Mark Shubert from the NY Times article on Dara:
"But -let's face it- compared with the Olympics, even the Master's World Championships is a glorified losers' round, and holding a master's world record is hardly an exciting achievement. . . "
I read the article this morning and the posts. I think C. Stevenson is right. These are probably not Shubert's words but the author's. It might be even more interesting to see her in a Masters meet. I think her "glorious losers" remark seemed out of place in what I found to be an interesting article. I am looking forward to seeing Dara Torres qualify in the 50. She really is an amazing swimmer.
As to Tom's remark: "...there are some Masters swimmers who could compete at Torres's level but might not have the time to pursue Olympic and World Rankings. They are too busy with work and families or don't have the resources to put all their energy into swimming." I don't buy it. I think that kind of talent is very rare and she has the hunger to go after it...which is also remarkable. There are some absolutely amazing Masters swimmers, old and young, and I watched some incredible swims in Austin, but swimmers like Torres, Phelps, Lochte are on another level, and I don't think it's taking care of our kids or businesses that keeps some Masters swimmers from competing at that level. Tom sounds a bit too much like Stanley Kowalski "I coulda been a contenda...." instead of a parent...which is what I am.
Greg, I agree (and so nice to meet you at Nats, BTW!!). No way are the vast majority of masters swimmers as talented as Dara. But for Mark Shubert to make that comment or say something that could be that mischaracterized is rubbish. I completely admire true masters swimmers competing at the level they do. I think it's amazing, whether they're like you or Tall Paul and setting WRs or like Stud, kicking ass personally. It's easy to be a superstar when you're young and unhindered; not so easy when you're older and have so many demand on your time and energy.
I read the article this morning and the posts. I think C. Stevenson is right. These are probably not Shubert's words but the author's. It might be even more interesting to see her in a Masters meet. I think her "glorious losers" remark seemed out of place in what I found to be an interesting article. I am looking forward to seeing Dara Torres qualify in the 50. She really is an amazing swimmer.
As to Tom's remark: "...there are some Masters swimmers who could compete at Torres's level but might not have the time to pursue Olympic and World Rankings. They are too busy with work and families or don't have the resources to put all their energy into swimming." I don't buy it. I think that kind of talent is very rare and she has the hunger to go after it...which is also remarkable. There are some absolutely amazing Masters swimmers, old and young, and I watched some incredible swims in Austin, but swimmers like Torres, Phelps, Lochte are on another level, and I don't think it's taking care of our kids or businesses that keeps some Masters swimmers from competing at that level. Tom sounds a bit too much like Stanley Kowalski "I coulda been a contenda...." instead of a parent...which is what I am.
Greg, I agree (and so nice to meet you at Nats, BTW!!). No way are the vast majority of masters swimmers as talented as Dara. But for Mark Shubert to make that comment or say something that could be that mischaracterized is rubbish. I completely admire true masters swimmers competing at the level they do. I think it's amazing, whether they're like you or Tall Paul and setting WRs or like Stud, kicking ass personally. It's easy to be a superstar when you're young and unhindered; not so easy when you're older and have so many demand on your time and energy.
