Darian Townsend entered a masters meet in Mesa over the weekend and broke five world records in the 25-29 age group. This was Townsend's first masters meet. For those of you who are not familiar with him, Townend is a three-time Olympian and gold medalist from South Africa.
Swimswam.com posted a story about Townend's incredible meet. Here's the link: swimswam.com/.../
I found the comments quite interesting especially this one by "HMMM":
I have no problem with athletes making money off of Masters but why have a separate division called Masters if there are no rules or restrictions? None of the sponsored people you mention in their 50′s are training for Rio are they?. Most people in Masters believe they are swimming against recreational swimmers which is why there is a separate Masters division and those records are set by recreational/retired swimmers. If Phelps remains retired and wants to swim Masters, well there goes a few records in his age group but none of us in our club would have a problem with it. We discussed that very subject this morning after practice and Phelps, like Rowdy Gaines is retired and would welcome him. Many of us have swam against and met Rowdy and it is a true honor to share the pool with him in a Masters meet. But our entire team would have a huge problem if Lochte decides to swim a Masters meet while he is still fully training for the Olympics and blows all the records out of the water. If Lochte swims 12 events, he is going to walk away with 12 records. Why have a separate record book? If he can do that, you might as well just call us all USA swimmers and do away with the Masters division. There are meets where fully training pros swim and they are called Grand Prix’s, Nationals, and Worlds. Call us old fashioned, call us Masters swimmers, but we all think Masters should be separate from the training pros..
So I'm curious what the rest of you think. Should someone like Darian Townend or Ryan Lochte be allowed to swim in masters meets when they are professional swimmers who are training full-time? And maybe "allowed" is a poor choice or word. The bottom line is do you think they have any business swimming masters meets?
Former Member
I voted yes in that the presence of a professional athlete injects a whole lot of excitement to a meet. It's an inspiration to see them race even if they have no immediate competition.
Regarding the records, is it safe to say that the elite swimmers would probably take their toll on the 25-29 age group records for the most part? I'm unaware of the statistics on how many younger athletes belong to USMS, but the majority of our membership seems to be more in the middle age bracket rather than just a few years out of college.
Does triathlon have two separate national organizations like swimming does in the U.S. with USMS and USA Swimming? To me that would make a difference. Of course it's an entirely different discussion about whether it makes sense to have two distinct national organizations.
Alright. I'll be the jerk.
In triathlon, there are professional and age group categories. AGers aren't eligible for prize money and pros can't claim AG prizes or qualify for world champs in the softer AG category. Pro isn't bounded by age. Many pros renounce their pro status, wait a nominal cooling off period (I think there's one) and race as age groupers.
I think this system makes a lot of sense. Obviously the abuses of amateurism were rampant through the last century but I think masters is implicitly an amateur activity and it's worth preserving at least a nominal division between the two. And Rowdy Gaines etc would still be welcome in masters after their pro careers.
Interesting historical note,early in Masters Swimming,since coaches could compete in Masters meets,and coaches were professionals,Masters Swimming was not considered "amateur" by the AAU,which then governed swimming.
I think it's awesome. I am of the same opinion as lot of others in that I would love to be beaten by these guys and gals and just have the opportunity to be in the same pool as them. I don't know how anyone can be anything other than inspired by a swimmer like Darrian. If someone is talented enough to be sponsored and spends most of there waking hours trying to make themselves better then I support them either from the pool or from the deck. I am sure there is a lot to this question, but why are there two bodies for swimming in the US; I get that USAS focuses on age group swimming which I support and USMS focuses on masters swimming which i also support, but why the two separate bodies. I was amazed when I just joined USAS that I could not use my USMS times for meet entry.
I think everyone should be allowed to compete, but if you are part of any National Team (aka considered "elite), your times shouldn't be counting for records. That's how I would do it.
I agree that it is amazing to be swimming next to Alia Atkinson or Megan Jendrik at a masters meet, but if they then go off to swim a World Cup the week after and almost break a Wolrd Record (elite), I don't think their times should count for USMS record books.
I doubt those people enter master meets anyway just to break record or make it into Top 10. I do know though a few masters swimmer (I include myself in there), that like to pull out a state or zone record list or Top ten list and train for an event that is normally an off event just to make it on the list.
So why take away motivation from real masters swimmers when the elite swimmer most likely won't care about this anyway.
So why take away motivation from real masters swimmers when the elite swimmer most likely won't care about this anyway.
Simply because a record is a record. It should be the fastest time swum . As soon as you start putting caveats on records the records immediately become next to meaningless.
So why take away motivation from real masters swimmers when the elite swimmer most likely won't care about this anyway.
So, if someone faster than you meets your definition of a real masters swimmer and beats you then it is OK. But, if someone is faster than you and isn't a real masters swimmer and deprives you of a trinket, then it isn't OK. I'd like this rule discussed at next year's convention. I would like a committee to decide who is and isn't a real masters swimmer.
My first petition is to declare knelson and pwb unreal masters swimmers so I can move up on the Top Ten rankings annually.
My first petition is to declare knelson and pwb unreal masters swimmers so I can move up on the Top Ten rankings annually.
There are some former elites in my age group that you can put on your petition too!
I don't understand the distinction between elites racing at the world cup/grand prix/nationals and retired elites. In both cases, those elites will smoke the typical or even quite excellent masters swimmer. Indeed, many retired elites now hold masters worlds records. Why would it be invalid for them to have records at 25-29 but perfectly ok at 45-49? Don't we want our records to reflect the fastest swimmers in those events?
Simply because a record is a record. It should be the fastest time swum . As soon as you start putting caveats on records the records immediately become next to meaningless.:agree:
Why not simply recognize age group records set at any FINA-sanctioned event?This actually makes a lot of sense and I could get behind this.
My first petition is to declare knelson and pwb unreal masters swimmers so I can move up on the Top Ten rankings annually.OK, if we're going down this path then I really want to be #1 in the 50 breaststroke, so I hereby declare all the 45-49 year olds who beat me last year to be unreal ... all forty-seven of you (including that most aqueous of rats from Pittsburgh).
I don't understand the distinction between elites racing at the world cup/grand prix/nationals and retired elites. In both cases, those elites will smoke the typical or even quite excellent masters swimmer. Indeed, many retired elites now hold masters worlds records. Why would it be invalid for them to have records at 25-29 but perfectly ok at 45-49? I agree; it makes no sense to have some sort of age cut-off or delineation of what constitutes someone as being in 'full training' mode.
Do we have to go back in time now and nullify the records Dara Torres set at the 2006 Worlds because, after racing there, she decided to get back into training and competing at the Olympic level?
What about the folks who are retired now and devoting possibly as much relative energy and mindshare to their training as some of the 'elite' younger folks competing at the Olympics?
None of these cutoffs make sense. If you are the age, if you swim the time in a sanctioned event, if you are a member, you can and should set all the records you want.
I, for one, hope we see more examples of people like Darrian Townsend (who does train, evidently, 3 days a week with the Masters team) coming to USMS or FINA Masters meets, putting on a great show and tearing down more records.
