PDA

View Full Version : Handicap rules for USMS



TheGoodSmith
September 7th, 2005, 12:01 PM
I propose USMS adopt handicap measurements to more equitably compare performances in Masters Swimming.

1. Married ...... deduct one tenth per 50
2. Nagging spouse.... deduct two tenths per 50
3. Each child under the age of 10..... deduct one tenth per 50
4. Work more than 40 hours a week..... deduct one tenth per 50
5. House and car payment stress.... deduct on tenth per vehicle two tenths per house.
6. Travel more than 1 day a week.... one tenth per 50

Note: item 6 can help negate item 2.


In addition.... those of us with more manageable lifestyles need to adjust their times as well.

7. Training more than 4,000 a workout ...... add one tenth per 50
8. Training more than 4 days a week....... add one tenth per 50
9. Born independently wealthy..... add 3 tenths per 50


John Smith

newmastersswimmer
September 7th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Good Idea! I especially like the 2 tenths you can subtract for a nagging spouse...LOL!!.....I won't have to worry about adding time for being anything close to wealthy....In fact, I think low income brackets should also warrent time deductions as well!
I am working out more than 4 days a week and well over 4000 yards a day (just started this new insane regiment though)...so I would most likely have to add as much (or more) time than I get to subtract.....so why don't we skip the time additions section.....OR...How about adding the following to the second list.....If you ever won an event at a major Division 1 conference swimming championship while in college, then you have to add 0.5 seconds per 50?


Newmastersswimmer

SwiminONandON
September 7th, 2005, 12:32 PM
How about subtracting 1 second per 50 for every year after 18 that you DID NOT swim ...

OR adding one second for every NCAA championship your college swim team won (IF you swam in college) ...

Adding one second if you swam in college ...

Guvnah
September 7th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Hmmm... The handicap for life-annoyances might be misguided. I can tell you this. When my kids are getting on my nerves, I can do some of my best times if I channel my anger and frustrations into my swimming! :) And the day after I got a speeding ticket, I was thoroughly mad, and it almost seemed like I could walk on water that day!

aquageek
September 7th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by SwiminONandON
How about subtracting 1 second per 50 for every year after 18 that you DID NOT swim ...


We shall call this the anti early blooming penalty.

gull
September 7th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Actually, if you want to penalize the early bloomers (and help the late bloomers) it should be a 1 second deduction for every year before age 18 that you didn't swim.

TheGoodSmith
September 7th, 2005, 01:59 PM
1 second per 50 is a little steep in my opinion. If you started swimming as an age grouper that would give late bloomers an 8-10 second head start for a 50 free.

Actually, I wasn't focusing on the past so much as the present.

How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.


John Smith

newmastersswimmer
September 7th, 2005, 02:10 PM
originally posted by the Evil- GoodSmith

How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.


As long as you can also deduct a tenth of a second per 50 for every $1000 you make below $60,000 as a "below the poverty line" adjustment to your proposed salary scale as well!


Newmastersswimmer

p.s. What did I tell you about starting discussion threads with overly serious or controversial themes attached to them!

mbmg3282
September 7th, 2005, 02:31 PM
John,

While this is an interesting idea, I see some serious implementation problems.

1) We can't take the swimmers word for it that he has a nagging wife. They will have to bring them to the meet to be verified. Now we will have a meet full of people being nagged and that will take much of the fun out of things.

2) Children under the age of 10. How will we know they are really the kids of the swimmer. I can see the Evil Smith renting 10 kids to make sure you can't touch him in the 50 free.

However, I like the idea.

Can we get some time deducted for skipping workouts? I do that a lot.

Also, can we get time deducted based on this year's best time versus the previous year's best time?

gull
September 7th, 2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
1 second per 50 is a little steep in my opinion. If you started swimming as an age grouper that would give late bloomers an 8-10 second head start for a 50 free.

Maximum 4 second deduction--that would correspond to the four year "window" for maximum aerobic development (10-14). Thus, if a "late bloomer" in our age group swam a 50 in 26 seconds, he would be awarded a 22. For a 100, if he swam a 55, he would be awarded a 47.

TheGoodSmith
September 7th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Agreed, we must be able to verify everything. However, I can assure you that nagging spouses are NO problem to prove or disprove.

As for the Evil Smith... you are right. We can not trust him. He went to UCSB.

