PDA

View Full Version : Enforcement of NQT's for National Championships



cjr
May 8th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Has the Championship Committee, or other entity within USMS ever discussed having a more strict policy of enforcement in regards to the NQT's?

Why do we state that you must have 3 cuts, in order to swim more events? Why not require a swimmer to have 6 cuts in order to swim 6 events?

Just like to understand more from a historical point of view. I have read post that asked, or suggested how to control the size and length of the National meets. Would not having a stricter enforcement of this policy help? Or would it cause swimmers to shy away from these meets?

Just a curious thought.

Thank you.

Matt S
May 8th, 2003, 05:24 PM
CJ,

Just a bit of background info, the suggestion that Nationals should be limited to those who can make an NQT touched off what has been the most controversial forum discussion topic in the history of this website. To outline the pros and cons:

Pros: it's an effective way to keep Nationals from getting out of control and ensuring optimal conditions for competition. It limits "National Championships" to those who have a legitimate shot at being National Champions. It's widely used and everyone already understands it.

Cons: U.S. Masters was originally founded as an inclusive sport where everyone was encouraged to participate regardless of ability; this would be contrary to that value. The goals and the participation of slower swimmers are just as worthy as those of faster swimmers. It is not yet necessary; Nationals are still managable with proper organization.

I'm not sure we want to go there.

Matt

theberb
May 8th, 2003, 05:33 PM
I think that those who wish to swim at the national meet should have the opportunity. I understand the concept of qualifying times and I agree that there should be some. Some of us master's swimmers don't make those times or even come close and some may never get to that level. I think the just the experience is so valuable. It is an opportunity that may never come again as well. I would have never even considered going if I had to qualify for all the events i signed up for and many in the group i swim with would not either. We wish to go, swim an event or two, cheer on our team mates. I think competition is a great thing but it's not as fun without your team mates cheering you on and wanting to be there to share the experience with you in and out of the water. :D

Paul Smith
May 8th, 2003, 06:29 PM
Here we go again eh, Matt? I will exhibit self control and only allow myself one post on this much debated topic, mainly because Matt and I had different viewpoints.

Matt, to your "Pro" summary I must disagree (from my perspective and others I have spoken to about this). It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion. Nor was it supported to try and attain "ideal" conditons to become one.

The "Pro" camp that I fall into feels:

1) Meets should not be so large that the races go until 9pm or 10pm in the evening (not a problem in recent years). By setting "reasonable" time standards we limit the number of heats swum.

2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?

3) Very debatable point; but the idea that goal setting and attainment through progessive steps ads value comes into play. I think I made the point that I'd love to play in the masters nationals for 40-44 in tennis without going through the qualifying rounds. However I understand that I need to work my way up through local, state and regional events, which for me makes it far more valuabe than if it we're "given" to me.

OK, I'm done......fire away!!!

PS: Matt, did you ever get a new suit?

Ion Beza
May 8th, 2003, 09:37 PM
I compare these two statements:

Originally posted by Paul Smith

...
It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion.
...
2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?
...

1) The first one (i.e.: "It was never a way of "limiting" the field to those with a "legitimate" shot at being a national champion."), is barely true in NQTs for men ages 40 to 44:

the NQT being 10% slower than the average of the last three years' tenth times, allows competing by the ones with a 'legitimate' shot at being a national champion, plus a few other ones who are close behind;

as a late starter in swimming who joined my first swimming club at age 28, I don't measure up to these NQT standards, no matter that I trained and train harder and smarter than the national top ten swimmers;

it is because a late starter at 28 who raises to a higher level than mine -for example someone who started at 28 to become a Michael Phelps (U.S.) alike and make the Olympic Team-, doesn't exist through history;

physiology specialized for swimming -like striated tissue defending joint ligaments from the water pounding a swimmer's body- develops in the teenage years of age-group swimming, not later than that;

also, most USMS clubs that I saw and see in California, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee are not instilling a competitive swimming spirit in workouts, like the age-groups clubs do;
the USMS clubs address mostly the encompassing of non-competitive masses of members;
a late starter in swimming finds the competitive spirit of swimming in USMS clubs, only when looking almost with a flashlight -like I do- for the exceptionally competitive USMS coach and club;

2) The second one (i.e.: "2) Some reasonable cut off time should be set for most events. Much of the concern about this is in distance events, for example if the QT for the mens 50-54 1650 is 21:36.80, should someone with an NQT of 1:30.22 be allowed to swim?"), is true in an exaggerated way:

someone with a time of one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds for the 1650 freestyle, hasn't done a proper work to be in shape;
I say this, since even by being a late starter in swimming but doing consistent workouts to be in shape, I produce a 1650 in less than twenty-two minutes;

3) Then, what is a fair NQT, between two extremes, one in 1) (of former top age-groupers, now in USMS making competitive NQTs) and one in 2) (of a slob)?

I think it is slower than the average time of the last three years' tenths times plus 10% -so that it includes competitive late starters like me-, but is less than one hour, thirty minutes, twenty-two seconds;

it should also consider how non-standardized across U.S. the local meets are, since the notion of 'regional' and 'zone' meets is not uniform throughout U.S. to provide the same climbing ladder anywhere in U.S..

4) I notice that the NQTs for men 45 to 49 are easier;
however that won't last for much more than two years, because beasts like Fritz Lehman, Bill Specht, Tom McCabe, Paul Carter, Andreas Seibt, Brett Phillips, will graduate soon or just graduated from the 40 to 44, and will quickly raise the NQTs in the 45 to 49.

5) This topic is recycled by new members of the forum;

when it was discussed the last time, I remember that Hugh Moore stated that the Nationals needs money from a number of participants since it doesn't break even easily;

for example, I remember Michael (not Hugh) Moore stating that the 2001 Short Course Nationals in Santa Clara was assigned to Santa Clara;

because there were no bids.

Beards247
May 8th, 2003, 10:16 PM
To ya'll -

I appreciate Matt's summation of the view points and Paul's clarification on the "pro" NQT point of view.

From the sounds of it, our brilliant and wonderful leaders have mitigated this mine field well. Tall Paul, People are only allowed to swim three events they have not qualified for - effectively reducing the large volume of swimmers. Matt, by allowing three swims even if NQT is not met, the meet is inclusive of all people who would like to swim.

I doubt I have added anything much to this conversation, but I hope I have highlighted how well the rules fall between the two "camps".

:o
Now here comes my soap box: As a person on the cusp of SCY NQT's, they are a source of motivation for me to stay focused. Knowing that all of the people I swim with will never come close to NQT's, they still enjoy going to the meets - to marvel at those who can, gain motivation, and socialize - the very nature of USMS swimming.

Chris

michaelmoore
May 9th, 2003, 01:16 AM
It should be pointed out that about 85% of the splashes are by swimmers who have entered 4 or more events. That does not mean that swimmer made all of the NQTs.

Of the swimmers who did not swim a NQT or faster time at a recent nationals, there was high percentage of locals. Which is what we would expect. One of the things about nationals is that it can be used as a recruiting tool for the local LMSC. (Nationals are coming to the area, join USMS, practice then swim at Nationals).

I think most people are satisfied with the size of SCY nationals, the days are not too terribly long. It is the LCM championships that are too long right now. It presents a problem. If there were two heats of every age group, it would be too long. The problem is how to limit it. It appears we will do it by NQTs. The current 10th plus ten may allow too many swimmers to make NQTs. It will be a problem on how to get them under control.


michael

Matt S
May 12th, 2003, 04:26 PM
Paul,

I'd prefer not to engage you in another serious debate on this subject (it's much more fun to sling non sequitur, ad hominem barbs at you over nothing in particular :p )! My point was not to mischaracterize your view, I was trying to summarize the main points of several folks in the pro-NQT camp. I think Emmett was the leading advocate of Nationals should be for those with a legit shot at being National Champions.

Me, I like things just the way they are. I get my 3 events any year I would like to go. Folks like you and Karlyn can swim as many as 6. And for that slice of the population for whom an NQT is a challenge, but an attainable one, they get a motivating tool.

Good luck at SCY's.

Matt

Paul Smith
May 12th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Matt,
Maybe we'll see more of each other if you get sent out west, I'll miss seeing/harassing both you and Priscilla this year! Looks like Ion will have to enjoy more abuse than necessary (Ion remember the two "key" words from la Jolla?).

By the way, you never answered my question about getting a new suit, must be the real reason you aren't coming! :)

Ion Beza
May 12th, 2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith

...
Ion remember the two "key" words from la Jolla?
...

I remember.

Matt S
May 13th, 2003, 10:15 AM
Paul,

You have an unnatural fascination with full body swim suits. Yes, I bought a shoulders to knees Speedo at the end of Seattle LCN's, and it has been my competition suit (pool and open water, including the Big Shoulders swim in Lake Michigan, thank you very much) ever since. Results? A meet record in the 200m fly, a PR in the 50m fly, masters best times in the 200m, 500y and 1650y free, and a 5k open water time (fresh water no less!) that still boggles my imagination.

Matt

Paul Smith
May 13th, 2003, 10:57 AM
Matt, actually its not a matter of fascination with full body suits (although I'm gald to hear of your results).

Rather, its the fear that Laura, Priscilla, Ion and I have that you might wear that old one with the hole in the butt and shock innocent men, women and children who happen to be watching!

No doubt the great improvements are a combination of your "religous" devotion to TI and the lack of drag that occurs when all body flesh is tucked in where it should be! :D

cinc3100
May 22nd, 2003, 12:32 AM
I think we need more smaller meets. But some states have small populations and its a great distance even to go to a state meet. for them. We have a few local ones in the Tucson area and Phoenix Metro has the other meets. Flaggstaff has one meet. The distances between Tucson and Phoenix is similar between LA and San Diego which is not bad. As for nationals making everyone qualifying, I don't know. Swimmers like Ion and Matt would not be able to go to nationals until they are 50 years old. And they do like to swim it. Others like myself who only qualified last summer in the 50 meter breastroke it isn't as important since I didn't even go to the local nationals in my area.

Dominick Aielloeaver
May 22nd, 2003, 01:29 PM
How would you arrange smaller meets

cinc3100
May 22nd, 2003, 10:16 PM
Well, it depends upon the local teams and of course the facility needs to be able. Our next door neighbor-SPMA had about 6 meets this past short course. But they have about 20 teams that compete in master events. Some different clubs are more able and willling to do it.SPMA is in an area of 16 million people bigger than the population of most states. In Arizona, the Phoenix metro is about 3 million, the size of Orange County in the SPMA, they held about three meets in Orange County in short course. I don't know if local members can get their local teams to do more meets. For the smaller population states that have maybe 10 teams in the whole state that are hundreds miles apart this is harder to do.

Dominick Aielloeaver
May 23rd, 2003, 12:50 AM
I think that is apart of the soluation. But I do not belong to any clubs . But it would be nice to get to some of the meets that way. But what would we do we a meet like the Nationals?:rolleyes:

Frosty
May 25th, 2003, 02:25 PM
C.J.,

I don't know if the leaders have discussed actually ENFORCING NQTs, but if they have, they have discovered that NQTs in their current form are really unenforceable. To proactively police NQTs, you would have to establish some sort of verification system for times that would be painful and expensive.

I think that the leaders see that what is in place now works well enough...members are honest (enough) with the current NQT system that the nationals remain "at a reasonable size". (If not, the no-sixth event rule can always be invoked.)

Ion Beza
May 29th, 2003, 10:26 AM
For curiosity reasons, I post that in another world, the world of Olympics, www.swiminfo.com wrote yesterday that the Olympics do enforce now their kind of NQT:

.) if a country has many competitors with the 'Olympic Qualifying Time A' in an event, then that country can send two competitors that made the time 'A' to the Olympics in that event,

.) if a country has at least one competitor with the slower 'Olympic Qualifying Time B' in an event, then that country can send one competitor that made the time 'B' to the Olympics in that event,

.) if a country doesn't have anybody with at least the slower 'Olympic Qualifying Time B' in an event, then the International Oltmpic Commitee decided two days ago that the country doesn't send anylonger a competitor to the Olympics in that event.

The Olympic swimming has a different mission than USMS swimming, though.

Beards247
May 29th, 2003, 12:03 PM
I think this is a travesty! No more Eddie the Eagles or Jamacian Bob Sled teams? (or was the ruling only for swimming?).

Are they a waste of time? On some level yes. But they are also living proof that sports are not only for the most elite.

my .02,

Chris

Rob Copeland
May 29th, 2003, 12:37 PM
Chris, according to the SwimInfo article, this ruling applies to all sports.

“IOC president Jacques Rogge parted ways with his predecessor, Juan Antonio Samaranch, resolving the debate by saying the IOC will eliminate "wild card" entries in the Games. Under the "wild card" rule, each country was allowed one male and one female entrant in each sport, regardless of that individual's accomplishments.”

Sam Perry
May 29th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Sports may not be for the most elite, but the Olympics should be.

If the Olympics were meant to be the "World Championships" in many sports so important to only happen once every four years, then the competitors should be ones that are the elite competitors not only in their country but in the world also.

Yes Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bobsledders were a nice respite from very intense and exciting competition, but the more they have these "wild card" entries, the more it takes away from the amazing competition we see only once every four years.

cinc3100
May 30th, 2003, 12:00 AM
I think that swimming should follow figure skating. In the worlds they allowed a group that can qualify by lower standards. In the United States that similar to someone that goes to Jr Nationals. But in the olympics they allowed less people to compete. The reason behind allowing more countries entries were to promote swimming and other sports in third world countries. Think of this you guys, India has a billion people but a very poor swim program and its no poorer country than China. African countries the poorest on the planet only have swimmers from South Africa that are white that can compete against the rest of the world. Unlike Track and field in order to swim half decent, you need a half decent 50 meter pool or at least a 25 meter pool. and a coach that has some background with swimming. I think that olympic swimming should allow the better swimmers and the worlds can allow the third world countries a chance to compete in order to promote swimming in other parts of the world. We train the top swimmers from Latin America and parts of Asia during their high school and college years and a few years after that. So, some of these other countries need some help too.

cjr
May 30th, 2003, 09:51 AM
Good morning,

I think we are bringing up very good points.

I think having NQT's are a good thing. Some people can acheive one, other can achieve all of them. The biggest reason is it gives you something to shoot for. For the most part I have made and NQT in all the events that I normally swim. It is fun to try to make them in "off" events.

I agree with you Dan, it maybe expensive to do but it works at the USA level. How, I do not know.

I suggested this a long time ago. If controling the size of Nationals is an issue, then why not have 2, and East and a West. That is how the old USS Jr. Nationals were. Now they actual have 3. And I believe that they have some sort of regional meets prior to the Nationals.

How about adding events such as 400 Free, 400 Medley and 800 Free Relay at Nationals?

Just some thoughts on the subject.
:)

MegSmath
May 30th, 2003, 10:20 AM
I personally would not like the idea of an East and West Nationals, because I look forward to seeing people from different parts of the country when I go to Nationals. If I had to go East and Jody Welborn had to go West, we could never go head to head in the 200 breast again! Also, for a lot of the older competitors, the only time they have any competition in their age group at all is at Nationals, and they really look forward to that.

It seems to me that the size of Nationals right now is manageable. The size has been holding fairly steady for the last several years.

