New Organization for Adult Swimmers

While I do have the same questions most of you are asking, this is specifically in reply to Matt Shirley's post of 2-5-02 at 9:34. Matt, you wrote, "However, I did find some statements in there that I simply can't overlook. First and most egregious, USMS has moved away from its orginal goal of competition and focused more on fitness swimming?! I am open to any corrections or comments from the "old timers" who were in on this at or near the start of USMS, but my impression is that the orginal goal WAS fitness swimming, with a few meets tossed in to add a little spice. My understanding is that the sharper focus on better competition happened a bit later after enough people who were interested in more serious competition got involved. We can have a discussion about what the future goal of USMS ought to be, and history would not necessarily be relevant. But, this particular piece of revisionist history really chaps my backside. " Sorry Matt, but this is one area where I mostly agree with Keith Bell. I'm one of those "old timers." My first Masters meet was in 1973, and my recollection, unless totally dimmed over the years, is that Masters Swimming was founded in 1970 (or a year or 2 earlier) by Dr. Ransom Arthur, for the express purpose of providing a place where older swimmers could continue to compete. The added benefit to these "older" swimmers was the fitness aspect to be achieved from continuing to exercise beyond the "over-the-hill" ages of roughly 17 for female swimmers and 21 or so for male swimmers as was the case when Masters began (pre-Title IX). The emphasis on competition at that time was what enticed me to begin training again, and to join USMS. To this day, I find it difficult to train without having the motivation of attempting to achieve my goals for times which are only measured in a competition. To me, the only fair way to measure is in a competitive situation, everyone diving off the starting blocks when the beeper sounds and finishing by touching the electronic touch pad at the end of the prescribed distance. Everything else is just an estimate. I'm sure we all know someone who fudges their times by pushing off the wall early, or stopping 3 yards from the end wall and claiming the time seen on the clock at that moment. Over the past 30+ years, the mission of USMS was expanded to include the fitness aspect, and now that the large majority of our members do not compete, the fitness issues loom larger and larger, with less and less emphasis on competition. (Ironically, a couple of years ago at the annual convention it was pointed out that we spend the bulk of our time in the House of Delegates debating rules of competition, not fitness.) I have to further agree with what I think is Keith's position that our Nationals are not designed to foster the best competition. The days are indeed far too long to allow for optimal swimming performances, and the meets are attended not by ALL the best swimmers in each age group, but by those who either have the funds to travel to all meets, or who pick a meet one year because of its location (e.g., Hawaii), and skip meets in other years for the same reason. I love going to Nationals, and I have gone to World "Championships" but I will only go to future World meets if the location interests me. Neither Nationals nor Worlds are truly Championships. They are Invitationals or "Open" meets, pure and simple. If Keith Bell's ASA can provide true Championship events, all the better. Would I like to see this venture detract from USMS? No. (Actually, I would like to see USMS provide true Championships.) All I'm saying is that I can understand his frustration. steve1young asks what Keith Bell has done from within USMS to create change before breaking off. The Bell's have been active members of USMS for many years (I first met Keith at the USMS LC Nationals in 1978), and he has often raised his issues at USMS conventions. However, as you can see from the previous posts, not too many people within the organization have wholeheartedly agreed with his ideas and prior attempts to work from within, so I would guess that is why he is venturing out on his own. All that being said, I also have the same concerns many of you have expressed about the fees being charged in return for unknown and/or minimal benefits. Helen Bayly pretty much asked all the questions I have. I await Keith's response to her message.

While I do have the same questions most of you are asking, this is specifically in reply to Matt Shirley's post of 2-5-02 at 9:34. Matt, you wrote, "However, I did find some statements in there that I simply can't overlook. First and most egregious, USMS has moved away from its orginal goal of competition and focused more on fitness swimming?! I am open to any corrections or comments from the "old timers" who were in on this at or near the start of USMS, but my impression is that the orginal goal WAS fitness swimming, with a few meets tossed in to add a little spice. My understanding is that the sharper focus on better competition happened a bit later after enough people who were interested in more serious competition got involved. We can have a discussion about what the future goal of USMS ought to be, and history would not necessarily be relevant. But, this particular piece of revisionist history really chaps my backside. " Sorry Matt, but this is one area where I mostly agree with Keith Bell. I'm one of those "old timers." My first Masters meet was in 1973, and my recollection, unless totally dimmed over the years, is that Masters Swimming was founded in 1970 (or a year or 2 earlier) by Dr. Ransom Arthur, for the express purpose of providing a place where older swimmers could continue to compete. The added benefit to these "older" swimmers was the fitness aspect to be achieved from continuing to exercise beyond the "over-the-hill" ages of roughly 17 for female swimmers and 21 or so for male swimmers as was the case when Masters began (pre-Title IX). The emphasis on competition at that time was what enticed me to begin training again, and to join USMS. To this day, I find it difficult to train without having the motivation of attempting to achieve my goals for times which are only measured in a competition. To me, the only fair way to measure is in a competitive situation, everyone diving off the starting blocks when the beeper sounds and finishing by touching the electronic touch pad at the end of the prescribed distance. Everything else is just an estimate. I'm sure we all know someone who fudges their times by pushing off the wall early, or stopping 3 yards from the end wall and claiming the time seen on the clock at that moment. Over the past 30+ years, the mission of USMS was expanded to include the fitness aspect, and now that the large majority of our members do not compete, the fitness issues loom larger and larger, with less and less emphasis on competition. (Ironically, a couple of years ago at the annual convention it was pointed out that we spend the bulk of our time in the House of Delegates debating rules of competition, not fitness.) I have to further agree with what I think is Keith's position that our Nationals are not designed to foster the best competition. The days are indeed far too long to allow for optimal swimming performances, and the meets are attended not by ALL the best swimmers in each age group, but by those who either have the funds to travel to all meets, or who pick a meet one year because of its location (e.g., Hawaii), and skip meets in other years for the same reason. I love going to Nationals, and I have gone to World "Championships" but I will only go to future World meets if the location interests me. Neither Nationals nor Worlds are truly Championships. They are Invitationals or "Open" meets, pure and simple. If Keith Bell's ASA can provide true Championship events, all the better. Would I like to see this venture detract from USMS? No. (Actually, I would like to see USMS provide true Championships.) All I'm saying is that I can understand his frustration. steve1young asks what Keith Bell has done from within USMS to create change before breaking off. The Bell's have been active members of USMS for many years (I first met Keith at the USMS LC Nationals in 1978), and he has often raised his issues at USMS conventions. However, as you can see from the previous posts, not too many people within the organization have wholeheartedly agreed with his ideas and prior attempts to work from within, so I would guess that is why he is venturing out on his own. All that being said, I also have the same concerns many of you have expressed about the fees being charged in return for unknown and/or minimal benefits. Helen Bayly pretty much asked all the questions I have. I await Keith's response to her message.