There's a story on swimswam (swimswam.com/.../) about Anthony Ervin swimming at USMS Nationals and the first comment states:
There is nothing better than going to a USMS meet and seeing swimmers like Anthony Ervin compete. It makes you feel like a 12 year old fan again!
In the same breath I will ask; what is the point of letting their times count as USMS records? They are professional two-a-day swimmers in the same age group categories as young professionals who might make a few practices per week. There is no way real Masters swimmers are able to train to be able to beat them. The professional swimmers wouldn’t be able to beat themselves with the same schedule afforded to the a real Masters swimmer. Thoughts?
My thoughts are that this is ridiculous. Anyone who is registered in USMS has as much right to set a record as anyone else. Who exactly is the arbiter of what a "real masters swimmer" is?
It doesn't matter if it's Biondi or Gaines or Adrian. If they swim according to the rules and break a record, they get the record. That is the only thing that's fair - anything else is rigging the game. Cycling and triathlon have it wrong. There should be no distinction between "elites" and Masters. Some masters swimmers are good enough for Olympic competition, some aren't. Some are young, some are old. Some people can train more or better than others. We should appreciate and include all of them.
It doesn't matter if it's Biondi or Gaines or Adrian. If they swim according to the rules and break a record, they get the record. That is the only thing that's fair - anything else is rigging the game. Cycling and triathlon have it wrong. There should be no distinction between "elites" and Masters. Some masters swimmers are good enough for Olympic competition, some aren't. Some are young, some are old. Some people can train more or better than others. We should appreciate and include all of them.
