Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:46:01 GMT

Be careful, Geek-o-mundo. Mention of 'sports that matter' could draw LBJ out of the weeds to regale us with anecdotes re racewalking (dryland noodling) where the notion of 'rank' could only refer to the judging of form. Slap, slap, slap, slap! You speak heresy - "dryland noodling", indeed! Your penance: www.youtube.com/watch -LBJ

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:20:06 GMT

NotVeryFast - I dispute your assertion. While a country's size means there are more people it in no way translates to success. Take China and India on one extreme with relatively weak programs versus Jamaica and Australia on the other hand with great programs. Britain's complete absence from discussion on sports these days is more indicative of poor programs and a lack of focus on athletics than some population argument. I explicitly said that population isn't the only factor. But whatever factors are leading to success at USMS Record level in the US, do those same factors not also improve standards at a lower level? Or do the USMS national record holders have exclusive access to a source of better performance? An example of where elite performance does not translate into better performance for the whole population is elite cycling in GB, where the resources are focused on a tiny handful of cyclists, whose level of performance cannot be matched by those who don't have access to those resources. I doubt that this situation applies to USMS, though. And regarding your observations on relative strength of programs, GB were 4th in the Olympic medal table, ahead of the "great" programs of Jamaica and Australia, and the US finished 2nd behind the "weak" program of China.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

aquageek — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:44:22 GMT

I know you are proud of all your medals in the UK. But, in taking a look at what you medaled in, there is not a lot to be overly proud of, mostly obscure sports and heavy on the cycling. UK used to be relevant in the sporting world, no longer. As to USMS performance, I have no idea what you are talking about. China failed to meet their own medal goal and if you exclude the medals from their obviously underage gymnastics team, I can't be convinced it was a very successful performance by them overall.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:54:18 GMT

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:14:33 GMT

I see where some of the disconnect is. In reviewing the Great Britain records with the US masters swimming records, they aren't comparable. Generally speaking (and there are a few exceptions), the US records are significantly faster. I could totally see Great Britain records being broken in practice. My meet times this past LCM season would qualify me for several GB national records where I'm not very close to US nat records. So I think it depends on what country you are swimming in. While it is true that the US records will typically be faster than the GB records, I think it is comparing like with like to look at training performances of GB swimmers relative to GB records. There may be other reasons for the US records being faster, but a major factor will be the bigger population. The bigger population will make the records faster, but it will also give you a correspondingly bigger pool of people from which to find people who can break the records in practice. So I think the two things ought to cancel out, and you should have a similar chance of finding a US swimmer who can break a US record in practice, compared with the chance of finding a GB swimmer who can break a GB record in practice.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:00:53 GMT

I've read all the responses... really, laughed on a few posts, and disappointed by others, either way, this was entertaining for me. The initial assumption was probably trying to compare EX-age groupers with a decent masters record. It's so easy to say, this record isn't that fast, etc. but the relative perspective of age really does impact the result. For the most part, legitimate performances are very hard to accomplish, especially when you add 20+ years to the equation. Which brings me to the next part, training performances actually do slide when you're not being held accountable by competition. Saying a record has or could be broken in work-out is further off the mark, more disputable than one record falling once, to a person who doesn't see the life-long compatibility of enduring performance. Perhaps there really are a few gifted people who still don't recognize the value of the masters community, fine, but a few years later, and they won't even come close.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

aquageek — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:55:31 GMT

Any sports that matter, Kurt? In all honesty, I stand corrected. I just don't find the UK to be the sports powerhouse they used to be.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Kurt Dickson — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:08:46 GMT

Actually, second to China, Britain had the largest gain in Olympic medals this year (19 golds and 47 in total). They were particularly dominant in track cycling (7 out of 10 golds) despite Tour de France sprinting stud Mark Cavendish (4 stage wins) going home empty handed.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

aquageek — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:42:52 GMT

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:25:45 GMT

I see where some of the disconnect is. In reviewing the Great Britain records with the US masters swimming records, they aren't comparable. Generally speaking (and there are a few exceptions), the US records are significantly faster. I could totally see Great Britain records being broken in practice. My meet times this past LCM season would qualify me for several GB national records where I'm not very close to US nat records. So I think it depends on what country you are swimming in. I agree with the OP's sentiment that the top 10 times are not a good guide to how you compare against other swimmers due to low levels of participation. There are definitely significant numbers of people swimming to keep fit who would be very fast indeed if they chose to compete. Breaking national records in practice is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I certainly know one person who swam at my health club who has never competed in a masters meet in his entire life, and he would have been there or thereabouts for the number 1 ranking in GB in his age group if he had competed. I know this for a fact because he swam the time in a meet, just not a masters meet, so the time didn't go into the masters rankings. He had no interest in competing, he only did the non-masters meet to help out the club in an inter-club competition. Another guy who I train with every week had only done one masters meet in the last decade or two when I joined the club. With my encouragement, he now holds 3 GB Masters Records.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:03:27 GMT

You can choose to believe what you want. These and more urban legends at www.darwinawards.com/.../ "These apocryphal stories are included as examples of Herculean Darwinian efforts. Be glad, be very glad, these people don't exist.”