We may have to go to verifying NQTs at some point if it seems that the honor system is being abused, but I think for the most part we're pretty honest. Just because USA Swimming does it doesn't mean we have to, or that it's feasible for us to do it. I can foresee a verification system having a lot of administrative costs. I give a lot of time to USMS volunteering, but that's not the way I'd choose to spend my time.

On the subject of Olympic qualifying: remember, the Jamaican bobsledders started out not being competitive, using hand-me-down bobsleds, but they eventually became pretty good, and have every right to be there now. And remember "Eric the Eel"? The guy from an African nation who struggled to finish the 100 free, and thought he'd won the entire event when he received so much applause just for finishing? (He also struggled to keep his suit up because he hadn't tied the drawstring, but that's another story.) He wasn't a white South African. But he most likely is an exception. I'm sure you could count on one hand the number of black competitive swimmers in the continent of Africa. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against enforcing qualifying for the Olympics. Just making a comment.

Meg

Ion Beza
May 30th, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by cjr

...
For the most part I have made and NQT in all the events that I normally swim.
...

You don't make NQTs in men ages 40 to 44, with a 100% adult swimming background and 0% age-group swimming background.
I don't.

.) People make NQTs in USMS men 40 to 44 with a pre-USMS swimming background;

.) The USMS training is not for swimming competitions;

I want the USMS training to be for competititions, but to my sorrow, the USMS training is overwhelmingly not for competitions;

.) Starters in swimming at an adult age have physiologically less swimming potential than teenage starters:
somone joining for the first time a swimming club at age 28 -like I did- then making the Olympic Qualifying Times 'A' and 'B', that's unheard of, no matter the financial incentive you can give anyone to do it.

So, the USMS Nationals is inclusive:

.) People who make NQTs with their age-group swimming backgrounds, they get to swim more events;

.) People who don't make NQTs, but want to excel, they get to swim fewer events.

If the USMS Nationals were on NQTs only, then for people who want to excel but don't make the NQTs there should be a well developed network of smaller meets without qualifying times but run as well as the USMS Nationals.

laineybug
May 30th, 2003, 10:46 AM
leave nationals the way they are and develop a "national invitational" for those very elite swimmers.

cinc3100
May 30th, 2003, 11:27 AM
I understand about you starting late Ion. But there are some good women and men swimmers in the older age groups that didn't start until their 40's or early 50's. One in the 60-64 age group in my state can beat me in fly or free these days. In the 30-34 age group we have a guy that can clock a 49.0 in 100 yard free and he started working out in his 20's as you did. I think that swimming as a teenager does as its advantages and in most age groups below 55 years old, the top swimmers almost all swam AAU or college or Usa swimming. As for the nationals, I think maybe we can keep them as they are now but I think we should have more smaller meets for us average adult swimmers out there.

cjr
May 30th, 2003, 02:57 PM
Good afternoon,

Some very valid points within the scope of conversation.

A point to ponder. If we want USMS to grow, and people to compete in meets then we need to start thinking about the planning of our expanding demographics and stay within the objective of USMS.

My point to all this is that the NQT's need to be looked at. The questions then becomes wether to raise them to include more swimmers at Nationals, or lower them to keep meets smaller.

My intent is to try to provide as many opportunities to any swimmer at any level.

Them's me thinks!

Thank you.
:)

cinc3100
May 30th, 2003, 11:07 PM
Part of the problem is that many master clubs have more lap swimmers or exercise swimmers than those in competiton. One reason that Ion has problem finding clubs that train more for competitions. The second reason is that adults have such varying work schedules.Unlike teen swimmers that don't work full time- adults can work all kinds of different schedules and some work on the weekends. Number three, many master swimmers as Ion states body particulary those past 40 years old can't stand doing 5,000 yards to 10,000 yard workouts a day. Thus younger master swimmers and age group swimmers can handle high volumes of yardage more. Another reason why many that start at 28 plus or even into their early 50's or sometimes have a very long break of almost 30 years from school or age group swimming have difficulty cracking the 51.00 for 100 yard freestyle for men and the under 100 minute 100 yard freestyle for women.

Ion Beza
May 31st, 2003, 04:06 AM
These two statements are in contradiction:

Originally posted by Ion Beza

You don't make NQTs in men ages 40 to 44, with a 100% adult swimming background and 0% age-group swimming background.
I don't.
...

and

Originally posted by cinc310
I understand about you starting late Ion. But there are some good women and men swimmers...
...
In the 30-34 age group we have a guy that can clock a 49.0 in 100 yard free and he started working out in his 20's as you did.
...

The one statement that I think is right is mine, and the one that I suspect is wrong is Cynthia's.

When looking at the results of the 2003 USMS Short Course Nationals for the 100 freestle, I proclaim that:

#1 John Smith 46.40 is not a late starter (he swam in college the 200 free in a fast 1:35);

#2 Paul Smith 47.05 is not a late starter (he competed in the U.S. Olympic Trials in the 80s);

#3 David Boatwright 48.01 is not a late starter;

#4 Donald Jennings 48.06 is not a late starter;

#5 Richard Schroeder 48.41 is not a late starter (he competed for U.S. in the 1984 Olympics and the 1988 Olympics);

#6 Michael Fell 48.48 is not a late starter;

#7 Vernon Rogers 48.56 is not a late starter;

#8 Brant Allen 48.71 is not a late starter;

#9 Greg Remmert 49.07 is not a late starter;

#10 Stanley Fujimoto 49.29 is not a late starter;

...

#59 Ion Beza (myself) 58.40, I am a late starter since I joined my first swimming club at age 28;

...

Similar results appear in the 2003 USMS Short Course Nationals for the 100 freestle, men ages 30 to 34.

I don't know about the instance brought up by Cynthia's post, but often late starting in swimming and subsequent amazing achievements are trumpeted by media and individuals when fooling the audiences in the style of the official story of the 2000 Olympian, Ed Moses (U.S.).
His official story wants to say that he started swimming at age 17, but conveniently in order to claim a genious swimmer doesn't account for five years of prior to that summer league swimming, and before that for swimming lessons.
The five years and lessons compound to over three years of year round swimming.
Thus his starting age compounds to less than 17.
14.

In general, I can judge that a late starter claimant is fooling, by watching the technique for flipturns and diving -which if good, are likely a hint of age group swimming-, by watching the technique in four strokes, especially the hard to learn breastroke -which if good, is likely a hint of age group swimming- and by investigating about summer league swimming which is frequently not mentioned.

In my experience, the difference between an adult starter and an age-group swimmer, is mostly in the degree of development of swimming specific VO2Max, as in blood vessels connecting swimming muscles (triceps and lats) with the lungs:
a growing age-grouper gets more blood vessels than an adult starter when both train the same amount of time.

This post is dealing once more with people who make and people who don't make NQTs in USMS for men ages 40 to 44, and my take about the value of NQTs at the USMS Nationals is again:

Originally posted by Ion Beza

...
So, the USMS Nationals is inclusive:

.) People who make NQTs with their age-group swimming backgrounds, they get to swim more events;

.) People who don't make NQTs, but want to excel, they get to swim fewer events.
...

cinc3100
May 31st, 2003, 11:57 AM
Ion, there are those of us that swam as teenagers that also can't make the national standards:Me, Matt S, Meg Smath, and some others. I was surprise about Dickie Ferandez time and when I read that he started as an adult and doing 49 in the 100 yard freestyle. This is under the Arizona website under pictures. And in the 70 to 75 women age group, C Taylor an olympic breastroker in 1948 gets beaten by Edie G in freestyle and backstroke who didn't start swimming competion until her 40's . And as I stated Sally Bolar who didn't start swimming on a masters team until age 50 can beat me in free and fly and she is in her early 60's. Some people are natural swimmers which are able to overcome a late start. But as I stated in the younger age groups starting late makes it harder to be at the top. And in Paul Smith case I think if he started at 40 he would probably be doing a 52 for a 100 yard freestyle because he's more naturally talent than either of us. Read swim magazine in the older age groups particularly women the top swimmers started late.

Ken Classen
May 31st, 2003, 03:44 PM
I believe USMS should enforce NQT's. I would still allow three event's that don't require making the NQT however I would require the competitor to have to swum the event at least once in a sanctioned meet within a year of nationals. Enforcement of NQT's would be relative easy to do by tweaking existing technology. Most sanctioned meets use Hy-Tek meet management software. * Just like products have bar codes, every swim in a sanctioned event could be assigned a code that automatically would indicate the name, time, event, date, meet, age group etc. As part of the sanctioned meet reporting process these codes would be uploaded to a central web based USMS database. This is all ready done to a certain extent. * Then upon entry in nationals you would need to list your code for each event you want to swim as either proof of NQT or that you have swum the event in the last year. The entry codes would then would be checked against the database. This of course would require that swimmers actually have swum the event in the recent past. It would require a little more planning of swimmers wanting to go to nationals but that's how it should be if you want to go to the top meet.:p

Ion Beza
May 31st, 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by cinc310

...
I was surprise about Dickie Ferandez time and when I read that he started as an adult and doing 49 in the 100 yard freestyle. This is under the Arizona website under pictures.
...

Like I said in my last post, claims of starting swimming past teenage years and achieving a 49 seconds for the 100 free, are bogus:

when I check such claims against the criterions I put in my last post (and not by naively reading an official web site), they are never true yet.

Understand carefully the criterions checking the validity of the claims of starting swimming way past teenage years, criterions that I wrote in my previous post.

Originally posted by cinc310

...
And in the 70 to 75 women age group,...
...

My posts spell NQTs for men ages 40 to 44.
With individuals taken one by one.

It applies to NQTs for men ages 30 to 34, also.

Originally posted by cinc310

...
Some people are natural swimmers which are able to overcome a late start.
...

That's what I am in the rankings of Nationals, filled with former age-groupers around my placing.

That's what I am in workouts, also:

for example, you as a former age group swimmer -and plenty of others like you-, you cannot begin to touch me in any freestyle distance, me being the late starter;
with any of your times stated in another thread, from age group swimming (a 1:02 in 100 free) until now as a slower adult.

Originally posted by cinc310

...
And in Paul Smith case I think if he started at 40 he would probably be doing a 52 for a 100 yard freestyle because he's more naturally talent than either of us.
...

I don't think so.

I think that your statement is sentiment (in the style of: "-You look sooo fast. How fast are you in a 100 yards free?", "-Guess!", "-I don't know. 35 seconds, maybe?"), and is not first hand knowledge of this topic from readings, training and competitions like mine is.

I have to see documented evidence of passing the strict criterions for a late start -which I enumerated in my previous post-, of a late starter who overtakes me.

Heck, I have to see documented evidence -passing the strict criterions for a late start- of the starter in swimming way after teenage years who goes for the first time in history under 11:50 in 1000 free and under 56 in 100 free.

cinc3100
May 31st, 2003, 10:14 PM
You could beat me in freestyle even when I was at my peak. I was not a freestyler. My best 100 yard free was at 1:03.8 and 5:58.0 in 500 yard freestyle as a teenager. Now in breastroke I swam a 1:16.1, the next best time was 1:16.8. My Masters time was a lot slower at 1:34.58. I don't workout as many yardages as you do as an adult. All those yardage as a kid built me up to swim fairly good up to the age of 20 years but I didn't even start working again at least an hour 3 to 4 times a week until last June. I also workout on my own, so I don't have a group to pace with. However, sometimes at lap swimming, I find someone near my speed. I was just saying is that I'm not the most natural swimmer and some age groupers that were A and B swimmers like myself can be beated by some master swimmers that started as adults. Your age group is very competitive even more so than the women in the 40 to44 because colleges recruited every male swimmer at least pre-national level to swim for them back in the late 1970s thru the mid 1980's. Women college programs in the 1970s' and early 1980's were behind the men's programs. They were still alot more men's swiming programs back then at college and guy swimmers workout until 22 or 23 and many went over to masters competiton after college.

Ion Beza
June 1st, 2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by cinc310

...
Your age group is very competitive...
...

What I am saying Cynthia, is that in men ages 40 to 44, people don't make NQTs by being late starters like I am:

two posts ago, I went through a list of results from the 2003 Short Course Nationals, one by one, and competitors don't make NQTs by being late starters like me.

I stick with my VO2Max explanation as the main reason for this.
Because swimming and cross-country skiing are the most cardio-vascular sports.

One swimmer in the list is Rich Schroeder, a 1984 and 1988 Olympian, who swam a 48.41 for 100 free in the 2003 Short Course Nationals.
So, to claim a flat start in swimming when one is in his 20s, then to claim that ten years later he is doing a 49.0 for 100 free, that shocks even Olympian Schroeder.

I guess talk is cheap, but achievement is very expensive:

in my presence, everywhere I am in the U.S., people easily balk away from this achievement.

The majority of men ages 40 to 44 don't make NQTs, even after being teenage swimmers.

So, the USMS Nationals that give three mercy events to anyone, that's inclusive.

cinc3100
June 1st, 2003, 02:08 AM
Talking about slowdowns, someone on this site pointed out a little meet at Mission Viejo this year and Brain Goodell, who probably rarely worksout these days swam a 56.0 in 100 yard freestyle, so you Ion don't swim that slow. It just shows that his great swimming ability was develop a lot by swimming 20,000 meters or yards a day when he was a youngster and when he stop swimming or rarely workout in swimming all these years, he wasn't better than many swimmers in the 40 to 44 year old age group.

Gail Roper
June 2nd, 2003, 10:58 AM
I am a firm believer that "talent" is made not given. Oh, yes, some swimmers have more bouyancy, some are taller, etc , but I think that anyone can make the NQT if they work hard for it. Regardless of age-group. I think Ion can make it, but he needs a lot of stroke work and the correct training. It should be clear by now that 10,000 yards per day doesn't work.

kaelonj
June 2nd, 2003, 03:00 PM
Okay by now most of us (if not all of us) knows how Ion feels cheated in life because he didn't start swimming until after his teenage years, when if he swam his swimming specific VO2 sytem would have developed better making him a faster swimmer.
In regards to Ion's statements about how someone who didn't swim as a teenager would never be able to compete at an elite or even semi-elite level, and that his times are an incredible feat. The fact is Ion, I did not swim as a teenager - I stopped swimming when I was about 11 and didn't start swimming back again until I was in college at 20 (about a 9 year lay off). True I did swim lessons and even swam for a few years on a club team prior to my teenage years, but during the time my VO2 was developing I was exploring other pursuits (skateboarding, waterskiing, running, etc) a dip in the pool here or there to cool off but no real swimming (unless you consider my advance lifesaving class to become a lifeguard). So by your standards my college times of 100 free of 50.2 and 200 free of 1:50.8 are performances comparable to other olympians since I didn't swim in my teenage years (NOT !) when actually I would say they were fair to good times. Even with this lay off in swimming I could make several national qualifying times for my age bracket, might not be a top ten, probably not even a top 20 swimmer so what those were my choices. I fully agree with Gail - swim a little more, a little smarter and you can make a few NQT's. Good luck.

Jeff

Ion Beza
June 2nd, 2003, 09:04 PM
We rehearse again the same songs, until we learn.

I have patience for a few more thousands plays:

Originally posted by Gail Roper

...
I think Ion can make it, ...
...

Not the NQTs for men ages 40 to 44, as a late starter.

