What Records Have You Broken?

This thread has not been getting the attention that the Top Ten thread has so I decided to spice things up here. There seems to be a World Hierarchy of Swimming Accomplishments that determines greatness in the history of Swimming. For Swimming since it began, the two first accomplishments that come to mind are Olympic Gold Medals and World Records. Later with World Championships being introduced, that became an importance as well. Because different countries have different championships and different status and history of past championships there won't be an agreement as to hierarchy of swimming championships. European, Pan Pac, Pan American, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc. With Swimming I believe the top Accomplishments are: 1. Olympic Gold Medals 2. World Records 3. World Championship Gold Medals 4. Total Olympic Medals 5. Total World Championship Medals 6. Total World Number 1 Rankings 7. Total World Rankings From there it depends on the country and what emphasis they put on major meets. For Masters I came up with a list and based it on what the ISHOF and Swimming World do and added what I think comes next in the World Hierarchy of Swimming Accomplishments. This list would be as it pertains to US Masters Swimming today but the first 3 items would be the same just like the first 7 items for Swimming in the entire world. 1. FINA World Records 2. FINA World Number 1 Swims in the World Top Ten 3. FINA World Championship Meet Titles 4. USMS National Records 5. USMS Pool All Star Selections 6. USMS Number 1 Swims in the USMS Top Ten 7. USMS All American Pool Selections 8. USMS National Meet Championships 9. FINA World Top Ten Selections 10. USMS National Top Ten Selections There are places to debate with this list. Numbers 8 and 9 could be could be flip flopped but I felt it would be harder to win a National Meet Championship then get in the World Top Ten but in a lot of age groups this could not be true. World Records seem to be by far the Number 1 important accomplishment and the only difference with Swimming is that we don't have an Olympics where every major athlete can show up and compete. We have the opportunities with the World Championships but with family, work, and financial obligations this can't happen.

1. FINA World Records 2. FINA World Number 1 Swims in the World Top Ten 3. FINA World Championship Meet Titles 4. USMS National Records 5. USMS Pool All Star Selections 6. USMS Number 1 Swims in the USMS Top Ten 7. USMS All American Pool Selections 8. USMS National Meet Championships 9. FINA World Top Ten Selections 10. USMS National Top Ten Selections There are places to debate with this list. Aren't 6 and 7 the same? I think 2 is ranked higher than it should be. I believe, for example, that (for most age groups) 4 and 5 are usually harder than 2. #3 depends a lot on the meet. Some years (and some age groups) it is much harder to win USMS Nationals than to win Worlds. My own list -- colored by my experiences in 40-44 and now 45-49 -- would rank them 1. FINA World Records 2. USMS National Records 3. USMS Pool All Star Selections 4. FINA World Number 1 Swims in the World Top Ten 5. USMS Number 1 Swims in the USMS Top Ten 6. FINA World Championship Meet Titles 7. USMS National Meet Championships 8. FINA World Top Ten Selections 9. USMS National Top Ten Selections Wonder why FINA doesn't have the equivalent of All-Star selections? I didn't think of it until I looked at this list. I would have put it between 2 and 3 on my list. How about Long Distance recognition? You've got LD All-Stars and LD AAs. I'd put the latter as #10, to be honest, but I'm not sure where I'd put the LD All-Stars... Oh, and while I agree that WRs should be #1, there are some USMS records that are faster than existing WRs (eg, if done at a USA-S meet, or if they missed the WR application deadline of 60 days).

I made a difference between 6 and 7 because of the number of times someone can be Number 1. You need one swim at Number 1 to be All American. You could have 20 Number 1 swims in the top ten and that would be a difference between swimmers in those categories. The reason I put World Number 1 Swims at 2 and World Championships at 3 was because you can compare great swimmers from around the world with those two categories. With 4 and 5, it would just be USMS swimmers and you could be right but then you could not compare the great swimmers from around the world. Just like Swimming, there is something you can compare for the first 7 items and I kind of modeled this from that. The World Top Ten does discriminate a little against USMS because they ignore short course yard swims and I believe even though we have some great swims in SCM, we don't have as much as SCY and with our National Meet being SCY, USMS loses something there. I agree with you on the World Championships and it depends on who shows up in the age group and where the meet is held. I remember Dennis Baker was getting ready to swim an event at the 2006 World Championships and I volunteered as a Marshall and noticed in his heat that he had Sergei Fesenko, who was the 1980 Olympic Medalist, Roger Von Jouanne, who was an American Record holder, Cammeron Reid, National Team member, Marcus Mattioli, 1980 Olympian, and Bill Specht, ISHOF Masters swimmer all in the same heat for the World Championship. This is an example of when Number 3 is really Number 3.

