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 Beards247
There is no real resolution to an issue like this, the preference is rooted in personal preference with no research, logic or logisitcal reason to choose one approach over the other. This could be an excellent opportunity to use the Forum polling
and publish the poll and results in the new magazine.
Actually, USMS has issued a poll similar to what you guys are talking about to all those who attended the '04 LCM Nationals in Savannah, and the results have been discussed at the USMS convention.
I would venture a guess that one of the reasons there was not a lot of interest in Jeff’s article being published is that many opinions much like his have already been voiced at the convention during the decision making, and may more other opinions and preferences have already been voiced, considered and discussed.
Yes, there were swimmer considerations, spectator consideration and logistical considerations, all given their realistic weight of importance, looking at the whole picture, not just one strong feeling side of it.
The rules as they stand now are the result of that process.
Frankly, the opinions that you voice all have more impact if you voice them at the convention, rather than in articles. Yes, there is a cost to making changes, if you're passionate about making those changes, you need to get involved in places where you *can* make a difference. USMS is a volunteer run organization, and I believe they are always looking for passionate individuals to get involved with the organization. There's definately room for them.
Originally posted by Swimmer Bill
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.
I'd have to agree with that one.
I remember watching Nadine Day in one of her distance events, she was laps ahead of everyone, and going strong.
There was something truly special about watching it.
Different then watching two swimmers going head to head.
I cant really say that I prefer that more or less than watching two or three elites go head to head. They're both special in their own way.
Originally posted by justforfun
I think this format would satisfy all parties, with the only potential negative being where to fit these races into an already crowded Nationals timeline. We're only talking about a few heats per day, however.
What if it came down to having to choose between dropping the 6th event and have the final heats, or not have the final heats, and keeping the 6th event?
What if you knew that by most likely dropping the 6th event you may end up discouraging 20% of swimmers from coming to the event, and that makes it unfesible to host the event in the first place?
What if some of the people you would like to see swim against people their speed outswide the age group would really prefer to swim within the age group? Whose preference should count more, the spectator or the competitor who has paid out of their pocket to travel to and attend the meet?
In Masters Nationals, it's the swimmer that is the customer, not the spectator.
In the elite USA swimming, their nationals and the olympics, it's the spectator that is the customer.
Little different positioning of the interests.
Connie, thanks for your comments that come from the pragmatic point of view.
As to your first point, I don't think that dropping the 6th event would be an equivalent trade-off for adding 1 finals heat to each event. On this year's SCY order of events, there are 5-6 individual events each day, which translates to 10-12 extra heats. At an estimated average of 3 minutes per heat, we're talking about 30-36 minutes. Dropping the 6th event means striking 1 swim for nearly everyone in the meet. This translates to eliminating 1500-2000 swims from the meet, which is roughly 188-250 heats.
Your second point is the key one, in my opinion. I don't know how many competitors would be interested in swimming head-to-head against swimmers outside their age groups. Perhaps many would scratch from the final heat, not wanting to do an additional swim. In that case, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I don't think we should specifically take "spectators" into consideration--no one has suggested that. Any change in format like this would be purely to satisfy our competitive spirits. With that in mind, I don't think anyone will forget the excitement on the pool deck at Indianapolis last year when we saw Gary Hall Jr, Sabir Muhammed, et al duke it out in the sprints. Those heats were different than the rest of the meet and the energy spread to everyone watching...I think that maybe these finals heats could do the same thing.
Originally posted by Jeff Commings
Connie, I've never just gone to a masters meet to watch. In fact, there are few meets where I've been only a spectator (2003 NCAAs the only recent exception).
But if I lived in the Savannah, Ga., area, I might have participated in the long course nationals last summer, and been awed by Razvan's and Mike's separate 100 flys, then puzzled why they couldn't have swum it together to produce a better race and possibly faster record times.
So, if people don't go to the nationals to watch, they're not televised, they're not sponsored with high amounts due to large audiences they draw, and the way it's seeded right now is reflective of the preferences of most competetive swimmers wo actually spend their own money to come and compete, why cater to the non-existant, non revenue generating spectators?
Also, how would we determine that your personal preferences described here are indicative of the majority of the potential spectators?
Originally posted by justforfun
Connie, thanks for your comments that come from the pragmatic point of view.
