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 Conniekat8
I'm getting the mixed message here though, people want competition, but they don't want competition.
If one is not that interested in competition, then why worry about how the competetive events are seeded to give competitors certain opportunities?
It seems to me that there is no logical contradiction between wanting to allow those who want to swim seeded by time to do so and not wanting to double fees for everyone in order to provide prizes for a few elite swimmers! It seems quite unlikely to me that doubling fees and offering a $5000 purse is going to be an effective way to promote masters swimming. Wanting to swim under conditions that will optimize your performance seems entirely in line with the goals of masters swimming but asking a large group of people to pay money to motivate you is not a reasonable way to achieve that motivation. The demotivation of the many is not justified by the motivation of the few. The point I am trying to get across is that the impacts on the people that are effected have to be evaluated against the goals of the organization. For group A to demand that group B participate under group A's terms is different from demanding that group A be able to participate under group A's terms while group B competes under group B's terms.
It seems to me that the desire to optimize one's own performance by swimming with people of similar speed is entirely consistant with USMS philosophy while a desire to demonstrate your utter domination of the others in your age group is not.
All I would like to see is some descriptions of scenarios where people suffer under a dual seeding model that don't already occur under the current system and where the suffering contradicts the principles of the organization.
If you tell me that a dual seeded system was discussed thoroughly at convention and outline the reasoned principles on which it was rejected I'll be entirely satisfied.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
I'm getting the mixed message here though, people want competition, but they don't want competition.
If one is not that interested in competition, then why worry about how the competetive events are seeded to give competitors certain opportunities?
It seems to me that there is no logical contradiction between wanting to allow those who want to swim seeded by time to do so and not wanting to double fees for everyone in order to provide prizes for a few elite swimmers! It seems quite unlikely to me that doubling fees and offering a $5000 purse is going to be an effective way to promote masters swimming. Wanting to swim under conditions that will optimize your performance seems entirely in line with the goals of masters swimming but asking a large group of people to pay money to motivate you is not a reasonable way to achieve that motivation. The demotivation of the many is not justified by the motivation of the few. The point I am trying to get across is that the impacts on the people that are effected have to be evaluated against the goals of the organization. For group A to demand that group B participate under group A's terms is different from demanding that group A be able to participate under group A's terms while group B competes under group B's terms.
It seems to me that the desire to optimize one's own performance by swimming with people of similar speed is entirely consistant with USMS philosophy while a desire to demonstrate your utter domination of the others in your age group is not.
All I would like to see is some descriptions of scenarios where people suffer under a dual seeding model that don't already occur under the current system and where the suffering contradicts the principles of the organization.
If you tell me that a dual seeded system was discussed thoroughly at convention and outline the reasoned principles on which it was rejected I'll be entirely satisfied.
