PDA

View Full Version : Pool Measurement - World Championships



Frank Thompson
July 11th, 2006, 01:57 PM
This weekend I was at a swim meet and heard a very distrubing rumor. I heard that the DeGuerre Pool which was the pool used for the 1987 USMS Short Course Championships at Stanford and is now called the Baker Pool because of the new renovation and expansion that was done in 1999. The rumor I heard is that the pool was measured recently and found to be exactly 50 Meters with no touch pads at the time of measurement. I thought this was a joke but everyone was serious about this and wondered what would be the ramifications of this. Touch pad tolerence for Colorado timing pads is .3 inches or .76 cm.

The first issue with this is that if this is true, and if we follow FINA rules, that all swims in the Baker Pool would have to be done by using manual timekeeping. That who ever is scheduled to be swimming in that pool would not have Automated Officiating Equipment and that it would be replaced by a chief timekeeper, three (3) timekeepers per lane and two (2) additional timekeepers per lane according to the FINA Rules and Regulations SW 1.2.3.

With over 6300 swimmers swimming the event this greatly impacts everything that is involved in the meet. If this is true are there contingency plans in place that would change the order of the way the meet would run. For example if we swim Women in one pool and Men in the other, if the Women get down early would the Men start at the other pool. Because of time line pressures could the meet go to and odd/even heat running of events that has been used in the recent National Meets such as Coral Springs. Of course this might not be fair because some people would get the Automated Belardi Pool with touch pads, splits and scoreboard verses the Baker Pool with human timers and no splits and scoreboards.

It would seen to me that the meet would get out of alignment because there would be no balancing between activities in both pools. I believe because of the manual adjustments to be made after every swimming heat that the slow down at the Baker pool would create productivity and efficiency issues with the timelines for both swimmers and officials.

In closing let me say I appreciate all of the efforts of Michael Moore and the LOC. The reason I am bringing this up is because the meet starts in 20 days and I think people should be prepared for this. The FINA World meet will be a long spread over many days and I know we have been asked to give a little in our expectations in the differences between USMS meets and FINA World Championship meets. This expectation will be the greatest of all that we will have to deal with if what I am saying is true.

knelson
July 11th, 2006, 02:47 PM
That would certainly be an interesting development. I really don't see how the meet could be run with one pool using electronic timing and the other using manual. Talk about a logistical nightmare!

About the best solution I can think of is use the legal pool for the fast heats and the out of tolerance pool for the slow heats. I'm talking about "fast" and "slow" within a sex and age group, not overall. That way those swimmers who have the best chance at top ten times, records, etc. would be swimming in the legal pool.

Rob Copeland
July 11th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Skip,

The rumor is partially true. Yes, the Baker pool WAS measured to be exactly 50.00 meters. However we will not be resorting to manual or semi-automatic timing. Instead the pool will be stretched (actually ground) to allow sufficient tolerance for touch pads to meet FINA specifications.

Frank Thompson
July 11th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Rob:

Thanks for the quick response. Wow, I have never heard of that. With that, everyone will be at ease for a great World Championship meet.

Peter Cruise
July 11th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Rob & Frank- we simply do not resolve a potential debate so simply- it is unforum-ish!

knelson
July 11th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
Instead the pool will be stretched (actually ground) to allow sufficient tolerance for touch pads to meet FINA specifications.

Oh yeah, stretch the pool. Why didn't I think of that?

Seriously, how in the world do you stretch a pool?

jim clemmons
July 11th, 2006, 04:29 PM
how in the world do you stretch a pool?

Hammers and chisels.

geochuck
July 11th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Get the guy with the Highway grinders one pass over per lane.

mattson
July 11th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
Instead the pool will be stretched (actually ground) to allow sufficient tolerance for touch pads to meet FINA specifications.

I've heard that all the swimmers will be ground down by 0.3 inches, instead of the pool. Either sandpaper or a lot of mallet hits to the top of the head.

knelson
July 11th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Just put the blocks on rails. They can move them back based on the length of the race!

dorothyrde
July 11th, 2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by mattson
I've heard that all the swimmers will be ground down by 0.3 inches, instead of the pool. Either sandpaper or a lot of mallet hits to the top of the head.