John Smith

Peter Cruise
September 7th, 2005, 03:36 PM
I favour a two-tenths deduction for every 1000 ft of altitude above sea level that a swimmer trains at.

aquageek
September 7th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
How about a tenth of a second per 50 reward (i.e. deduction) for every $10K in salary you make up to $200k. Beyond $200K you get punished and time added for too cushy a lifestyle.


I think we should award a tenth of a second deduction only at $200K and above. Encourage success rather than penalize.

After all, USMS members are worth their weight in gold or we're a goldmine or something golden. The more we earn, the more gold we are to potential advertisers.

laineybug
September 7th, 2005, 06:53 PM
I think women who have hot flashes should get a 1 second deduction. If you are a man living with a woman who gets hot flashes then you would also be entitled to the deduction.

Allen Stark
September 7th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Daughter aged 13-15 or son aged 15-17 deduct .2 sec.

mattson
September 7th, 2005, 09:04 PM
+1/2 second per 50, if your name is "Smith"

Karen Duggan
September 7th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Or if your name is Day or Knight...

No part of the clock is safe! They're everywhere "p

Ion Beza
September 8th, 2005, 12:43 AM
This John character seemed to be a serious guy when we talked at the 2003 USMS Short Course Nationals in Tempe, Arizona, after he raced to the wire his competition in the 200 free, then walked on deck bent, gasping for air.

Instead, what's this business, mischief?

Originally posted by gull80
Maximum 4 second deduction--that would correspond to the four year "window" for maximum aerobic development (10-14). Thus, if a "late bloomer" in our age group swam a 50 in 26 seconds, he would be awarded a 22. For a 100, if he swam a 55, he would be awarded a 47.
So Craig, in 2005, for me, that's:

.) a 50 yards free in 27.06 - 4 = 23.06,

.) a 100 yards free in 59.68 - 8 = 51.68,

.) a 200 yards free in 2:09.11 - 16 = 1:53.11,

.) a 1,650 yards free (in the same day as the 200 and the 50, minutes apart) in 21:21.76 - 132 = 19:09.76,

and in Long Course, last month, a:

.) 50 meter free in 29.60 - 4 = 25.60.

(Long Course in 2005 I stop at 50 meter free, since last month I raced the 100, 200 and 1500 free and beyond the 50 I was broken down and slower than my 100, 200 and 1500 free swam in 2004)

However, I guess that the window for maximum aerobic development is longer than 10-14, is maybe 10-18.
Sprinter Steve Crocker, #3 in the word in the 50 meter free in the early 90s, who started at 17, would agree with me.

Sam Perry
September 8th, 2005, 01:27 AM
He's baaaack.....

sibleyclan
September 8th, 2005, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by Allen Stark
Daughter aged 13-15 or son aged 15-17 deduct .2 sec.
2.0 seconds if the 13 year old daughter happens to be twins!!

laineybug
September 8th, 2005, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Ion Beza


.) a 50 yards free in 27.06 - 4 = 23.06,

.) a 100 yards free in 59.68 - 8 = 51.68,

.) a 200 yards free in 2:09.11 - 16 = 1:53.11,

.) a 1,650 yards free (in the same day as the 200 and the 50, minutes apart) in 21:21.76 - 132 = 19:09.76,

and in Long Course, last month, a:

.) 50 meter free in 29.60 - 4 = 25.60.

. . .

this thread is a joke Ion

aquageek
September 8th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by laineybug
. . .

this thread is a joke Ion

Bug, you sure about that? I was thinking it was about time USMS allowed slow people to post fast times.

Slight change of subject, our coach made us do a 20 minute swim today. What would be a good distance in that time period?

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 8th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Who determines waht a nagging spouse is? I bet most nagging spouses don't think of themselves as nagging, only insistent or persistent.

Ion Beza
September 8th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
...I was thinking it was about time USMS allowed slow people to post fast times.
...

Well, that's an improvement from USMS allowing even slower people -like you- to smirk.

knelson
September 8th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
Slight change of subject, our coach made us do a 20 minute swim today. What would be a good distance in that time period?

Over 2,000 would be good :)

My team does this just about every month. I'm still trying to go over 1,800 yards.

Not sure how I can deduct the ten seconds per 50 I'm entitled to since I was out of the pool between ages 22-32. ;)

Ion Beza
September 8th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by laineybug
. . .

this thread is a joke Ion
You got it.