Aren't 6 and 7 the same? My own list -- colored by my experiences in 40-44 and now 45-49 -- would rank them 1. FINA World Records 2. USMS National Records 3. USMS Pool All Star Selections 4. FINA World Number 1 Swims in the World Top Ten 5. USMS Number 1 Swims in the USMS Top Ten 6. FINA World Championship Meet Titles 7. USMS National Meet Championships 8. FINA World Top Ten Selections 9. USMS National Top Ten Selections Wonder why FINA doesn't have the equivalent of All-Star selections? I didn't think of it until I looked at this list. I would have put it between 2 and 3 on my list. How about Long Distance recognition? You've got LD All-Stars and LD AAs. I'd put the latter as #10, to be honest, but I'm not sure where I'd put the LD All-Stars... Oh, and while I agree that WRs should be #1, there are some USMS records that are faster than existing WRs (eg, if done at a USA-S meet, or if they missed the WR application deadline of 60 days). I don't know why they don't have an All Star list? They don't have one for Swimming either. Long Distance would have to be a separate category. When they get a data base of swims from around the country and get there point system, they could do something like this. For the World right now, I don't think you could compare masters like you can with Swimming. With Grand Prix's and World events they can do that. We really don't have any Open Water Records except Cable and Postal Swims. So swimmers in the Open Water events would not be getting credit like the cable and postal swims. The data base would have to be set up with a point system or some parameters because unlike the pool, you can't compare times from races in equal distances. With all this, I think a USMS Hierarchy could be set up for Masters Long Distance Swimming but not a World Hierarchy. We are always going to have a problem with the USMS National Records being faster than the World Records because of swims being done in non sanctioned meets. FINA is not going to change this and I believe every swimmer of this caliber knows that so they just have to get to a sanctioned masters meet and swim the World Record.

The reason I put World Number 1 Swims at 2 and World Championships at 3 was because you can compare great swimmers from around the world with those two categories. With 4 and 5, it would just be USMS swimmers and you could be right but then you could not compare the great swimmers from around the world. Just like Swimming, there is something you can compare for the first 7 items and I kind of modeled this from that. The World Top Ten does discriminate a little against USMS because they ignore short course yard swims and I believe even though we have some great swims in SCM, we don't have as much as SCY and with our National Meet being SCY, USMS loses something there. I agree with you on the World Championships and it depends on who shows up in the age group and where the meet is held. I remember Dennis Baker was getting ready to swim an event at the 2006 World Championships and I volunteered as a Marshall and noticed in his heat that he had Sergei Fesenko, who was the 1980 Olympic Medalist, Roger Von Jouanne, who was an American Record holder, Cammeron Reid, National Team member, Marcus Mattioli, 1980 Olympian, and Bill Specht, ISHOF Masters swimmer all in the same heat for the World Championship. This is an example of when Number 3 is really Number 3. Stanford Worlds was incredibly fast, I'm not sure I would hold that meet up as a "typical" World Champs meet. Anyway, I agree that the world stage is usually harder than the national stage. With the exception of All-Stars, I paired everything up: first FINA then USMS records; FINA #1 then USMS #1; FINA champion then USMS champion. But I don't think, for example, that it is usually harder to win World Championships than to get a USMS #1 ranking. But as I said, my opinion is colored by being in 40-44 and 45-49 age groups recently, and maybe they are not typical. (It wouldn't be difficult -- though a little tedious -- to test my assertion: just see how many times the USMS #1 would win Worlds, or vice versa, in a given year.) But any of these items is difficult. It is a challenge to use either list as a "checklist" to see which -- or how many -- one can do. Even doing one of these things is a cause for celebration.

1. FINA World Records 2. FINA World Number 1 Swims in the World Top Ten 3. FINA World Championship Meet Titles 4. USMS National Records 5. USMS Pool All Star Selections 6. USMS Number 1 Swims in the USMS Top Ten 7. USMS All American Pool Selections 8. USMS National Meet Championships 9. FINA World Top Ten Selections 10. USMS National Top Ten Selections There are places to debate with this list. Numbers 8 and 9 could be could be flip flopped but I felt it would be harder to win a National Meet Championship then get in the World Top Ten but in a lot of age groups this could not be true. I would flip 8 and 9 since I have achieved 8 but not 9. Also even though I'm sure others will disagree, I'd add Zone records and LMSC records somewhere above 10 on the list. For me, getting top tens each year is achievable but I've never broken an LMSC record or a Zone record. Smilies: :blah::bliss::bouncing::bolt::cheerleader:

I would flip 8 and 9. I concur. The winning time in an event at USMS Nationals often isn't the year's #1 time in USMS for that event, or the winner's fastest time of the season for that event. Sometimes the winning time isn't even in the USMS Top Ten for that event and that year. Swimming well in the right place at the right time to get the National Champion patch is a significant achievement, but I think that making the FINA Top Ten is marginally better.

I'd add Zone records and LMSC records somewhere above 10 on the list. The problem is that not all LMSCs or Zones track records. And they aren't "official" in the same sense (ie, subject to the same level of scrutiny) that Top 10 or USMS records are.

Frank, One can debate the order of your list with terrific arguments. I won't do that. However, I think there is another designation that should be added, and that is FINA All-Time top ten list. This is a list that shows longevity. Example in the 60 -64 SCM 100 free shows Jeff Farrell listed in the top ten all time from a swim in 2000. In the 800 free, Drury Gallagher is listed from '98. If you are on the list going back 10 - 12 years, I would say that is a big accomplishment, particularly in the 100 free which is a very popular event.

I agree about the #1s and TT.From my perusal,most years if Worlds are not in the US,the Nats time is the faster time.