As to your first point, I don't think that dropping the 6th event would be an equivalent trade-off for adding 1 finals heat to each event. On this year's SCY order of events, there are 5-6 individual events each day, which translates to 10-12 extra heats. At an estimated average of 3 minutes per heat, we're talking about 30-36 minutes. Dropping the 6th event means striking 1 swim for nearly everyone in the meet. This translates to eliminating 1500-2000 swims from the meet, which is roughly 188-250 heats.
3 minutes per heat? I don't know anyone so fast that they can swim a 1500 in 3 minutes. How about a 400 IM, what's a fast time for that?
Do you suggest we do a final heat only for the 100's and the 50's and not for the 200 and the 400 and 800 and 1500 or whatever the case might be?
By doing that you've just ticked off about half the swimmers in the meet, those who prefer the distance.
You need to account for on heat for each event, and then double that, for men's and womens, so, what's a fast heat for 1500.. some 15-18 minutes times two, then 400 IM times 2, then 800 free x 2, then 400 free x2, then 200 free x 2... add it all up (anyone adding this?) Then add some time in between the hneats, and make sure that all finalists have had enough of a chance to rest between teir prelim and final, and don't have back to back events... I bet you're looking at adding another half a day or so to the timeline. Not mere 30-35 minutes.
Your second point is the key one, in my opinion. I don't know how many competitors would be interested in swimming head-to-head against swimmers outside their age groups. Perhaps many would scratch from the final heat, not wanting to do an additional swim. In that case, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I can tell you of the people on my team, we have a national champion in 45-49 age group, and we have a world record holder, and about 3-4 other top contenders, in fastest age groups.
They all know and have created a friendly rivalry with other people they compete against in their age group, and are all adamant about competing against each other, rather than someone outside their age group they hardly know.
I know our nation champion wouldn't even bother to swim if she couldn't compete against a specific gal in her age group. Right now, they are so close in the 200 and 400 free that one holds a title in the 200, and the other in the 400.
Well, their votes about how they like it are just as valid as a 26 year old sprinter t the top of his age group, as a 75 year old distance swimmer at the top of her age group.
I don't think we should specifically take "spectators" into consideration--no one has suggested that. Any change in format like this would be purely to satisfy our competitive spirits.
According to whom? Last time USMS did the polling, it was a minority.
With that in mind, I don't think anyone will forget the excitement on the pool deck at Indianapolis last year when we saw Gary Hall Jr, Sabir Muhammed, et al duke it out in the sprints. Those heats were different than the rest of the meet and the energy spread to everyone watching...I think that maybe these finals heats could do the same thing.
I doubt it. There were many other super fast heats that weren't that far behind Gary Hall and Sabir, and they didn't generate that kind of an atmosphere. If I remember right, the heat with Gary Hall and Sabir in Indy ( I was there) wasn't even the fastest heat in one of the events.
I bet you that if Michael Phelps just entered the room, and didn't even swim, you'd still get that kind of an atmosphere. It's not how the swim is seeded, it's who is in it.
We have a kid that swims 20-21 seconds in 50 free SCY, and locally has swum against and sometimes beats Eric Hockstein, and even though in same age groups they are often seeded 3 and 4 in local championships. You don't get that kind of an atmosphere from just fast swims and a very minor celebrity.
Do you know who Eric Hockstein is? Would you have the same reaction to watching him swim vs. Hary Hall Jr? Even if they're only half a second apart?
Heck, having Paul Smith swim in a meet should generate that kind of excitment considering his acomplishments, but it doesn't.
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 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. 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. 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.
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.
I remember more than a few years ago Eric Hockstein swam at the SPMA SCM regionals, back when it was the best in the USA.
He swam 49+ for 100 meters!!!!
And there are many more that would give him a good race.
I would like USMS to have sponsored races across the USA to build excitement. Kind of like the Clarol Challenge with Mat Biondi vs. Mark Spitz. Say a prize of $5000 .:D
For me watching say the best breaststrokers under 45, say you have to go under 59 seconds. And a 45 to 60 race to see the first Masters over 55 under a minute.
But when it really counts, when I have been training hard, time racing is better than age group racing. I remember a 200 meter breaststroke, I went out in 1:14.75, was at 1:54.9 at the 150 mark, but was 20 meters ahead of the next guy in my age group. I would have loved to be racing Gerry Rodrigues in the same heat. We had a beer (six pac) on the three *** races. But Gerry had Mike Winterbaurer next to him to push that last 25 meters of PAIN. Close races bring out the best in us.
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.
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?