Did my "...Instead, what's this business, mischief?..." help you realize this?

Ion Beza
September 8th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by knelson

...
Not sure how I can deduct the ten seconds per 50 I'm entitled to since I was out of the pool between ages 22-32. ;)
I am not sure either.

Your story is the carbon copy of most in USMS.

It's hard to stand out with it.

knelson
September 8th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
I am not sure either.

Your story is the carbon copy of most in USMS.

It's hard to stand out with it.

You're probably right. The ones you have to watch out for are those who are 'entitled' to 20 or 25 seconds per 50 deduction!

laineybug
September 8th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
You got it.

Did my "...Instead, what's this business, mischief?..." help you realize this?

Actually Ion, I read that and didn't understand what you meant, because that is definately not the way a native speaker of English, or someone proficient in English, would have phrased it.

aquageek
September 8th, 2005, 07:12 PM
How about this, the person that correctly guesses the number of posts between this one and when this thread gets shut down for the usual reasons can deduct 5 seconds from any event they want at next year's nationals. I'm predicting 20 posts.

Also, any person who uses the term "late bloomer" is disqualified unless USMS now recognizes this as a legitimate excuse for slow times.

Ion Beza
September 8th, 2005, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by knelson
You're probably right. The ones you have to watch out for are those who are 'entitled' to 20 or 25 seconds per 50 deduction!
Who are they besides me?

What I see in USMS are the ones like you, who took a leave from swimming at age 22, and up until 22 were in the window of opportunity and materially sheltered in swimming by their parents, in their country.

Or the one who started late and crows about breaking 40 seconds in 50 yards free without other willpower.

My swimming comes outside the window of opportunity, entirely as a self sustaining working adult (contrast this entirely self sustaining work/swim adult life -starting at level zero in swimming- with a favorite USMS saying: "I can't swim, I have [i]to do. In high school I swam , [i]I can't do that now."), who took the risks of immigration on rare job skills to two foreign countries, and self sustained this adult work/swim double life in three foreign countries.

Ion Beza
September 9th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by laineybug
Actually Ion, I read that and didn't understand what you meant, because that is definately not the way a native speaker of English, or someone proficient in English, would have phrased it.
It's not because of the language, since my "...Instead, what's this business, mischief?..." is plain wording.

Rather is your conformity, a habit to use canned phrases at the grocery store and lack of original thinking.

Ion Beza
September 9th, 2005, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by aquageek

...
Also, any person who uses the term "late bloomer" is disqualified unless USMS now recognizes this as a legitimate excuse for slow times.
But can geek use programming in Java as an illusion that he is more than a push-buttons technologist?

cinc3100
September 9th, 2005, 01:00 AM
Well, I don't think he has slow times. He beats a few people at nationals. But he talks about the same old issues time after time. I agree that starting late makes it hardable,particularly in the 45 t0 49 year old age group. But in the older age groups, some women started in their 40's or 50's and have some of the top times.

laineybug
September 9th, 2005, 09:09 AM
here we go again. Broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, ad nauseam.

Paul Smith
September 9th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Handicap rules for USMS
I propose USMS adopt handicap measurements to more equitably compare performances in Masters Swimming.

1. Married ...... deduct one tenth per 50
2. Nagging spouse.... deduct two tenths per 50
3. Each child under the age of 10..... deduct one tenth per 50
4. Work more than 40 hours a week..... deduct one tenth per 50
5. House and car payment stress.... deduct on tenth per vehicle two tenths per house.
6. Travel more than 1 day a week.... one tenth per 50
_________________________________________

John, your usually so private about your personal life......has Tori seen this thread?!

By the way, does this have anything to do with your whimping out on taking down Boatwrights 50 free WR?

Paul Smith
September 9th, 2005, 10:01 AM
Lainey.......I'm guessing all the 12 year olds on the USS site finally booted him!

Ion Beza
September 9th, 2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Lainey.......I'm guessing all the 12 year olds on the USS site finally booted him!
That's how you wasted your life in wrong guesses.

Ion Beza
September 9th, 2005, 11:21 AM
This:

Originally posted by laineybug
here we go again. Broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, ad nauseam.
comes from someone who pretended to know consistency.

It seems that either "...broken record,..." or "...consistency..." is convenienty invoked, depending on what's pretended.

knelson
September 9th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
Who are they besides me?

