Is there really a division between masters swimmers? i.e. one camp allied to a more low key fitness oriented approach with low membership growth vs. a meet oriented competitive (elite) camp?
This sounds ridiculous to me. I don't think I've ever run into anyone that acknowledged this debate on a pool deck.
What spawns this rift in Masters swimming? Is this an old guard vs. younger member phenonmenon?
Are there different motivations that exist that create this conflict in terms of the future of USMS? Why can't both coexist?
I say we poll some people out there and find out what they support.
John Smith
Mike,
We seem to be in violent agreement on the use of pools!
And for you National NQT advocates (really, I've been extremely restrained about holding my fire; are you trying to goad me?): what is wrong with Nationals the way we do 'em right now? Everyone who wants to swim gets to swim, at least a little bit. We're usually done by 5 or 6ish. The meet hosts have enough people entered and paying entry fees that they can come close to breaking even. We have enough teams wanting to host that we can have two National meets with an occasional World Championship Meet replacing the LCM that year. What's the problem?
The only grousing I hear is from a few people who think the "slower" swimmers are wasting their valuable time. They have a solution, but curiously, it only calls for sacrifice by everyone else since they all figure they will still be fast enough to make the new NQTs.
Be careful going down this road, because some other geek will want to gore your ox the next time around. Are you regularly in the top 10 in one of the older age groups? Look out, the next suggestion by NQT crowd is that we should not have so many old and slow heats in the distance events (because hey, who wants to watch an 80 year old take half an hour to finnish and 800, even if she is going to take third place?) Or, that we should do fast heats first, and let the old and slow heats get those undesirable 4 pm start times, because you know, when you're in your 30s and top ten, your precious time to go have a beer is more valuable than other peoples'.
We're Masters, not the FINA World Cup. Faster does not mean more meaningful or valuable. To reuse a term from an earlier post, we all need to show due regard for other swimmers' use of the pool.
Matt
Frank,
Yes, I am aware of the infamous Masters Nationals at Stanford that went in the dark of night. But honestly, do you think comparing any masters nationals to that nightmare offers value? That meet was THE worst situation possible in terms of entries. If I were at the meet, I would have scratched everything after 5:00 and gone back to the hotel to drink beer and chow down. I mean really......... it's masters swimming....... :-) ....... 11:00 pm ....... p-l-e-a-s-e.
Steve has a good point. The current Masters Nationals really seems more like a "festival" of swimming due to the wide ranges of individual's speed in each age group. Cutting it down to say 3-4 heats per age group per event would certainly help get it over with.
As for seeding by time, it can ONLY help you go faster. Humiliating......... yes, absolutely, but it's good for surfing some 230lb sasquatch Evil Smith's wave on the last length. Get a few people in there in the same heat that are still younger and "green" without blockage in their arteries, and you can surf them for half the race. Yeah.... I'm for it.
John Smith
I think we need to separate the desire to grow USMS from wanting to grow what we have been calling "Nationals".
I'd like USMS to grow (but not in my lane!). I think the best way for that to happen is more pools (in most places) and good masters programs (organized workouts, etc.). I don't see any good reason why you cannot meet the needs of the "elite" and "fitness" (and even "recreational") swimmers at the local level with good coaching and enough lane/slide space. I swim workouts and take my small kids to the pool, so I want it all, and there are places that have it all.
As for nationals, I'd like us to make up our mind if we'd rather have a "festival" or a "championship" meet. I'd say we are closer to the festival (big, fun, social), which has its advantages for many people. The Nationals format does not seem to do so well at catering to the smaller group of faster swimmers (very long days, crowded warmups, segmented too much by age v. speed). I'm not saying the meet totally fails for these swimmers, but it could be improved. I'd prefer seeding by time over age, as that seems like it would provide better competition for the faster swimmers. At the facilities nationals are held at, it should not matter what lane you are in for an opportunity to swim fast, so I don't see potentially losing a center lane seed as an issue.
I believe that the limiting factor for USMS meets is finding people to put them on. I could easily see USMS deciding to commission a true USMS Championship meet and having no one step forward to put it on, and/or not drawing the elite swimmers it attempts to draw.
Heres an idea: what if we had concurrent Eastern and Western nationals with points scored between the two? The rivalry would help to increase participation, reduce travel expenses/logistics and allow for growth while improving the conditions at each meet.
In former discussions we've pointed out that seeding by time is done at most of the regional meets......which I think is fine, keep nationals seeding as it is and hopefully satisfy both camps (at least to a degree).
As I said, it is a religious discussion. Do you want to see really competitive races with people of the roughly the same speed, or do you want to say that this is that you are racing against the competition in your age group. Take your choice - personally I would rather see a competitive race - it is far more interesting.
michael
Michael,
Lest you forget (or if you didn't know).....JS is a VP/CFO type for a rather large telecommunications monster (otherwise known as the "evil empire")......in other words things like counting, profitablity, etc. have little role in his life (Hey, he screws up the taxpayer bails him out!).
Oh......and NEVER bring up religion with him! Although I do believe he had somewhat of a "spiritual experience" last weekend in the 200 free!
PS: In former discussions we've pointed out that seeding by time is done at most of the regional meets......which I think is fine, keep nationals seeding as it is and hopefully satisfy both camps (at least to a degree).
Cutting it down to say 3-4 heats per age group per event would certainly help get it over with.
John - maybe you would want to calculate a timeline with 4 heats per age group. That would be about 50 heats per event - adding together both men and women. While 50 heats of 50's would take about 25 minutes (two courses short course). Fifty heats of 1650s would be about 10-12 hours.
And you have to make the whole thing worth it so that someone wants to bid for the event. I would take all the 50 and 100s that I could put in a pool. Give me 8 heats per age group. Eight heats per age group will run about an hour of heats. 50's run quickly.
I would want to have the distance events far more competitive.
If you really want to drag a long course meet - have every event have two full heats of each age group. Trust me, it would take a long time.
As to whether you are going to seed by age group/by time or just by time, that is a religious discussion. While I might vote for seeding by time only - just like the distance events, I do not think that will get passed any time soon. But it is a rules year, have your LMSC propose it.
michael
Is there anything wrong with the way nationals is currently held?
I've only gone to 1 nationals, and it was because my team was hosting the event. I didn't qualify for any events, and just registered for my 3. I think the only time I would go again is if it is convenient (within a 2-3 hour drive). I think 50%+ of people who don't qualify would be in the same boat, only go if it is convenient.
I don't like the idea of seeding strictly by time either. When I swam at nationals, it was the only time I've swam with other guys in my age group. We do the time only thing at local events, which is fine to make the meet move along smoother, but then I never actually swim head-to-head with people in my age group. At nationals, there seemed to be enough people in each sex/age group that things still moved along fast enough.
As for growth, I'm all for it. We usually have at least 4 people per lane at my workouts, but when we have loads of people, the coach will sometimes move some lanes to the other side of the bulkhead (that area is generally for rec swimmers, but there's hardly any there at 6am). As long as we are similar times and placed well in the lane, I feel workouts are more productive with a larger group, and I can 'compete' against people in neighboring lanes. As our group has expanded, the coach has worked with local Y's (and other pools) and set up some extention groups with them.
