Swimming World's top 12 master swimmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.... Back to Mike Ross... I just attended the SCY 3 day meet at Harvard, and the level at which Mike swims is, well, stunning. One of the great parts of a Masters meet is that virtually all of us, at all levels, love the sport and to see Mike swim his races--but especially his backstroke--is simply a pleasure. Hundreds of faces are glued to the water (under the water) when Mike comes off the wall on his backstroke and all of us feel the power, the smoothness, the elegance of his underwater dolphin kick. Perhaps there are no awards for providing aesthetic pleasure for swimmers, but if there were, I would give it to Ross. He has been a delight for us New England swimmers for several years now. ............. Again, congrats to all and esp. to our guy Fred Schlicher! Very nicely put. It was a real treat to watch Mike swim. (I also had the pleasure (and pain!) of racing in a lane next to Fred. And as I recall there were some other swimmers quite close to Fred's age doing some very fast swims!)

Congratulations to all the swimmers selected! And to once again sound like a broken record...I will repeat what I said a year ago. Whatever system is being used is flawed if again this year arguably the best female masters swimmer in the world is not selected something is wrong. In no way am I saying the other women are not incredible athletes and seserving of their awards...but I also doubt many would not deny that Susan Von der Lippes absence is unfortunate.

Congratulations to all the swimmers selected! And to once again sound like a broken record...I will repeat what I said a year ago. Whatever system is being used is flawed if again this year arguably the best female masters swimmer in the world is not selected something is wrong. In no way am I saying the other women are not incredible athletes and seserving of their awards...but I also doubt many would not deny that Susan Von der Lippes absence is unfortunate. It is unfortunate but Susan's times from the Olympic Trials in the 100 *** of 1:12.12 and the 100 Fly of 1:02.47 were not submitted to USMS for USMS Top Ten and therefore are not in the FINA World Top Ten. The swims broke World Records but FINA will not recognize swims like this because they were not done in a masters meet. So those two swims are basically ignored because of these points. Dara Torres basically had the same problem in her two swims at the Olympic Trials. Her time of :24.25 in the 50 Free and the :53.78 in the 100 Free broke the existing FINA World Records but FINA did not recognize them because they were not performed in a masters meet. There is a difference between Dara and Susan here in that Dara or someone else turned in the proper documentation for both USMS Top Ten and the USMS National Record and she is included in the USMS Long Couse Top Ten and gets credit for the USMS National Record. Her times also appear in the FINA World Top Ten as Number 1 swims because USMS submitted the 2008 Long Course Top Ten list to FINA. Because Susan was not on the 2008 USMS Long Course Top Ten list, those two swims did not make the 2008 FINA World Top Ten as Number 1 swims. Susan's times do not appear in the 2008 USMS Long Course Top Ten and the National Records reflect 1:13.34 and the 1:03.38 from 2006 in the two events mentioned. Since this very important data was not published by USMS or FINA probably had something to do with the system you speak of and the selection process. www.usms.org/.../toptenlist.php

I agreed with Paul last year about Susan, and I agree this year. I recall someone mentioning that she would have had a few other number one rankings (maybe in SCM?) if she had simply done some split requests. Why do Dara's times count as #1 FINA/USMS rankings? Was the Olympic Trials a dual sanctioned meet? I must say, I agree with ehoch that someone who is not a master and does not swim in masters meets, shouldn't really be getting FINA or masters rankings just because they are registered with USMS. This is just stockpiling of rankings to put on the resume.