I'm sure there are others. The bottom line, though, is everyone is different. You're probably never going to swim as fast as me, and I'm never going to swim as fast as Paul Smith. No one here denies your dedication to swimming and that's great, but not everyone is that commited.

newmastersswimmer
September 9th, 2005, 03:40 PM
originally posted by knelson

I'm sure there are others. The bottom line, though, is everyone is different. You're probably never going to swim as fast as me, and I'm never going to swim as fast as Paul Smith. No one here denies your dedication to swimming and that's great, but not everyone is that commited.


I've finally caught you red handed Kirk......committed is spelled with two t's instead of one!!.....there are NO excuses either as each of us has the power to go in and edit our postings to fix typos and such........Sorry Kirk but I've been patiently waiting for this day to eventually happen....and, by the grace of you know who, my prayers have finally been answered!!...(only j/k of course).


Newmastersswimmer

p.s. Yeah Ion, I too also admire your impressive work ethic....don't worry about your times as long as your having fun and making progress.....that's all that really matters IMHO of course.

Peter Cruise
September 9th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Tom? Moose? Ralph? Somebody tell the Commissioner to shine the Mooselight over the city...he is needed again...

Tom Ellison
September 11th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Mr. Moose still lives....(Ralph & Tom as well....)
Reading all the time we get to take off for all these things....it reminds me of the VO2MAX Shampoo being so good that IF you put to much on.... you would finish your race before you started....That would be a serious plus here for then we would not have to read the same nonsense over and over and over and over...
Would too, would not....too...not...
Things that never change...tend to remain the same....

Tom Ellison
September 11th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Does Tom get a deduction for thinking he's a Moose?
Kindest regards,
Ralph

Hey, I can ask my own questions....
Tom

Gosh, that was a good question though.....
Was not, was too, not...

Ion Beza
September 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Now, this:

Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Mr. Moose still lives....(Ralph & Tom as well....)
Reading all the time we get to take off for all these things....it reminds me of the VO2MAX Shampoo being so good that IF you put to much on.... you would finish your race before you started....That would be a serious plus here for then we would not have to read the same nonsense over and over and over and over...
Would too, would not....too...not...
Things that never change...tend to remain the same....
is a true broken record.

Not consistency:

over the years, it learned nothing from the medical field that testified here.

In 2005 he copies 2001, word by word, there is no learning, there is no evolution in between.

(including same illiterate grammar in own native language:

the "...IF you put to much on..." should be "...IF you put too much on...", and is not a typo, is a recurring error)

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 went by him.
Without evolution.

In contrast, compare my times in 2001 with this season's.
Then, remember my evolution that I posted from 2001 until now.

People I met at the 2005 Long Course Nationals who trained with him and coached him in Texas, and who read this forum (Bob the architect, Cathy the coach) told me not to hope for any better from him.

Sam Perry
September 11th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Not consistency:

over the years, it learned nothing from the medical field that testified here.

In 2005 he copies 2001, there is no evolution in between.

(including same illiterate grammar in own native language:

the "...IF you put to much on..." should be "...IF you put too much on...", and is not a typo, is a recurring error)

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 went by him.

If it so repetitive, then why even go on here? My gosh, you seem to be so annoyed with the same "illiterates" on here. Just go to a more learned site away from us underlings. I don't know how you tolerate such stupidity.

laineybug
September 11th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Ion, by your own earlier statement you recognize that this thread is a joke (or mischief as you put it). Why then, do you keep trying to turn it to your agenda?

(Oh yeah, a joke and mischief are two different things. Mischief can be a joke or prank. The results of mischief, even if unintential and very mild, is harmful or hurtful. The intent of this thread was good natured fun that did not harm or hurt anyone.)

Ion Beza
September 11th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Sam Perry
If it so repetitive, then why even go on here? My gosh, you seem to be so annoyed with the same "illiterates" on here. Just go to a more learned site away from us underlings. I don't know how you tolerate such stupidity.
I found here lefty, Fritz, gull, Phil (i.e.: Phil Arcuni), Jim (i.e.: Jim Clemmons), Rich (i.e.: Richard Abrahams, who was insightful and supportive at the 2005 Long Course Nationals), Gail (i.e.: Gail Roper), Jim Thornton, and you too, which I value.