In a post last August, I stated that the NQTs for men ages 40 to 44 in the 2002 Long Course Nationals are the fastest times in the entire meet in six events out of seveteen.
These are the fastest men NQTs in the entire meet -i.e.: all men age groups-, in 35% of events.
So the NQTs of men 40 to 44, dominate the 2002 Long Course Nationals.

You are not in this situation to know it:

when you are a man, age 40 to 44, late starter, make them then tell me more;
I know about who makes NQTs in men 40 to 44 one by one, and found that they developed their USMS NQTs as pre-USMS age-groupers, and stayed in shape in USMS;
I don't see men ages 40 to 44, late starters who make NQTs across U.S..

As a late starter, I am making it well:

.) in the 2003 Short Course Nationals, I swam my lifetime second best in the 100 free in 58.40;
(mind you, my lifetime best for the 100 meters free Long Course is 1:04.63, which would convert into a 100 yards free in about 57.20, not my 58.11 from 1994).

.) in April 2003, it was 12:25 in the 1000 free.

To me, these times are making it.

Originally posted by Gail Roper

...but he needs a lot of stroke work and the correct training.
...

Again:

.) workouts in USMS clubs across the U.S. are overwhelmingly not focusing on preparing to race in USMS competitions;

.) I trust a program now to prepare me for USMS competitions, but I don't know what surprises might happen;

.) the key in swimming is VO2Max as in swimming cardiovascular, and developing it when older -which I do- is more challenging.

Originally posted by Gail Roper

...
It should be clear by now that 10,000 yards per day doesn't work.
It is clear to you.

Ask competitive coaches, like Mark Schubert, what is clear in swimming when preparing Erik Vendt in 2003 and Brian Goodell in 1976 for the 1000 free.

Originally posted by kaelonj
Okay by now most of us (if not all of us) knows how Ion feels cheated in life because he didn't start swimming until after his teenage years, when if he swam his swimming specific VO2 sytem would have developed better making him a faster swimmer.
...

No:

I force the situation.

Originally posted by kaelonj

...
In regards to Ion's statements about how someone who didn't swim as a teenager would never be able to compete at an elite or even semi-elite level, and that his times are an incredible feat.
...

Have you ever seen documented evidence of a strict late starter from level zero past teenage years who later on makes the Olympic Qualifying Times 'A' or 'B'?

It doesn't exist, no matter the money.

Meaning there is physiological limitation in late starting.

Originally posted by kaelonj

...
The fact is Ion, I did not swim as a teenager - I stopped swimming when I was about 11 and didn't start swimming back again until I was in college at 20 (about a 9 year lay off). True I did swim lessons and even swam for a few years on a club team prior to my teenage years,...

You got the non compliance with a late start from level zero past teenage years, righ here.

I explained the compliance, in a post on the previous page.

Matt S
June 2nd, 2003, 09:09 PM
Ken,

Hmm, that is an interesting approach. Keep the three freebie entries, but verify the NQT for events 4, 5 and 6. I am not opposed in principal to the idea, but I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I think expecting that every meet director of every USMS-sanctioned meet will be diligent enough to get their meet's results into the USMS database is ... more of a challenge that you may first anticipate. I ask the question I have asked before, how do you want to spend the limited resource of volunteer hours that are available to USMS? On the other hand, meet directors who are really serious about running a first rate event can advertise that swims at their meet will be USMS verifiable, and follow through, and swimmers can chose the meets they will attend accordingly. How do we know what is feasible if we do not give it a try? Eventually, Masters Swimming is likely to get big enough and "important" enough that the temptation to cheat will outweigh ethics and group pressure. Shouldn't we start working on these issues now, before the Masters equivalent of the East German swim team hits the water?

Gail: there is much to what you say, but I'm sorry. No matter how diligently I worked for however many years when I was a youngster, or how hard and smart I work today, there are still people who could fall off a log after years of inactivity, and beat me going away. I cite as an example Rowdy Gaines. We both began competitive swimming at age 15, but there the similarity ends. The best 200 free I ever managed, after 7 years of year round swimming, was 1:58.84. Rowdy, on the other hand, demonstrated to his coaches he was probably a sprinter when after one year of competitive swimming, he went 1:48 (!) for a 200, IN THE MIDDLE OF A 1000 FREE!!!! Yes, he was in a real, first rate USS Club whose training methods far exceeded my rinky-dink summer league, high school and Div III college programs, BUT AFTER ONLY ONE YEAR?! Puhlease! Talent is talent, and it's blatantly obvious who has world-class talent after a fairly short time frame. I remember seeing David Wharton as a 10 year old at Pennsylvania YMCA Championships. He swam one IM event, lapped the field, and left. There was an expectant atmosphere the moment he entered the building (as a 10 year old, for the love of Pete!) Everyone in the building knew this kid was special.

So work ethic is fine, intelligent planning is fine, desire is fine, but talent rules. Period.

Matt

Ion Beza
June 2nd, 2003, 09:27 PM
Matt,

notice that your examples of talent are strictly of youngsters.

Not of their parents, who would have been then of my age when I am swimming:

take any father in your two examples of talented youngsters;
he must know how to swim;
not stronger than me, though.

To show that your two examples for determining talent are wrong in the case of a late starter, my swimming coach tells me that as a youngster when he started taking skiing lessons together with his parents, he was progressing by leaps and bounds compared to them.

A valid comparison of talent for me, is in between people who started swimming late and me.

This post is rewording the obvious.

michaelmoore
June 3rd, 2003, 02:08 AM
Matt:

I think you are right about where we can best use our volunteer time. Of the people entering Nationals, about 85% will enter 4 or more events. There is a suggestion that all the information would go into a National database. Who is going to design this little puppy? Once we get it, how is it going to be enforced? Where do we prioritize it?

While it is nice to think that meet directors would want to send the information to the national database, Pacific, which has about 25% of the membership, does not use Hy-Tek at most of its meets. The SDIF that is generated from the contractors program, is having problems interfacing with the HyTek team manager program. I am sure it will be resolved shortly, but this is just a nit in this grand db project.

The other question is: is there a problem with the current "honor" system? How many people are abusing it? If we institute it what will the savings be? Is the cure worse than the problem?

I dont know. If someone wants to volunteer there time to do a little (I am lieing) there will be a lot of work in the basic analysis, I would greatly appreicate it.


michael, member
championships committee

Paul Smith
June 3rd, 2003, 09:06 AM
Matt, looks like you got sucked in again!

Me to.....

To Ion's "debate" about late starters; An important point is being overlooked and that is "meet swimming" vs. "race swimming". I give Ion credit for what he has done as a late starter, in particular some of the kicking sets he has managed to pull off. However I have also seen him race and it is here that he has not been able to "transfer" his physical ability.

To that end, my advise has been for him to "train" by swimming more meets. Learning proper relaxation, meet day diet, starts, turns, finishes, etc. doesn't come from swimming 1 or 2 national meets a year. Ion, you and I have also discussed more specialization. If you want to make NQTs you will be very challenged if you don't focus your training; are you a 50-100-200 specialist? Or a 200-500-1000? Big difference!

Ion's case is a perfect example of my "position" on NQTs, far more is gained if people work to make the times than if they are "given" them (as is everything in life).

gull
June 3rd, 2003, 11:59 AM
Just a few thoughts on the subject:

1. NQTs could be enforced by random checks, asking the swimmer for documentation of times. This could be done on site.

2. There are numerous other meets (without qualifying times) throughout the year, encouraging participation regardless of ability.

3. Fewer swimmers at Nationals could impact revenue; I assume that this could be predicted using historical data.

4. How much an individual athlete can achieve (at any age) and the relative contributions of genetics and training are I believe unanswerable questions and among the more exciting aspects of sport.

Ion Beza
June 3rd, 2003, 12:10 PM
Does anyone think that CJR (and about any man in the younger age groups) makes USMS NQTs, as stated in:

Originally posted by cjr

...
For the most part I have made and NQT in all the events that I normally swim.
...

considering CJR's post in 'Average Weekly Training?' from the 'General Discussion':

Originally posted by cjr
My workouts depend on the season. In short course yards season (winter) I'm like our friend Lefty here I try to get in 12K per week in 4 workouts.
...

with a 100% of training as an adult swimming in USMS and a 0% as a pre-adult swimmer?

I don't:

Originally posted by cjr

...
This too is WAY less than what I did in college...
...

I would like to see the name of the first man in the group 40 to 44 who makes NQTs with 100% training in USMS and 0% training from pre-adult.

Paul, I posted this:

Originally posted by Ion Beza

...
When looking at the results of the 2003 USMS Short Course Nationals for the 100 freestle, I proclaim that:

#1 John Smith 46.40 is not a late starter (he swam in college the 200 free in a fast 1:35);

#2 Paul Smith 47.05 is not a late starter (he competed in the U.S. Olympic Trials in the 80s);

#3 David Boatwright 48.01 is not a late starter;

#4 Donald Jennings 48.06 is not a late starter;

#5 Richard Schroeder 48.41 is not a late starter (he competed for U.S. in the 1984 Olympics and the 1988 Olympics);

#6 Michael Fell 48.48 is not a late starter;

#7 Vernon Rogers 48.56 is not a late starter;

#8 Brant Allen 48.71 is not a late starter;

#9 Greg Remmert 49.07 is not a late starter;

#10 Stanley Fujimoto 49.29 is not a late starter;

...

#59 Ion Beza (myself) 58.40, I am a late starter since I joined my first swimming club at age 28;

...

Similar results appear in the 2003 USMS Short Course Nationals for the 100 freestle, men ages 30 to 34.
...

and

Originally posted by Ion Beza

...
A valid comparison of talent for me, is in between people who started swimming late and me.
...

So, no more of the 10 years old David Wharton and 15 years old Rowdy Gaines here: that's entirely different, even when years later they come to win in USMS.

cinc3100
June 3rd, 2003, 01:10 PM
Matt can use the Rowdy Gaines comparison. I can use the Shirley Babashoff comparsion. She did start swimming I think a couple of years before me. At age 14, she had been on several world class teams back in the 1970''s like Phillips-66 and Lakewood and Fast. I started on the Cal-novice and B-C AAU teams until the end of 1971 when I started on Phillips-66 Huntington Beach. I swam there for about almost 2 years and took off probably more seconds in the 200 yards than the 100 yards. But Shirley B was swimming about a 52.0 100 yard Free in those days and I a mediocre 1:05. In the breastroke I did a 1:16.1 and Babashoff probably a 1:08. In Fly, I did a 1:07.5 and Babashoff a 59.0. Even after going to a more elite team, I still couldn't get close to Babashoff. I think that I might be able to make more Qualifying times in masters if I keep at it and moved into the an older age group like the 50-54. Gail is probably right that we can qualify for the standards eventually but sometimes we have to wait until we get into the older age groups to do it. In the 45-49 I qualify only in the 50 meter breastroke and I think meters is easier than yards because less people swim the meter races.

Paul Smith
June 3rd, 2003, 02:21 PM
Ion, I'm trying to understand. I write to you about "training" to be a better "racer" and you show me your quote that lists the Top 10 in the Ms 40-44 100 free? OK, so this group comes from varying degrees of age group swimming and most likely would be at the top of the results.

Is your point that Masters swimming should somehow "handicap" qualifying times based on how long you've been swimming? Isn't that done now in how NQT times are selected?

I think a far more appropiate comparison is:
- Ms 40-44 100 free NQT time = 54.52
- 67 people entered
- 49 surpassed this time

The question then is 54.52 fair?

Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?

My point to you which was ignored is "what are you"? A sprinter? Middle distance? Distance? I know very few people of any swimming background that would choose events as diverse as the 100 free and 1000 free to train for and compete in (and/or expect to make NQTs, Top 10, etc.).

My point being; specialize more in your training, go to lots of smaller meets practicing those events and see if you make more of a progression!

cinc3100
June 3rd, 2003, 03:32 PM
Ion, I think a few people started 20 plus and made the olympics, the last was in 1956, a pre-modern period. But like I said before if starting as an adult prevents you from beating people that swam as a kid, how is it that someone older than me and who didn't start on a masters team until 50 was able to beat me the one time I swam a 50 meter butterfly. I realized that I can beat the same person several seconds in the breastroke. Maybe, the same woman that beat me in the 50 meter fly could have donet a sub-30 second fly if she was on a team as a kid and swam on masters teams earlier when she was 50 years old. As for Jeff, I think that during high school he competitive in water polo. I know that's not the same as swimming everyday but polo does keep people in shape for swimming. At my high school, the guys were a lot better swimmers than the girls because they did water polo during the school session and summertime and swam in the spring while the girls only swam in the spring.

cjr
June 3rd, 2003, 04:30 PM
Greetings-

Ion-
My background is as follows. I have swum since age 6. I swam for a few USS clubs, summer league, and High School. I have made Jr. National & YMCA Nationals cuts. Then I swam in college for 4 years, which I did swim in the Conference Champs & NCAA's.

Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life. As discusses in the other forum 'Average Weekly Training?' from the 'General Discussion' “My workouts depend on the season. In short course yards season (winter) I try to get in 12K per week in 4 workouts”. This is because I don’t need to workout that much because I know myself and what I am capable of. I am no where near to my times as a Division I swimmer. And frankly I could care less. Masters for me is about having fun again just like it was in age group and summer league.

Other's started inquiring about the size of meets. I tried to provide some provoking thoughts.

My original question is still "Is there a better way to enforce OR ENHANCE the NQT's? The bottom line is yes, there needs to be change. But what is realistic, fair and obtainable? Again just trying to gather thoughts of all swimmers with all abilities.

I am not try to attack anyone ability, training patterns (past or present) or goals. I don't know many of these people on the forum; therefore I have no right to attack them or thier character.

I think you could and will make the several NQT’s for your age group. Don’t get caught up in the numbers. Just go to meets, large or small and swim as many races as you can. You will become faster.

I like the topics and potential solutions that people are bringing to the forum.

Thanks,
CJ
Southwest Ohio Masters
Ohio LMSC Secretary

kaelonj
June 3rd, 2003, 05:27 PM
Sorry Cynthia, didn't even play water polo in High School (as a matter of fact my High School didn't have a swim team or a water polo team).
As for Ion, following your rhetoric I would be justified in petitioning the PGA in order to play on the tour with Tiger Woods. The reason he is better than me is because he has the unfair advantage of learning to play when he was a few years old while I was in my teens when I started playing golf. Since I had such a late start my golf VO2 max is not as developed as his. Ion your times are improving, have to assume the new coaching program is working, so enough with the age group swimming conspiracy theories.

Jeff

emmett
June 3rd, 2003, 06:38 PM
I'm curious how many people KNOW of (not just suspect) people who are cheating on NQT's. My impression is that it is a VERY small percentage of Nats participants that cheat. Personally, I'm not aware of any. I've been coaching Masters swimmers a long time and I sense an almost universal desire to follow the rules.

Putting a system in place that is man-hour intensive (either in creation or operation) to solve a very small problem would simply be squandering our thinly layered resources.

If we SUSPECT cheating is a big problem we should PROVE it is a big problem before we go to great lengths to solve it.

How about this - I'll bet that the meet software vendor can spit out a report of all swimmers who fail to meet or beat the NQT in any event entered by NQT. Then, these swimmers are asked (perhaps by a note by their performance in the posted results) to show proof that they have, in fact, accomplished the NQT (we could state in the entry info that swimmers who are entering by NQT must bring their proof with them to Nats). If, after a couple of Nats we see that there are LOADS of individuals cheating, THEN (and only then) it might make sense to police the thing in a less casual way.

