When I started swimming masters a few years ago, I soon found myself wanting some time standards to compare myself against. Sure, tracking my own PRs is motivating, but I also wanted some sort of objective mark to measure myself against.
There is the Top 10 list, of course, but I'm not close enough to those times for them to serve as realistic motivation. Nationals qualifying times provide a slightly lower bar, but these are still out of many masters' reach. It seems like there should be some sort of time standards that are more widely applicable -- like the A, AA, ... motivational times in kids' age group swimming.
I did use those USA Swimming motivational times for a while, but I got tired of comparing myself to 12-year-olds. Eventually I decided to create my own masters' motivational time standards, using the same method that is used for the kids.
I have really enjoyed using these motivational times over the past couple of years, and I'm guessing they might be useful to others as well. Especially for those, like me, who are competitive enough to be motivated by a quantitative benchmark, but not fast enough to aspire to the Top 10 list.
I have just updated the SCY list, and figured I would post it here for others to use.
Please enjoy. I'd also love to hear any feedback.
That's where you lose me ....
In what sense: that you don't agree with the assumption, or that you don't understand the statement?
The assumption being incorrect basically affects the ability to use the rating as a basis to compare performances in different events or between genders. For example, I can pick two very impressive swims from the NEM swim meet.
Mike Ross, age 41, 50 back: 25.53, rated at 104.6
Karlyn Pipes-Neilsen, age 47, 200 fly: 2:23.18, rated at 104.2
Consider how difficult a comparison this is: different genders, different ages, different events. The rating system gives a slight nod to Mike's swim. But that assumes that the records for women's 200 SCM fly are -- as a whole -- equally as tough as the men's 50 SCM back records. If we wish to use the rating in this manner, you are basically forced to make that assumption. So the accuracy of the statement, "Mike's swim is a little more impressive than Karlyn's" is only as good as that assumption is true.
If you also compare across courses (eg, to Mike's 100 SCY back from last year was 48.49, rated at 106.9), you have to make a further assumption that SCM records are equally as hard as SCY records. This is a dubious assumption in my mind, though I think the SCM records have gotten much tougher over the last 5-10 years. But if you want to make comparisons across courses, you really are stuck with making an assumption of this type.
Finally, all of those ratings use 2007 (pre-LZR) records to evaluate swims done in LZR-era suits, which tends to inflate those ratings and make it difficult to compare to older swims.
But if you use the ratings in a more limited sense, such as personal goal-setting, fewer assumptions need to be made. If my rating in a given event improves over the years, it means that I am withstanding the rigors of aging better than the record-holders in that event. That's not a bad thing...
That's where you lose me ....
In what sense: that you don't agree with the assumption, or that you don't understand the statement?
The assumption being incorrect basically affects the ability to use the rating as a basis to compare performances in different events or between genders. For example, I can pick two very impressive swims from the NEM swim meet.
Mike Ross, age 41, 50 back: 25.53, rated at 104.6
Karlyn Pipes-Neilsen, age 47, 200 fly: 2:23.18, rated at 104.2
Consider how difficult a comparison this is: different genders, different ages, different events. The rating system gives a slight nod to Mike's swim. But that assumes that the records for women's 200 SCM fly are -- as a whole -- equally as tough as the men's 50 SCM back records. If we wish to use the rating in this manner, you are basically forced to make that assumption. So the accuracy of the statement, "Mike's swim is a little more impressive than Karlyn's" is only as good as that assumption is true.
If you also compare across courses (eg, to Mike's 100 SCY back from last year was 48.49, rated at 106.9), you have to make a further assumption that SCM records are equally as hard as SCY records. This is a dubious assumption in my mind, though I think the SCM records have gotten much tougher over the last 5-10 years. But if you want to make comparisons across courses, you really are stuck with making an assumption of this type.
Finally, all of those ratings use 2007 (pre-LZR) records to evaluate swims done in LZR-era suits, which tends to inflate those ratings and make it difficult to compare to older swims.
But if you use the ratings in a more limited sense, such as personal goal-setting, fewer assumptions need to be made. If my rating in a given event improves over the years, it means that I am withstanding the rigors of aging better than the record-holders in that event. That's not a bad thing...