:D :D :D

scyfreestyler
July 11th, 2006, 06:08 PM
It's hard to believe this pool's measurements have never been an issue before this meet.

Frank Thompson
July 11th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Not to be funny but I wonder if the pool width wise has the same problem that it had length wise. I know now its used more as a recreation pool and for water polo and the Belardi Pool is now used for competition. I swam there at the 1987 USMS Short Course Nationals and had real good time drops and wondered if I was swimming .3 inches or .76 cm short per 25. Back in those days, if you set a USMS Record, you did not have to measure the pool. Maybe it was a good thing because it would be more than twice as hard to ground the pool all the way down the 50 meter length.

Rob Copeland
July 11th, 2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by scyfreestyler
It's hard to believe this pool's measurements have never been an issue before this meet. This was never an issue before, because this will be the first meet that is using both 50 meter courses for competition.

Peter Cruise
July 11th, 2006, 11:32 PM
Frank, that pool couldn't have been too short- my times were slow at that meet! Although I did win the Porta-potty dash (you had to have been there...oh, the horror, the horror).

kokkole
July 12th, 2006, 02:38 AM
the pool where I often race is definitely 60 meters. :(

Rob Copeland
July 12th, 2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by knelson
Seriously, how in the world do you stretch a pool? First the pool is partially drained, next as George alluded to, the plaster is ground down, the walls surface is then refinished, and finally the pool is refilled.

This is an amazing demonstration of the organizing committee’s commitment to making this a world class event.

knelson
July 12th, 2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
This is an amazing demonstration of the organizing committee’s commitment to making this a world class event.

I'll say! I would have thought they'd just have to live with it.

geochuck
July 12th, 2006, 10:46 AM
I built an indoor swimming pool years ago in Hamilton (the George Park Swimming School) one of the workers father came to watch the concrete pour and he knocked the level off and put it back in the wrong place 6 inches and 1 sixtenth inch out. The pool was poured and plastered, the health inspector came and found the pool 1 sixtenth shallower then the regulations. The deck was out by a 16th inch also. Before I was able to open it took 2 days of concrete grinding.

Frank Thompson
July 12th, 2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
This was never an issue before, because this will be the first meet that is using both 50 meter courses for competition.

Rob:

I can think of two meets where they used both 50 Meter courses. I was at the 1998 USMS LC Nationals in Fort Lauderdale and remember that meet well because I swam all my good times in the new pool and didn't swim good times in the old stadium pool. This was also a meet that you could swim both distance events at Nationals (800 - 1500 Free).

In a discussion this weekend about the short pool at Stanford, one of the swimmers swam at the 2004 World Championships in Riccione, Italy and said there was an indoor 50 meter pool and an outdoor 50 meter pool and people seem to like the indoor 50 meter pool better.



http://www.masters2004.it/venues.asp

knelson
July 12th, 2006, 11:00 AM
I think Rob was specifically referring to using both of Stanford's 50m pools for competition.

Oh yeah, it looks like I might have the opportunity to meet Mr. Copeland. Here's an excerpt from the psych sheet for the 800 free:

91 Nelson, Kirk E 36 PNA(USA) 9:43.23
92 Copeland, Rob 50 GAJA(USA) 9:43.27

Frank Thompson
July 12th, 2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by knelson
I'll say! I would have thought they'd just have to live with it.

Kirk:

I am going to link some threads of the past about this from two years ago and you can see how people feel about this. The thread the Losers by Frosty was the one that really kicked this thing off.

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58&highlight=the+losers

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75&highlight=pool+measurement

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=718&highlight=pool+measurement

Frank Thompson
July 12th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by knelson
I think Rob was specifically referring to using both of Stanford's 50m pools for competition.