Heck, we could even post a listing at Nats of those unable to show proof and let peer pressure work its magic.

As to the other foolishness in this thread....I will not get sucked in....I will not get sucked in.....I will not....

jim clemmons
June 3rd, 2003, 07:35 PM
I've gotta agree with Mike and Emmett.

I believe the vast majority of swimmers are following the format for entering nationals and to attempt to design some kind of formal qualification paper trail is really counterproductive. There are enough items requiring time and talent already, without adding this potential silly deal. So what if a couple of individuals enter something they shouldn't have. They'll get their reward in heaven or that other place.

Remember when we used to complete deals with a handshake? Isn't a signature, certifying our commitment to honesty, adequate?

Oh, and for what it's worth to anybody, I learned to swim when I was 9 and started to train/compete in swimming when I was 16yrs and 7mos old. What do I win?

cinc3100
June 3rd, 2003, 07:50 PM
Unlike Ion I'm not interest in competing at nationals. But the time standards give you a way to compare yourself and that's my interest. I agree with Paul Smith that smalller meets are important. The larger population LSMC's, like Pacific Masters or Southern Pacific and the Colonies back east usually have a few more meets to chose from. Arizona has at least more than one in the short course and long course divided between Phoenix metro and Tucson metro area. As I stated before, I think that masters could expand, if there are more meets but that is time consuming and involves a lot of work. I don't think we have to copy USA swimming. When we started, the model was AAU swimming in the 1970's and lots of things have change since them. I agree with Emmet, most people are not going to cheat on their times. Also, a masters friend of mine from down under, competed in a postial event where there was a 800 yard breastroke and 800 Im, some new ideas on the postial events. Also, Ion there are other ways to succeed, one masters swimmer around 50 years old completed 20,000 yards in one time during the holidays, this person would probably never place high at nationals.

cinc3100
June 3rd, 2003, 08:44 PM
Having looked at the top times for the whole US in Ion's age group in 100 yard free there is a total of 293 and he ranks at 170. This means as he stated their a lot of folks out there that don't make the NQ's times and his age group and gender is far more competive than others. In my age group the 45-49 year old women there were only 111. in the 100 yard free. Why there are some many male swimmers in the 40 to 44 age group everyone can discuss out there. Anyway, it just shows that his age group is a lot more difficult than the others.

Ion Beza
June 3rd, 2003, 08:54 PM
This is the data that I am familiar with, and this is what I point out in regards to NQTs at the USMS Nationals:

Originally posted by cjr
Greetings-
...
Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life.
...

USMS is looking for legitimacy in the quality of its top swims, the top swims that fall into the U.S. Swimming standards or decline a little bit due to aging of participants, and these are the swims trumpeted in www.swiminfo.com and Swim magazine.

However, the fact is that most USMS programs do neglect the specialized preparation for swimming competitions when they cather to the 'stay in shape' uncompetitive masses, and the fact is that adult starters in swimming -like me- have less physiological potential to make NQTs than the early starters.

Originally posted by Paul Smith
Ion, I'm trying to understand.
...
The question then is 54.52 fair?

Or, should masters have NQTs that offer a "swimming background" conversion similar to an "altitude" conversion?
...

To me, 54.52 is fair as NQT for 100 yards free in men ages 40 to 44:

.) I wrote in four of my previous posts in this thread that the USMS Nationals are inclusive (unlike the Olympics, since five days ago), because they give three mercy events to anyone, including to participants like me -who want to excel around the best there is out there, but don't have the youth developmental background-;

.) swimmers who make NQTs in USMS, they swim more events.

So, I like how the USMS Nationals and their NQTs are organized.

Originally posted by Paul Smith

...
My point to you which was ignored is "what are you"? A sprinter? Middle distance? Distance? I know very few people of any swimming background that would choose events as diverse as the 100 free and 1000 free to train for and compete in (and/or expect to make NQTs, Top 10, etc.).
...

I am a distance swimmer, and I train for distance.

My 1000 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a quality 'B' time for me, but still got me a #14 ranking.
(Also a #39 ranking out of 63 participants for the year 2003, but my faster time in the 1000 free from two weeks earlier didn't get reported to give me a ranking for it).
My plan at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was to get an 'A' time in the 1000 free, then next year to slip into the 1650 yards free; my plan got derailed by fact.

My 100 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a surprising quality 'A' time for me, and got a #59 ranking.
I don't expect my 100 free to make NQTs.
I comment in this thread on the 100 free, because I got a good time for me in the 100 free, and because the 100 free is what most people relate to.

For the Nationals, I train for distance and the sprints are a bonus making sure that I cultivate my speed and not let it degrade.

Regarding the number of competitions:

Paul, do what you preach;
Laura told me that she didn't race before the La Jolla competition, since last December;
I guess (I don't know for a fact) that you didn't either;
if this is true, then it must be no race in between the La Jolla competition from April 2003 and the Short Course Meters meet in Las Vegas from December 2002 (formerly the Long Beach meet);
so for you, in 2003, that could be two meets only, one meet in La Jolla and the Nationals;

well, I competed in five meets in 2003 so far;
that averages to one meet per month.

cjr
June 3rd, 2003, 10:35 PM
Greetings,

I think we are all starting to get "sucked" in. I don't know of anyone cheating the NQT's. I don't think there are any to tell you the truth. I hope to reiterate that NQT's are a good thing. However there is a need to make some adjustments.

For Ion, couple of points to ponder.


However, the fact is that most USMS programs do neglect the specialized preparation for swimming competitions when they cather to the 'stay in shape' uncompetitive masses, and the fact is that adult starters in swimming -like me- have less physiological potential to make NQTs than the early starters.

I believe a possible solution is to find either another club/team or some very dedicated swimmers to workout on your own.


My 1000 free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals was a quality 'B' time for me, but still got me a #14 ranking.

I did not think that they were "A" or "B" times for USMS. But this would be a good addition to the NQT's.:D

I think we need to table this discussion for the Convention.

Thanks,

CJ
Southwest Ohio Masters
OHIO LMSC Secretary

aztimm
June 3rd, 2003, 10:42 PM
Hello all,

I swam at Nationals simply because it was here. From what I gather, quite a few other locals swam in the meet for that same reason...when/where else will you get a chance to swim next to some great swimmers?

With that in mind, it was also great to swim with guys in my own age group too. Since my times are not the best, for our smaller state meets, I usually end up with people 10+ years older. Makes the meet go smoothly, but I never get to really compete against others in my age group.

As far as keeping the NQT's, I totally agree to keep the 3 'freebies', and enforce NQT's for the others. I've been doing masters swimming (and any competitive swimming) for about 5 years now (started at 28), well beyond the typical start time. However, having the NQT's keeps me trying to achieve them. Over the past 3 years alone, my 100 and 200 breast have edged closer and closer. Maybe one year I'll make them...if only the times started getting better as I 'age up.'

Yes, we have at least 5 good state-level meets (that I know of)here in AZ, with more within commuting distance (S Cal, NM, etc).
You do not have to be attached to a team to participate in these meet, and information is easily available through the LMSC and team web pages. If anyone has suggestions or ideas for more local meets, I would suggest that they become more involved with their local team (member or not) and/or LMSC.



Tim Murphy

Ion Beza
June 3rd, 2003, 10:49 PM
CJ,

since last December, I trust a Masters program which is run by the distance coach of the NCAA Division II, UCSD.

It is definitely geared for preparing for competitions.

I hope it will make me faster and faster.

Bert Petersen
June 4th, 2003, 01:12 AM
I train by myself and do my own stroke correction. Who am I to blame for my performance shortfalls? Hmmmm....
There are four competitive strokes plus an IM; There are three distances in three of the strokes, plus three more in IM; There are six !! distances in pool Freestyle plus at least four more for open water swimming. If my Math. is correct, therefore, there are around 18 events in which to specialize. I can only do two worth a darn.........Who can I blame for that ?
Maybe if someone out there is not happy with their performance, they could try other strokes and/or distances........
Who knows ? That person could be a closet breaststroker !! Or ??

Bert :p

cinc3100
June 4th, 2003, 01:52 AM
I don't think Ion is a breastroker since he has swam for over 20 years and doesn't like the stroke. There are two other strokes, but fly takes a lot of work. I know because it taking me a while to get back to a fly where I can swim under 40 seconds in a 50yard fly. Maybe, he could try back but I never heard of him swimming that.

Ion Beza
June 4th, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by kaelonj

...
As for Ion, following your rhetoric I would be justified in petitioning the PGA in order to play on the tour with Tiger Woods. The reason he is better than me is because he has the unfair advantage of learning to play when...
...
Jeff
Jeff,

you miss my point.

My point is:

when the USMS doesn't make someone from zero into a NQT qualifier, then USMS is relying on backgrounds different than the USMS background in order to make NQTs.

Indeed, when Ransom made USMS, his mission was to carry on the competing from the age-group swimming background into USMS for adults.
If USMS was staying with this mission, then strict NQTs are to do.

After inception, USMS became inclusive of the non age-group swimming background.
Inclusive of the non age-group swimming background at the Nationals, means that non age-group swimmers who get just the USMS for background in swimming and thus don't make NQTs, they get three mercy events.

Also, inclusive means that very good swimmers with an age-group swimming background but who still don't make NQTs (and very good swimmers like this are numerous in USMS), they get three mercy events at the USMS Nationals.

Your comparison with golf by Woods, would be like a comparison with swimming for Olympics:

golf by Woods and swimming for Olympics both are not inclusive, they are elite level activities that are exclusive, because it doesn't matter to them how one became amongst the best but it matters to them whether one is amongst the best.

Originally posted by cinc310
I don't think Ion is a breastroker since he has swam for over 20 years and doesn't like the stroke.
...
Maybe, he could try back but I never heard of him swimming that.
.) Indeed Cynthia, I am not a brestroker: brestroke is too much technique, for the slowest stroke out of four.

.) I swim in clubs for sixteen years, since October 1986.

.) Ten days ago I did the 50 meter backstroke leg in a relay competition. I don't get disqualified when there are no backstroke turns, like it was in this 50 meter pool.

mattson
June 4th, 2003, 12:26 PM
Set aside the NQTs for a moment. If you want to speed up the meet, find a way to get all people in the heat going at the same speed. Having people swim way faster/slower than the others was a big reason why Nationals fell behind schedule. (Besides the occasional power outage... :confused: )

If you can figure out how to do that, I'll tip my goggles to you. :cool: I had a substantial improvement in my mile, and a horrible 100 Free, but in both events my seed time was *honest*. But I know of a number of people who put down slow seed times. (They weren't sure what shape they would be in, and they ended up going faster than their seed.)

emmett
June 4th, 2003, 12:54 PM
people who put down slow seed times. (They weren't sure what shape they would be in, and they ended up going faster than their seed.

Or they simply are hoping to swim earlier in the event, perhaps to get more rest for their next event.

Regardless, THIS is a MUCH more prevalent occurrence at Nats and IMHO has a greater impact on the progress of the meet than do NQT cheaters.

But, then, the separation of age groups, rather than seeding them all together, likely has a greater effect than either ofthe above.

michaelmoore
June 4th, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by mattson
Having people swim way faster/slower than the others was a big reason why Nationals fell behind schedule. (Besides the occasional power outage... :confused: )



It is my understanding that the Hy-Tek meet manager calculates the time line by using the slowest swim in the heat then adds a time between heats. Mixing the faster and slower swimmers in the same age group has no effect upon the calculated time line. (it does affect the ultimate time line as the fastest way to run a meet is to put all the age groups together then swim rather than break out each age group).

There were two other reasons for having long days. There were fewer scratches than what has happened in the past. (8% actual versus a historical 16%). And two - the time between heats was MUCH slower than in the past.

michael

cinc3100
June 4th, 2003, 03:10 PM
Ion, it just depends upon who you are. I swim breastroke faster than both fly and back at age 46. And starting at age 14, I swam breast faster than back. Also, I bet that Mr Ed Moses can swim breast faster than either his back or fly. People are made different, so breast so not always the slowest stroke for each indivdual. Breastroker even swims breast faster than freestyle.

cinc3100
June 4th, 2003, 03:15 PM
Anyway, Ion you are disappointment. But so are some of the rest of us. Breastroke is the only stroke that I can beat late starting adults at masters competition on a regular basis. Yes, there are some slow freesylers or butterflyers or backstrokers that do a 50 yards, 50 seconds plus but there are some late starters that do fly at 34 or freestyle at 30, that are women. in their 40's and older.

cinc3100
June 7th, 2003, 10:41 PM
I think that maybe I came across a little strong on the this board. I think that anyone that begins swimming and can do under a mintue in any stroke at 50 yards has achieve something really good. I was just comparing times to others and those that started late that can kick my butt in the other strokes I have nothing against you. I was just saying that swimming as an adult whether you took a big break like me and almost went back to square one or you started late there is always somethng you are not happy with.

Ian
June 8th, 2003, 10:30 AM
A while back Jeopardy (the game show) had Swimming as a category. One answer was "It is the only swimming stroke that has a double ST when you spell it". The correct response, of course, was "What is breaSTSTroke?".

Sally Dillon
June 8th, 2003, 03:41 PM
It's been quite some time since I have posted a message on the USMS forum and I have a number of comments related to issues that have come up in this posting.

Thank you, Ian, for attempting to educate those "board posters" who continue to misspell the word "breaststroke"!

An FYI about the length of SC Nationals - in case this hasn't been pointed out elsewhere: I have it on good authority that the timeline is generally predicated on a 15-16% "no-show" rate but the Tempe meet only had an 8% "no-show" rate. That's a significant difference.

New subject: I know many people who swim only 3 events at Nationals since they don't make NQT's. They pay the same flat registration fee as everyone else and the same expenses to travel to the event. And they probably spend more time watching the meet and cheering for friends and teammates than those of us who get to swim 6 events. I know I've been thankful that they are willing to count for the 500 and over races; often heat after heat! I hope we can always include them in our championships. And, in my 31 years of masters swimming I can probably count on one hand the number of "cheating" instances I am aware of. None of them involve cheating on a NQT.

Finally, I wonder if Ion is what coaches often refer to as "uncoachable". I have read the advice given to him for years now. I have seen him swim and offered some advice of my own after the Hawaii meet last year. I saw him again in Tempe and can see no evidence that he has changed his technique (breathing, turns, etc.) for the better. I don't know if he really swims 10K a day (ghads) but I do know that there is more to swimming than yardage. I had some good swims in Tempe (plus one really bad one) and I can promise you the good swims were less related to my VO2 max conditioning than they were related to my technique. In a good week I get in 3 practices of around 3500 meters. A great week is 4! Although I have been a swimmer for about 50 years (ghads again!), I still focus on technique throughout every workout and even most races. Efficiency in the water is truly the key and that becomes more and more important as we get older!

summer cheers!
Sally

Cinswims
June 8th, 2003, 05:00 PM
Well said, Sally!

cinc3100
June 8th, 2003, 10:17 PM
I think its a combination of things. Yardage has some factor because I'm swimming similar to age 12 when I did low yardage. But style and turns and starts are factors too. Ion doesn't swim that bad considering he started later and not all of us are going to swim times like former national level or pre-national level swimmers do. In the age groups under 50 years old, swimmers with national and pre-national backgrounds dominate the events over A/B former age group swimmers and people who started swimming competively at 25 years plus.

