Seeding at nationals: a commentary

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

knelson — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:18:15 GMT

Originally posted by Paul Smith you ain't foolin' no one...... Once a rabbitt always a rabbitt Are you saying "The Good Smith" is actually Eddie Rabbitt? :D I hear he loves a rainy night.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:42:57 GMT

Originally posted by LindsayNB If they want to swim head to head they do have the option of swimming in the open heats. But they still may not get into the same heat with their AG competition. I'm not sure triathlon is a good analogy due to the ability to draft. I also assume that the national championships are not seeded into "waves" of eight athletes? True, triathlon has many differences. I was just trying to point out that for triathlon nationals, the focus is AG competition, so the waves are organized by AG to give everybody in the same AG the same racing conditions.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:52:23 GMT

Originally posted by Bobber What about those who want to swim against others in their age-group including the best in the AG, but some of the best in the AG select the open seeded heats? I thought I covered this, the idea being that when two groups are in conflict with group A wanting to swim their own prefered way and group B wanting group A to swim according to group B's preferences there is a stronger case to let group A control group A then to let group B control group A. These AG-heat swimmers will know what the time-seeded heats swam (assuming they went first) but may not be swimming head-to-head with the other top swimmers in the AG. If they want to swim head to head they do have the option of swimming in the open heats. This kind of thing happens all the time in triathlons that offer an elite wave. Many triathlons exclude the elite wave competitors from AG awards because of this. In triathlon national championship races, there are no elite waves. I'm not sure triathlon is a good analogy due to the ability to draft. I also assume that the national championships are not seeded into "waves" of eight athletes? There is the option to exclude the open seeded swimmers from age group placings and possibly to add placings within the open seeded swimmers. If more awards are a good thing the latter should appeal. It would make for interesting choices, are you willing to give up a good placing in your age group to try for a good placing in the open catagory? Perhaps Jeff can comment on whether he would be willing to forgo winning his age group in order to compete with the fastest swimmers in his events?

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Jeff Commings — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:35:00 GMT

Perhaps Jeff can comment on whether he would be willing to forgo winning his age group in order to compete with the fastest swimmers in his events? Absolutely.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:45:21 GMT

Paul is confused. He means the "Good Smith" is the Rabbit. Paul is obviously the Evil one.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Paul Smith — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:12:23 GMT

you ain't foolin' no one...... Once a rabbitt always a rabbitt Once an Evil Smith always and Evil Smith You can try as you might oh one of great distance training this year, but those in the know aren't fooled by your "handle" and trying to "spin" off your Evil moniker to me!

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:41:10 GMT

Originally posted by Bobber But they still may not get into the same heat with their AG competition. No but they will be swimming 'head to head' with people of similar speed. And all the previously stated principles still apply. If we go with eliminating the time seeded competitors from the age group results then the argument that people competing for the same award should go head to head collapses entirely. Departing off topic a bit, perhaps we should introduce an entirely new type of meet, call it a challenge meet, sort of like the duels between Biondi and Jager but with up to eight swimmers and many of them in all events all in one meet. Everyone can contact their own personal arch rivals and challenge them to a duel and, if their rival accepts the challenge, heats will be seeded to place them in adjacent lanes. No more having rivals seeded in lanes 1 and 8 or in subsequent heats. Just having some fun thinking out of the conventional box.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Paul Smith — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:37:38 GMT

Although I would prefer to swim in events seeded by time (vs. age groups).....which by the way is how the Australian Nationals are run which we just attended....I can accept that at our nationals things are kept as they are now. Much of my reasoning is that we do have the option of swimming in time seeded regional meets that are often held at great pools (Santa Cruz, Minnesota, Long Beach, etc.) and have some very fast swimmers in attendence (I really want to encourage more people to look into these meets and for USMS to do more in helping promote them). As for "swimming your own race", I have always sucked at swimming "time trials".....for me it's about the people in the lanes beside....case in point Evil Smith being a GREAT rabbitt in the 200 free since I suck at taking that race out hard!

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:27:39 GMT

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.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Karen Duggan — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:54:21 GMT

Lindsay, Maybe I misunderstood you, but did you say you want people to suffer under a duel system. What does that mean exactly? Why does there have to be a duel system? Isn't Nationals THE champonship meet. Do we need another one for the elite? I'm a little confused. (Nothing new :p)

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:30:10 GMT

After reading all the different responses to this issue I have one question for you all Whatever happened to swim your own race? It really does not matter whose swimming next to me or how fast they are swimming I will swim as fast as I can in the race. Maybe I was coached in the old days but many times I remember my coach telling me to swim my own race don't look at the other swimmers. Does that sound familiar to anyone else??? Thanks for the comedy in the middle of the day though. Paul I shared your times with one of our up and coming hot shots on the age group team all the senior swimmers got a big laugh out of his response!! Keep up the awesome times regardless of who you swim against.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:16:02 GMT

Originally posted by LindsayNB :p I have corrected my post to say that I want people to describe how people would be hurt by a dual system. The reason why we might want a dual system is that some people would prefer to swim against people of similar speed while some people would rather swim against people of similar age. What about those who want to swim against others in their age-group including the best in the AG, but some of the best in the AG select the open seeded heats? These AG-heat swimmers will know what the time-seeded heats swam (assuming they went first) but may not be swimming head-to-head with the other top swimmers in the AG. This kind of thing happens all the time in triathlons that offer an elite wave. Many triathlons exclude the elite wave competitors from AG awards because of this. In triathlon national championship races, there are no elite waves.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:21:55 GMT

