I think the whole "FINA doesn't care about SCY" argument is flimsy, though. No other rules are different, that I know about. (I sure would love to get rid of the 15m rule, for example.)
Rules that are different in USMS vs. FINA (most dealing with SCY only):
For SCY, your age for a meet is your age as of the last day of the meet. For SCM and LCM, we use the FINA rule that your age is your age as of December 31 that year.
For SCY, we have completely different age groups for relays (e.g. 25+, 35+, etc. as determined by the youngest swimmer on the relay vs. the FINA way of using the sum of ages and having 240-279, 280-319... age groups).
In USMS we support an 18-24 age group and associated relay age groups. The youngest Masters age group according to FINA is 25-29.
I think coverage is the real issue. Attracting Olympians is nice, to be sure, but I agree that should hardly be the sole incentive for changing masters rules since masters is for us all.
Well, I think it's a flip, not a flip flop. :D Everyone is entitled to one "motion for reconsideration." I think FINA issued a lot more contradictory rules -- total ban, partial ban w/specific criteria after "study," every suit in the known universe allowed, every single real tech suit and bodysuit (even those legal under the partial ban and legal since 2000) banned. So far, tech suits have still been legal in USMS. And, as SwimsWithAFist notes, there are other rules where USMS diverges from FINA. So USMS cares about FINA, but not slavishly so apparently. I find it encouraging that our ED is not slavish and can think independently about marketing USMS. Go Rob!
If coverage is such a big issue that SCM & LCM will truly be marginalized, then that argument suggest the suits are truly popular. To the extent that is relevant, that weighs in favor permitting them in SCY. In any event, SCY has always been the most popular course in the US and there has traditionally been fewer competitors in the other courses. I'm not sure whether that's because everyone likes SCY or because the vast majority of meets are in SCY.
I don't much like the idea that we have "awful" bodies either. But, let's face it, most of us don't look much like Cullen Jones or other 20 somethings.
Chris, I thought you were against equal coverage? Seems like a one way advantage to the guys to me. I still think bodysuits and zippers should be allowed with or without "rubber."
I am against equal coverage, personally. But I will vote for what I feel is in the best interest of USMS and of my LMSC. And "coverage" doesn't have to be tech suits; there are cheaper alternatives that do not confer a competitive advantage. Problem solved.
I think Rob is doing a good job, but I disagree with his reasoning on this one. And I don't think marketing should drive the rules of competition.
By the way, since when do you think "coverage is a real issue?" I recall you saying that the whole "modesty" thing wrt suits was bogus.
Very interesting...having been there in 2008, I would have swore that they used 10 lanes...but looking at the results on Omega....they sure did only use 8 per heat all the way through...
I am against equal coverage, personally. But I will vote for what I feel is in the best interest of USMS and of my LMSC. And "coverage" doesn't have to be tech suits; there are cheaper alternatives that do not confer a competitive advantage. Problem solved.
I think Rob is doing a good job, but I disagree with his reasoning on this one. And I don't think marketing should drive the rules of competition.
By the way, since when do you think "coverage is a real issue?" I recall you saying that the whole "modesty" thing wrt suits was bogus.
Isn't it a little silly to urge people to wear socks in the pool? Body suits have been around for a decade and are perfectly normal competition attire.
Yeah, I agree with you that swimmers are not generally in a position to be modest given the nature of our sport. I guess I've just heard enough swimmers raise it as an issue now, that I can't dismiss it as bogus.
I didn't mean to suggest that marketing USMS was the only reasoning behind Rob's "stirring it up" suggestion. But do you think, as you suggest, that popularity should be the driving force behind setting competitive rules? Purists wouldn't like that!
Would it be legal for a person with modesty concerns to wear a super compressive waterproof t-shirt? Or are t-shirts of any sort banned by the rule that goes into effect in June? I thought they were ...
Isn't it a little silly to urge people to wear socks in the pool? Body suits have been around for a decade and are perfectly normal competition attire.
Yeah, I agree with you that swimmers are not generally in a position to be modest given the nature of our sport. I guess I've just heard enough swimmers raise it as an issue now, that I can't dismiss it as bogus.