Ion Beza
June 9th, 2003, 01:21 AM
Thank you for re-stating these facts, Cynthia:

for the benefit of the public, it reasserts performance in context.

The person critiquing my swimming at the 2003 Short Course Nationals before your post -Sally Dillon-, lacks in thinking:

1.) she inquires whether I am 'uncoachable' in character, based on judgment of my breathing and turns one year apart, but she didn't absorb facts and she doesn't know me;

2.) in trumpeting here that she is critiquing my training, she braggs about doing little volume compared to the volume that I do, and about her focus on technique being better than my focus on VO2Max;

This leads her to swimming the 100 yards free in 1:05.08 at the 2003 Short Course Nationals.

My 58.40 in the 100 yards free at the 2003 Short Course Nationals -almost seven seconds faster than her 1:05.08-, together with considering the handicap that I overcome as a late starter, show that I am 'coachable' with training in volume, technique and intensity necessary to achieve much faster swimming than her's.

Sam Perry
June 9th, 2003, 10:29 AM
After watching this discussion go on for SO MANY weeks I feel I have to say something. The original post for this board was about NQTs for Nationals. This is a compelling and important topic that many of us have strong opinions about.

Unfortunately this discussion has evolved into a series of statements and replies that have nothing to do with what was originally being covered here.

If people are starting to take things so personally in which they feel the need to research every one's time and statements to prove truth or fiction, why don't y'all begin to discuss those issues amongst yourselves so we can keep this thread to its original intent.

I am sorry if I sound harsh, I just feel I can't be the ONLY person who feels this way.

cinc3100
June 9th, 2003, 11:47 AM
Allright we should go back to topic. But Ion, Sally is a woman in the 55-59 age group, so she probably shouldn't swim as fast as you given her sex and age. That's all that I will say on the subject.

Phil M.
June 9th, 2003, 12:00 PM
I don't think that our "poster's" take too much personally.
That said, I think that Ion's point is that because of the wide variety of backgrounds

Phil M.
June 9th, 2003, 12:06 PM
Oops.

I don't think that our "poster's" take too much personally.

That said, I think that Ion's point is that because of the wide variety of backgrounds we come from we should open up the Nationals to all who would like to compete. The extra 3 events are just as important to current non-qualifiers as they are to those who happen to be swimming faster.

As a returnee after a 23 year layoff I had no problem meeting qualifying times. This had nothing to do with lots of yardage and good coaching. It was because I had a strong swimming background. (age 12 - 22)

I would think that our Nationals should be truly open. If you are brave enough to put on a Speedo you should be able to swim. More power to you. If the Nationals get too crowded then add a day. If the sport is going to grow then we need to encourage participation not make it exclusionary.

MegSmath
June 9th, 2003, 02:59 PM
Yes, this thread has definitely been hijacked. Seems to happen often. So to steer it back onto the topic that C.J. initially brought up, why do you think the NQTs need adjusting, C.J.? Do you think they're too tough, or not tough enough?

From my own selfish point of view, I wouldn't mind them being just a little bit easier. I have a hard time making the ones for SCY. But for the most part I think they're accomplishing what they were intended to do. They have cut down on the total number of splashes, while still not excluding anyone. I do not mind "only" getting to swim three events at Nationals. Actually, it's sort of nice to only have one event to swim. You can tell yourself not to hold back, that you don't have to save something for another event. And as Sally Dillon pointed out, it's nice to have people on your team who have the time to go cheer on their teammates, or count for those distance swims. You can really soak up the atmosphere and have a great time when you're not so focused on your own events.

I don't think the NQTs are all that broken, and don't need to be fixed.

Meg

Ion Beza
June 9th, 2003, 06:09 PM
I agree with Phil's entire post, and from it, I highlight this:

Originally posted by Phil M.

...
...I think that Ion's point is that because of the wide variety of backgrounds we come from we should open up the Nationals to all who would like to compete. The extra 3 events are just as important to current non-qualifiers as they are to those who happen to be swimming faster.
...
If the Nationals get too crowded then add a day. If the sport is going to grow then we need to encourage participation not make it exclusionary.

Ian
June 9th, 2003, 08:25 PM
Bottom line is you have to qualify to get more than 3 events. Want more? then earn them. Don’t expect the time standards to be lowered or done away with if you can’t make them. Be happy your glass (events) is half full. This is not a welfare organization; you get what you earn. Right now the only thing you’ve earned is the 3 events.

Ion Beza
June 9th, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Ian

...
This is not a welfare organization; you get what you earn. Right now the only thing you’ve earned is the 3 events.
Anyone wanted to swim more than three events without making any NQT, Ian?

cjr
June 9th, 2003, 10:38 PM
Hi Meg,

Thank you for putting us back on track.

I do agree that NQT's are good. I agree with having them. I do think they need to be adjusted. I think that using the 10% lower than the 10th place time from the previous year is not a good formula. There needs to be a better calculation/system for measurement purposes.

I think people need to some things into context. If all 42K registered USMS swimmers wanted to compete at Nationals, then that would be very tough to do. (Yes, I know that this is far fetched, but I am making a point) The ENFORECEMNT of the NQT's would be important in the case scenario. You only see about 1500-1800 at the SCY Nationals. This represents only about 2%. So what do NQT's really represent?


I agree with Ian. If you work at it, then you get the reward. With that being said (I know this will upset allot of people, but it's my opinion) I think if anyone wants to swim at Nationals, then they must have a NQT for each event you swim. No freebies, no more 3 events without an NQT. Make it really mean something to swim at Nationals.


Thank you.
CJ Rushman
Southwest Ohio Masters
OHIO LMSC Secretary

Ion Beza
June 9th, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by cjr

...
I do agree that NQT's are good. I agree with having them. I do think they need to be adjusted. I think that using the 10% lower than the 10th place time from the previous year is not a good formula. There needs to be a better calculation/system for measurement purposes.
...
...I think if anyone wants to swim at Nationals, then they must have a NQT for each event you swim. No freebies,...
...

So what new NQTs (that anyone who swims at the Nationals "...must have..." for each swim) do you have in mind?

Dominick Aielloeaver
June 9th, 2003, 11:12 PM
Well supposing USMS made nqt,s was manderatory. What do you think would be the the amount of members would be? And how many more members would join. Also if you trained hard 4-5 times a week, and really want to go to the Natl,s.and you could not qualify? And how many people do you think would be at the nationals? More so should not hard work be reward?We all can not be as good as others . But we can be as good as we can be.:) :cool: :)

cinc3100
June 9th, 2003, 11:34 PM
I agree that allowing three is enough. Personally, I like the smaller meets and just because you swim as a kid doesn't mean you make the standards- I only made one but maybe I'm a fat middle age woman who has lost a lot of strength. Oh,well.

Phil Arcuni
June 10th, 2003, 12:08 AM
Well, how about a vote?

- Keep NQT policy as it is now

- make NQT's mandatory for all events

- make people pay extra to swim in events they don't make NQT's in

(OK, not the last one)

I enjoy all the people at the meet. The policy as it stands now allows many of my team mates to swim at nationals, making it all the more fun, and increases the chance for me to be in a relay (for those of us who don't belong to mega regional teams.)

I'll even give up my sixth event for the pleasure of swimming with, and meeting, my team mates, and the friends I have in this group. (but what should that event BE??? :confused: )

Ion Beza
June 10th, 2003, 12:46 AM
My vote is to have the same thing that it is now:

three free events, and to swim more -up to six-, competitors should meet the currently defined NQTs.

From reading the thread, this is also the most prevalent opinion from people.

Paul Smith
June 10th, 2003, 09:03 AM
How about another option; Set "A" & "B" NQT standards similar to what is done at NCAAs? If an event has far to many people entered (say 100+ in the 50 free) then enforce a cutoff.

MegSmath
June 10th, 2003, 09:07 AM
Yikes! This is a little scary, but I agree with Ion!!!!

I like the way we do it now. I think having three "free" events and three NQT events is a good compromise. I do not think only people who make the NQTs should be allowed to go to Nationals. That's not my concept of what USMS is all about.

By the way, the way the NQTs are figured is more complicated than just 10% slower than the 10th place time on the Top Ten list. It involves averaging over a specified period of years. Championship changed the formula a few years ago so there wouldn't be such drastic changes in qualifying times from year to year. The actual formula is not in the rule book because it was getting to be so complicated that you had to read the rule multiple times to figure out what it was saying. At my suggestion, the wording was changed to "The procedure for determining the qualification times shall be established by the Championship Committee with the approval of the House of Delegates" (article 104.5.3C). Basically, we're trusting Championship to do their job competently.

Meg

Matt S
June 10th, 2003, 09:19 AM
Hey, I didn't call for this straw poll, but I'll toss my preference in the ring.

I'd vote for keeping things just the way they are: 3 events without making NQT, up to 3 more if you can make the NQT. My reasons have been talked right into the ground, so I'll not belabor them.

For CJ: leaving aside the issue of whether we require NQT's for some or all events, what method or formula would you use to calculate them? Are you thinking they should be slower, faster, or do you think some age groups are too easy while others are too difficult? Do you feel that we should use more swimmers than the one person who placed 10th on the top 10 list? I'm genuinely curious as to how you'd like to set these. BTW, the way we calculated NQT's changed within the last couple of years (to using the average of the last 3 year's 10th place time, instead of only the last year's, and a couple of other tweaks). If your idea can be calculated reliably without an unreasonable amount of labor, and it statisfies widely accepted criteria of what NQT's ought to be, it could very well be adopted.

Matt

Gail Roper
June 10th, 2003, 10:44 AM
USMS covers a lot of agendas, fitness swimmers, triathletes, injured runners, cross-trainers........and competitors. That is what USMS is all about, all inclusive. Whatever your program is, USMS includes you. However, the National Championships are a competitive event and should belong under the jurisdiction of the Competitive Committee. Fitness events under the Fitness Committee, etc.
The competive committee should decide all matters related to competiton, including how and where to run the National Championships. I agree with Paul that NQT's should be set for all events and there should be no freebies. That is what competition is all about.

Leonard Jansen
June 10th, 2003, 12:00 PM
Although I have little interest in pool races, please allow me to throw in my (relatively uninformed) two cents.

I think that what this issue really is about is capacity planning and NQT's are only a tool to reach that end. To wit, if a meet's size exceeds the ability of organizers to conduct it, it implodes under its own "weight". Therefore, the real issue is "How big can a meet get without either making it either unmanageable, making it beyond the reach of most associations to conduct, or making the stress/expense of hosting it so great that no one wants to do it?"

So, based on the above, we first must decide if the nationals are:
a) currently unmanageable
b) just the right level of manageablity
c) could be managed without severe pain if larger

If a) is true, then you can either shrink the size of the meet to fit the alloted/desired time or expand the timeframe to accept the number of participants. The most consistent/fair method of decreasing the number of participants is probably making NQT's tighter. Expanding the timeframe, short of using Einstein's relativity principles, become a matter of deciding whether expanding the duration is possible based on stress/expense/logistics.

If b) is true, then why mess with what you have? The NQT's are doing their job and doing them well.

If c) is true, then again, use the NQT's to get more people in the meet by loosening them a bit.

As an aside, it seems that another alternative, at least in theory since I'm not sure of the realities involved, is to expand the space used. In other words, are there many/any locations where there are two pools of good quality and of the right size that are in close proximity so that the meet could be split into two locations. This skirts both the capacity and time issue to some degree although it does NOT skirt the logistics/stress issue and has some added stress that goes with it. Just a thought...

The unfortunate truth here is that there is a capacity beyond which the Nationals will not work, despite our desire for egalitarianism. If that point is reached, it must be dealt with for the good of the meet and, hopefully, done in the most fair manner. And that sure looks like NQT's from where I'm swimming.

-LBJ (Who will only make the 1650/1500 NQT in his dreams)

Paul Smith
June 10th, 2003, 12:32 PM
My feelings are that capacity is only one part of this "debate", however as I've stated many times in the "competitive" branch of our sport, setting goals (such as making an NQT, Top 10, winning a championship, etc.) is an extremally important element. I truly believe that we value things that we attain through hard work and dedication far more than those that we are "given".

USMS provides "stepping stones" to advance and progress from loacl meets to regionals all the way to the pinnacle which is our nationals and world championship meets.

I am however "flexible" enough in my position to allow for what some describe as the "spirit" of masters and attempts to be inclusive. My point is where is the line drawn?

I've used examples such as overcrowding; 100+ entrants in an event, meets that go till 9pm, etc. none of which has been a major problem at nationals the last few years. The problem may arise however if a swimmer uses a freebie to enter an event that is far slower than the NQT, it doesn't happen often but it can and will.

This is why I suggested that we possibly use "B" or "Consideration" time standards that would kick in when an event doesn't have a full field (or does). Rather than have a "freebie" let people know that if the size of the meet allows for additonal swimmers than there in.

kaelonj
June 10th, 2003, 12:41 PM
Nicely put LBJ, obviously the time swimming in open water and not staring at a thin black line has kept your mind sharp. To reiterate a little the current system seems to be working, but should the need arise in the future, defining nationals will be the first step. Is this a showcase of top swimmers only or do you keep with the goal of masters swimming (inclusion of all). Once that decision is made, everything else will somewhat fall into place. If it is only for the elite, then tighten up the NQTs - if its for everyone, find more pool space or lengthen out the timeline in order to accomodate the masses, sounds simple enough.

Jeff

cjr
June 10th, 2003, 02:39 PM
Greetings,

I will be brief.

I agree with Tall Paul, 110%. And Gail Roper too.

LBJ nicely conveys all of the messages from the posts.

To answer Matt S; I think that NQT's are slow. Look at the NQT's for men's 50 free, regardless of the age group. 90% that swam the event beat the NQT. 50 free maybe a bad example, but it does illustrate my point. The NQT's need to be revised. Also, as I started in another forum, I think relays should count as events. Would make it interesting.

Meg,

Your right the Championship Committee needs to address this issue. Obviously I am not the first person to bring this topic to the fore front. Since I can't make it to the convention this year, I hope that this is discussed.

I'll see you soon.

Thanks everyone.
CJ Rushman
Southwest Ohio Masters
OHIO LMSC Secretary


:D

Phil Arcuni
June 10th, 2003, 03:44 PM
But Leonard did not summarize all of the posts, because length of the meet and NQT's as a size-management tool is not the only issue here. Paul and Gail have made it clear that the *purpose* of the national meet is important, and they would prefer that only 'fast enough' (whatever that is) attend the meet, though they would or may agree that there is some room for compromise.

I suspect that the spirit of compromise peters out when and if the 'sixth event' rule is enforced. While that has not happened recently, I would be surprised if it does not happen at Rutgers this summer, with an east coast, BosWash meet and one competition pool.

I sympathize somewhat about that - I don't want to give up my sixth event in a year when I might actually place in the top ten. That would especially be true if I thought that was because of some mediocre swimmer driving over for the day (only there so Garden State Masters could get another relay together, but felt like a 200 free would be fun.) But there are other opportunities to do well in the top ten list (my real goal) and my reasons for inclusivity are pretty selfish - swimmers just want to have fun!

