I would like to nominate Andy Seibt as the greatest masters swimmer of all time. For those of you who are unaware, Andy swam the Big Shoulders open water race this weekend (it is also the USMS OW National Championship meet) and absolutely destroyed the field. And this was no slouch of a field: two college swimmers - one went a 4:24 in the 500 free in March the other a 3:47 in the 400IM! For comparisons sake, Andy went a 5:06 and 4:43 respectively in those events. Startling, I know! But it doesn't end there. Adam Dawkins, who in March beat Andy by more than a full minute in the 1,000 free and is also an experienced Open Water swimmer having completed the English Channel just 4 weeks ago was no match for our hero. Andy beat Adam by 3 seconds per 100M!!! But it DOESN'T even end there!!! There were two more swimmers in the event who beat Andy by a minute or more in the mile in March. Both of these swimmers were bested by Andy by several minutes.
Just how good was this swim? Well it is not a stretch to say that it was the single greatest swim in the history of USMS. BY FAR. Imagine a 51 year old man going a 15:15 in the 1650 or 9:10 in the 1,000. It is difficult to compare open water events to pool events, but the margin of victory (one and half minutes over 5,000 M) over the quality field cannot be over-stated.
Quite honestly I can see no reason why Andy shouldn't be put in the International Swimming Hall of Fame on this swim alone. I know that John Smith just threw up in his mouth, but until Mr. Smith starts going a 43 in the 100 free he is panty waste compared to Andy. In fact, we all owe Andy a debt of gratitude because we no longer have to view the Smiths with any kind of awe as their collection of swims (as well as the swims of many others) have been so greatly eclipsed by this feat.
This swim should reinvent the sport of Masters swimming. Been stuck in the same rut for 14 years of Masters swimming? A good number of top 10 times per year but never that huge breakthrough. Well here you have it folks. Next year I too will have my 20% improvement. Mark me down for the World Record in the 50M free. Anything is possible, just dream big baby. Although technically why wait a year. Andy improved this much since June.
One ancillary note is we can add to this story is that we can finally put to bed the "late bloomers theory," as postulated by my friend Ion Beza. But that's a whole 'nother story.
(PS: Andy if this posts somehow ends up in front of you I personally want to tell you that I am sorry you have been put through this. But I will continue to be vociferous about the validity of this swim. From all accounts you are a swell guy. But you need to be honest with yourself and recognize that you are not capable of this miraculous feat. That is a tough thing to do, I am sure. But you didn't ask for the error and you don't have anything to be ashamed about. You are still one heck of a swimmer. Just not the greatest of all time.)
So when you see something is wrong, you only do something about it if you have a vested interest?
This reminds me of a legal concept called "standing to sue" which basically says, as I understand it, that you can only bring suit if you are the party injured and if the courts can remedy the situation.
I guess Mollie is saying, and I tend to agree, is: why are you so vocal on this if you really have no stake in the matter? There are no records that were set. It didn't cost you a place in a national championship. If you feel that the race is run poorly, you can elect not to participate in it in the future.
I can see other people in the race might be concerned. I can see members of the Long Distance Committee being concerned if they thought a national championship was not run properly. You've raised questions, fine, but now you are at an impasse. Starting this additional thread does seem a little mean-spirited in that light, even if you didn't intend it that way.
So when you see something is wrong, you only do something about it if you have a vested interest?
This reminds me of a legal concept called "standing to sue" which basically says, as I understand it, that you can only bring suit if you are the party injured and if the courts can remedy the situation.
I guess Mollie is saying, and I tend to agree, is: why are you so vocal on this if you really have no stake in the matter? There are no records that were set. It didn't cost you a place in a national championship. If you feel that the race is run poorly, you can elect not to participate in it in the future.
I can see other people in the race might be concerned. I can see members of the Long Distance Committee being concerned if they thought a national championship was not run properly. You've raised questions, fine, but now you are at an impasse. Starting this additional thread does seem a little mean-spirited in that light, even if you didn't intend it that way.