I didn't mean to suggest that marketing USMS was the only reasoning behind Rob's "stirring it up" suggestion. But do you think, as you suggest, that popularity should be the driving force behind setting competitive rules? Purists wouldn't like that!
Would it be legal for a person with modesty concerns to wear a super compressive waterproof t-shirt? Or are t-shirts of any sort banned by the rule that goes into effect in June? I thought they were ...
Yes it is silly; that was tongue-in-cheek. And my way of saying that "coverage" should not affect women swimsuits at all. I don't see how anything that Rob says is argument that women swimsuits should change from the current FINA-legal standard. (I also notice that there were only male "superstars" in attendance in Atlanta.)
Yes, t-shirts are illegal right now. But if modesty is truly the issue, than people who are embarrassed should be satisfied by a solution that does not provide a competitive advantage.
For the most part I do not hold with the "purity" argument, though I do think there should be one set of rules. As long as FINA said the suits were okay, I bit my tongue. I do not think much of the "masters are different" argument at all.
I've always thought masters swimmers were psychologically addicted to their suits. Rob is fanning the dying embers of that addiction, IMO. As far as I can tell, I don't believe it is in USMS' best interest. Time to move on.
Yes it is silly; that was tongue-in-cheek. And my way of saying that "coverage" should not affect women swimsuits at all. I don't see how anything that Rob says is argument that women swimsuits should change from the current FINA-legal standard. (I also notice that there were only male "superstars" in attendance in Atlanta.)
Yes, t-shirts are illegal right now. But if modesty is truly the issue, than people who are embarrassed should be satisfied by a solution that does not provide a competitive advantage.
For the most part I do not hold with the "purity" argument, though I do think there should be one set of rules. As long as FINA said the suits were okay, I bit my tongue. I do not think much of the "masters are different" argument at all.
I've always thought masters swimmers were psychologically addicted to their suits. Rob is fanning the dying embers of that addiction, IMO. As far as I can tell, I don't believe it is in USMS' best interest. Time to move on.
Addiction vs. Belief in Technology ... there is a difference. I am somewhat addicted, to be sure, to suits that don't stretch out after one meet. And, sheesh, it appears the cost is going to be practically the same for women. I wonder if it's the men who are more addicted (Cue Jim Thornton complaining about his belly and chest hair)? I've certainly heard more men complaining. And, if so, should Rob be flaming the dying embers of only the male addiction? Just askin'. :D
You bit your tongue? Hmmm ... And here I thought you'd been calling them "cheatin'" suits for ages ... You've always been focally anti-suit with the very appropriate caveat that you would vote for what your LMSC favors.
There was one female, a WC Trialist, who was in attendance in Atlanta and kicked everyone's ass and set numerous records: Tanika Jones. Of course, I could argue that the lack of women furthers my theory of male addiction ...
Send me a link to any FINA LCM World Champs or Olympic Games or USA Trials that used 10 lanes for competition and I'll buy you a cold one the next time I see you.
Not for competition. They have used 10 lane pools for meets, they haven't used 10 lanes for racing, but have used 10 lane pools where they have raced in 8 lanes(with the exception of last summers worlds, where they raced 9 in the finals of the women's 800)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant and wasn't clear on my thoughts.
Agreed. And it implies that the USMS brand is too weak to attract these swimmers without the suits. I would hope that even the most ardent techie would think that they are not the best thing about masters swimming.
If "coverage" is such a big issue than either the SCM and LCM seasons will be marginalized even more than ever -- b/c swimmers don't want to give up their crutches (I mean suits) -- or there will soon be a push to allow the suits in meters.
.
Agree with the first point 100%. If USMS doesn't follow it's own ruling, then it will look worse than FINA. If FINA changes it's mind one day, that is something different.
As for coverage, I don't mind jammers for meets. But I liked the coverage just to avoid having to shave down. Yes, I know the hair will stick through suits, but the drag is reduced considerably.
As someone who is somewhat hairy, though not as hairy as bearskin rug(mark gill) I like not having to waste time shaving. 20 mins to put on a suit vs. several hours trimming and then shaving? I will take the pain of a suit anyday
