Open the Masters Records?

Gary Hall showed up with the Race Club in 2004 and the meet stopped to watch them swim the 100 free. They held up the meet for their 50 fly too, and I subsequently missed my heat. Anyways, to the topic at hand, there are procedures in place for recognizing times swum at non-USMS meets. While I'd prefer to see Masters records be set by Masters swimmers at Masters meets the way Gary and crew showed up in '04, if the swimmer in question is a properly registered USMS swimmer and goes about reporting times from any USA-S or Fina meets through the proper channels, I see no reason why we should exclude that effort. As is the case today whenever one of us wants our USA-S swims to count. If Lezak or Cielo or whoever decides to register, then swims some fast times, reports them, then I guess the record is theirs.

Justin, et al. I disagree (again). I'm starting to liken this (in my small mind) with the argument awhile back between regional and club teams. I was a huge proponent of those two divisions, citing (over and over) that the two were indeed different groups of Masters. Yes, the sport is still swimming, however, there is a difference between a USMS swimmer and a USA-S "older" swimmer, for all the reasons I stated above. If we're a different organization we should get to have different records. And, as Jeff said, I am all for anyone registering for USMS, swimming in a USMS meet and getting a record. Someone want to invite Phelps?

I think Jeff does have a point and I agree that a USAS swimmer and a USMS swimmer are different beasts and in reality need different organizations. The more I think about it I think that a masters record should be set by a masters swimmer. My mind is changed. There are a small handful of "professional" masters swimmers though. And they do set records by the boatload. Unfortunately it does make some of the records a little arbitrary knowing that there are dozens of swimmers out there who could beat them if they decided they had nothing better to do one weekend than swim a local masters meet. Say in some imaginary world I was able to break the 200 *** LCM record. I would feel thrilled and proud to have my name on a list somewhere, but it would also feel a little weird thinking I only have it because the 30 people also in my age group who are swimming faster just aren't doing it at a masters meet. I, of course, in no means want to belittle the achievement of getting a top 10 or record, world, national, or otherwise. I think it's an amazing fact to see, in reality, just how close the masters records are to the "real" records, and Karen like you say, 99% of those are set by people whose lives are not swimming and only swimming. Oh, and I don't think there should be any team scoring at championship meets either, for the arbitrariness we get from the whole small vs. large vs. local vs. regional mess. Swimming's an individual sport and relays would be more fun if they were open. But that's a different argument :)

Unfortunately it does make some of the records a little arbitrary knowing that there are dozens of swimmers out there who could beat them if they decided they had nothing better to do one weekend than swim a local masters meet. I know a few of my former competitors could wipe the floor with me if they were roused out of hibernation. So, in essence, I know there's someone out there who could swim faster, but they aren't swimming, so I don't dwell on it. Oh, and to bring up a little more history... Mark Warnecke won the 2005 worlds (the real world championships) in the 50 *** as a 35-year-old. His time was 27.63. If that were to be ratified as a Masters world record for the 35-39 age group, I would be a little peeved, because that's simply an unattainabe standard for a non-professional swimmer. But I would take comfort in knowing the 28.53 I swam last week was a national record. But to back up my claim that it's fine for elite swimmers to set Masters records if they are registered Masters swimmers who swim in Masters meets: Derya Buyukuncu swam in the Beijing Olympics for Turkey. Went 55.43 in the 100 back. Three months later, he tore up the 100 back SCM world record at a local Masters meet in California. I was pleased to see him swimming (though a little mad that it meant no #1 time for me in that event) and was proud to see him break Martin Zubero's world record. But what if we counted his55.43 from the Olympics? He wasn't representing Turkey as a Masters swimmer and the time shouldn't count.

If people are willing to get USMS membership, then those older Olympic caliber swimmers should have their times count toward Masters records. But, no membership, no record, period!

I'm with Chris Stevenson. FINA administers the world records for both "regular" and masters swimming, so why should there be a distinction? The Lezaks and Warneckes out there are already swimming under the auspices of FINA so why should it matter that they aren't swimming as masters swimmers? For USMS records, on the other hand, you obviously should need to be a USMS member.

The only thing that matters to me is the integrity of the records. This means events need to be properly sanctioned by the governing body (USMS) and officiated by officials opperating under the USMS umbrella. I know that the rules are 99.99% the same. I know that the same officials who work at USA-S meets work as USMS meets. But if you allow USA-S swims to count towards USMS records, then are you going to start allowing other leagues to count too? Where do you draw that line?

Derya Buyukuncu swam in the Beijing Olympics for Turkey. Went 55.43 in the 100 back. Three months later, he tore up the 100 back SCM world record at a local Masters meet in California. I was pleased to see him swimming (though a little mad that it meant no #1 time for me in that event) and was proud to see him break Martin Zubero's world record. But what if we counted his55.43 from the Olympics? He wasn't representing Turkey as a Masters swimmer and the time shouldn't count. Derya swims every single day at the 10:00am masters swim practice. He is affiliated with a USMS team. Required to in order to swim with the masters at that time. He represents Turkey in the Olympics because he can... when and if the country has a better backstroker, I know that Derya will welcome the swimmer to their national team. But Derya is legit.

The fuss of including Olympians in the Masters rankings might be more of a non-issue after a certain age. It makes total sense to record the fastest time for a given age group...namely the younger ones. Obviously they're already ranked with FINA. I agree with Jeff...that a membership with usms should be required. But would having Olympians at meets discourage the average swimmer from attending? ...or do just the opposite? It would be pretty exciting in my opinion.

However, the circumstances are quite different for elite USA-S swimmers and elite Masters. Lezak, et al., are paid to swim (housing, food, endorsements). They are still "real" swimmers, in that, that is what they do. That is a main focus in their life, and in fact, for some, their livelihood. Many of the USA-S elite swimmers do not have "real" jobs, or families (children that they are raising, to be clear; of course, except for Dara who has a full time nanny while she trains). On the other hand a lot of masters swimmers would be happy to swim 5x/wk for even an hour. It's not a blame thing, it's just a difference, that's all. I just always thought of Masters as adults who continue to want to swim, or compete, and also deal with a "real" life every day. And to me that makes the USMS records even more impressive. Just different circumstances between the USMS swimmer and the USA-S swimmer training as such. Every once in a while, this issue of "what makes a 'real' masters swimmer" comes up. I remember a slightly unpleasant thread where the accomplishments of Kevin Doak were somewhat demeaned because, essentially, he was young and trained a lot, even though he is a registered USMS swimmer. Even among "real" masters swimmers, many people's situations are vastly different. You have a single mother of four who might be competing against someone who was never married and has no children and trains for hours every day. Some people don't have access to coached workouts, or even a nice pool. Others retire early in life and like to train to fill the time. Situations differ, that's just the way it is. But the clock has no sympathy: whoever gets to the wall first wins. The current definition of a "real" masters swimmer is to be old enough and to be registered with a masters swimming organization. Most professional/elite swimmers can't be bothered to do that, but some do and I would hope they would be welcomed at masters meets even if they don't have a "real" job or a "real" family. Liking this proposal or not depends on your answer to a few questions: -- what do you want FINA records to represent? As I said earlier, I like the idea that FINA records are true world records and not just "world records for masters swimmers with jobs and families, unless they don't have those things, and provided they don't train too seriously or swim too fast." -- should FINA records only be set at designated masters meets? -- does a person need to be registered with a masters organization (the USMS of their country) to set a FINA record? I think reasonable people can differ in their answers to these questions. I focused only on FINA records since they are "world" records, but I suppose parallel considerations apply for national records for any particular country.