If I took swimming as seriously as an Olympic swimmer might, maybe I would feel differently. But then I would be an (current) Olympic swimmer (hint! :D )

michaelmoore
June 10th, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by cjr

To answer Matt S; I think that NQT's are slow. Look at the NQT's for men's 50 free, regardless of the age group. 90% that swam the event beat the NQT. 50 free maybe a bad example, but it does illustrate my point.

CJ

I saw your statistic and it scared me. We did an analysis of the NQT for a five year period and it showed that in the 50 and 100 free about 60% of the swimmers achieved an NQT at Nationals. (90% would be about 50% off).

I went back to this year's SCY at Tempe for my age group (50-54). The NQT is 26.25. 53 swimmers swam the 50 Free, 35 swimmers made the NQT (66% - a little high). In the psych sheets 58 swimmers entered the 50 free and it show that 40 people had entered an NQT or faster time (69%). (I think it is the 200 Fly that has the highest percentage of people making NQTs).

I like LJB's analysis and his final line "The unfortunate truth here is that there is a capacity beyond which the Nationals will not work, despite our desire for egalitarianism. If that point is reached, it must be dealt with for the good of the meet and, hopefully, done in the most fair manner. And that sure looks like NQT's from where I'm swimming." This has summed up my feelings. Championship will do what it can in meet management, but at some point, the meet will get too big.

I will try to write more, but am at lunch right now.

The Championship Committee is always looking at NQTs and it was brought up at the committee meeting at Tempe. A sub-committee was formed to look at the NQTs (especially for LCM) and what can be done. There will be report for the Championship Committee before convention.

michael

laineybug
June 10th, 2003, 04:12 PM
"The unfortunate truth here is that there is a capacity beyond which the Nationals will not work, despite our desire for egalitarianism. If that point is reached, it must be dealt with for the good of the meet and, hopefully, done in the most fair manner. And that sure looks like NQT's from where I'm swimming."

Assume for a minute that nationals have reached critical mass and the meet becomes too large to handle. It seems to me if you start to enforce NQTs the meet will shrink, perhaps to an undesirablely small level. To my way of thinking, it follows then that once the maximum size the event can be is determined, then NQT's should be be set low enough that the maximum size is obtained for every meet.

I still believe that a two tier competition might work. Create a national invitational with truely competitive QTs for elite swimmers and a national open. Swimmers who compete in the invitational would not be eligible to swim in the open, giving the rest of us a chance slightly better than a snowball's to place. :D

cjr
June 10th, 2003, 04:47 PM
Hi Michael,

Yes, I did embellish my stats a bit!;)

Hi Michael,

Yes, I did embellish my stats a bit!;)

But the majority of swimmers, at least on the men's side surpass the NQT. Now, some of them might surpass it at the meet because of thier tapering. Others make it regardless.

And I agree that it does depend on the event swam too.

Can you share any insight to where the Championship Committee is going with this topic?

I'd write more too, but I am heading home.

Thanks,
CJ Rushman
Southwest Ohio Masters
OHIO LMSC Secretary

cinc3100
June 10th, 2003, 06:39 PM
The times are slow compared to age group swimmers,sure. Ms Laura Val times are similar to the top 9-10 year old girls in the United States now. But as we age we go backward not forward . 45-49 year old women is similar to 11 and 12 year old girls not 15-18 year old young ladies. I compared 100 yard breastroke for women in my age group ( 45 to 49), 42 made the top times cut off out of 85 in the United States. So half make and half don't,which is different from the statement that almost all make the NT's. I agree that maybe there should be a separate meet but that cost money and time. I think that adding more smaller meets for the more average swimmer may influence people that are not near the NT's to not go to nationals. But some people whether they make the standards are not want to go. And in the younger age groups its more competitive because more people swam as children or started as young adults compared to the older age groups.

theberb
June 10th, 2003, 06:53 PM
I think more smaller meets would be great and would give practice for bigger meets such as nationals. This nationals being the first one i've ever been too was extremely overwhelming to a beginner like me but i really enjoyed myself and got all personal best times. My only gripe is that the idea of more smaller meets wouldn't work for my neck of the woods. When you live in the middle of nowhere (New Mexico) you may see one meet every 2 to 3 months or you have to travel to ariozna or california to do anything plus it gets extremely expensive. i really don't know what to suggest. there have been many suggestions so far. i think it should stay the way it is so that those who wish experience nationals can.

Amber.

Ion Beza
June 10th, 2003, 07:34 PM
There is short-term memory in this post:

Originally posted by cjr

...
I agree with Tall Paul, 110%. And Gail Roper too.
...

It means that CJ agrees with this:

Originally posted by Paul Smith

...
I truly believe that we value things that we attain through hard work and dedication far more than those that we are "given".
...

How much of the NQTs are 'given' in USMS to CJR (and in another age group than CJR's, to each of the USMS people that I highlighted previously as making the top rankings in men ages 40 to 44), whose background is made almost 100% outside of the USMS, appears here:

Originally posted by cjr
Greetings-

Ion-
My background is as follows. I have swum since age 6. I swam for a few USS clubs, summer league, and High School. I have made Jr. National & YMCA Nationals cuts. Then I swam in college for 4 years, which I did swim in the Conference Champs & NCAA's.

Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life. As discusses in the other forum 'Average Weekly Training?' from the 'General Discussion' “My workouts depend on the season. In short course yards season (winter) I try to get in 12K per week in 4 workouts”. This is because I don’t need to workout that much because I know myself and what I am capable of...
...

Notice the "...This is because I don’t need to workout that much..." in it.

Here are NQTs 'given' in USMS, based on a non-USMS background.

Phil Marsom explains this background built outside of the USMS, but used for NQTs in USMS:

Originally posted by Phil M.

...
As a returnee after a 23 year layoff I had no problem meeting qualifying times. This had nothing to do with lots of yardage and good coaching. It was because I had a strong swimming background. (age 12 - 22)
...

Like I posted my position before, I side with Phil's entire post, and with Dominick's post here:

Originally posted by Dominick Aielloeaver

...
More so should not hard work be reward?We all can not be as good as others . But we can be as good as we can be.:) :cool: :)
My take, is:

leave the USMS Nationals like they are now, inclusive of different backgrounds, competitive and non competitive prior to USMS.

The one area where I might compromize, is the sixth event:

.) all non-NQT seed times could be divided into 'consideration' times, and 'non-consideration' times;
if the USMS Nationals get too full and the timeline doesn't look good, then scratch a few (not many) 'non-consideration' times rather than scratch the sixth event made on NQT;

.) or like Phil (i.e.: Phil Marsom) wrote, if the USMS Nationals get too full and the timeline doesn't look good, then add a day to the Nationals.

cinc3100
June 10th, 2003, 08:14 PM
As for New Mexico, I think that have 2 or 3 meets a year. Either two state meets and the state games of New Mexico. Its probably not more expensive than going to Tempe. But you probably wanted to go to Tempe since its was a big meet and it was the nationals. Masters is different than USA swimming which only allows the top swimmers to go to either Senior Nationals or Jr Nationals, as a kid I didn't make it to either and went to a lot of local meets in Southern California. Granted, masters meets even in the largest states are not as numerious as age group or high school meets but there are some local meets and for swimmers that are not in the same level as ex-national level or pre-national level swimmers it gives them a chance to do better. In my age group, I'm certain that the top three breastrokers swam at Senior National or Jr National level as teenagers and as adults their times are even further away from mine than when we were 15 years old.

valhallan
June 10th, 2003, 09:08 PM
Having just gotten back into some competition this year, I've noticed that all the distance events are given an entry deadline and size limitation. As maybe they should, because this is where the meet timeline could really get thrown off. Perhaps the consideration should be made on number of participants in the time guzzling events as some have some suggested.

Whether or not someones' 100 free time is ten seconds off the fastest heat is probably a non-issue. The likelyhood of adding another hour to the days events is a small sacrifice, especially for those who've made the effort to take time off from work and family. The current setup seems to be very fair in providing an all-inclusive meet despite the range in abilities. And being that the number of events for "non-qualifyers" has a limit on them seems to be enough of a precaution in preventing a week long swimming extravanganza.

And yes, Ion..a swimming background grants an advantage as Phil had pointed out. I swam in high school and college, and qualified for eight events in the 40 plus age group with just a little over a year in the water now. Now whether or not I can go to them is a completley different story. :)

cjr
June 10th, 2003, 10:08 PM
I have read post that asked, or suggested how to control the size and length of the National meets. Would not having a stricter enforcement of this policy help? Or would it cause swimmers to shy away from these meets?

Greetings,

This was the thread that started it all. I think by reading some of today post we have good intentions and good ideas. Now it is up to the Championship Committee to discuss this topic.

Happy Lanes everybody!:D

Thanks,
CJ Rushman
Southwest Ohio Masters
OHIO LMSC Secretary

MegSmath
June 11th, 2003, 10:51 AM
If we have roughly 42,000 members of USMS (it may be more, it may be more like 47,000, but this is close enough) and 1900 of them came to Tempe, then we're only talking about 4.5% of the USMS membership. And if 69% of the competitors at Tempe met or bettered the NQT, then that's only 3.1% of the USMS population. C.J. looks at 1300 out of 1900 competitors making the NQT and concludes that the NQT is too soft. Another way of looking at it is that only 1300 out of 42,000 USMS members made the NQT, so by that standard the NQT is pretty tough, not too easy.

In reality, because we call them the Nationals, and because NQTs are in effect (regardless of the mercy events), a huge number of competitors are already scared off. I see no useful purpose in making the NQTs harder than they already are.

And let's be clear here about who you're talking about excluding. You're talking about me, and people like me. People who train hard, or as hard as their lives will let them, year round, but are not elite swimmers and never will be. We love to swim too, and we enjoy taking part in Nationals because it brings out the best in us and allows us to feel part of something special. We pay our entry fees too, and we get stuck in the "leftover" heats, swimming with a conglomeration of age groups. We have no hope of placing in any of our events, yet we still swim our hardest, and we're pretty happy with our achievements, because when it comes down to it, we're really only competing against ourselves anyway. But according to some, our presence cheapens your accomplishments because we didn't "earn" the right to be there. And we're inconveniencing you because we take too long to swim our events. I'm so sorry--if only I could have swum my 50 breast in 40.11 instead of 40.94, my 100 in 1:27.07 instead of 1:30.45, and my 200 in 3:12.21 instead of 3:17.74, we could have taken a whopping 9.74 seconds off the meet.

If find this attitude ... disappointing.

Sam Perry
June 11th, 2003, 11:17 AM
I am sorry Meg, that people have made others feel nationals is supposed to be an exclusive event. It is the "USMS National Championships" but when the rubber meets the road, the true National Championships are the top 10 lists published at the end of each season.

I can understand and empathize that "Nationals" with the size and scope of the meet is not the most conducive to swimming fast. I also feel with the size of the meet and the vast amount of USMS registered swimmers that participate in it, regardless of level of eliteness, makes it a lot more fun and interactive.

I myself would not look forward to Nationals being 500 of the most "elite" level swimmers. It would turn out to be the same 500 people each time, for the most part. With 2,000 to 3,000 swimmers coming to nationals each year, there is always the opportunity to make new friends, meet so many diverse people and still have great competition.

One idea that I believe has been discussed before (I am new to this), is to make a SCM meet sanctioned and sponsored by USMS that has a championship format. Prelims/Finals and seeding not by age group, but by seed times. With this type of meet, we could have some great racing, world records and FINA world rankings at stake.

This meet could be hosted in December before the holidays and have strict qualifying times. I see something similar to what USS does with the US Open in December.

Just a thought....

Paul Smith
June 11th, 2003, 12:22 PM
Meg,
I would have to assume that much of your feelings of dissapointment have come from my comments/opinions and for that I apologize as I have never felt that nationals should be an "elite" event.

What I have tried to propose is some way of maintianing a balance between the size of the meet and setting "reasonable" NQTs that help people set goals and train to acheive them. I've never stated a desire to create "optimal" conditions so that people such as myself or anyone else can swim faster, rather I would like to leave the meet at a resonable time to go out with friends (refer to my past posts regarding my pizza/beer diet).

The problem with NQT times is that they will always exclude someone, the question then becomes "what is fair"? I don't know the answer, hence my suggestion that maybe we set a NQT time and then have a "B" consideration time that allows anyone who wants to swim do so, as long as there is some cutoff.

Forums such as this never allow for the true expression of someones personality, sense of humor, etc. especially when it comes to sarcasm!

For the record: I very much enjoy masters and beleive that its actually working pretty well. I have no real concerns about NQTs, however I REALLY like a good debate! I also think that debates like this help to make events like nationals better, it provides a great place to discuss possible improvements and a chance to sorta get to know folks.

I hope that most people that are brave/bold enough to enter this forum do so with open minds, a lack of hostility and a strong sense of humor!

MegSmath
June 11th, 2003, 12:47 PM
Paul,

I'm sorry, I'm having a pretty bad day. I was up most of the night with my 14-year-old dog, who was throwing up. The diagnosis is pancreatitis, and he probably won't last longer than 24 to 48 hours.

Actually, I don't have a problem with any of your comments. I think your idea about consideration times has a lot of merit (and I should have said so before). I'm sorry if you thought my comments were directed at you. I was avoiding using names so as not to be perceived as attacking anyone, and evidently achieved the opposite!

What I am disappointed in is the idea that the current NQTs are too easy because most of the people at Nationals can make them. Also the idea that you don't belong at Nationals if you can't make the NQTs. I wanted to try to put a human face on the people who would be affected. I am one of them, and many of the people who have posted to this thread know me. In fact, C.J. and I are friends, and former teammates. C.J.'s stated rationale for toughening up the NQTs has been that the meets run too long. I don't think Nationals are at an unmanageable size yet, and their size has been holding steady for the last several years in spite of the growth in USMS. Therefore, I don't think that controlling the size of Nationals is a legitimate justification for tightening up the NQTs.

Meg

drip'nwet
June 11th, 2003, 01:19 PM
Meg,
So sorry to hear about your dog. My 171/2 year old faithful dog and buddy died last May. I was heartbroken and I still miss her. I am thinking about you and your dog at this time.
Peace,
Denise

Dominick Aielloeaver
June 11th, 2003, 01:25 PM
Hi Paul. Iread your comments on nqt,s. And I thought what you said was very good. Kind of a thing we have in our country. The freedom to express our opions. We do say you are entilted to your opion. But if you do not express it. your arenot entilted to it. ( A little humor ) But at any rate I thought a lot of the comments made on this subject were great. As for my self, I did not qualify for any nqts. But the three events I enter , although I did place 14 8 &8 . I still felt like a champ. I was swimming with the thought that I was the greatist swimmer in the world. It was just me and my self. And I commend all the swimmers , which were all winners. And it was the USMS And its NQT,S, That allowed me to accomplished this. Again enjoyed all comments.:) :cool: :)

MegSmath
June 11th, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by dbrown
Meg,
So sorry to hear about your dog. My 171/2 year old faithful dog and buddy died last May. I was heartbroken and I still miss her. I am thinking about you and your dog at this time.
Peace,
Denise

Thank you Denise. Zeebo died about an hour ago. I feel really bad because what triggered the pancreatitis attack was that he ate most of a big bowl of pasta salad that I dropped on the floor while trying to put it in the refrigerator. Too much fat for an old dog to process. Please, don't feed your dogs anything but dog food, everyone.

