Seeding at nationals: a commentary

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    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.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    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.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    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.
  • 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)
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    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.
  • 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!
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    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.