I propose USMS adopt handicap measurements to more equitably compare performances in Masters Swimming.
1. Married ...... deduct one tenth per 50
2. Nagging spouse.... deduct two tenths per 50
3. Each child under the age of 10..... deduct one tenth per 50
4. Work more than 40 hours a week..... deduct one tenth per 50
5. House and car payment stress.... deduct on tenth per vehicle two tenths per house.
6. Travel more than 1 day a week.... one tenth per 50
Note: item 6 can help negate item 2.
In addition.... those of us with more manageable lifestyles need to adjust their times as well.
7. Training more than 4,000 a workout ...... add one tenth per 50
8. Training more than 4 days a week....... add one tenth per 50
9. Born independently wealthy..... add 3 tenths per 50
John Smith
Originally posted by SwiminONandON
How about subtracting 1 second per 50 for every year after 18 that you DID NOT swim ...
We shall call this the anti early blooming penalty.
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.
I think we should award a tenth of a second deduction only at $200K and above. Encourage success rather than penalize.
After all, USMS members are worth their weight in gold or we're a goldmine or something golden. The more we earn, the more gold we are to potential advertisers.
Hmmm... The handicap for life-annoyances might be misguided. I can tell you this. When my kids are getting on my nerves, I can do some of my best times if I channel my anger and frustrations into my swimming! :) And the day after I got a speeding ticket, I was thoroughly mad, and it almost seemed like I could walk on water that day!
Actually, if you want to penalize the early bloomers (and help the late bloomers) it should be a 1 second deduction for every year before age 18 that you didn't swim.
1 second per 50 is a little steep in my opinion. If you started swimming as an age grouper that would give late bloomers an 8-10 second head start for a 50 free.
Actually, I wasn't focusing on the past so much as the present.
How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.
John Smith
originally posted by the Evil- GoodSmith
How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.
As long as you can also deduct a tenth of a second per 50 for every $1000 you make below $60,000 as a "below the poverty line" adjustment to your proposed salary scale as well!
Newmastersswimmer
p.s. What did I tell you about starting discussion threads with overly serious or controversial themes attached to them!
John,
While this is an interesting idea, I see some serious implementation problems.
1) We can't take the swimmers word for it that he has a nagging wife. They will have to bring them to the meet to be verified. Now we will have a meet full of people being nagged and that will take much of the fun out of things.
2) Children under the age of 10. How will we know they are really the kids of the swimmer. I can see the Evil Smith renting 10 kids to make sure you can't touch him in the 50 free.
However, I like the idea.
Can we get some time deducted for skipping workouts? I do that a lot.
Also, can we get time deducted based on this year's best time versus the previous year's best time?
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
1 second per 50 is a little steep in my opinion. If you started swimming as an age grouper that would give late bloomers an 8-10 second head start for a 50 free.
Maximum 4 second deduction--that would correspond to the four year "window" for maximum aerobic development (10-14). Thus, if a "late bloomer" in our age group swam a 50 in 26 seconds, he would be awarded a 22. For a 100, if he swam a 55, he would be awarded a 47.
Agreed, we must be able to verify everything. However, I can assure you that nagging spouses are NO problem to prove or disprove.
As for the Evil Smith... you are right. We can not trust him. He went to UCSB.
John Smith