Ion Beza
September 11th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by laineybug
Ion, by your own earlier statement you recognize that this thread is a joke (or mischief as you put it). Why then, do you keep trying to turn it to your agenda?
...

It was gull -a medical doctor that ellison is never learning from- who turned this thread to my agenda.

Playfully, at the high level of my agenda, I went along.

The thread is still a joke, at a higher level.

laineybug
September 11th, 2005, 08:37 PM
Ion, I'm sorry you didn't see the humor in Gull's post.

Ion Beza
September 11th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by laineybug
Ion, I'm sorry you didn't see the humor in Gull's post.
I am sorry you don't see that I saw the humor in gull's post.

And went along.

Is "...Playfully..." in my previous post, helpful?

gull
September 11th, 2005, 08:46 PM
I'm not sure I see the humor in my post, but I'll take your word for it. My sense of humor is so dry, sometimes I don't even get my own jokes.

Ion Beza
September 11th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by gull80
I'm not sure I see the humor in my post, but I'll take your word for it. My sense of humor is so dry, sometimes I don't even get my own jokes.
OK, so Craig was serious.

About a medical observation.

With his medical expertise.

The thread started as a joke, and there are parts that are meant to be funny, and parts that are meant to be serious.

aquageek
September 12th, 2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
... and parts that are meant to be serious.

No, there really aren't any parts of this thread that are serious.

gull
September 12th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Just for the sake of argument, I can understand why a "late bloomer" (someone who takes up competitive swimming as an adult) might want to find some means to assess his or her progress in comparison to other swimmers besides looking strictly at (unadjusted) times. Face it, no late bloomer will ever make top ten in my age group (45-49), unless of course they just outlive everyone else.

dorothyrde
September 12th, 2005, 08:53 AM
Exactly, 90-95 age group look out when I get there!

aquageek
September 12th, 2005, 09:05 AM
Gull:

I'd be interested in your take on my late blooming status as a coneisseur of fried foods. I ate very well until I was 23, a result of a family that stuck to a very healthy diet. I even slightly maintained this in college, although added substantial, some might say dangerous, items from the grain family (and the potato family if funds ran short).

Is it possible to make up in cholesterol points to my tubby buddies by the time I hit the 40-44 age group?

gull
September 12th, 2005, 09:13 AM
Fear not, you probably have caught up already.

Seriously, when Asians move to the US and adopt our diet, their risk of heart disease increases significantly.

aquageek
September 12th, 2005, 09:17 AM
OK, so I'm gonna put your education to the test.

If a person (say me, for instance) can substantially alter their health by inhaling unwise quantities of fried everything, how can it simulataneously be impossible to improve one's sporting abilities (say swimming, for instance) to the point of being exceptional?

One a more serious note, keep an eye on Ophelia out there in The Bern please.

gull
September 12th, 2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by aquageek
...how can it...be impossible to improve one's sporting abilities (say swimming, for instance) to the point of being exceptional?


World class coaches really do talk about a window for maximum aerobic development, but I don't know the science behind that. I think technique (or lack thereof) will always be a major limitation for late starters.

If you come to New Bern in October for Mumfest, you can try a fried Twinkie. I call it job security.

Ion Beza
September 12th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by gull80
Just for the sake of argument, I can understand why a "late bloomer" (someone who takes up competitive swimming as an adult) might want to find some means to assess his or her progress in comparison to other swimmers besides looking strictly at (unadjusted) times. Face it, no late bloomer will ever make top ten in my age group (45-49), unless of course they just outlive everyone else.
In my case:

.) in 2001 it was 27.40 in 50 yards free;

.) this season it was 27.06 in 50 yards free;

.) in 2001 it was 2:12.22 in 200 yards free;

.) this season it was 2:09.11 in 200 yards free;

.) in 2001 it was 30.84 in 50 meter free Long Course;

.) this season it was 29.60 in 50 meter free Long Course;

.) in 2001 it was 2:34.xx in 200 meter free Long Course;
(in a fast pool, indoors at King County in Washington State)

.) this season it was 2:29.85.
(in a slow outdoor pool where I was slowed down furthermore by a heat stroke under a blasting sun)

When I had many of my points -but not all- outlined in the thread 'Lifetime best' in place in 2001, including 1,301 kilometers of training over a 52 week season, then how could I improve from there and top 2001?

