One of the very last posts of 2001 was from me on New Year's Eve. I don't remember whether the title was mine or the administrator who decided that it was a sub topic of something remotely connected with the subject that I was proposing. But, no matter.
Since the change of format this week to the new system, I don't know how to check it out or whether or not it makes any difference. However, after two weeks of no response of any kind and since it was my prerogative, being my birthday, the rare one that is divisable by both sevenses and elevenses, I went back to the subject to give it a boost, hoping that someone would give it some kind of notice. But, alas...
With Ground Hog's (or is it s'?) Day looming around the next corner I'm very much determined to thrust the subject forward a third time in the hope that it will get some serious attention. And it is about time whatever way you choose to take the title.
I don't remember everything I wrote the first two times but I'll simply make the proposal without any but the barest essential elaboration.
As soon as possible post all swimming times in seconds only!
Eliminate the use of minutes, or hours entirely. Having just yesterday having competed in the National Championship Event, The Hour Swim, (a Mail-in Event) I could consent to keeping the title. But for all listing and taking of times it would be 100% beneficial to use seconds only.
The only reason to oppose the notion that I can think of would be related to the existing hardware. But transpositions would be easily done until the mass of the hardware is ready to conform on its own. My guess being that the computer timing systems would need only a nudge to adapt.
Sprinters, of course, wouldn't understand what I'm talking about. But all swimmers who have a use for splits in their calculations run into stumbling blocks, not to mention common errors, that are bound to creep in whenever minutes become part of the results.
I have one other helpful suggestion to make on the subject, and because of the opportunity, why not... If Splits, for example, of a 200 or a 1500 were listed in reverse order, it would be infinitely easier and more instructive to see their value and significance.
Former Member
o.k. since it's been a month and nobody else has put out any time problems, I guess it's up to me.
How come nobody else has mentioned the fact that our masters age group designations are not quite right? They were wrongly designated from the beginning, but we've had over thirty years to correct 'em. Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong and should have been corrected by the first governing body (the AAU, I guess). I can't think of many things that are so awkward to say or write. It ranks right up there with such misnomers as "aluminum" and the Pedernales River... But, I digress.
Another time as it were.. has anybody, including himself, noticed the weird splits listed for Scott Rabalais's 1500? I went to the trouble of searching out all of the seeming possibilities of what might have been a misreading by the machine of another in the same heat swimmer's time, but didn't find it. I'm not in any way questioning his final time, or the fact that he had a great swim.
So what else about time? A short preamble, first. 15-20 years ago, before arthritis destroyed my right hip, my best event on a percentage basis compared to my age group's record time was the 200 breaststroke. Now it is my slowest event. I haven't had a hip replacement operation, don't intend to, and have no pain that isn't under good control. My right shoe's sole is about two inches thicker than my left, but I don't complain and get around as much I want to. That said. getting back to time , it began in Federal Way at the Long Course Nationals when my time for the 200 *** was, August, 2001 6:00.96. Next time at Canadian Nationals LCM, May, 2002 5:59.55. Next time at LouisvilleCrescent Hill, June, 2002 5:59.68. Next, a 200Butterfly Hoosier State Games, July 2002 5:59.94
In seconds only those would be 359.++, Hence my declaration of changing my moniker to include 359.
Cleveland??? Well my 200 butterfly time was 6:07.94 (marred by an ill fitting suit which scooped water) and my 200 *** time was (although with a DQ) 5:52.58,
this with my ankle length Speedo
So, obviously, my bad genii were there, trying to be unobtrusive. But they did bring to my attention that I had misnamed my moniker, which should, obviously, be 360. Those last 6 200's averaged 360.11 when properly " 'rounded' off". ( My DQ slip says that my feet were not allways pointed outwardly). What can I say to that? Except that even all of the 359's would round off to 360.
I do have more to say, or ask, about time , but I ain't got the time right now ... Later?
I believe the Hytek Meet Manager program allows splits to be printed both cumulative and subtractive. I don't see where the confusion is. The readout for a 200m for example is 30.0 34.5 35.5 33.0 2:13.0 or 30.0 1:04.5 1:40.0 2:13.0. Emmett et al were correct. It would add much more confusion to switch than it is to just deal with the current system. Roman numerals is the way to go... II:XIII.? (is there a zero in RN system?)
"Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong ..."
I don't understand what you are getting at. In any given course (yards or meters), when your actual age is 30 you are in only one age group, not two. In fact, only in the last few years has there been a gray area where you could be one age yet swim in the next higher age group in meters courses.
In yards swimming, 19-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39... is precisely what we ARE, and have been, doing.
It never occurred to me that it might be assumed that I was complaining about the FINA aging-up system, which has the year of birth as the sole consideration. I can understand the fact of sincere opposition, but it's a reasonable simplification of record keeping.
My objection is merely to the awkwardness of counting what we all know to be true. i.e. We swim from age 25 in one age group until we become 30, at which time we swim in the group from 30 until we are 35, at which time...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better! If we were counting fence posts we would not be marking or saying "19, 24, 25, 29,30,34,35,39,44,etc. Nobody counts this awkward way except masters swimmers.
I have lots of thoughts about time in many of its aspects, and I'm not going to bring them all up here, because most of them are not related to swimming, but rather, to music.
Seeding, heat assignments, etc. in a swim meet are concerns of us all and affect us in various ways, to the extent that we need to compromise from time to time in various ways. Whatever the way, we should know what the compromises are.
Like, deck seeding in Cleveland. How many of us were expecting to be swimming in our own age group for all events of 50, 100, and 200 meters? Was I glad? Yes. Was I surprised? Kinda.
Especially since I had slyly made the suggestion in a post in response to the announcement that the 6th event had been dropped from our particpation. The opportunity to respond that it would be so was not taken, or maybe, of course, my wording was too obscure. I have to keep reminding myself that other people can't really read my mind.
Enuf for now.
So let me get this straight, if I was 29 (and at one time I was 29) I would not really be 29 because I was almost 30?
Does this also mean that today is actually Tuesday-Wednesday, since it is 8 hours after the beginning of Tuesday?
That would make today, if it really is still today, the 27th-28th of August-September, 2002-2003 :p
ya got it right. 19+, 25+,30+ is the way to say it among masters swimmers. When your gramma asks, say 60-65, 65-70, etc.
19-24, 25-29,30-34 sounds wrong, as any musician will agree, if asked.
sorry to be so abrupt , but gotta get to a mandatory meeting accross town.
Hey Doug,
have a look at the latest Scientific American. There may even be enough information about time for you! (if you have the time)
Have you seen the Far Side cartoon - Einstein looks at a board filled with equations, such as E=mc^3, c=E/m, m=cE^2, . . . circled is t=$. The caption "Einstein discovers that time is money"
The real cause of your problem, of course, is the Babylonians. If only the French had been more aggressive in their reforms . . .
I just picked up my kids from school which, by the way, is officially designated as a K-5 school.
Ohmygod! Does that mean all those kids in 5th grade classroom have actually been going to the WRONG SCHOOL! Boy are THEY (and their teachers and principal) gonna feel stupid when I tell them.
Doug, please feel free to call the age groups anything you want. But do us all a favor and don't talk to any newbies (or MY gramma :) ) and don't mess with the rule book.
"...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better!"
Speak for yourself. I'm VERY glad we use the terminology that we do. As a coach I already have enough stuff to explain to newbies about the world of Masters without adding ambiguous age groups. Why would you want to build unnecessary ambiguity into the system by officially naming the age groups something different than what we actually do? I find our current system much less awkward than using your system and then explaining that I didn't say what I really meant.
I'm curious, what keeps you from using your ambiguous terminology when you want to? You are free to use it if it communicates your thoughts. Of course, then, where it makes a difference you need to explain things or your thoughts haven't been completely communicated. Imagine explaining to the newbie 30 yr old swimmer that , no, he is not allowed to swim in the 25-30 age group.
I'd hate to see the rule book use 25-30, 30-35,... (plus the requisite explanation) wherever age groups are mentioned.
When conversing with others who understand our system I say 25+, 30+, 35+ etc. That's even less awkward than 25-30, 30-35 etc. And, perhaps, even less ambiguous to the uninitiated.