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:09:06 GMT

I agree with the OP's sentiment that the top 10 times are not a good guide to how you compare against other swimmers due to low levels of participation. There are definitely significant numbers of people swimming to keep fit who would be very fast indeed if they chose to compete. Breaking national records in practice is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I certainly know one person who swam at my health club who has never competed in a masters meet in his entire life, and he would have been there or thereabouts for the number 1 ranking in GB in his age group if he had competed. I know this for a fact because he swam the time in a meet, just not a masters meet, so the time didn't go into the masters rankings. He had no interest in competing, he only did the non-masters meet to help out the club in an inter-club competition. Another guy who I train with every week had only done one masters meet in the last decade or two when I joined the club. With my encouragement, he now holds 3 GB Masters Records. I would guess that Mark Foster, for example, was able to swim at approx Masters WR pace in practice prior to actually breaking it in a meet. Or if Nick Gillingham decided to have a crack at the 40-44 200 *** WR, I would guess he could probably break the existing WR in practice. I like our GB age-corrected rankings a lot as a reality check. In my age group, I am ranked 8th in GB for SCM 100 fly. In the age-corrected rankings I am ranked 80th, which I feel is a much more realistic assessment of how good a swimmer I am. The points basically give you a measure of how good a time is for any event at any age, though it breaks down a bit at really old ages. If anyone wants to work out their age-corrected time in this way, just stick the following formula into cell A2 in an excel spreadsheet and put your age in A1: =SQRT((98-A1)*(98+A1))/94.757585 Then you multiply your race time by the resulting adjustment factor to get the time the system thinks you would have done at your peak.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

aquageek — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:06:24 GMT

A good post. But let's be honest, Lady Dawg: who would apply for admission to a school that mispells its own mascot's name?:bump: My wife, for starters.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Chris Stevenson — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:17:44 GMT

I imagine that when I applied to the college I graduated from, there were tons of people out there smarter than myself that could have gotten into the college and squeezed me out of the picture. A good post. But let's be honest, Lady Dawg: who would apply for admission to a school that mispells its own mascot's name?:bump:

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

aquageek — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:31:52 GMT

I don't know how dook/UNC marriages can work, but they seem to. I have close friends who have this in common with you and they do not watch the two (at least) annual basketball games in the same room.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Chris Stevenson — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:33:27 GMT

My wife, for starters. My sympathies, we all have our crosses to bear. My wife went to Duke, as did her sister, and my mother-in-law is a rabid fan (much more than either of her daughters, actually).

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

elise526 — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:16:28 GMT

A good post. But let's be honest, Lady Dawg: who would apply for admission to a school that mispells its own mascot's name?:bump: I'm a fan, but didn't go to college there. I went to a college in Atlanta that does not have a football team. Love to be able to claim I was truly a DAWG, especially if I had swam for them, but I will have to settle for saying I was a former Eagle.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:58:28 GMT

I'm pretty sure if the ranking order was reversed I could place in the top ten fo' sho.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:48:32 GMT

I'm skeptical of this claim. I don't know a single ultra fast swimmer who doesn't compete and breaks records in practice. I guess it surely is possible but that person would have a serious swimming pedigree and a background of competition. Especially since Austin, the national records are very tough, most made wearing new tech suits. We have a few guys on our team who are obnoxiously fast, but they compete very rarely, and when they do, it is usually only a few events. They like to swim fast and have good workouts, but they don't like competition and the "hassle" of a meet. Personally, I think they're crazy because I love meets, but to each his own.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:08:40 GMT

I'm sure there are others on this forum who could validate my claim about record-breaking swimmers who don't compete. Maybe they would chime in as well to help support my statement. I would be very uncomfortable with giving out names--even my own as you can tell by this forum. Surely I'm not the only person on a team with individuals like these.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:52:41 GMT

:thhbbb:

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:39:16 GMT

I'm skeptical of this claim. I don't know a single ultra fast swimmer who doesn't compete and breaks records in practice. Ditto. How about name(s) of the people/ person; event(s); and age groups in which the records would have been broken; and the time. I'm guessing it's not over 3 people if any. Give specifics at which point I think your point could be very interesting. I too swim with World Record holders and past Olympians. They ain't breakin' the national records in practice. At all. Not even close.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:29:01 GMT

There are people on my team who have broken USMS national records for their age groups in workout. These same people do not compete. Be wary of ranking yourself according to the people who currently compete. There are a lot of other fast swimmers out there. At the same time, I think a top ten time is still a significant achievement and congratulations to anyone who can achieve them, regardless of participation. Why don't they compete?? That seems almost ludacris of them not to at least try a meet or two...just my opinion.

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:17:58 GMT

RE: Rankings (or rating yourself) --RANT--

Former Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:14:14 GMT

Yes, looking at 'real' time standards is a good reality check, as is swimming against kids. Ain't that the truth!!