And everyone, please forgive me for my attitude today. I should not have tried to communicate with anyone in my state of mind.

GoRedFoxes
June 11th, 2003, 02:16 PM
Hmmm,
Valhallan, you got something there (a page back). Got me thinking. Perhaps, the "free" (a term used loosely) 3 events should be available to events which are 200yds or less?
ie. 40-44 Mens 500 free. QT 5:33. 29 out of 37 swimmers swam under the QT. There were swims +4min over the QT. In the 1000 there were swims +8 mins over the qt.

I randomly selected the 40-44 men to use as an example. Some groups may be even worse, some may be better. But you have to admit, these are large numbers which would have a difference on the time of the meet.

I saw some comments on the "Given" subject, and ION had some testimony to back up his comments. Are you a lawyer? :) Anyway, you're right, most people with a swimming background can relatively easiliy make the NQTs without really working hard. Are you asking to make them even harder, so that even us born and raised swimmers have to work?

GoRedFoxes
June 11th, 2003, 02:19 PM
One more thing, I forgot to post.
What rules (if any) are on the books regarding Qualifying times? Are QTs applicable ONLY to Nationals, or can I run a meet which demands QTs.
You know where I am going with this....


Joe Bubel

Bert Petersen
June 11th, 2003, 02:41 PM
1. National Championship meets are not yet too unwieldy and cumbersome.
2. The current system allows everyone to swim three events for sure, regardless of their status.
Hence: It ain't broke so don't fix it !!

cinc3100
June 11th, 2003, 03:43 PM
I agree with you Meg, not all of us that swim as children swim great as adults. Most of those that say they made the NQ times and were out of swimming for over 20 years were men and swam in NCAA's division I, II, or III finals. I didn't hear any women make this claim because with age, we lose upper-body strength and it effects women more than men and some of weight a lot more than we did as teengers. And some of us were modest swimmers as kids not near national level. I wished that I could go under 1:20 in the 100 yard breast like I did as a 20 year but I don't. My time was 1:34.58 in the polar bear meet, so age and being out of the sport for a long time effective me more than the other swimmers. And I think its ok if you want to go to nationals with the three events. Sorry, to hear about your dog, I have a dog too.

Rob Copeland
June 11th, 2003, 05:51 PM
To the question “What rules (if any) are on the books regarding Qualifying times?”

There are a number of rules dealing with NQT’s and these can be found in Article 104.5. “Conduct Of National Championship Meets”.

As for QT’s (the non-national variety) this is addressed in article 401.2. “Right to Participate”. To paraphrase the article “It is not a violation of the Right to Participate to restrict an individual’s eligibility based on qualifying times.” Therefore, it is OK to run a meet which demands qualifying times. It should be noted that this rule allows both “must be faster than” (as in in NQT’s) or “must be slower than” (as in elite swimmers need not apply, or at least not in their elite events, similar to the USA-Swimming “B” meet concept).

Ion Beza
June 11th, 2003, 06:47 PM
It is naive to judge NQTs as being too easy to make, from the fact that most competitors going to the Nationals do make NQTs:

.) by the Nationals' design to allow more swimming by people making NQTs, the majority of swims at the Nationals do make NQTs;
so, obviously there is no surprise that most swims at the Nationals, they do make NQTs;

.) most swimmers in USMS do not make NQTs;
a few amongst those who don't make NQTs, have the courage to go to the Nationals, and risk themselves trying to overcome ridicule in a high competition, on the three mercy events rule.

Regarding:

Originally posted by Sam Perry

...
It is the "USMS National Championships" but when the rubber meets the road, the true National Championships are the top 10 lists published at the end of each season.
...

the "USMS National Championships" and the 'true National Championships' (aka: "...the top 10 lists published at the end of each season."), are about the same:

.) this is according to me seeing that the top 10 ranks for the year (and far beyond the top 10) are on swims made almost exclusively at the National Championships;

.) with some exceptions only, like the swims by Barbara Dunbar.

So, having the 'true National Championships' generously including people not meeting NQTs, who -as Val writes- have "...made the effort to take time off from work and family." and are humble and inspired to compete in this top environment, works almost 100%.

Bert states: "It ain't broke so don't fix it!!".

Otherwise, you are going to break something that works well now.

CoachRay
June 11th, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith

This is why I suggested that we possibly use "B" or "Consideration" time standards that would kick in when an event doesn't have a full field (or does). Rather than have a "freebie" let people know that if the size of the meet allows for additonal swimmers than there in.

Just to stir the pot a bit, as well as suggest extra work for the already overburdened, :D what about a more comprehensive collection of times? Goal setting could be aided by a scale used by agegroupers. So, for those folks who might be outside the range of a National Qualifying Time, they could still go for a "B" time or other intermediate goal.
Also, as a statement of the obvious ;), if we muck around with the formula of three free events to a policy of NQT only entry, there is no reason why the NQT's couldn't be relaxed to reflect that fact.


Just some thoughts,
Ray

laineybug
June 11th, 2003, 07:16 PM
I'm not so sure I like the concept. I can imagine someone who doesn't make QTs traveling all the way to nationals and not getting to swim.

And another thing... why should we keep the meet small enough so that the elite swimmers have time to socialize?

Lainey

Paul Smith
June 12th, 2003, 01:13 PM
Yeah Lainey, that's how I operate; ONLY Top 10, or national record holders are invited when I go out for a beer. And because I can't stay up very late it's VERY important that we get out of meets early to make happy hour.

All you low life, scumbag, slowpocks need not apply, us "elites" are very afraid of you poor souls with no technique and open turns rubbing off on us!



:D

laineybug
June 12th, 2003, 01:33 PM
I get the scarcasm in your reply, but there is still the issue of wanting to make the meet smaller so there will be time to socialize. It might be me who doesn't get to swim so you can drink beer and eat pizza.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the first in line at the pizza joint, but not at the expense of someone else who has worked hard, gone through hell to get off work, and spent a lot of money to travel to the meet. The first and most important aspect of the meet is SWIMMING not socializing.

Lainey

Gail Roper
June 12th, 2003, 01:54 PM
Everyone I know wants to get out of the meet at a reasonable time, say before five pm.....so they can eat an early dinnner and get to bed. Doesn't everyone socialize during the meet? I would like the meet smaller so we don't have to start the meet at 7 am and warm up at 5:30 am......just so we can get the meet over in time. I don't think any swimmer can swim the 400 IM well at 7 am. Keep the meet from 9 am to 5:00 pm, give everyone, swimmers, timers, officials time to eat dinner and refresh for the next day. The kids meets used to stop at a predesignated time, if your event wasn't run by then, tough.
Now the kids meets, separate the age-groups, with the 12 and under over by noon and the older age-groups in the afternoon. I notice that the recent Senior Games did the same thing with the 50-65 age groups the first 3 days and the 70 and over the last 3 days or something like that. Perhaps we should consider that? Just a thought....

Rob Copeland
June 12th, 2003, 02:01 PM
As I see it the issue of trying to control the size of the meet, is more for the benefit of meet organizers than as an accommodation to the social needs of the participants. From my perspective as a swimmer, if I’m told that my heat of the 1650 free is scheduled to start around 11:00 PM, I’ll sleep late and get to the pool around 9:30PM to warm-up. However, if I’m the meet director trying to gather volunteers who are willing to work a 20 hour day my perspective would be a little different.

And, if I have social plan for beer and pizza, I’ll sign-up for the 1000 instead and get the swim finished earlier.

And for many of us, the social aspects that draws us to these meets is equally as important as the swimming. If this wasn’t the case, why did so many people go to Tempe. It’s not the fastest pool in the country and the weather wasn’t optimal for record performances. And most people spent hors and hours at the pool while only swimming for seconds or minutes. I wasn’t able to attend, but I know a few people who spent more time socializing then they did competing. Even Tall Paul was known to be doing some fast talking as well as fast swimming.

laineybug
June 12th, 2003, 02:06 PM
I'm not saying socializing isn't as equally important as swimming to most, what I'm saying is that SWIMMING should be the most important consideration. Or maybe the organization should start giving out medals for 1st place in 50 Fast Talking event.:p

Rob Copeland
June 12th, 2003, 02:22 PM
A fast talking event? Us Georgian’s wouldn’t stand a chance against Y’all.

GoRedFoxes
June 12th, 2003, 02:59 PM
That's Slowpokes Paul, LOL. :D
Hey, I know whatca mean, in AZ, I had to stay out until past 12 in order to feel satisfied, like I'd have enough beer. It would have been better if I could've started earlier (although, I probably would've still stayed out past 12 anyway, just feel MORE satisfied).:D

JB

Matt S
June 12th, 2003, 03:55 PM
HAH!

Tall Paul, I always suspected you were a closet Royalist! While we're at it, let's restore Louis XVIII (or his great-great-grandson) to the throne of France!

Off with their heads! Huzzah! (Can I be the Head of the Security Police?)

Matt "Le Dauphin" Shirley

Paul Smith
June 12th, 2003, 04:09 PM
That's enough abuse about my spelling from you JB, Phil already covers that just fine (besides, the problem only exists cause Jim M. won't get spellcheck set up on this forum)!

Matt, sorry to say that King Louis is out for the French throne, I have it from reliable sources that Ion's in (given that Bucharest has wanted posters of Ion hanging everywhere)! Only problem is France won't take him back becuase he's become so Amercianized, I heard he was even eating a PowerGel at nationals).

Rob, sorry to inform you that you we're misinformed r.e. my fast talking. I NEVER talk fast when my mouth is full of pizza and/or beer, that's a feat only my wife has mastered.

Lainey, awarding an award for only 1st place in a fast talking event is quite an elitist attitude on your part. Now you need to set some NQTs for the event but be sure not to alienate some of the slower fast talkers (you hearin me Matt Shirley?).

:D

MegSmath
June 12th, 2003, 04:44 PM
I was going to stay out of this, having said quite enough already, but since I think I sorta started some of this, I feel obligated to say something more.

Gail, expecting Nationals to be over by 5:00 each day is unrealistic. If you want the meet to be that short, then changes would have to be even more drastic than talked about here. Even when we had a much smaller National meet in Elizabethtown in 1999 we weren't finished that early. And there were only 700 swimmers at that meet.

And I agree with Rob: when I come to a meet I expect to stay as late as is necessary to swim my event. I'd like a general idea about what time to expect to swim, and I adjust my schedule accordingly. I can be flexible.

The social aspect (to me) is every bit as important as the competition, and I do plenty of socializing while at the meet and also after the meet. And Paul, I can do flip turns, so will you have a pizza and a beer with me the next time we're both at Nationals?

I never meant for this thread to degenerate into an elite vs. flounders debate. I regret if anything I said fueled that. I want to see Nationals be as inclusive as possible. I realize the need to control the meet, but I don't think it's fair to exclude all but the elite. By the same token, it's not fair to accuse the elite of looking down on everybody else. I think the system we have now, which limits the number of splashes for nonqualifiers, but still allows them to participate at a reduced level, is fair, and allows a reasonable timeline for the meet. To paraphrase what someone said quite a few posts back, it ain't broke (yet) so don't fix it.

matysekj
June 12th, 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
That's enough abuse about my spelling from you JB, Phil already covers that just fine (besides, the problem only exists cause Jim M. won't get spellcheck set up on this forum)!
:D

The spel chekker is werking juss fyne fer me!

http://forums.usms.org/images/smilies/thhbbb.gif

Rob Copeland
June 12th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Paul,

My sister Valinda, a neighbor in Edwards, was my source, so I’ll blame her for any misinformation. And I hope Laura doesn’t read your posts and find out you have been disclosing her habit of talking fast with a mouth is full of pizza and/or beer.

Oh, and by the way congratulations on some great swims in Tempe!!

laineybug
June 12th, 2003, 06:44 PM
Lainey, awarding an award for only 1st place in a fast talking event is quite an elitist attitude on your part. Now you need to set some NQTs for the event but be sure not to alienate some of the slower fast talkers

Accusing me of and elitest attitude is absolutely preposterous 'cause I'm one of those slow drawling girls from GA who wouldn't stand a chance in that event either! :p

Lainey

PS: Rob, the rate of speech wasn't exactly the kinda fast talking I had in mind... lol

Ion Beza
June 12th, 2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Matt S

...
Tall Paul, I always suspected you were a closet Royalist! While we're at it, let's restore Louis XVIII (or his great-great-grandson) to the throne of France!
...
Matt "Le Dauphin" Shirley
and

Originally posted by Paul Smith

...
Matt, sorry to say that King Louis is out for the French throne, I have it from reliable sources that Ion's in (given that Bucharest has wanted posters of Ion hanging everywhere)! Only problem is France won't take him back becuase he's become so Amercianized, I heard he was even eating a PowerGel at nationals).
...
:D
Bwahaha :) hehe!

From a history book, comes:

"Yet Louis XVIII -old, ugly, and crippled by gout- totally lacked the glory and magic of Napoleon."

in contrast to a more glorious Louis, described a few hundreds of pages before this (and before the era of Louis XVIII -the last Bourbon-) :

"In the reign of Louis XIV (r. 1643-1715), the longest in European history, the French monarchy reached the peak of absolutist development. In the magnificence of his court,..."

When I first met Paul, it was during the 2001 Short Course Nationals in Santa Clara.

Laura was taping a long shadow in the background, in a black, full bodysuit, at the start of the 1000 yards free:

I was passing by, near a pretty blonde leaning on a railing with a camera on hand, and heard her yelling "Go, Pablo!";
I asked myself: "Now, who the heck is Pablo, here?";
I asked the blonde - who introduced herself as being Laura Smith-, and she said is Paul Smith;
doing a first 100 free all-out, for the record in the age group, then warming down for the remaining 900 yards;
"OK, I watch it.", I said since I knew the name of the champion;
47.00 in the first 100 free all-out, then (as I refresh my memory now with that result) relaxing into a 10:51.37 for the 1000 free.

Afterwards, talking with Paul, we touched such groundbreaking subjects as of why this wasn't a 46.99 instead, how he knew my name since I joined two months earlier this forum and was heckled by posters about my bragging of fast times as a late starter, how he went to my native Romania when representing U.S. in the World University Games, and being exposed to many cultures unlike an average poster.

It seemed to me that 'Tall Paul' was not the cyborg I was picturing from seeing the name associated with fast times, but a human.
Like Fritz Lehman -the backstroker- turned out to be also, later on.

The story is to say that this is what you get at the Nationals when you have the excellent, and some other backgrounds too:

an inspiration and an openness;

I doubt the inspiration and the openness would be at the Nationals, if they were restricted to cold business between strict NQT aquanerds.

cjr
June 12th, 2003, 09:53 PM
Has the Championship Committee, or other entity within USMS ever discussed having a more strict policy of enforcement in regards to the NQT's?

Greetings-

I wanted to play catch-up to the issue at hand. I have been away on business travel.

I would like to address your attention back to my first question in quotes above. Simply put, who/whom is USMS monitors the NQT? Are they enforced? If so how? And if not, then why have NQT’s?


Just like to understand more from a historical point of view. I have read posts that asked, or suggested how to control the size and length of the National meets.

I have been swimming Masters for only 7 years. I am now just getting started to be involves at the LMSC and National level. Again I am trying to obtain information, and not suggesting that the system must change. I want to know "What is the system?" And this is not the first time this topic has come up. Obviously the USMS Board has some work to do.