Well - whatever the system may be -- I do think one has to at least compete in more than one Masters meters competitions in a given year to be considered. While we are at it, can we add all the times from the Olympics too for the 25-29 age group and the 30-34. Oh - Mark Foster is in the 35-39 age group - he probably should also be listed. Phelps should in next year ... If you think she should be in there, get her to swim a Masters meet and do the same times. I can understand why you and others think that swims at USAS meets shouldn't "count." Although I always submit my times from such meets for Top Ten consideration, it wouldn't bother me personally if they didn't count. And I was somewhat surprised when I first discovered they did. I also don't like this strange duality that USMS accepts such times for its records but FINA doesn't. So you can have the weird situation where USMS records are faster than the "World" records. BUT... After thinking about this for some time, I realize that I am against anything that erects artificial barriers between USAS and USMS (and similar dual organizations in other countries). It bugs me that USAS won't as a matter of course just accept my USMS times as entry times, and it makes me jump through hoops needlessly. And have you ever seen the rules for dual-sanction meets? They are bizarre: separate warmup lanes, etc. I think kids benefit from seeing old guys and gals swim some fast times. So do their parents! Where I swim, masters workouts and age group workouts occur simultaneously and in the same pool, and the kids are impressed that a group of old fogeys still get up at 5am to swim. There is a need for two separate organizations, of course, but some overlap and crossover is nice. Sometimes it seems almost like there is hostility instead. As far as World Records, and "older" swimmers like Foster, etc...well, why shouldn't a "world record" mean that it is the fastest time ever swum by someone within that age bracket? Sure, a professional (older) swimmer like Dara Torres has advantages over "regular" people. So what? Life isn't fair. The playing field isn't level for all "true" masters swimmers either. Sorry for the thread hijack. I too believe that SVDL deserves a little more recognition for her achievements. It is a little ironic to me that three swimmers whom I think regularly turn in some of the most outstanding swims in any given year (Dennis Baker, SVDL and Mike Ross) are not mentioned at all for two years running. But the group that was chosen is an amazing one, and my perception is probably skewed by the fact that all three swimmers I mentioned are close to my age.

Would someone please post the exact rules or criteria for how the 12 were selected, and who selected them, and when?

I agreed with Paul last year about Susan, and I agree this year. I recall someone mentioning that she would have had a few other number one rankings (maybe in SCM?) if she had simply done some split requests. Why do Dara's times count as #1 FINA/USMS rankings? Was the Olympic Trials a dual sanctioned meet? Dara times count because she went thru the proper USMS procedures to get the USMS Records and USMS times to count for USMS Top Ten and USMS Records. Because she was in the final 2008 USMS Long Course Top Ten list, she was eligible to be on the FINA World Top Ten list. According to FINA, Susan swims do not exist because she was not in the USMS Long Course Top Ten in any events even though she could have swam many events and had a potential to have more USMS records and top tens. The Olympic Trials is NOT a dual sanctioned event. USMS has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctioning of that event and its ONLY sanctioned by USA Swimming as the Olympic Trial selection meet. Just because USMS Masters swimmers qualify for the event does not mean there times automatically count for USMS Records and Top Ten. You must go thru the pool measurement procedures after every session and you must get the timing equipment back up sheet with the corresponding heat sheet. An "Application for a USMS Record" must be filled out with the Meet Referee's name and signature. This was apparently not done with Susan otherwise we would see at least 2 FINA Number 1 swims. Any Short Course Yard swims or USMS Records from them are not considered in the process for the selection of the top World masters swimmers and only Short Course Meter swims are considered because those swims can be bench marked against the entire world. With all of this, Susan did very well with 5 SCM World Records. However compared to other masters swimmers like Yoshiko Osaki of Japan with 14 World Records (6 LCM, 8 SCM), Laura Val with 20 World Records (9 LCM, 11 SCM), Karlyn Pipes Neilson with 15 World Records (7 LCM, 8 SCM), Hitomi Matsuda of Japan with 8 World Records (3 LCM, 5 SCM) and Jean Whiteley of Australia with 8 World Records (3 LCM, 5 SCM) it would be very difficult to elevate her performances over these others with the process that is used and with no recorded long course performances in 2008 from the tabulations. If Susan would have gone to Portland or some USMS Sanctioned Long Course competitions, I am sure she would have been in there with the others but because that did not happen, the process only awards those performances in masters competitions.

