Very odd situation where one could get a WR but not a NR?
Odd indeed, but apparently that's exactly what's happened.
This swim, from the Canadian Championships, set a WR (it's already listed in the WR progression on the FINA site), but apparently is not being accepted as a USMS record, or for the TT:
Women 65-69 50 Meter Butterfly Finals
=======================================
Pl Name Age Club Seed Time Final Time
=======================================
1 Uustal, Diann B 65 MESC 34.58 35.06
Instead, Diann's slightly slower 35.17 is listed in the preliminary TT, and will hopefully soon become the new NR. My admittedly second- and third-hand information suggests that pool measurement is indeed the issue.
It's a strange problem to have. As a relative newcomer to masters swimming, it's curious to me why the standards of the national governing body would be more restrictive than those of the international governing body. You'd think it'd be the other way around. What is the value added by the additional restrictions? What problems are we trying to solve? I don't know the history of the issue, so it's a mystery to me.
Odd indeed, but apparently that's exactly what's happened.
This swim, from the Canadian Championships, set a WR (it's already listed in the WR progression on the FINA site), but apparently is not being accepted as a USMS record, or for the TT:
Women 65-69 50 Meter Butterfly Finals
=======================================
Pl Name Age Club Seed Time Final Time
=======================================
1 Uustal, Diann B 65 MESC 34.58 35.06
Instead, Diann's slightly slower 35.17 is listed in the preliminary TT, and will hopefully soon become the new NR. My admittedly second- and third-hand information suggests that pool measurement is indeed the issue.
It's a strange problem to have. As a relative newcomer to masters swimming, it's curious to me why the standards of the national governing body would be more restrictive than those of the international governing body. You'd think it'd be the other way around. What is the value added by the additional restrictions? What problems are we trying to solve? I don't know the history of the issue, so it's a mystery to me.
In 2002 and 2003 there were several instances of pools being measured and finding they were 1-2 cm short.This caused such wailing and gnashing of teeth that USMS got very careful about pool length.(It also led to new rules on this forum as some people were getting so irate they were no longer civil.)
In 2002 and 2003 there were several instances of pools being measured and finding they were 1-2 cm short.This caused such wailing and gnashing of teeth that USMS got very careful about pool length.(It also led to new rules on this forum as some people were getting so irate they were no longer civil.)
Swimosauer:
Allan is correct and I have provided a links of stories about this in the past so you can see why we are where we are today.
The Losers - U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums
The Art of Pool Length Measurement - U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums
The final 2011 top ten listings for SCM have been posted.
http://www.usms.org/comp/tt/
The final list of 2011 pool All-Americans list has posted as well.
http://www.usms.org/comp/aa/
Thanks Chris. Are they going to list the Pool Relay All Americans sometime soon. People here in Michigan are getting restless for those.
Not sure why, but my #11 100 fly ranking in the preliminary listings turned into #10 in the final listings! :bliss:
I'm just going to assume my check is in the mail.
I'm just going to assume my check is in the mail.
I, ummm ... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I had something to do with all the swims from this meet being deleted from the Top Ten database. Because that appears to be what happened. Was there a pool measurement problem?
