This is somewhat related to another post I just started (Top Ten conerns). I noticed in the top ten list a number of swimmers (generally very fast swimmers) who swam their first nationals (or any other masters meet) in 5 years due to being in a new age group. I state this by looking at the past few years top ten lists and not seeing their names. Is this a good thing for masters swimming? Swimmers whose only affiliation with masters swimming is showing up to one meet every 5 years to break a record. These records should be owned by people that are true masters swimmers.
What is a true masters swimmers?- Perhaps doing a few meets a year might work. When I swam on an age group team as a child, I know in order to qualify for our championship meet, we had to swim at least 3 regular meets. Perhaps a rule like that for Nationals could begin to fix this problem-
If not, many of our national records will be held by "ringers"
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by Ian Smith
...
The fact that FINA Masters records (but not the USMS records as I understand it?) have to be set at Masters meets reeks of exclusivity and makes no sense in terms of 'record' whatsoever.
...
That's correct:
FINA Masters records do not recognize 56.42 in 100 meter fly, Long Course by US Master Swimmer, Paul Carter, age 45, because it was swam in a non Masters meet, exactly like Popov age 30, and others of that caliber, swim fast in non Masters meets;
USMS recognizes Paul Carter's record, because he is registered in USMS -a bureacratic formality Popov, and others of that caliber, can do-.
The result is: the Masters world record in 100 meter fly Long Course for men ages 44 to 49, is slower than the USMS record.
FINA has some good points, and some other points.
To get back to Tom idea of rewarding the true participants of Masters Swimming, I recognize the participation of true participants, I have an opinion about rewarding, and my opinion is debatable.
Originally posted by Ian Smith
...
The fact that FINA Masters records (but not the USMS records as I understand it?) have to be set at Masters meets reeks of exclusivity and makes no sense in terms of 'record' whatsoever.
...
That's correct:
FINA Masters records do not recognize 56.42 in 100 meter fly, Long Course by US Master Swimmer, Paul Carter, age 45, because it was swam in a non Masters meet, exactly like Popov age 30, and others of that caliber, swim fast in non Masters meets;
USMS recognizes Paul Carter's record, because he is registered in USMS -a bureacratic formality Popov, and others of that caliber, can do-.
The result is: the Masters world record in 100 meter fly Long Course for men ages 44 to 49, is slower than the USMS record.
FINA has some good points, and some other points.
To get back to Tom idea of rewarding the true participants of Masters Swimming, I recognize the participation of true participants, I have an opinion about rewarding, and my opinion is debatable.