I can understand why you and others think that swims at USAS meets shouldn't "count." Although I always submit my times from such meets for Top Ten consideration, it wouldn't bother me personally if they didn't count. And I was somewhat surprised when I first discovered they did. I also don't like this strange duality that USMS accepts such times for its records but FINA doesn't. So you can have the weird situation where USMS records are faster than the "World" records. BUT... And have you ever seen the rules for dual-sanction meets? They are bizarre: separate warmup lanes, etc. I think kids benefit from seeing old guys and gals swim some fast times. So do their parents! Where I swim, masters workouts and age group workouts occur simultaneously and in the same pool, and the kids are impressed that a group of old fogeys still get up at 5am to swim. As far as World Records, and "older" swimmers like Foster, etc...well, why shouldn't a "world record" mean that it is the fastest time ever swum by someone within that age bracket? Sure, a professional (older) swimmer like Dara Torres has advantages over "regular" people. So what? Life isn't fair. The playing field isn't level for all "true" masters swimmers either. I think USA times should count for masters too -- when they're swum by masters swimmers. And they usually do. Dara hasn't swum a masters meet since she was pregnant and I don't consider her a master at all. I never said it was "unfair." That's not the right word. It's just bizarre. Why would someone not a masters swimmer have a USMS record or #1 FINA masters ranking? There's another FINA list for them. And why would they care about masters rankings anyway particularly? If she "retires" again, she can come back and join our ranks. Dual sanctioned meets aren't that weird. I've swum in a couple. I didn't bother with the masters warm up lane. I warmed up in the rec pool where it was less crowded. I do think kids and parents benefit from seeing geezers in action. At least they're aware geezers compete and train. Agree that more overlap is better. Maybe USMS meets will even start having time trials like USA meets so masters swimmers don't go to USA meets solely for this purpose?

I agreed with Paul last year about Susan, and I agree this year. I recall someone mentioning that she would have had a few other number one rankings (maybe in SCM?) if she had simply done some split requests. Why do Dara's times count as #1 FINA/USMS rankings? Was the Olympic Trials a dual sanctioned meet? Dara times count because she went thru the proper USMS procedures to get the USMS Records and USMS times to count for USMS Top Ten and USMS Records. Because she was in the final 2008 USMS Long Course Top Ten list, she was eligible to be on the FINA World Top Ten list. According to FINA, Susan swims do not exist because she was not in the USMS Long Course Top Ten in any events even though she could have swam many events and had a potential to have more USMS records and top tens. The Olympic Trials is NOT a dual sanctioned event. USMS has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctioning of that event and its ONLY sanctioned by USA Swimming as the Olympic Trial selection meet. Just because USMS Masters swimmers qualify for the event does not mean there times automatically count for USMS Records and Top Ten. You must go thru the pool measurement procedures after every session and you must get the timing equipment back up sheet with the corresponding heat sheet. An "Application for a USMS Record" must be filled out with the Meet Referee's name and signature. This was apparently not done with Susan otherwise we would see at least 2 FINA Number 1 swims. Any Short Course Yard swims or USMS Records from them are not considered in the process for the selection of the top World masters swimmers and only Short Course Meter swims are considered because those swims can be bench marked against the entire world. With all of this, Susan did very well with 5 SCM World Records. However compared to other masters swimmers like Yoshiko Osaki of Japan with 14 World Records (6 LCM, 8 SCM), Laura Val with 20 World Records (9 LCM, 11 SCM), Karlyn Pipes Neilson with 15 World Records (7 LCM, 8 SCM), Hitomi Matsuda of Japan with 8 World Records (3 LCM, 5 SCM) and Jean Whiteley of Australia with 8 World Records (3 LCM, 5 SCM) it would be very difficult to elevate her performances over these others with the process that is used and with no recorded long course performances in 2008 from the tabulations. If Susan would have gone to Portland or some USMS Sanctioned Long Course competitions, I am sure she would have been in there with the others but because that did not happen, the process only awards those performances in masters competitions. Thanks Frank. I thought FINA (unlike USMS) wouldn't recognize LC times from USS meets unless the USS meet was dual sanctioned? That's what I was told recently. No idea if it's true. As an aside, it would be difficult -- with the "versatility" emphasis -- for a sprinter (e.g., Rich Abrahams) to ever make the Top 12 List because they usually don't swim longer events and couldn't get the sheer number of #1 rankings that others can.

Whatever system is being used is flawed if again this year arguably the best female masters swimmer in the world is not selected something is wrong. Well - whatever the system may be -- I do think one has to at least compete in more than one Masters meters competitions in a given year to be considered. While we are at it, can we add all the times from the Olympics too for the 25-29 age group and the 30-34. Oh - Mark Foster is in the 35-39 age group - he probably should also be listed. Phelps should in next year ... If you think she should be in there, get her to swim a Masters meet and do the same times.