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"
Former Member
Originally posted by Tom Bubel
These records should be owned by people that are true masters swimmers.
Just what exactly is a true masters swimmer?
Originally posted by NCSwimmer
Just what exactly is a true masters swimmer?
I think that swimmers who participate regularly, personify the spirit best.
Funny, in a bygone era I would have thought that records would belong to those who swam the fastest.
But, I guess in this, the PC millenium, we really should reward those whose intentions are good over those who actually do the deed. That way EVERYONE can be the winner! ... :rolleyes:
(...thuck...)
I kind of doubt they only do one meet every five years. But probably many of the top stay out of the big meet, in order to age up and show up at it maybe every five years. I reason this because at I recently swam a meet and their was a huge gap between my 50 meter time and 100 meter breastroke. I did a lot better in the 50 meter. I have forgotten how you pace a 100 meter since the last time I swam a 100 yard breastroke in a race was 1977 in community college. It also might be that I'm still out of shape and can only hold it together in a 50 meter breasstroke.
Time for me to chime in:
1. I eat Ho-Hos ... and Moon Pies ... and Ring-dings ... though I did give up twinkies awhile back
2. I swim maybe 6-8 meets a year and most of them I swim poorly at because the events are seeded by time, not gender, and I invariably end up in a lane between 2 guys who are a lot taller, bigger, heavier, and their wake blows me out of the water on the sprint events. I might as well be swimming a time trial after workout. Only occasionally do I actually get to race against women
3. I taper for nationals and that is the only place I swim fast, the only meet I care about.
Does the above disqualify me from Top Ten, I think not.
Some of us swim for fun, some for speed, some for socializing, some for health. What does it matter which of these you swim for? Masters is for everyone. Top Tens and Records are for those who are just simply the fastest.
Being fast doesn't make you more or less of a person.
I consider the start of this thread more flame bait than anything else, but I can help:
top ten and records do not always go to the fastest even now. Here are some reasons:
irrelevant-to-speed DQ's. For example, a backstroker who coasts into the wall (on his/her stomach) will not have a time that counts.
not-a-USMS-sanctioned-meet: true for world top ten and records.
dues-not-up-to-date:
not-quite-19-years-old:
touch-pads-broke, not enough hand times:
pool-too-short by 1.e-6 cm:
Then again, a swimmer who takes performance enhancing drugs will have times that *do* count. Events where the S&T judge day-dreamed will count. Also, my meter times next year will count in the 45 - 49 age group, even though my 45th birthday won't be for 10 months later.
Here are some suggestion I have in regards to those really good and fast swimmers who only show up every so often:
1. Make them wear SCUBA weight belts to mitigate their speediness.
2. Put a GPS transmitter on them during the week, heck the whole year, so we can verify if they are training enough to swim fast when they do show up.
3. Award first place not to the faster person but to the person who comes to the most meets. That way, the grinders are the victors!
4. Throw out the fastest and slowest times from all events, by age group. That way you only have to train to be second best.
I think this is crazy. Master is about inclusion, not exclusion. So what if they show up every few years. They aren't eating Ho-Hos in between. They are training like the rest of us.
Question about:
1. a year ago, www.swiminfo.com, reported that an English company wanted to consider all swimming organizations when establishing age group records for adults; by this token, for example, Olympian Alex Popov (Rus) would hold 50 meter free Long Course record for men ages 25 to 29 at 21.6x, and also for men ages 30 to 34 at 21.9x, with Mark Foster (GBR) second at 22.13;
their times aren't done in a Masters competition, but so is 100 meter fly by Masters Swimmer Paul Carter (US) who swam at age 45, 56.42 in a US Swimming meet, which the US Masters records accepts;
2. in 1999, at the Short Course Nationals in Santa Clara, 1996 Olympian Jon Olsen (US) swam records of 44.xx in 100 yards free, 1:38.0x in 200 yards free, and no other Masters meet.
Would anyone accept these as Masters records, when these participants barely compete in Masters meets -like in 2.-, or don't do their records in Masters meets -like in 1.-?
I do, because:
a) it gives people like me exposure about the world's best who can watch -like I did- Jon Olsen caliber when he considers Masters worthy for him to show up to;
b) creates a flow of co-operative participation when US Swimmers intermingle with Masters Swimmers.
There are plenty of swimmers that only compete right after they age up (and perhaps only in big meets), yet they train year-round the rest of the time. I don't perceive this to be unfair to anybody. I don't perceive it as a "problem" at all. Perhaps, for some, going to lots of small meets where they are far and away the fastest swimmer gets boring after awhile. Perhaps it is only in those big meets that they get the competition they want.
Perhaps if they all went to all the small meets there would be people complaining about those "ringers" always hogging all the hardware. There ARE people in Masters who think that those who have an extensive background should be judged separately from the rest.
As the starter of this thread, I hope to end it. Obviously all the feedback is against my thoughts. I certainly was not intending on getting anyone upset, I just thought there were many people out there with my ideas. I guess I was wrong.
