I have been thinking about an issue Jeff Commings brought up after the SCY Nationals. Jeff pointed out that he might have gone faster if he had been seeded by time rather than by age. I though the same thing as I watched others, including Dennis Baker, Gary Marshall, Rich Abraham, and others decimate their age group competition. How cool would it have been to see heats of the best of the best go head to head? And the competition would likely lead to faster times, at least for those swimmers who like to be pushed as opposed to swimming in clear water.
But for most of us mid-pack folks, it's a whole lot more exciting racing against our competition than a random assortment of folks who happened to have the same seed time. And often those seed times are wildly inaccurate anyway.
I have a couple of thoughts, neither of which are probably workable, but which might be food for thought. One method might involve culling out the top 24 (or some other number) men and top 24 women seeds from each event and swimming them in separate heats. To prevent gaming the seeds, the race staff would compare seeds to actual times within the past year. The remaining swimmers would swim seeded by age. This would be extra work for the race committee, but probably would not increase the length of the meet a whole bunch, if at all, because these folks would be swimming anyway.
Another suggestion might be a prelim/final format, with the top 24 times from each event swimming it again later. There are rest issues and length of meet issues with this one, but how fun would that be? The rock stars would have to figure out just how hard to go in their age group heat to advance, and the finals would be an all-out blast.
Just thinking out loud . . .
I REALLY don't like the idea. World Masters Games in Edmonton was run that way. I was swimming against people I had never met,many of whom were no where near their seed times,some faster some slower. My main competition was in different heats.And there was situations like my friend Dave Radcliff swimming in an outside lane against 30 year olds and setting a World Record in the 70-74 age group.One could speculate that this helped pace him,but he finished 3rd in his heat with again faster seeds swimming slower and the top 2 guys going way under their seed time. The idea may have some validity for the lower age groups,but the fast older swimmers may be in outside lanes swimming with much younger swimmers who don't have as much experience and are likely to be less accurate with their seed times. Also I like to know if I won,I won,If I finished second I finished second,etc.
At Federal Way, I noticed lots of people going way faster or way slower than their seed times in races. I'm sure that still threw off competitors, so Allen, that argument doesn't compel me to agree with your argument for seeding by age group. If you're seeded seventh in your age group in an event, having the outside lane, and the top six guys all swim way faster than their seed times, it's still going to throw you off. And if your "main competition" was in another heat, he probably wasn't going to be your competition, if his seed time was faster than yours (assuming he swam a time close to his seed).
As for David Radcliffe setting the world record: Do you think he would have done it racing against others in his age group? I don't know the results, but I bet the second place time in his age group did not come close to his. Thus, David would have been racing the clock, which does not historically produce faster results than man-to-man racing. Being in a heat with people of equal times pushed him harder, and he broke the record. He might have broken it racing alone, but I bet he wouldn't have gone as fast.
For those concerned about knowing their place in a particular age group, that's what the printed results are for. If you can't wait, find the heat sheet, circle the names of your competition in heats other than yours and look for them.
Using David as an example, I think seeding by age benefits every age group.
I think it would be a pretty cool bonus to have... but the methodolody at this point seems to be the big question. The top 24 breakout of the 200 free had no-one over 50 - they'll sue for inclusion ;)
but truthfully, if people truly want to swim against their very closest time-wise competitors in a trials/finals format, thats what the uber-competitive USAS is for.
I love all the ideas expressed. However, if one wanted to seed only a few heats of each event by time, it should be the 3 fastest heats of the the 50 and older age groups, not the (or not only the) 3 fastest heats overall. If one looks at results, it is generally the older winners who swim without as much competition.
There is a rule right now that allows events 400 yards or longer to be deck-seeded by a combination of some heats by age group and some by time only. If any of you are serious about such an idea for shorter events, go to your LMSC before July of next year (it is too late for this year, unless one gets a committee to push the idea) and ask the LMSC to propose a rule change (Even years are when Rules can be changed by a 50% vote of the House of Delegates). One would change Rule 104.5.5 A (4) by removing the words "Events 400 yards/meters and longer shall be deck-seeded" and instead say "Any event may be preseeded or deck-seeded" and use the rest of the language in the present rule.
