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
Does anyone think that Torres really done any leg work to get her times recognized by USMS? Just wondering. I don't think that she was saying, "Oh, I better get this pool measured properly so it can be recognized by USMS." I am sure that someone took care of that for her.
Mike Ross got credit for 3 LCM World Records last year and they were very impressive swims. He also had 8 SCM World Records (100 FR, 200 FR, 50 BK, 100 BK, 200 BK, 50 FLY, 100 FLY, and 100 IM) in the 2008 calendar year. However, the process that is used does not count these records this year but will count them next year.
The critera for FINA World Records that are used in the process is records that are set from November 1, 2007 to October 31, 2008 time frame. This is because FINA publishes Masters World Records twice a year and those dates are May 1 and November 1 of every year. Because most of the USA Zone and Championship meets for SCM are after November 1, swimmers like Mike Ross don't get the credit in the year that they actually set the World Records. I believe this is what happened to SVDL last year and that is where the 5 SCM World Records for this 2008 selection came from.
Because other parts of the World have there SCM competitions all year around would probably favor those swimmers that set the records in the particular calendar year and we here in the USA are probably hindered somewhat because we swim SCY for most of the year and have more SCY meets and a USMS National Championship in that course where are best swimming performances occur. With that said, I can understand why people would not like the process and criteria for selection of the world swimmers of the year.
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."
Torres might not have done any masters meets but he doesn't mean that she wasn't registered for USMS. I wasn't doing meets for 2 years but I was still registered for USMS.
It does seem like there should be some kind of requirement that the swimmer participate in a certain number of masters meets in a given year to have their times from USA meet times count in any masters TOP TEN ranking. Lezak and Coughlin and any number of Olympians could have registered to be a masters swimmer in 2008 and I guess could have their times counted in the masters top ten without having done any masters meets.
A friend of mine was listed as number one on the preliminary top ten for 50 LCM free in 2008 until Dara came along and submitted her swims. Dara didn't do any masters meets in 2008. I doubt her coach submitted her times for her as he was getting medical treatment at the time.
If we are ranking swims based on age regardless of affiliation (masters or USA) that is one thing. If we are going to call it "masters" rankings, then it should be kept that way.
It does seem like there should be some kind of requirement that the swimmer participate in a certain number of masters meets in a given year to have their times from USA meet times count in any masters TOP TEN ranking. Lezak and Coughlin and any number of Olympians could have registered to be a masters swimmer in 2008 and I guess could have their times counted in the masters top ten without having done any masters meets.
A friend of mine was listed as number one on the preliminary top ten for 50 LCM free in 2008 until Dara came along and submitted her swims. Dara didn't do any masters meets in 2008. I doubt her coach submitted her times for her as he was getting medical treatment at the time.
If we are ranking swims based on age regardless of affiliation (masters or USA) that is one thing. If we are going to call it "masters" rankings, then it should be kept that way.
elise526:
In 1995, FINA made the requirement that for swims to count for FINA World Records, they must be set in masters sanctioned meets by a member nation of FINA. Prior to this, any swimmer that was registered with USMS could swim in a USA swim meet and turn in the times to count toward FINA World Records without ever swimming in a masters sanctioned meet. This was happening with Olympic caliber swimmers though maybe not on the level of Lezak and Coughlin but with national caliber swimmers.
FINA put a stop to this immediately and told member nation recorders and tabulators to strip anyone of a past record if they did not record the swim in a masters sanctioned competition. I think they went back a year and did that with those swims. So in a sense what your saying is happening at the FINA level. For the USMS level, as long as you are registered with the organization and you follow the rules to get your swims to count, then any swim from any USA sanctioned meet can count for a USMS Record and USMS Top Time and it does not have to be from a masters sanctioned meet.
elise526:
In 1995, FINA made the requirement that for swims to count for FINA World Records, they must be set in masters sanctioned meets by a member nation of FINA. Prior to this, any swimmer that was registered with USMS could swim in a USA swim meet and turn in the times to count toward FINA World Records without ever swimming in a masters sanctioned meet. This was happening with Olympic caliber swimmers though maybe not on the level of Lezak and Coughlin but with national caliber swimmers.
FINA put a stop to this immediately and told member nation recorders and tabulators to strip anyone of a past record if they did not record the swim in a masters sanctioned competition. I think they went back a year and did that with those swims. So in a sense what your saying is happening at the FINA level. For the USMS level, as long as you are registered with the organization and you follow the rules to get your swims to count, then any swim from any USA sanctioned meet can count for a USMS Record and USMS Top Time and it does not have to be from a masters sanctioned meet.
Thanks, Frank. With the number of older swimmers able to compete on a world class level, it will be interesting to see if USMS does what FINA has done. I'm certainly glad that people my age are able to swim in USA meets, especially in areas where there are not many masters meets offered. It seems to violate the spirit of masters swimming, however, if somebody that doesn't even compete in a masters meet in a given year can come in and claim the top spot in their age-group.
elise526:
In 1995, FINA made the requirement that for swims to count for FINA World Records, they must be set in masters sanctioned meets by a member nation of FINA. Prior to this, any swimmer that was registered with USMS could swim in a USA swim meet and turn in the times to count toward FINA World Records without ever swimming in a masters sanctioned meet. This was happening with Olympic caliber swimmers though maybe not on the level of Lezak and Coughlin but with national caliber swimmers.
FINA put a stop to this immediately and told member nation recorders and tabulators to strip anyone of a past record if they did not record the swim in a masters sanctioned competition. I think they went back a year and did that with those swims. So in a sense what your saying is happening at the FINA level. For the USMS level, as long as you are registered with the organization and you follow the rules to get your swims to count, then any swim from any USA sanctioned meet can count for a USMS Record and USMS Top Time and it does not have to be from a masters sanctioned meet.
But FINA still permits non-masters swimmers swimming in USA meets to garner FINA masters rankings. They just draw the line at WRs. This is a silly distinction. If, as Chris notes, swimmers like Dara should be recognized in FINA masters rankings because they are simply the fastest in the world in their age group, why not world records too? Otherwise, it's just inconsistent.
Tom, I am aware that Dara is registered with USMS. I'm just not sure that that fact alone entitles her to bump real masters swimmers out of FINA rankings. I don't appear in any USA PV rankings although I am a registered USA swimmer for 2 years. (Nor would I want to or care.) What if, hypothetically, a masters swimmer entered a USA meet and had enough points to win a high point trophy. Would they be awarded it? No don't think so. Can't imagine anyone wanting it either ...
And, Frank, you didn't answer. Does FINA recognize LCM times swum by a masters swimmer at USA meets? I know USMS does, but I had heard FINA did not. Obviously, plenty of LCM times swum at such meets have appeared in the FINA rankings. I was just wondering what the actual rule was.
I think ehoch had the same opinion as you elise -- that you should be required to swim in at least one masters meet. Though he never said why. I feel for your friend. #1 rankings mean a lot to real masters swimmers. It's hard to believe it means much at all to Dara, although she did file the requisite paperwork. Since world class athletes are already not eligible for FINA masters WRs, then they should at least be required to swim in 1-2 masters meets to get the FINA masters rankings.
Didn't you know? Dara has a pool measurement technician on her payroll. His/her duties also include keeping current with all the latest rulings on USA/USMS record application procedures, as well as calandering when it is time for on-line USMS registration.
I just wanted to say congrats to my teammates Laura Val and Richard Burns for making the list. These are two fantastic swimmers, true competitors and great people who I really enjoy training with and going to meets with.