Would not having a stricter enforcement of this policy help? Or would it cause swimmers to shy away from these meets?

Last quote from the original thread above. Again bottom line here is for information purposes only. If we made it stricter, would that help with the size, speed of the meet? If this was to take place, would this cause USMS numbers to drop off?

I am not trying to take anything from anyone. I suggested in a different thread about adding 3 relays (400 Free & Medley, and the 800 Free) to Nationals. WHY you ask? Is it because I want to see the meet last until the wee hours of the next morning? NO, it is because I am trying to create opportunities for people to swim.
Yes, I would like to swim a 400 or 800 relay at Nationals. Beside it might be fun to do something different than has been done before.

So really here are the questions that need answers.

1. Are NQT's important? Why are they important?
2. Are NQT's valid? How do we make them valid?
3. What purpose do they serve in the current form?
4. Should NQT's be re-elevated? If they need to be then how is this accomplished?

I know, understand and support to mission of USMS. There are many good things about it. Obviously there are many of us that feel one way or another about this particular subject, which is a good thing. It shows that we care about our fellow swimmers as well as USMS. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.

Thanks,
CJ Rushman
Southwest Ohio Masters

Ion Beza
June 12th, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by cjr

...
So really here are the questions that need answers.

1. Are NQT's important? Why are they important?
2. Are NQT's valid? How do we make them valid?
3. What purpose do they serve in the current form?
4. Should NQT's be re-elevated? If they need to be then how is this accomplished?
...

Lots of posters here, have answered these questions by now.

Each question.

You should take the answers into consideration, by now.

cinc3100
June 13th, 2003, 01:04 AM
Two other long rulers, Ion, the emperor Augustus from 30BCE to 14 CE and the emperor Justintian of the Byzantine empire I think, 530 CE to 575 CE.

cjr
June 13th, 2003, 11:20 AM
Hi Ion,

I have read each post and have taken these answers into consideration. However, most people gave thier personal feelings (which is fine), but all I was wanted was simple yes or no answers. Maybe the better way was to set this up as a poll. The post was not to distinguish between those that make or do not make an NQT. The post was initiated to ask, do we all agree that it needs to be revamped? I think the resounding answer is yes. Obviously this system does “work”, but I use the term rather loosely. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.

It is now up to those that have the responsibility to act upon this, the Championship Committee.;)

Thanks,
CJ
Southwest Ohio Masters

Ion Beza
June 13th, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by cjr
Hi Ion,
...
However, most people gave thier personal feelings (which is fine), but all I was wanted was simple yes or no answers.
...
The post was initiated to ask, do we all agree that it needs to be revamped? I think the resounding answer is yes. Obviously this system does “work”, but I use the term rather loosely. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.
...

It is in these "...thier personal feelings..." (which should read instead "...their personal feelings..."), that people here gave "...simple yes or no answers.".

From reading the thread, I would replace the "I think the resounding answer is yes." with an "I think the resounding answer is no.".

I will give again my answers, in your format, below:

Originally posted by cjr

...
So really here are the questions that need answers.

1. Are NQT's important? Why are they important?
...

The NQTs are important in order to give more than three swims to someone.

Originally posted by cjr

...
2. Are NQT's valid? How do we make them valid?
...

The NQTs are valid by making the reporting of the USMS meets mandatory and in a standard form for the computer, so there is a trace of who makes NQTs.

Originally posted by cjr

...
3. What purpose do they serve in the current form?
...

It ensures that who makes NQTs, swims more at the Nationals.

Originally posted by cjr

...
4. Should NQT's be re-elevated? If they need to be then how is this accomplished?
...

I think that NQTs shouldn't be re-evaluated:

10% slower than the tenth place averaged over the last three years, that's fine.

By the way, Christopher Rushman:

when searching on the USMS board, there is no trace of you having been to Nationals in 2000 (Long Course, but went to Short Course, for a 5:34 in 500 free -which for a former age-grouper is so-so to me, the late starter in swimming-; 5:34 it still ranked #6 in the 25 to 29 group in the 2000 Short Course Nationals, an easier group than what the NQTs of men 40 to 44 require), 2001, 2002 and 2003.

So, to judge that the NQTs are easy based on a pre-USMS background, not coming much to the USMS Nationals but -instead of coming- wanting to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore, that's not being a model to me.

Matt S
June 13th, 2003, 01:18 PM
You finally did it!! You posted a reply that: (1) I could follow completely while reading it through one time only, and (2) completely agreed with everything in it! Good Lord, this doesn't mean there is some kind of telekinetic karma kind of connection thing going on, does it? We wouldn't want to show up at a meet wearing the same outfit, or anything like that.

Matt

Susan Stanton
June 13th, 2003, 01:48 PM
One of the gals I swam against in the 200 fly claimed an NQT in the event. I was dubious about her claim, since she actually swam 40 seconds slower than the time she seeded. When I asked her, she said she had not swum the event in years.

On the other hand, she did place in the event. (As did I, even though I didn't have an NQT.)

So, in the older age groups and less popular events, the NQT system is actually blocking people who would place in the event.

I still like the current system. If master swimming keeps growing, eventually we might have to kick out the slower swimmers (like me.)

Sue

Ion Beza
June 13th, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Matt S
You finally did it!! You posted a reply that: (1) I could follow completely while reading it through one time only, and (2) completely agreed with everything in it!
...

I am trying really hard.

Writing one comprehensive post out of 322, that's better than writing none:

to me, it was worth 322 tries.

Originally posted by Matt S

...
We wouldn't want to show up at a meet wearing the same outfit, or anything like that.

Matt
No, man, let's make sure that doesn't happen...

MegSmath
June 13th, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by cjr
The post was initiated to ask, do we all agree that it needs to be revamped? I think the resounding answer is yes. Obviously this system does “work”, but I use the term rather loosely. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.

It is now up to those that have the responsibility to act upon this, the Championship Committee.;)

C.J.,

I don't see how you can say that the resounding answer was yes. It seemed to me that more people thought the system was working fine as it is and needs no tweaking. At most, the opinion was 50-50.

Also, the Championship Committee is not all-powerful. They have their meeting at convention, they submit a report to the House of Delegates, and their report, including any recommendations, is approved or disapproved. I can tell you right now that as a voting member of the House of Delegates I will NEVER vote in favor of changing the current NQTs. The NQTs as they stand now are fair and reasonable. They do not need to be toughened up, and there is no need to do away with the three free events.

cjr
June 13th, 2003, 04:16 PM
Hi Meg,

I'll agree with 50-50. Obviously this has been and always will be a much debated topic. You really can't win in this situation.

Ion,

I never said we need to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore. Again in another post, I suggested to add 3 more relay events. Why, because it creates more opportunity to swim.

Your right, I don't make Nationals a regular event. If it fits into my schedule around work, family and vacation then I will go. This also includes YMCA Nationals. I gave you my background only to state that for me, I am relying on it heavily to make an NQT. I only train 3-4 days per week now versus in college where 2 a days 6 times a week produced different results. I never said, nor considered myself to be anything else but a swimmer. Sorry that I gave you the wrong impression.

Now, I grant you the 5:34 in the 500 is nothing to rave about. And I'm not. But the NQT for 25-29 age group in 2000 was still faster than the 40-44. In 2000 I did swim a couple of events where I did surpass the NQT (50 & 200 Breast). Since I have aged up (30-34), the NQT's have gotten a bit faster in all events.

I knew that I was not going to SCY Nationals, but my training was centered on making the NQT's for as many events as possible. It gave me a chance to shoot for something.
This was fun for me.

Hope that makes my view a bit clearer to you.
Thanks,
CJ

Ion Beza
June 13th, 2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by cjr
Hi Meg,

I'll agree with 50-50.
...

I don't agree with 50-50:

aside from neutral positions, like Jeff Kaelon's -who asks whether the USMS will go into elitism or into inclusion- and like Cynthia's, gull80's, Mark Mattson's, Sam Perry's, 'Coach Ray''s, Rob Copeland's and Jim Clemmons' -who ponder the question-, by re-reading the thread, I count the clear positions in this thread that address the 'Yes, change the NQTs', and the 'No, don't change the NQTs'.

'Yes': Paul Smith, Gail Roper, C.J. Rushman;

'No': Matt Shirley, Bert Peterson, Dominick Aiello, Ion Beza, Meg Smath, Phil Marsom, Val Florio, laineyebug, 'GoRedFoxes', Phil Arcuni, theberb, Chris Beardsley, Michael Moore, Dan Frost, Ken Classen, Tim Murphy, Ian (seems to), and Susan Stanton.

So, the 'No, don't change the NQTs.' crushes the 'Yes, change the NQTs.' by 18 to 3.

Even if the 'No.' waters down a little bit from people making amedments to what they have already posted, that will be a little bit of watering down only, but 'No.' will still crush the 'Yes.'.

Originally posted by cjr

...
Obviously this has been and always will be a much debated topic. You really can't win in this situation.
...

The position of 'No, don't change the NQTs.', wins.

Originally posted by cjr

...
I never said we need to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore. Again in another post, I suggested to add 3 more relay events. Why, because it creates more opportunity to swim.
...

Swimming relays and individual events as it is now without changing the NQTs, does create "...more opportunity to swim." compared to what you propose.

Strict NQTs are going to reduce the size of the Nationals:

.) many competitors will disappear and their absence won't be compensated by three more events in relays;

.) three more events is too small of an addition and people will say that traveling to the Nationals just for a NQT relay and no individual swims, is not worthy to do.

So, what you propose (strict NQTs and three more relay events), will reduce the participation, and it will diminish the generous atmosphere of the USMS Nationals.

Originally posted by cjr

...
Your right, I don't make Nationals a regular event. If it fits into my schedule around work, family and vacation then I will go.
...
This also includes YMCA Nationals. I gave you my background only to state that for me, I am relying on it heavily to make an NQT. I only train 3-4 days per week now versus in college where 2 a days 6 times a week produced different results.
...

That's where Val's and Dominick's posts about valuing competitors who have taken "...time off from work and family..." to train, to prepare and to come to the Nationals, make sense.

Consider that out of two Nationals in 2000, two in 2001, two in 2002 and one Nationals in 2003, you (the former age-group swimmer) have attended one.

Out of the same, I have trained as a late starter in swimming, then I attended six.

I think that I am more commited in my preparation and delivery than you are, to go to the Nationals.

You tell me not to go on the three mercy events rule, because I don't make the NQTs in men 40 to 44 and you want strict NQT participation, no matter that you don't go much anyway.

Originally posted by cjr

...
Now, I grant you the 5:34 in the 500 is nothing to rave about. And I'm not. But the NQT for 25-29 age group in 2000 was still faster than the 40-44. In 2000 I did swim a couple of events where I did surpass the NQT (50 & 200 Breast). Since I have aged up (30-34), the NQT's have gotten a bit faster in all events.
...
CJ
Well, well:

5:34.xx for the 500 free as a 28 years old in the year 2000 is outside of the 5:33.11 NQT by men 40 to 44 in the 2003 Short Course Nationals.

Now, factor into your 5:34.xx at age 28 as a former age-grouper, that this past Wednesday (two days ago), me who joined my first swimming club at age 28 and who is of age 44 now, I did swim in the middle of an ordinary workout, a 400 free (without draft in the lane and without diving), in 4:46;
this computes to a sub six minutes effort for the 500;
with the bad technique of a late starter in turns and in breathing, noticed in this thread.

Now, wouldn't then a 5:34 at age 28 by a former age-grouper, be kinda unimpressive to me?

I guess swimming must be more relaxed in some age groups.

gull
June 13th, 2003, 10:03 PM
4:46? You should definitely focus on the distance events.

cjr
June 13th, 2003, 10:05 PM
Hi Ion,

I guess we agree to disagree on the subject. It is hard to put into words my message. Hopefully we will meet at a Nationals to talk about this someday.

Thanks for your feedback.
CJ

Ion Beza
June 13th, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by gull80
4:46? You should definitely focus on the distance events.
Yes, I think -and people in my team think also-, that with proper preparation I can become fair in middle distance and in distance freestyle.

When I came to San Diego two and a half years ago, with swimming in mind, I couldn't have done a 4:46 surprise.

Competitive coaching in swimming, diet (I am now 156 pounds for 6"0', as opposed to 168 three years ago), weightlifting and lots of rest, they bring me surprises like this one.

Technique in flip turns and breathing thru asthma, are still chores to me, but they are on the menu.

We shall see.

GoRedFoxes
June 16th, 2003, 09:42 AM
What is CE and BCE? Metric? Does it have to do with changing the $ bill to read, "In Gold We Trust"?


Noone thought my suggestion about limiting those Non-NQT swims to 200 yds or less, to be Good, Bad, or just Ugly?
I am totally convinced that the length of the meet would not be greatly affected if we were to exclude those who have not qualified. EXCEPT, for the distance events. I know the 1000,1650 are swum on its own day, and do not affect the large majority of National goers. And the 400 IM is about as popular to the unqualifying swimmer as the 200 fly is. But the 500 free could have easily added an hour and a half (or more) to each day it was swum.

_________________
someone wrote:
Nationals never get's out early.
_________________

Nationals in Indianapolis ran MUCH faster than the timeline. I almost missed my event, and I thought I was showing up early. We had plenty of time to visit the Numerous MicroBrewerys Indy has to offer. Paul, hope you're planning on Indy 2004, we can have a pizza and beer eating/drinking contest. And do some talking with our mouths full. ROFLMAO (I kill me, ha!)

Joe Bubel

Ion Beza
June 16th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by GoRedFoxes
What is CE and BCE? Metric? Does it have to do with changing the $ bill to read, "In Gold We Trust"?
...

It seems to be "In oil for Exxon and Halliburton We Trust", right now.

This:

Originally posted by cinc310
Two other long rulers, Ion, the emperor Augustus from 30BCE to 14 CE...
...

should read:

"...the emperor Octavian Augustus from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D....".

Octavian Augustus is not to be confused with another Augustus, Diocletian Augustus, who ruled from 284 A.D. until 305 A.D..

Originally posted by cinc310

...
...and the emperor Justintian of the Byzantine empire I think, 530 CE to 575 CE.
Justinian I, reigned from 525 A.D. until 565 A.D..

Good memory, Cynthia.

Me, I don't know history by rote like that, so I look it up for fun.

Here it is:

history for thought, when people meet for beer and pizza.

Bert Bergen
June 16th, 2003, 04:02 PM
The thread is officially (and thankfully) dead.

laineybug
June 16th, 2003, 04:05 PM
or I could stir it up again with another sarcastic remark.

Ion Beza
June 16th, 2003, 05:04 PM
Your priceless contribution in this thread, is outstanding:

Originally posted by Bert Bergen
The thread is officially (and thankfully) dead.

KenChertoff
June 16th, 2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by GoRedFoxes
What is CE and BCE? Metric? Does it have to do with changing the $ bill to read, "In Gold We Trust"?


CE means "common era" and BCE means "before the common era." You may not be aware that these terms are commonly used by many people, particularly observant Jews, who, for religious reasons, are uncomfortable with the religious significance of "A.D." and "B.C."

cinc3100
June 16th, 2003, 11:33 PM
Very good Ken, I used the modern terms BCE and CE because some people are this board are probably not chirstians and this is an academic term. Ion is right I didn't look up the information and went on memory,