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 LindsayNB
These seem like highly hypothetical possibilities to me. If you are not interested in exploring the feasiblity of offering a duel system that's fine, I don't see the harm of dicussing the possibility and am open to the possibility that there are good reasons to stick with the status quo. I think it would be good for everyone to have those good reasons out in the open and understood. At this point I see no reason why splitting the events into two sets of heats would drive up the costs to the radical extent your examples imply. I guess it is possible that people would stay away if they couldn't have their way, but I doubt it. For all we know a lot of people are currently staying away due to a dislike of the current system.
Those reasons have been discussed a lot on several comittees at the convention, if I remember right. I believe championship comittee is the one that has most say in this.
As for the costs, till a lot more research and analisys is done you really don't know what the cost would be. My point was not so much that it would really go up to 350, but what if it does, how much extra would people be willing to pay, where do they draw the line?
Would you agree to have your USMS Dues doubled, so that USMS can offer prize money to the elite swimmers, and make it more attractive?
I would neither propose nor support such a proposition.
Why not? What if the increase was 20%, and that would enable to use some elite competition to promote Masters swimming, and attract members and sponsorships to the sport. As it is, compared to many other sports associations, the dues are very low.
I spend more than some 30 bucks a year on chewing gum and sodas within one year, and get a lot less benefit out of it.
I'm getting the mixed message here though, people want competition, but they don't want competition.
If one is not that ointerested in competition, then why worry about how the competetive events are seeded to give competitors certain opportunities?
Which is why I joined the MSC fitness committee and am putting my efforts into helping develop fitness oriented programs.
That's good.
I'm curious though, how come you ended up getting invested in a discussion about one of the most competetive events?
I think it is constructive to have a good discussion of the pros and cons of a potential change before pushing to have it implemented. I thought that was what we were doing here.
If I remember right, a discussion very similar to this has already happened at the last convention. One of the suggestions that were made was to seed the nationals by time only (men and women separated), not so much in the interest of competetiveness, but more the interest of time savings, and it had met a very large and very strong opposition, by a lot of the oeople that few people here are saying they'd like to see them swim against someone outside their age group.
Even though I'm not onthe championship comitee myself, being that I'm one of the organizers of the LCM nationals this year, I sat in on the comittee meetings watching pretty closely what was happening, knowing that it will have impact on what we have to do this year.
If I followed it right, the next year where rule changes will be discussed will be at the convention in 2006. So if someone is really passionate about making this change, they have some time to do their research and make their case when and where it actually may make a difference.
As I said though, it won't be the first time similar idea has been presented.
Originally posted by LindsayNB
These seem like highly hypothetical possibilities to me. If you are not interested in exploring the feasiblity of offering a duel system that's fine, I don't see the harm of dicussing the possibility and am open to the possibility that there are good reasons to stick with the status quo. I think it would be good for everyone to have those good reasons out in the open and understood. At this point I see no reason why splitting the events into two sets of heats would drive up the costs to the radical extent your examples imply. I guess it is possible that people would stay away if they couldn't have their way, but I doubt it. For all we know a lot of people are currently staying away due to a dislike of the current system.
Those reasons have been discussed a lot on several comittees at the convention, if I remember right. I believe championship comittee is the one that has most say in this.
As for the costs, till a lot more research and analisys is done you really don't know what the cost would be. My point was not so much that it would really go up to 350, but what if it does, how much extra would people be willing to pay, where do they draw the line?
Would you agree to have your USMS Dues doubled, so that USMS can offer prize money to the elite swimmers, and make it more attractive?
I would neither propose nor support such a proposition.
Why not? What if the increase was 20%, and that would enable to use some elite competition to promote Masters swimming, and attract members and sponsorships to the sport. As it is, compared to many other sports associations, the dues are very low.
I spend more than some 30 bucks a year on chewing gum and sodas within one year, and get a lot less benefit out of it.
I'm getting the mixed message here though, people want competition, but they don't want competition.
If one is not that ointerested in competition, then why worry about how the competetive events are seeded to give competitors certain opportunities?
Which is why I joined the MSC fitness committee and am putting my efforts into helping develop fitness oriented programs.
That's good.
I'm curious though, how come you ended up getting invested in a discussion about one of the most competetive events?
I think it is constructive to have a good discussion of the pros and cons of a potential change before pushing to have it implemented. I thought that was what we were doing here.
If I remember right, a discussion very similar to this has already happened at the last convention. One of the suggestions that were made was to seed the nationals by time only (men and women separated), not so much in the interest of competetiveness, but more the interest of time savings, and it had met a very large and very strong opposition, by a lot of the oeople that few people here are saying they'd like to see them swim against someone outside their age group.
Even though I'm not onthe championship comitee myself, being that I'm one of the organizers of the LCM nationals this year, I sat in on the comittee meetings watching pretty closely what was happening, knowing that it will have impact on what we have to do this year.
If I followed it right, the next year where rule changes will be discussed will be at the convention in 2006. So if someone is really passionate about making this change, they have some time to do their research and make their case when and where it actually may make a difference.
As I said though, it won't be the first time similar idea has been presented.