I think that the evolution I described in 'Lifetime best' is about the fine points of improvement.

Originally posted by gull80
World class coaches really do talk about a window for maximum aerobic development, but I don't know the science behind that. I think technique (or lack thereof) will always be a major limitation for late starters.
...

Unlike Craig though, I don't think that technique is the driving force, I think that technique follows conditioning, conditioning is best done in the window of opportunity, better conditioning allows for better technique, and Maglischo in 'Swimming Fastest' emphasizes training this conditioning at 60% of the mileage in anaerobic threshold.

100 meter free World Record Holder Pieter van den Hoogenband's (Ned.) workouts are at 60% in anaerobic threshold.

John opened a new thread ('Swimming -a sport of fads') where he emphasizes this.

knelson
September 12th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by newmastersswimmer
I've finally caught you red handed Kirk......committed is spelled with two t's instead of one

You got me. My erudition is forever diminished because of this glaring error. How will I ever face the folks at Mensa again?

aquageek
September 12th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by gull80
If you come to New Bern in October for Mumfest, you can try a fried Twinkie. I call it job security.

I know this will come as a shock but I just went downstairs and looked at the nutrition label on my box of twinkies. They only have 4.5 grams of fat per delicious, moist and tasty serving.

I suspect the deep frying part might push that 4.5g up just a bit, like maybe to 20 or 30g.

Also, the USMS convention is being held in NC this week, further proof this is the swimming hub of the nation.

gull
September 12th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
I know this will come as a shock but I just went downstairs and looked at the nutrition label on my box of twinkies. They only have 4.5 grams of fat per delicious, moist and tasty serving.

That is shocking. I thought you preferred Hostess cupcakes.

newmastersswimmer
September 12th, 2005, 02:38 PM
originally posted by Kirk

You got me. My erudition is forever diminished because of this glaring error. How will I ever face the folks at Mensa again?


It looks like the only way to save face now and maintain your sense of integrity is to resign. Who needs those highbrows from Mensa anyway!?


Newmastersswimmer

newmastersswimmer
September 12th, 2005, 02:40 PM
originally posted by gull about Geek's eating habbits

That is shocking. I thought you preferred Hostess
cupcakes.


What could be better than a dozen hostess cupcakes followed by a 40 oz Shiltz Malt Liquor chaser??


Newmastersswimmer

SwiminONandON
September 12th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Yum ... hostess cupcakes!

Tom Ellison
September 15th, 2005, 03:54 PM
"People I met at the 2005 Long Course Nationals who trained with him and coached him in Texas, and who read this forum (Bob the architect, Cathy the coach) told me not to hope for any better from him."

Ion, what a classless thing to post.....

Ion Beza
September 15th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison

...
Ion, what a classless thing to post.....
The post that I wrote there is a counter attack to my activity being ridiculed.

aquageek
September 15th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Boo freakin' hoo

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 12:44 AM
This:

Originally posted by aquageek
Boo freakin' hoo
is geek's own Boo freakin' hoo:

it's the whining of the 'ground breaking contributors' to swimming 'Magnus von Pounderson', 'Farney McGee' and 'David Wooderson', the non learning on this subject for years, the avoidance for years of gull's corroboration on the subject.

After 'David Wooderson', expect from geek an impersonation like 'Stone MacFarlane':

that's the maximum possible extend of his 'knowledge' for swimming.

aquageek
September 16th, 2005, 05:12 AM
I've never held myself out as having much knowledge on swimming or any topic, for that matter. I trust my posts have made that abundantly clear.

I enjoy this forum for the insight on swimming it usually provides, along with a number of unique personalities. That's the extend (or is it extent?) of my interest.

Tom Ellison
September 16th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Ion, I never mentioned you or said one thing to you and I never ridiculed your activity.

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
I've never held myself out as having much knowledge on swimming or any topic, for that matter.
...

I think you did.

When commenting on my times, mocking information about them and ignoring learning.

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Ion, I never mentioned you or said one thing to you and I never ridiculed your activity.
I must dream then when every year since 2001 I see these almost unchanged words:

Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Mr. Moose still lives....(Ralph & Tom as well....)
Reading all the time we get to take off for all these things....it reminds me of the VO2MAX Shampoo being so good that IF you put to much on.... you would finish your race before you started....That would be a serious plus here for then we would not have to read the same nonsense over and over and over and over...
Would too, would not....too...not...
Things that never change...tend to remain the same....
minus my name, but referring to what is perceived that I do ("...Things that never change...") and say ( "...VO2MAX...") in a derisive way.