Originally posted by Karen Duggan Lindsay, Maybe I misunderstood you, but did you say you want people to suffer under a duel system. What does that mean exactly? Why does there have to be a duel system? Isn't Nationals THE champonship meet. Do we need another one for the elite? I'm a little confused. (Nothing new :p) :p I have corrected my post to say that I want people to describe how people would be hurt by a dual system. The reason why we might want a dual system is that some people would prefer to swim against people of similar speed while some people would rather swim against people of similar age. Most of the debate I've witnessed so far assumes it has to be one or the other or involves adding extra swims. My hypothesis is that happyness and performance can be optimized by a simple change in seeding. I haven't heard any compelling reasons why it would be advantageous to have the time seeded heats swum in a different meet. The only one that comes to mind is that swimmers could then go to both meets, but it seems dubious they would actually do so. One of the attractions of Nationals is getting people from all over at one meet. I guess it also bears mentioning that the elite swimmers are not the only ones who suffer under age group seeding. When slow swimmers are seeded into the same heat as fast swimmers it doesn't optimize their performance either. This is mostly a factor in less popular events in less populous age groups.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Jeff Commings — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:32:31 GMT

Cindy, I was told many times to "swim my own race." Unless you can complete the distance with your eyes closed from start to finish, it's not possible. With that said, I don't like swimming my own race. I'd rather compete. Racing the clock is not fun.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Karen Duggan — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:02:42 GMT

I agree with swimming your own race, but I have happened upon the circumstance (albeit not lately!) where I was far ahead of the competition and really didn't finish as hard as I could have. Alternatively, I have been in some very close races where I really gave it everything I have. You can do your own race (that's ideal) but it can happen that you get caught up in the heat (of the moment!) :p

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Karen Duggan — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:06:44 GMT

I disagree. While I don't enjoy getting beat by the elite, it does motivate me. I'd rather swim with faster swimmers than with those who are the same speed as me. I guarantee I'll swim faster with those faster than me (as opposed to those with the same times as me). I still contend that it would be useful, for those interested, to take THE fastest times of the meet and have "finals" on what would be the last day of the meet.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Karen Duggan — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:48:13 GMT

Pardon me, dual :p

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

MPohlmann — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:22:56 GMT

Are we talking "duel" or "dual" here. Choose your weapons. :)

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:11:40 GMT

Jeff's arguement is solid. You can not deny that seeding by time will ultimately produce faster swims in general than seeding by age group. It is a fact of human nature and competition. When it all boils down..... your competition is always the person next to you...... older or younger. Note: I have drowned in Jeff's wave during several 100 IMs in the lane next to him. He is younger, stronger and meaner than me........ so what. He reminds me that I have become weak and lazy in my old age. Hell, its good to draft off him ! Seed it by time...... Don't be so chicken to try something new .... lighten up...... it's just Masters swimming. If you seed by time, you will see a 60 year old man (Rich Abrahams) in the 2nd to last heat of the 50 and 100 free.......... It'd be great ! Its amusing and respectable at the same time ! Hell I say throw the men in with the women together and seed by time. That'll get a few of the men off the asses. After all....... you can't let girl beat you .... :-) John Smith

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

mattson — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:58:12 GMT

Originally posted by knelson I just thought of an idea I don't think has been mentioned yet. How about a hybrid system? The top 8 or 16 seeded swimmers would swim in the final heat or two regardless of age. All the remaining heats would be seeded by age group. I can think of two drawbacks. Both cases are for someone 35-45ish, but fast enough for the top 8/16. (Think Tall Paul, or Tom McCabe...) 1) If it is the last event before relays, instead of having a dozen heats or so to recover, they end up swimming the last heat, and one of the first heats of the relay. 2) Instead of swimming in the middle with some clear water (age-group heat), they end up in an end-lane getting battered by waves from the walls ("fast" heat).

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:00:53 GMT

Yeah Jeff...... your backstroke is pretty fast given that funky kick you got going on. I don't remember Eddie teaching that kick when I was at Texas. Must be part of that new backstroke cheatin' generation. Didn't you ever learn that breastrokers ain't supposed to be able to swim backstroke. Note: Paul and I have perfect strokes because we are older and have many years of wisdom on you. John Smith :)

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:47:36 GMT

Hey, If we combine the men and the women in the same heats at nationals, Paul Smith could race Karlyn Pipes-Neilsen in a few events for a Billie Jean King/Bobby Riggs grudge match in backstroke. After all...... Paul is substantially older than Karlyn..... Yeah...... I'd watch that. John Smith :)

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:22:48 GMT

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.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Former Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:54:40 GMT

Originally posted by TheGoodSmith Seed it by time...... Don't be so chicken to try something new .... lighten up...... it's just Masters swimming. Hell I say throw the men in with the women together and seed by time. That'll get a few of the men off the asses. John Smith Just about all masters meets, except for Nationals are seeded by time only, and except for Zone and Regional championships where men and women are separated but still seeded by time, all other local meets are seeded by time only, men and women combined. Atlest here in my LMSC it's that way.

RE: Seeding at nationals: a commentary

Jeff Commings — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:11:19 GMT

My feet had a nickname in college -- Aquabrakes.