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.
Jeff:
I dont think you should hold your breath about seeing a change in the seeding method at nationals.
The basic philosphy is that this is a national championships for the age groups and the swimmers in the age group should be competing against each other. The distance events are seeded by time so that the meet will not run to midnight - imagine having the 1650 seeded by age group by time - it would take forever!!
Mark was right you could go to convention to try to make your case. The LMSC could also sponsor a rule to make the change. (While that is possible, I believe the best way would be to go to convention as a delegate then get on the championship committee). A major change like this would have to get the support of the Championships Committee and I do not see that happening.
I think the rule change that Jim was thinking of was that the eight fastest women would be seeded in their own heat of the 1500 and 1650.
michael
I'm a little on the fence on this one, but I do think Jeff's perspective is different since he's an elite swimmer. As more of an "average" swimmer myself I like to swim against my competition (i.e., those in my age group). But, honestly, if Nationals were seeded strictly by time I can't say I would really mind that much.
I also, am of two minds on this- but, a small gesture (and kind of neat, I think) would be this: in additions to the regular age group listings posted with results, also 'break out' regardless of age the top ten or whatever for that event. I know for a lot of Nats Jim McConica would 'place' very high indeed in such a listing. It might even result in some media interest(heaven forbid). What-the-heck with some zone or local meets, you could open that top 10 to regardless of sex criteria & get some good talking points...
Personally, I like swimming in heats with people of my age group. All year long, at local and regional meets we can swim with people in other age groups based on seed time.
Swimming by age group is something a little different, and I think there must be some good reasons why that situation is reserved for Nationals. For example, when your club is in the running in the club scoring, seeding by age groups can give you an opportunity to go head-to-head with seven other people in your age group. Sometimes that can help you score an extra point or two for the club.
I agree on the point about becoming a delegate, going to the convention, getting on the Championship Committee, etc. Sometimes USMS does change when people speak up and discuss new ideas. It's a lot like the government: there are delegates (local representatives), they bring new ideas, the ideas are discussed, and there is a vote (majority rules). Case-in-point: one year ago, how many people thought USMS would have a new magazine?
Side note: Personally, I like watching the swimmers who are way ahead of their age groups. It shows how outstanding they are in the context of their own divisions. However, if I was one of those swimmers, perhaps I'd have a different opinion. I respect Jeff's opinion and understand why he feels this way. He's a "top shelf" swimmer. If you could go 55.99 in the 100 yard ***, there wouldn't be too many people in any Masters age group who could give you a good race. On the same token, if I could go 55.99 in the 100 ***, I'd be doing a lot of USA Swimming meets and beating the youngsters.
I like Just For Fun's idea. When we were discussing, years ago, about being allowed to swim both distance events something similar came up.
I suggested having Nationals for everybody (more like a consols for the elite) and then having another day, meet, etc. for the elite (that would be finals). The finals wouldn't affect age groups and doesn't even need awards, etc. It would go really fast (no pun intended) as it would be only one heat of each event.
Really it would be "just for fun" and bragging rights, particularly if your last name is Smith :p
I think the seeding by age groups should stay as is. The idea of swimming a final heat!!! Would that mean swimming the event twice in one day!! I swam competitively as a younger swimmer and prelims and finals were fine but as a 45 year old I think that would be a little to much. I am in agreement with the concept that if you are outstanding for your age you should be able to flaunt that at Nationals. If you swim masters meets the rest of the year they usually seed those events by times.
Originally posted by Jeff Commings
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.
If you're going to quote the rulebook, you should read all of the rules. You're quoting rule 104.5.5(A)(2). You should also read rule 104.5.5(a)(4) which says:
Events 400 yards/meters and longer shall be deck seeded by one of the following
methods: (a) by entry time only, (b) by age group, the oldest age group
fi rst, slowest heats seeded fi rst within each age group, then by time, or (c) by a
combination of (a) and (b). The USMS Championship Committee shall make
all seeding decisions.
