (and it certainly isn't an original idea at that) without disrupting the regular meet for the vast majority of swimmers.
I understand what you suggested. Having sat through and observed a number of meetings at the convention where all the opinions get voiced and those rules are made, I can just hear the opposing arguments to that. For one, the logistical issues for the meet host... from software and timing system to timelines etc...
Another one, if you hold prelims and finals on separate days, you may have people complaining that that requires them to stay an extra day. Also, there's a cost in lifeguards, medical personell, officials, timers etc...
I would never suggest that the longest events (1000, 1650) be swum twice. This is rarely done at any meet. These events are already seeded differently from the others at nationals anyway.
But what if the distance swimmers want to have prelim and a final as well? The general sentiment of I believe majority distance swimmers at nationals is that there is not enough distance events offered to begin with. You add more events to sprints and shorter distances, you'll have them very much up in arms, demanding equal treatment.
Even if the 400 IM and 500 free were done twice, I still think the average would be around 3 minutes/heat.
50s take less than 1 minute, 100s 1 1/2 minutes, 200s less than 3 minutes. 400 IM and 500 free would be 5-6 minutes. I'm also not suggesting that there should be large amounts of time between these heats. People would have to be careful about the way they choose their events according to the given order. Those fast enough to make more than one final in one session might not swim both in the final.
And what if there is a number of them that don't like that idea?
Finals could be held at the end of the regular session or another day...there are a few different options. Finally, with this format, those content to stay within their own age group could do that...the rest of the meet would be exactly the same except for the added top 8 heats.
As I stated in an earlier post, I actually like it the way it is now. But, my point is (for the sake of discussion) if there was interest in something like this, it could be done.
Theoretically, anything is possible. It's getting people to agree, and making it practical that's going to make one thing prevail over another.
I know that asking few hundred people that are used to doingthings a certain way to pay attention and follow the changed program is a chineese fire drill in the making.
You'd have to have extra staff just to remind and direct people, and fend off questions and complaints... If you don't want to have delays, that is.
By the way, I do know who Eric Hockstein is...German Olympian, right? Maybe I'm just too much of a swimming junkie, but I do get excited to see Smith vs. Smith, or watch Jim McConica or Trip Hedrick, or see anyone swim fast. Or, if I had the chance, I'd love to swim against some of them myself. Surely I'm not alone.
Maybe someone would want to hold a sprint only exhibition meet... All Stars Masters invitational series sprint meet or something like that? (50's 100's and maybe 200's only)
How do you get the elites to get interested and show up?
Originally posted by justforfun
Perhaps we should revisit what we're talking about here. The original question was, essentially, should we seed nationals according to time rather than age group to allow people to swim against a heat full of competitors roughly their own speed? It seems as though there is not much desire on the part of most participants to do it that way (myself included). So, I suggested a format that might accomplish at least part of what Jeff wants (and it certainly isn't an original idea at that) without disrupting the regular meet for the vast majority of swimmers.
I understand what you suggested. Having sat through and observed a number of meetings at the convention where all the opinions get voiced and those rules are made, I can just hear the opposing arguments to that. For one, the logistical issues for the meet host... from software and timing system to timelines etc...
Another one, if you hold prelims and finals on separate days, you may have people complaining that that requires them to stay an extra day. Also, there's a cost in lifeguards, medical personell, officials, timers etc...
I would never suggest that the longest events (1000, 1650) be swum twice. This is rarely done at any meet. These events are already seeded differently from the others at nationals anyway.
But what if the distance swimmers want to have prelim and a final as well? The general sentiment of I believe majority distance swimmers at nationals is that there is not enough distance events offered to begin with. You add more events to sprints and shorter distances, you'll have them very much up in arms, demanding equal treatment.
Even if the 400 IM and 500 free were done twice, I still think the average would be around 3 minutes/heat.
50s take less than 1 minute, 100s 1 1/2 minutes, 200s less than 3 minutes. 400 IM and 500 free would be 5-6 minutes. I'm also not suggesting that there should be large amounts of time between these heats. People would have to be careful about the way they choose their events according to the given order. Those fast enough to make more than one final in one session might not swim both in the final.
And what if there is a number of them that don't like that idea?
Finals could be held at the end of the regular session or another day...there are a few different options. Finally, with this format, those content to stay within their own age group could do that...the rest of the meet would be exactly the same except for the added top 8 heats.
As I stated in an earlier post, I actually like it the way it is now. But, my point is (for the sake of discussion) if there was interest in something like this, it could be done.
Theoretically, anything is possible. It's getting people to agree, and making it practical that's going to make one thing prevail over another.
I know that asking few hundred people that are used to doingthings a certain way to pay attention and follow the changed program is a chineese fire drill in the making.
You'd have to have extra staff just to remind and direct people, and fend off questions and complaints... If you don't want to have delays, that is.
By the way, I do know who Eric Hockstein is...German Olympian, right? Maybe I'm just too much of a swimming junkie, but I do get excited to see Smith vs. Smith, or watch Jim McConica or Trip Hedrick, or see anyone swim fast. Or, if I had the chance, I'd love to swim against some of them myself. Surely I'm not alone.
Maybe someone would want to hold a sprint only exhibition meet... All Stars Masters invitational series sprint meet or something like that? (50's 100's and maybe 200's only)
How do you get the elites to get interested and show up?
