I noticed that in track, the USATF is holding masters exhibitions at the trials. In this case a men's 3K and a women's 200m. (Remember in track Masters is over 40) I also remember them having Masters events at US Championships. I think a few year's ago Willie Gault ran less than a second off the 100m high hurdles WR at like 44 years old.
Why doesn't swimming have something similar? Invite the 8 fastest from Nationals for say a few exhibition 50's and 100's in the 40+ and 50+ catagories? I feel this would create a buzz for swimming and show just how close some can get to making trials. How cool would it be for the fans and for promoting the sport. Does USMS have a strong affiliation with USA swimming to do this? Just a thought.
Parents
Former Member
Look, that other topic of masters being a "loser's round" has hit a nerve with me, it really is an insult to everything I find joy in. I know this isn't that thread, but that makes me wonder, why don't we have a Masters division at the Olympics??
I think it really comes down to the perception of what it means to be "great". Younger athletes focus on performance as being the ultimate quest, whereas a master sees the process through training to be of higher value. Who is right?
A truly exceptional master has both, the capacity to perform, and a deeper understanding of the human condition in which we live.
What is the point of sport in the first place? To see if we can extend the "normal" limits of physical possibilities, and that includes age-barriers. An adult with power in the pool, and high standing in life is truly remarkable, and that should be equated with Olympic success.
I read something recently with a quote something along the lines of "that would look great on your resume, not so good on mine" in explaining why someone wouldn't engage in debates on some topic. I expect that something similar applies here, what would they stand to gain?
Look, that other topic of masters being a "loser's round" has hit a nerve with me, it really is an insult to everything I find joy in. I know this isn't that thread, but that makes me wonder, why don't we have a Masters division at the Olympics??
I think it really comes down to the perception of what it means to be "great". Younger athletes focus on performance as being the ultimate quest, whereas a master sees the process through training to be of higher value. Who is right?
A truly exceptional master has both, the capacity to perform, and a deeper understanding of the human condition in which we live.
What is the point of sport in the first place? To see if we can extend the "normal" limits of physical possibilities, and that includes age-barriers. An adult with power in the pool, and high standing in life is truly remarkable, and that should be equated with Olympic success.
I read something recently with a quote something along the lines of "that would look great on your resume, not so good on mine" in explaining why someone wouldn't engage in debates on some topic. I expect that something similar applies here, what would they stand to gain?