Oh yeah, it looks like I might have the opportunity to meet Mr. Copeland. Here's an excerpt from the psych sheet for the 800 free:

91 Nelson, Kirk E 36 PNA(USA) 9:43.23
92 Copeland, Rob 50 GAJA(USA) 9:43.27

Kirk:

At both meets they used the two 50 Meter pools for competition. At the 1998 USMS LC Nationals they had breaks after the long distance event in the morning for warm up. In fact they had the exact warm up guidelines that Coral Springs had. Two hours before the meet started and then 30 minutes after the break. For the rest of the meet you had to warm up and warm down in the diving pool.

I don't know what happen in Riccione because I was not in attendence at that meet. My teamate from Michigan Masters (Denise Brown) told me about the competitive arrangements at that meet.

That is good that you will swim against Rob. The man went 10:47 in his 1000 at Coral Springs so that looks like a reasonable time estimate for the 800 Free.

jpheather
July 12th, 2006, 12:09 PM
I believe that the "old" Stanford pool was refurbished when the new one was built, and they probably resurfaced it, making it slightly shorter.

Same thing happened here at Caltech. They built the new pool. Then they resurfaced the old pool. The old pool is now too short to be used for competition (not that we'd want to, but what if there was a problem with the new pool during a meet and they wanted to switch to the old pool? Can't).

I like to do my workouts in the OLD pool. I need every advantage I can get.

Rob Copeland
July 12th, 2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by knelson
Oh yeah, it looks like I might have the opportunity to meet Mr. Copeland. Here's an excerpt from the psych sheet for the 800 free:

91 Nelson, Kirk E 36 PNA(USA) 9:43.23
92 Copeland, Rob 50 GAJA(USA) 9:43.27 It looks like I need to talk to the meet director and see if he can NOT shave my lane or take a little extra off yours. All I need is about 3 inches per hundred to make up that 0.04 second…

knelson
July 12th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Hey, I'm planning on going a 9:43.22, so you better have them leave an additional millimeter or so ;)

BillS
July 12th, 2006, 03:22 PM
While world record relays are certainly worth bragging about, to me this is what Master's competition is all about . . . two guys seeded in the nineties talking smack about who is going to take the other down.

And I fail to see an appreciable difference between the attitude of Kirk & Rob and that of the Dream Teams because, in the end, it's all about bragging rights because NO ONE REALLY CARES A WHIT ABOUT THIS STUFF EXCEPT MASTER'S COMPETITORS.

Peter Cruise
July 12th, 2006, 04:52 PM
Aw gosh, Bill...(scuffs feets)you mean no fame, fortune & fabulous fillies? (squints at the horizon, takes off his 10 gallon hat & wipes his brow with his sleeve) I guess I'll be just movin' on then.

kokkole
July 13th, 2006, 01:55 AM
I'm having trouble understanding if there is any truth to the issue of the length of the Baker Pool at Stanford University.

I'm having a lot of fun with the jokes, but can someone tell me if there is an official answer?

After all World Records are based on absolute parameters. Pool records are POOL records...

Thanks!

dorothyrde
July 13th, 2006, 06:49 AM
Kokkole, it sounds to me like they are going to have to pool fixed and it will be the correct length. I think the jest is that they are going to shave the pool down to be correct, which personally, I think it is amazing.

geochuck
July 13th, 2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
Kokkole, it sounds to me like they are going to have to pool fixed and it will be the correct length. I think the jest is that they are going to shave the pool down to be correct, which personally, I think it is amazing.
Truly amazing they call it shaving down before the meet. Will it help everyone swim faster???

kokkole
July 13th, 2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
Kokkole, it sounds to me like they are going to have to pool fixed and it will be the correct length. I think the jest is that they are going to shave the pool down to be correct, which personally, I think it is amazing.

Thanks Dorothy!

That is amazing!!

knelson
July 13th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
I think the jest is that they are going to shave the pool down to be correct, which personally, I think it is amazing.

I think you meant "gist" rather than "jest." Although I'm not convinced the whole thing isn't a jest!

dorothyrde
July 13th, 2006, 11:11 AM
Good gosh, I should not post early in the morning. GIST

Brian Stack
July 13th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by knelson
I think you meant "gist" rather than "jest." Although I'm not convinced the whole thing isn't a jest!

