Swimming World's top 12 master swimmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Former Member
Let the debate begin. I have no problem with the 12 selected, but, 6 and 6 is pretty tough to pick and I have great respect for the process they use. I do think they should try to maybe add the top swim of the year,but, what they have to do, at present, is pretty overwhelming. Some of the runner-ups are pretty awesome. Pull up the Swimming World and download the magazine.What a great honor for all these great swimmers EOM
I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.
I agree 100%. Masters is all about inclusion.
Just FYI - this issue has come up when compiling USMS Pool All Stars. A very fast and very "six four" swimmer hailing from North Texas had 8 #1 swims in 2008. She did not compete in SCM. Another swimmer also had a very impressive 8 x #1 times. Only the latter was named a pool all star, so I asked about it (I still don't see why you can't have co-pool all stars). It came down to the weights of all the other top ten times you have.
Not to take anything away from the named all-star who had impressive times, versatility, and quantity of top ten finishes, but Ms. "six four"'s times are national records, and one even makes the 2009 USA world championships. So there is no consideration for national/world records or any "powerpoint" type of weight in the event of a tie of #1 swims.
I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.
I agree 100%. Masters is all about inclusion.
Just FYI - this issue has come up when compiling USMS Pool All Stars. A very fast and very "six four" swimmer hailing from North Texas had 8 #1 swims in 2008. She did not compete in SCM. Another swimmer also had a very impressive 8 x #1 times. Only the latter was named a pool all star, so I asked about it (I still don't see why you can't have co-pool all stars). It came down to the weights of all the other top ten times you have.
Not to take anything away from the named all-star who had impressive times, versatility, and quantity of top ten finishes, but Ms. "six four"'s times are national records, and one even makes the 2009 USA world championships. So there is no consideration for national/world records or any "powerpoint" type of weight in the event of a tie of #1 swims.
