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

This is an interesting discussion. I’m glad to see that Susan and Mike have friends that are concerned about their swims. I have dealt with this problem for years, including a masters WR set in a USA meet that did not count for WR but it did count for top ten and masters record. This made my USA record faster than the WR. In order to count for masters WR you must swim in a sanctioned Masters meet that is held in a certified pool. You must do the paper work yourself: 1. Before you swim, check with Walt Reid to be sure the pool length is on file. If the meet in held in a pool with a bulkhead, you must make sure each lane is measured both before and after the meet. 2. After your swim, you must fill out the WR application form and have it signed by the referee and head timer. Do not leave the pool without this documentation. Get a computer printout of the results of the heat you were in. Get the program that says you were in the correct lane corresponding to the printout. 3. Mail all documentation papers to Walt Reid certified mail before May 1 and Nov. 1. There have been several swimmers who have been left out of the Masters Swimmers of the Year because they did not know that meets in November and December did not count for that year. If you are having a birthday Jan. 1 and moving to a new age group, the times set in Nov and Dec do not move up to the next age group Jan 1. So, if you plan to try for WMS with a new age group birthday, you must do all your swims between January 1 and Nov. 1………….I would suggest by the middle of Oct so all the paperwork can arrive by Nov.1. As Frank Thompson says, this puts USA swimmers at a disadvantage if the SCM season is only in the fall and there are few meets to swim in Sept and Oct. The solution to this could be to have FINA move the date to Jan. 1 to accommodate USA swimmers, but I don’t think that will happen. I have asked Walt Reid several times to try this. Another solution is to run more SCM meets in the Spring instead of yards. This even applies to USA swimmers and the NCAA meets. The NCAA meet was run one year in meters with World Records being set. The last NCAA meet was held in a 50 meter facility with bulkheads, easily could have been done in short course meters. Would the winners of the NCAA meets set any World Records? Who knows, they didn’t get the chance. It’s interesting to note that if you check the present world records not one of them was set in the US. The present solution…………….go swim in Canada. They swim meters all year.

Does FINA have a Top 10 list at the end of the year? If so, I would be more than happy to take this change into consideration. The reason why we currently have a WR-based setup is because there is not a single place that calculates the top FINA-sanctioned Masters times of each year in each event in each age division. If I'm missing something, I would love to try to get this system more accurate in a way that works within our available resources. Chris: I think what Jason was referring to here was a top times data base that we have in USMS during the year to have a list of available times at the end of the year so he doesn't have to wait until March before the FINA World Top Ten lists come out. As you know the USMS SCM top ten list does not come out until February even though we have kind of an unofficial list with the USMS Top Times data base if meets from around the country turn in meet results to the data base. Swim News has an ongoing data base that all of the FINA member nations use during the year to turn in there times from major meets from around the world and you can see it here www.swimnews.com/.../6766 and click rankings and you will see every event and all of times from the swimmers for both short course and long course meters. If something like this was available for masters swimming within each age group at the end of the year, then it could be used to meet the time guidelines for publication and be an additional resource for the selection.

They could be submitted by clubs, regions, zones etc, whatever; in the age of the internet, it would not be too hard to verify them. There could also categories for age-group, college etc. It would also share knowledge of wow swims that escaped initial notice or comment. I would like to think it would be very prestigious if one managed two or more wow swims (I think there would be a natural tendency of a panel not to do that, so if it decided to do that- WOW!) Might be something we can do web-based for the U.S. My concern is trying to make this a global setup. We really try to keep a global perspective on everything we do here. I could easily see something like this being done with a U.S.-slant because there's so much conversation within the USMS community (heck, that's what this forum is about). Trying to globalize this concept could be pretty difficult.

One has to start somewhere. We already know about WR's set within the global ambit; it would seem to me a matter of challenging various national swim organizations to nominate (which, to mitigate any US-centric nature of an initial list, they would probably be anxious to do).

I think it's very easy to compare swims within the same age division - you can etiher use the FINA points or the US swimming points system. Then you could simply come of with a fair formula of "decline" (I just hate using the word - but it is what it is). Yes, that's exactly what we have done, using WRs (SCM, LCM) or USMS records (SCY) to create event/gender-specific "formulas of advancing decrepitude" (is that a better word for you? :)).

I don't like using the Masters records -- you should base it on the actual world records. The Masters records are not "mature enough". I will give you a quick example - Laura Val set the 100 Free long course record in a 1:02 - about 9 seconds above the women's open world record. She also set the 100 Back record in 1:14.4 - that is about 15.5 seconds above the women's open world record. She is a fantastic swimmer - but her Free times are way stronger than her Backstroke times. By "actual world records" I assume you mean those of Phelps et al? The problem with real world records is that they don't cover a very wide range of ages, making it very hard to use them to model the effect of aging, especially when you extrapolate out to 80+ years. I think using masters records to rate masters swims is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Some events may be are harder hit by aging, or lack of training, than others (for me it has been 200 fly). The problem you note with Laura Val's records is mitigated to some extent by an averaging effect over all the age groups. Using masters WRs (and US records for SCY) gives a pretty reasonable fit, particularly if you use robust regression and take a few other precautions. An example of a typical fit is given here. The biggest problem is still probably extrapolating to the oldest ages (error is magnified). Also, the curves get lower with time, so a given swim "degrades" over time. (Although that is pretty much the case in real life too...what was once a great time can become more commonplace over the years.) I have tried it out for awhile and the system seems to work pretty well, it predicts outstanding times pretty much where you expect it. The current parameters are a little dated -- ie, pre-B70, etc.

