I am not usually one to complain about swim meets, since I appreciate all the hard work that goes in to putting one on.... And I fully understand that this is the largest LCM Nationals in the history of Masters Swimming....
But really...
Not being able to swim against your competition in the 200's???
This is not a local meet. This is the Nationals. The ONLY time I get to swim against my own age group.
There needs to be a better solution.
I decidedly prefer to swim against my competition at nationals and, as she notes, it is the only meet of the year at which this happens. As for Jeff's point about the 400/800/1500 swimmers, I would be curious how they feel. The age group time spreads in those events is likely much greater than in the sprints, pacing is much more important, and waves from surrounding swimmers less of an issue (in fact, there may be drafting). So perhaps in those circumstances it is more desirable to swim against those with comparable times? I can see either side. But those events take so disproportionately much longer than the sprints, I'm sure there's no choice but to mix age groups.
At Greensboro nationals there was a poll question on this topic for the 400 IM and 500 free, which were seeded by time within each age-group (as opposed to solely by time). The clear majority of responders preferred to swim against people in their own age group.
I would argue that it is least important for sprinters to be seeded within the age group, they shouldn't be taking precious time in a race gawking at other people! But the time savings are minimal for 50s and 100s, as you imply.
I'm sure that nationals meet hosts are aware that most swimmers prefer to swim against their own age group, but they also have to balance that concern against having long days. I think Jeff's point is that meet hosts very often ask distance people to sacrifice this "perk" of nationals, usually without much hue and cry. Now -- in an very large 5-day meet -- the meet host is asking it of people in the 200s as well (as well as going to the trouble of positive check-in, something else that distance people have had to do in most meets) as one of several efforts to trim the timeline.
I decidedly prefer to swim against my competition at nationals and, as she notes, it is the only meet of the year at which this happens. As for Jeff's point about the 400/800/1500 swimmers, I would be curious how they feel. The age group time spreads in those events is likely much greater than in the sprints, pacing is much more important, and waves from surrounding swimmers less of an issue (in fact, there may be drafting). So perhaps in those circumstances it is more desirable to swim against those with comparable times? I can see either side. But those events take so disproportionately much longer than the sprints, I'm sure there's no choice but to mix age groups.
At Greensboro nationals there was a poll question on this topic for the 400 IM and 500 free, which were seeded by time within each age-group (as opposed to solely by time). The clear majority of responders preferred to swim against people in their own age group.
I would argue that it is least important for sprinters to be seeded within the age group, they shouldn't be taking precious time in a race gawking at other people! But the time savings are minimal for 50s and 100s, as you imply.
I'm sure that nationals meet hosts are aware that most swimmers prefer to swim against their own age group, but they also have to balance that concern against having long days. I think Jeff's point is that meet hosts very often ask distance people to sacrifice this "perk" of nationals, usually without much hue and cry. Now -- in an very large 5-day meet -- the meet host is asking it of people in the 200s as well (as well as going to the trouble of positive check-in, something else that distance people have had to do in most meets) as one of several efforts to trim the timeline.
