Swimmimg World names top master swimmers for 2006 they are:

Everyone on that list is extremely deserving,but I think their selection criteria are flawed.They use world records as the main criterion. I think they should base their selection on how one does relative to the other swimmers in one's age group.Lets say last year you set a gazzilion world records. Now lets say this yearyou didn't age up and you are ranked number one in every event in your age group,most by huge margins,but in no event are you quite as fast as last year. By their criteria you won't make the first cut.That doesn't seem right to me.:dunno:

I am really happy to see two names of people I swam with (Laura Val) and the other I know through someone (Jim McConica); I believe his nickname is Jim McSwim. I am sure all of the others from other places in this world of ours, are as deserving as the two I know. Congrats to all of them, Donna

I agree that it is World results and am OK with only meter results for that reason. My criteria would be World # 1 rankings. I'd make it just like USMS All Stars,just on a global scale. If the only one who ever swam faster than you was you,you shouldn't be penalized.

I think everyone here is deserving. What criteria would you use to determine the year's top world's master swimmers. ???

Allen, I do agree somewhat with what you are saying, especially now, but I think the key word here is: Swimming World names.....so they would use world records.

Allen: There are no FINA 2006 World Rankings when the information in early January gets submitted for the magazine in April. Right now, as of today there are NO 2006 FINA World Rankings for Masters Swimmers from around the World. So the best indicator of performances is the setting of FINA World Records that have been done defined by the critera by Swimming World. The critera is that it must be set in a Masters Meet and not other meets. Many years ago there were swimmers in the Top Ten and they set many USMS Records but because they did not set there records in masters meets, there swims were ignored by FINA and were not included for consideration. Since I was a member of the panel, its very time consuming to get all of the swimmers on the ballot for consideration. If Swimming World were to wait until 2006 FINA World Rankings were released, the top masters swimmers in the World for 2006 would not make the magazine until August 2007 at the earliest. Most, if not all of the swimmers on the ballot this year that set FINA World Records attended and won an individual event at the FINA World Championships at Stanford. I will challenge you to find me one swimmer that we missed that was ranked Number 1 in more events that the swimmers that were selected this year that set World Records. Since I have been a member of the panel for the last 2 years I went back and checked every swimmer that was given the award in there age group and I could not find one swimmer that had more Number 1 rankings than the swimmers named. Remember all of the swimmers that you read in the magazine are not all of the swimmers that are nominated and taken into consideration. One more point to consider is that when Swimming World names the World Swimmers of the Year for Swimming, the main critera is the setting and progression of World Records set during the year by a swimmer. The last 2 years Leisel Jones has won for the women and its because of the number and quality of World Records and not individual rankings. Last year Michael Phelps and Brenden Hansen were the main candidates for the men and the selection was real close and it came down to the vote of the progression and quality of the World Records set by each swimmer during the year.

Very similar in methodology to how our 'Threadies' are selected.

Frank, Thanks for the great explanation of the process, as well as taking the time out to be part of the panel. One thing I can say that I would like to do is expand the panel a bit more to include some even greater international representation. Allen, Being completely honest, this piece was the most time-consuming to do of anything I have done in my first year here with the magazine. Masters deserve this extra attention, and I am glad that Phil decided to start this program a few years back. It was really fun to work on, and I am even happier that Phil is still part of the panel. Jason

One name that I expected to see was Dave Radcliff. He broke a world record this year and is listed on the All Americans every year that I've known him. Usually at the top of his age group for all postals and top 10. Alison

Jason is right. For several years I worked closely with Phil Whitten on the project, and it was always very time consuming. The one thought I always wanted to offer the readers was how quality over quantity played into the selection. Over the years, several swimmers who didn't have the most records were part of the group of 12 featured in SWIM Magazine. It’s because the panel felt strongly that the quality of certain swims transcended the numbers. One example is Wally Dicks, who was on our list in 2001. Compared with other swimmers in the top 12, Wally had relatively few records that year – but the exceptional quality of the records moved the panel to include him in the final list. The list is always based on the previous year’s results. In 2000, Wally was the oldest man ever to qualify for the US Olympic Trials. Quantifying that type of performance among other Masters swimmers is not as straightforward as tallying the number of records and comparing it to other swimmers on a list. It requires more interpretation and scrutiny by the panel. Wally’s accomplishment was unique. It would be hard to argue that he shouldn’t have been included in the final group, even though he was not among the top 12 in number of records set. Our approach to the project included statistics, but was also very human. We had thoughtful discussions about the historical context of the swims, as well as the number of records. In several cases, swimmers who were among the top 12 (in number of records set) were left off the list. That was always good for a little drama on the discussion forums – but I have to say, this year’s annual kvetchfest is relatively tame compared to previous years. In all seriousness, I’m very thankful to see Swimming World maintaining this annual feature. It has been especially gratifying to see them develop a global approach to the project, because it’s something Phil and I discussed every time Jane Asher’s name came up. Even though it probably made the process much more involved, I feel the inclusion of swimmers from around the world is a brilliant way to reinforce the magazine’s global perspective on the sport of swimming. Kudos, Bill