I think it's very easy to compare swims within the same age division - you can etiher use the FINA points or the US swimming points system. Then you could simply come of with a fair formula of "decline" (I just hate using the word - but it is what it is). Have not looked into this - but I would guess that some of amazing female performers are actually just equal to the male counterparts in the age groups.

using WRs (SCM, LCM) or USMS records (SCY) I don't like using the Masters records -- you should base it on the actual world records. The Masters records are not "mature enough". I will give you a quick example - Laura Val set the 100 Free long course record in a 1:02 - about 9 seconds above the women's open world record. She also set the 100 Back record in 1:14.4 - that is about 15.5 seconds above the women's open world record. She is a fantastic swimmer - but her Free times are way stronger than her Backstroke times.

I know the older age groups are tougher and it looks like you put in a lot of work for the calculator -- but I just don't think it works even for our age group. Here is a look at all the 200 distances in our age group. Your record rating is compared to FINA points. 200 Free -- 1:55.67 = 750 points 200 *** -- 2:25.71 = 691 points 200 Back -- 2:10.88 = 683 points 200 Fly -- 2:07.17 = 717 points 200 IM -- 2:12.20 = 697 points The 200 Free and 200 Back for example are just not equal --- about a 2:07 in the 200 Back should be the same as 1:55.6.

I know the older age groups are tougher and it looks like you put in a lot of work for the calculator -- but I just don't think it works even for our age group. Here is a look at all the 200 distances in our age group. Your record rating is compared to FINA points. 200 Free -- 1:55.67 = 750 points 200 *** -- 2:25.71 = 691 points 200 Back -- 2:10.88 = 683 points 200 Fly -- 2:07.17 = 717 points 200 IM -- 2:12.20 = 697 points The 200 Free and 200 Back for example are just not equal --- about a 2:07 in the 200 Back should be the same as 1:55.6. Erik, you didn't give quite enough information to tell (course, age), and I'm too lazy to mess around to figure it out...but I'm going to assume that all those times have identical "masters" ratings on the VA LMSC calculator and your objection is that their FINA scores should be much closer. Forgive my long-windedness in the following response; it is an occupational hazard. FINA attempts to compare swims across event and gender; the underlying assumption is that all WRs are equally good. Of course it isn't completely true, but it isn't too bad an assumption. Masters scoring systems, including mine, have to be a little more ambitious: compare swims across event, gender and age. So there will probably be a little more error. My system (and the one that inspired mine, the NEM system) does this by fitting a function to the WR progression for a given gender/event. This tends to average out the fact that some age groups have "softer" WRs than others. I use a robust fitting method, which further means that the fit is resistent to changes if a couple records are extremely good or bad. So this method is going to do a GOOD job of accounting for aging within a given gender-event (and we can even estimate how good a job it does). But to compare across genders and events, just like FINA we have to make an underlying assumption: that the age-dependent "theoretical" WR -- as predicted by the fitted curve -- is equally good for every gender-event combination. Personally I think that is a pretty reasonable assumption, given the averaging effect across age-groups. But if we don't accept that, we can try to make corrections in various ways if we wish; I present one possibility below. (The danger is if the corrections introduce more error than they fix.) To broaden the FINA scoring system, there needs to be some method of accounting for aging. What you seem to be suggesting is that the effect of aging, compared to the "real" WRs, should be the same. In other words, whether it is 1650 free, 400 IM or 50 back, the effect of aging on FINA score should be virtually identical. I would have to verify, but I think this could be easily accomplished with either my or the NEM method: basically just add a conversion factor for the vertical axis to/from the FINA score. But I really question your assumption. Both training and physiology will change pretty much as we age, and I think it stands to reason that they will effect our ability to do certain events in different ways. I know it has for me: I don't remember the FINA score, but based on world rankings and placing at European Championships, my best LCM event as a youngster was the 200 fly, followed closely by the 100 fly. That isn't even close to be true now according to FINA scoring (or even my calculator, for that matter) and it isn't because I don't try. There are other examples for myself -- and I'm sure for others -- but you get the idea. But you have given me an idea that may address your objections a little. The intercept term in the fitting function I use has a physical meaning: it is the theoretical best masters WR time for a given gender/event. Normally I let the date decide what the value is, b/c that gives the best fit. But it would be interesting to force that value to be the current WR and see what happens. The idea would be to improve the inter-event comparisons. The fit for a given gender-event would be worse and it would probably greatly decrease the ratings for the youngest age groups. But maybe that is reasonable, since very often the WRs in the very young age groups are not as good, relatively speaking, as in the older age groups. I'll have more time in the summer to mess around with it on the evenings/weekends and see what happens.