It would seem wise to ask Tom Taylor of Hy-tek about the feasibility of such combination seeding before going to the trouble of writing a rule.
This email says it is from Tom Boak, but this is actually Carolyn Boak
I'm having trouble envisioning a formula that works across the board for all age groups. I'm reminded of Potter Stewart's classic definition of pornography -- "I know it when I see it" (which of course inspired countless artists to immediately challenge that definition through art, ultimately proving that "definition" worthless. But I digress).
Anyway, we all know or at least think we know the folks who might benefit from the seeded by time formula. They generally are the breakout leaders of their respective age groups, winning by seconds per 50 over the next nearest competitor. Identifying swimmers by their Top 10 placements comes to mind, but some age groups are competitive as is, and I think we all like knowing that if you outswim the guy or gal next to you, you have beaten one of your competitors.
If time seeding is desirable, maybe voluntary inclusion is the best -- or only -- way to go.
I think we all like knowing that if you outswim the guy or gal next to you, you have beaten one of your competitors.
If you're in the pool with me then you're my competitor. I don't care if you're 18 or 118, opposite sex, physically challenged, whatever... let's race. I'll shake your hand afterward. Seeding us by time increases the chances that there'll be a close race. Maybe I'm seeded with an unshaven time or you underestimated how fast you can go. That's part of the fun. :applaud:
Ah, the smell of another can of USMS worms being opened up...
If you are going to compete in all events without age group distinctions then you should place awards without age group distinctions. The one and only reason is: If you are going to receive an award in a particular age group, then you should be allowed to compete DIRECTLY (as in the same heat) as those in your age group. Otherwise, like it was mentioned, you've got a USAS meet.
Example:
I know my hubby lost a 400 IM once by less than a second when the guy who beat him was in a different heat. I know, given my hubby's lack of willingness to lose!, that had he been next to that guy, my hubby would have beat him.
:violin:
So, do we also need to go to prelims and finals, to make sure some sandbagger from a slower heat in the same age group doesn’t pull a similar trick on your hubby?
Also in some of the USA Swimming meets I work we combine age groups to swim and break out results by age group. Sometimes we run 10 and under events and provide awards 8&under and 9&10. Or we will have “Open” events and score 13&14, 15-17, and Senior.
Also, If you breakout the top 24 seeds to swim together, given the example above using the 200 free, you would leave the 4th seeded man in the 30-34 age group swimming against 5th-11th seeds. That doesn't seem right to me. I'd be pissed if I were him - in fact, I'd probably make my entry time faster to ensure inclusion in the "fast" heats. I think this would become a problem and then you'd really see people not making their seed times...slippery slope!!
I don't think the top 24 seeds in three heats would be appropriate just for these reasons unless we seeded the entire event by time only.
Jim has reiterated my point. The entire meet would be seeded by time, not just the top 24. This is not a plot to benefit only the fastest swimmers.
Update: I suppose I'm wondering why no one makes a fuss about not swimming with your competition in the distance events. The situation would be the same.
If you're in the 500 free and you are in a heat preceding your rival, generally you get out and watch his or her swim to find out if he or she went faster. Or your coach will have written down the times of the people in your age group.
Am I missing something, or would the situation be different for the shorter races? Doesn't seem so.
USMS should contract with Costco to have cans of worms by the case! :agree:
(The guy didn't sandbag. The seeding just put them in different heats, and actually, Pat was seeded first but swam before the guy because one half of the pool was running slower than the other...)
I, for one, would love to see trials and finals, and I'd love to swim up to 10 events (personally). If I could I'd enter all back, ***, IM, and a distance event, totalling 10 events, but alas I must choose yearly. I'd also be for adding a day to Nationals, and having stricter time standards. But my understanding is that we are trying to INCLUDE...
