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?
"Somehow this discussion has morphed from “Should elites in "full training" mode swim in masters meets?” into a heated debate about Top 10 and records.
Does anyone object to getting back on topic?"
i think the topics are connected.
I agree. I don't see how you can really separate the two. It seems strange to me to say "Yes, of course you can swim in this masters meet. Everyone is welcome!" And then when they swim really fast go "Nice job, but we're not going to count that time for TopTen or records. It's just a little too fast for our taste and might make some of our other members upset. Sorry."
I think so far I was the only one in this thread that really gave elites a definition.
Before anyone can vote on if they should be allowed to swim or not (as indicated in the poll, not talking about records, TT etc), there needs to be a universal definition. Otherwise this pool doesn't do anything.
So how do other people define elites? I'd love to hear some more definitions.
It seems strange to me to say "Yes, of course you can swim in this masters meet. Everyone is welcome!" And then when they swim really fast go "Nice job, but we're not going to count that time for TopTen or records. It's just a little too fast for our taste and might make some of our other members upset. Sorry."
Sounds like helicopter parenting to me!
Before anyone can vote on if they should be allowed to swim or not (as indicated in the poll, not talking about records, TT etc), there needs to be a universal definition. Otherwise this pool doesn't do anything.
I intentionally made the definition of "elite" somewhat nebulous. It's sort of like pornography: hard to define per se, but you know it when you see it! And that was really what I wanted to gauge--whether people think these super fast, young swimmers belong in masters meets. I didn't want it any more clearly defined than that.
I intentionally made the definition of "elite" somewhat nebulous. It's sort of like pornography: hard to define per se, but you know it when you see it! And that was really what I wanted to gauge--whether people think these super fast, young swimmers belong in masters meets. I didn't want it any more clearly defined than that.
Gotcha!
They are connected and we did not get off topic. The thread started with Darian Townsend participating in a sanctioning masters meet on November 13, 2013 and because of his participation he set a bunch of National/World Records. Because he is considered an elite in full training mode, should he be eligible to be a member of USMS and participate and with the result of his participation set National/World Records. If he is a member of an NGB Swimming Federation and going to meets against other professional swimmers or swimmers that can make time cuts at the highest level, should they be excluded from swimming in USMS and if they are allowed to swim in USMS and set a bunch of Records, then someone should judge what the "elites in full training mode" means and make a decision as to their membership in the organization and their eligibility to set records and make the USMS top ten list.
The thread started to get debatable because Britta brought up the fact that she has to compete with current or past National Team members. Rob had mentioned that she competes against Megan Jendrick and now Justine Mueller and that has lessen the fact that she would have more USMS Records and Number 1 Swims. That is true and as a I pointed, there are others that have been burdened with this and the only solution would be to exclude current National Team members from setting records. The thing I find interesting is why National Team members and not just everyone who can make an National, World, Olympic, and NCAA time cut. The meets that I linked on post 62 show many swimmers that compete as USMS members and they should be treated like everyone else and have the same rights such as setting records, if they achieve them.
Should swimmers that recently compete at the US Nationals, US Open, NCAA Championships, and any other high level meet not be eligible for Top Ten and Records. I will take my current example of Noah Copeland. He swam in 2009 at NCAA meets, USA meets, and would be considered by myself to be an "elite in full training mode" for that year of competition. Should he be excluded from swimming in USMS and setting USMS National Records? No. Should he be excluded from USMS Number 1 swims, USMS Top Ten lists, an All American selections because he happened to be swimming at the highest level meets during the 2009 year? No.
This is the kind of debates that will spring from this because of these discussions.
www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspxwww.usms.org/.../toptenind.phpwww.usms.org/.../poolrecords.php
This is the best forum debate we've had since the sandbaggers and split-requesters tried to convince those of us that compete legitimately that those practices are acceptable.
My basic issue with this is that it smells like an attempt to simply grab glory for an incredibly small group of people. Also, it is not in the least in the spirit of competition if you have to narrow the field such that it only benefits one or two people. Lastly, it also strikes me as "every child gets a trophy" brand of feel good sports.
Most of the fast swimmers I know feel ripped off if their best competition isn't at a meet. I'm not sure what value there is to Masters swimming to exclude fast swimmers simply because they swim fast. And, that's exactly what this is about.
Wow guys/gals - settle down!
i can see Britt's point of view - her motivation is to get as high as possible on TT and to not be able to obtain position 1-2-3-etc because of current Olympians or NT members is disappointing. its kind of like a major league pitcher going to the minors just for fun. Why they would they do this - not sure - but i'm sure people have their opinions
I can also see the other point of view - these people are exciting to swim against. I would love to get smoked by an Olympic sprinter. I would have my wife there and say "watch this guy, this is the difference between me and the Olympics" and they would beat me by a body length or more in the 50yd free. It would be a great once in a lifetime opportunity. They also draw attendance and generate excitement, which USMS is interested in as well.
These are points of view - neither is right or wrong - but please respect them.
"Somehow this discussion has morphed from “Should elites in "full training" mode swim in masters meets?” into a heated debate about Top 10 and records.
Does anyone object to getting back on topic?"
i think the topics are connected. if elites (whatever the definition is) participate for fun then it impacts SOME of the masters swimmers goals. I have no side to this, so i feel that i can see both points of view. If you think about it - a masters swimmer sacrifices their personal time and energy training months for this meet or record or TT times - or whatever. Then you have an elite swimmer that decides to swim this event for fun and is training for the world cup.
I can see where they are coming from.
My basic issue with this is that it smells like an attempt to simply grab glory for an incredibly small group of people. Also, it is not in the least in the spirit of competition if you have to narrow the field such that it only benefits one or two people. Lastly, it also strikes me as "every child gets a trophy" brand of feel good sports:applaud:
It's also arbitrary and opens up a :worms:. If we're going to exclude really fast young people just because they spend their profession is swimming, are we going to then exclude retired folks who have all the time in the world to dedicate to their sport and swim, maybe training with the same ferocity and commitment as the 'elites?'
