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.
From what I have learned from your posts, you take the average 6-10 place times from Top Ten from each event/age group/sex and then average that time over the past 3 years and then apply a factor (+5%, +10%, +15, ..., +40% etc) to come up with times for each "grade."
Correct.
I personally like the idea of using the 3 year average instead of using only the fastest time from those three years (USS method).
As I understand it, the USS times are determined by the fastest ever times, not the fastest times in the last quad. (As explained by krovetz in post #105, although his link is now dead.)
I've decided I like this rolling average method better, too. Using all-time best times would make the standards more stable, but in this post-tech suit era those high-water marks might be a little too far out of reach. I like the fact that the next step above AAAA on the chart is making the Top Ten list.
That is interesting to see your observation about the times being 1% faster. How much of that do you think is the influence of 2010 times being added and how much is it the fact that 2007 times got dropped from the table?
I can't say. When I get some time, I plan to look at the year-to-year trends in the Top Ten. Maybe then I'll be able to answer your question.
PS. Steve - do you attend convention?
Nope. I really don't know anything about it, but I assume I'd have to be a representative, or something.
From what I have learned from your posts, you take the average 6-10 place times from Top Ten from each event/age group/sex and then average that time over the past 3 years and then apply a factor (+5%, +10%, +15, ..., +40% etc) to come up with times for each "grade."
Correct.
I personally like the idea of using the 3 year average instead of using only the fastest time from those three years (USS method).
As I understand it, the USS times are determined by the fastest ever times, not the fastest times in the last quad. (As explained by krovetz in post #105, although his link is now dead.)
I've decided I like this rolling average method better, too. Using all-time best times would make the standards more stable, but in this post-tech suit era those high-water marks might be a little too far out of reach. I like the fact that the next step above AAAA on the chart is making the Top Ten list.
That is interesting to see your observation about the times being 1% faster. How much of that do you think is the influence of 2010 times being added and how much is it the fact that 2007 times got dropped from the table?
I can't say. When I get some time, I plan to look at the year-to-year trends in the Top Ten. Maybe then I'll be able to answer your question.
PS. Steve - do you attend convention?
Nope. I really don't know anything about it, but I assume I'd have to be a representative, or something.