That says that the 400+ events must be 'deck seeded'. If you look at the Nationals meet information:
All events, with the exception of the 1650, 1000, 500 and 400 IM, will be pre-seeded unless meet management determines that the meet cannot be completed in a timely manner. Three courses (a total of 26 lanes) will be used for the 1650, 1000, and 500 free and possibly the 400 IM. Men's heats will precede women's heats for each event. The 1650, 1000 Free and 400 IM will be seeded slowest to fastest by entry time regardless of age. All other events will be seeded by age group with the oldest age groups first, slowest to fastest within each age group.
... you'll see that it says exactly that.
As for changing a rule in the rulebook, the best course is to get support for your idea, and get it onto the docket at the Convention.
-Rick
Also, to address another question:
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.
One reason why this rule works at nationals is because there are _so_ many people at nationals. Most local meets have only a couple of heats per event. Seeding-by-age breaks down real quickly with a very small number of heats.
At the regional level, sometimes we have to weigh the options a little differently. At the NE Masters Champs last week-end, we had 768 swimmers in the meet. The best facility we have available for a meet this size has just an 8-lane competition course. We don't have a SCY facility in the region that would give us two courses _and_ have the appropriate facility space and warmup space.
We are a meet that is large enough so that seeding-by-age would work reasonably well. We had 30 heats of men's 100 free. However, seeding by age would probably have added a couple of hours to our timeline for the week-end. As it was, one of our days started at 9:00am and didn't finish until almost 8:00pm. So every minute counts.
At nationals, where you always have large facilities with plenty of space (certainly in relative terms), there is less pressure on the timeline.
-Rick
Growing up an age group swimmer I found the transition to Masters an easy one except for the 50s and 100 IM of course!
An argument I can see: if you're going to swim everybody together regardless of age for national championship titles why bother having world records and LMSC records for the age groups? Who would care?
For me personally, I like knowing my competition as I race them regularly (or see their times on-line) and I know their strengths and weaknesses. And even when the results are in I check the other age groups to see what place I got OVERALL, just because I'm curious :)
One frustrating thing about swimming by time: at one nationals my husband thought he had won the 400 IM and he didn't (by a few tenths). The guy who won was in the heat several heats slower than his. Pat, my husband, was really... upset (so I don't get in trouble!) He knew that if that guy were in his heat he would have beat him or at least pushed it more (my husband won his heat by at least 10 seconds). So that also raises that age old question about sandbagging... I know a world record holder in our LMSC (not Suzanne!) who sandbags all the time because she's afraid to compete with the fastest. At our LMSC championships she looks really stupid. Everybody knows she's the fastest but she swims in a slower heat and decimates everybody...
For now, I'm for swimming by age-groups. For example, I know Suzanne Heim-Bowen is faster than me in freestyle, it doesn't matter how old we are. In fact I think her accomplishments are accented even more when she finishes her heat well ahead of everyone else in her age group. Until swimming is an "interesting" sport to America, no one really misses it or sees it as a spectator sport. I myself, think meets are boring unless I'm swimming.
Also, on another note, it's important to remember that the fastest do not show up at every nationals. The Top Ten is the only true way to measure the best of the best for now and that's by age group. Maybe add an "overall" Top Ten category?
How about this idea:
Conduct the meet exactly as we do now, seeding according to age groups. Then, take the top eight overall finishers from each event and swim one additional heat (Finals, if you will). This way, there would still be individual age group winners from head-to-head competition AND the opportunity for the fastest in each age group to go up against each other for the overall title.
The "finals" heats could be swum at the end of the day's competition or the beginning of the next day. Or, if there's a feeling that the meet would be too long, as is always a concern, an additional 1/2 day could be added to the meet with all "finals" held in that session. I would probably prefer the same-day format.
This proposal would not affect most Nationals participants, but would give the elite swimmers a chance to test themselves against the fastest from each event.
What do you think?