One of my swimmers did the original measurement, he's a civil engineer employed by the City of San Francisco. He told me that the second measurement was done by the folks at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, they both got the same result! Fifty Meters on the dot. There'll be some grinding going on. Hope the folks doing the grinding don't have to pay for parking ;)

See Ya
Brian

knelson
July 13th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Brian Stack
the second measurement was done by the folks at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, they both got the same result!

However, they did say they couldn't be sure about this result due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle!

Brian Stack
July 13th, 2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by knelson
However, they did say they couldn't be sure about this result due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle!

OK that was supposed to be secret! Who leaked?

See Ya
Brian

AnnG
July 14th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I hope they get on that job as we are now THREE weeks and counting til Worlds!

mattson
July 15th, 2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Brian Stack
He told me that the second measurement was done by the folks at the Stanford Linear Accelerator...

Some of the stuff accelerator folk do is quite amazing. There is a plot at work from a few years back, showing Fermilab being affected by a faint earthquake in Thailand. The superconducting magnets in the Tevatron (a 3 mile circumference ring) were being moved just enough to make it harder to steer the beam.

Frank Thompson
December 8th, 2006, 05:02 PM
I don't mean to bring this subject up again but today I was reading about the American Record that Kate Ziegler set yesterday in the 1650. I guess the meet personal measured the George Mason University pool before hand per the rules, but what I was suprised about was that they have to get it re-measured by a certified engineer. I am not sure if this is a fixed wall pool or a bulkheaded pool. I do remember that some place in Virgina that a State High School meet and a USMS sanctioned meet were held and it was discovered that the pool was to short and all of the times would not count. I believe this was two or three years ago. I wonder with these actions taken if this is a new requirement for USA Swimming or just for the Virginia LSC because of the problems they had in the past.

http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?TabId=0&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&ItemId=1365&mid=2892

Mswimming
December 8th, 2006, 06:29 PM
That's funny hearing that the baker pool should have been faster. It certainly wasn't the case for me.

I swam the 50 and the 100 in the baker pool and was dissapointed in both times. Especially my 50 time of 27.9. I was so dissappointed I almost didn't come back to swim my other events.

In the belardi pool I swam the 200 free, 50 fly and led off two 200 free relays, our mens 120 and our mixed 120 relays. All of the times in the belardi pool were masters bests.

The only event that is apples to apples would be the 50 free. In the belardi pool I went 26.9 then in the next relay swam a 26.6. Both were flat starts as I was the 1st swimmer in both relays. Those were consecutive masters bests. And life bests for long course.

If I recall correctly, most people had better times in the baker pool. :dunno:

Any have a good day in the baker pool and not so good in the belardi?

Kevin

The Fortress
December 8th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I don't mean to bring this subject up again but today I was reading about the American Record that Kate Ziegler set yesterday in the 1650. I guess the meet personal measured the George Mason University pool before hand per the rules, but what I was suprised about was that they have to get it re-measured by a certified engineer. I am not sure if this is a fixed wall pool or a bulkheaded pool. I do remember that some place in Virgina that a State High School meet and a USMS sanctioned meet were held and it was discovered that the pool was to short and all of the times would not count. I believe this was two or three years ago. I wonder with these actions taken if this is a new requirement for USA Swimming or just for the Virginia LSC because of the problems they had in the past.

http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?TabId=0&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&ItemId=1365&mid=2892


As you may have read, I am attending this meet to watch my kid. GMU is a bulkheaded pool. We had a little difficulty last October with a masters meet (the Sprint Classic) at this pool. The pool was not properly measured, the bulkhead had moved ever so slightly and all the times were thrown out for Top 10 purposes. Since then, the pool is always re-measured.

I saw Kate swim tonight. She swam a 1:45.6 in her 200 free, missing her prior record by .1. She was pushed though; it was not cake walk. She also swam a 56.2 in the 100 fly and finished second. I have to say, although fast, her fly form in not great. She, however, is a class act. Smiling to all, shaking hands and very un-diva like. I look forward to seeing her 500 free tomorrow.