Tom Ellison
September 16th, 2005, 12:40 PM
"When commenting on my times, mocking and ignoring information."

Things said between us both in past posts have LONG AGO been worked out. I never said anything about your times in this post. As far as my choice to ignore your information, that is my right! I could care less what you swim or what your times are or how much you know or do not know.

If you want to push this issue, I can drag the lumber out if needed ....and..... having said that, I see no need for that. What I posted was HUMOR....Actually, Mr. Moose and Ralph posted most of it....and if you have a problem with what they posted, take it up with them.

Hey Tom you big Dork, don't do that to us.....
Mr. Moose & Ralph

Tom Ellison
September 16th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Ah, actually....Mr. Moose was poking fun at everyone for getting sucked back into the same old junk.....me included!

Golly Gee Ion, come on, lighten up and at the very least carry on a simple, dignified argument with a Moose.

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
"When commenting on my times, mocking and ignoring information."

Things said between us both in past posts have LONG AGO been worked out. I never said anything about your times in this post.
...

My quote that you use here is written for geek.

It is in this thread that he comments with swimming 'knowledge' on my times.

geochuck
September 16th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Wow late bloomers can they make it.

Would I be considered a late bloomer being out of the water for 25 years and starting over again in 1998 then not swimming for another 4 years and starting again. Then stopping for a couple more years then out of the water four months and starting to swim again today. Official 1000m a day for the next week, then 2000m a day the next week, then 3000m a day for the next week, then 4000m, then 5000m a day. Watch out Ande here I come. Can I challenge you in January???

aquageek
September 16th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Geochuck, the answer is no, no, no. This has been raised as a point before but we have all been advised there is but a single person in all of Masters swimming, even all of swimming, who can lay claim to being a true late bloomer. Mind that if you ever even took a bath as a child or were submerged in a church baptismal pool or even washed dishes in a sink with water at a greater depth than your forearm, you are an early bloomer. Have you ever stood in the rain - then you are an early bloomer. Have you seen a lake, flown over an ocean or accidentally stepped in a puddle - you are an early bloomer.

If you have taken shots of V02Max while chasing it with beer from a country that has a lake, river or ocean as a border then you are an early bloomer.

Tom Ellison
September 16th, 2005, 02:17 PM
For Blooming Sakes Geek....you nailed it direct on with that post....

Heck, I bloomed before the trees.....then found out some folks wore bloomers.....then.....I learned that my swimming made me bloom.....Oh well, Mr. Moose and Ralph are now early Bloomers because the "Rule" for Blooming says they are guilty by thinking they are me.....

Dang rules.....:(

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Nah,

the last three posts didn't nail who the late bloomers are.

Having been a swimmer in the window of opportunity, taking time off, then being again a swimmer that's the story of most in USMS.
That's not a late bloomer.

A late bloomer starts to train for the first time in life outside the window of opportunity, outside the interval 10 to 22.
I am one, Dima who posts here is one, Dominick who posts here is another one, Connie who posts here is another one, Mark in MD who posts here is another one, there are others and most triathletes are.

aquageek
September 16th, 2005, 10:58 PM
What about if you swam at age 11 and didn't come back until 21? Such subjectivity, such randomness.

Ion Beza
September 16th, 2005, 11:08 PM
Stone,

then it's a little bit of swimming in the window, but not much.

Conniekat8
September 19th, 2005, 01:27 PM
1) We can't take the swimmers word for it that he has a nagging wife. They will have to bring them to the meet to be verified.


Mr. Gill, now that you will be in charge of servicing members in our organization, this just might be the perfect task for you to warm up for your new duties.
;)

jim clemmons
September 19th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Mr. Gill, now that you will be in charge of servicing members in our organization....

Must have missed that vote. Was that one from one of the late nights in what was termed "hospitality" Mark?

SwiminONandON
September 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM
I guess I fall into the late bloomer category too ... someone tell me, is that a bad thing?

jim clemmons
September 19th, 2005, 05:44 PM
I guess I fall into the late bloomer category too ... someone tell me, is that a bad thing?

Depends what you're trying to "bloom" and we're not talking onions here.