Swimming World's top 12 master swimmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Its a slow show]

Let the debate begin. I have no problem with the 12 selected, but, 6 and 6 is pretty tough to pick and I have great respect for the process they use. I do think they should try to maybe add the top swim of the year,but, what they have to do, at present, is pretty overwhelming. Some of the runner-ups are pretty awesome. Pull up the Swimming World and download the magazine.What a great honor for all these great swimmers EOM

[tjrpatt]

I didn't read this article yet but Karyn Pipes-Nielsen is on the list, correct? One the guys front, I would think that Chris Stevenson is on the list.

[mctrusty]

Originally Posted by tjrpatt

I didn't read this article yet but Karyn Pipes-Nielsen is on the list, correct? One the guys front, I would think that Chris Stevenson is on the list.

KPN is on there. Chris Stevenson is not.

[The Fortress]

Originally Posted by mctrusty

KPN is on there. Chris Stevenson is not.

Can you please give us the list? I can't find it on the site.

Michael Ross?

[mctrusty]

Women: Laura Val, 57, USA; KPN, 47, USA; Yoshiko Osaki, 71, JPN; Hitomi Matsuda, 31, JPN; Jenny Whiteley, 50, AUS; Rita Simonton, 90, USA

Men: Keijiro Nakamura, 85, JPN; Alberto Montini, 40, ITA; Paul Carter, 51, USA; Walter Pfeiffer, 95, USA; Fred Schlicher, 60, USA; Richard Burns, 65, USA

[tjrpatt]

Wow, no one under 40 on the men's side.

[Animal]

I think they missed Richard Abrahams, Jim McConica, Susan Von Der Lippe, and Lynn Marshall.

[tjrpatt]

Originally Posted by Animal

I think they missed Richard Abrahams, Jim McConica, Susan Von Der Lippe, and Lynn Marshall.

A guy that I swim with told me that Jim McConica is pretty amazing. He apparently train 80K yard or meters a week and his times are pretty amazing in the distance frees. Alot of times, these lists are based more on opinion than the stats sometimes. Of course, I have no idea what went on when this list was compiled.

[Chris Stevenson]

Originally Posted by The Fortress

Michael Ross?

I too think that Mike should be on the list. If not this year, then next, because I'm not sure his amazing barrage of SCM world records in December -- wasn't it six new WRs? -- were counted in this voting cycle. (If they WERE then I think he was robbed.)

Also Dennis Baker may not swim a ton of events -- or in a lot of masters meets -- but the times he does are simply outstanding. To come so close to Olympic Trials cuts in an event like the 200 fly while in his upper 40s? Incredible. His 400 LCM free was out there, too. But I don't know if he did any SCM meets.

I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.

[gshaw]

On the men's side Fred Schlicher definitely earned it this year. In a two day LCM meet last summer in Middlebury VT he broke four world records. I don't know if his two SCM world records set in December in Boston factor in the voting but he should be there. Congrats Fred.

I suppose "timing" has much to do with whether a swimmer like Mike Ross (or others) are put on the list. I suppose you need to swim the right meters meets at the right time. As to age, the fact is that there are no men under 50 on the list. It does make one wonder.

Back to Mike Ross... I just attended the SCY 3 day meet at Harvard, and the level at which Mike swims is, well, stunning. One of the great parts of a Masters meet is that virtually all of us, at all levels, love the sport and to see Mike swim his races--but especially his backstroke--is simply a pleasure. Hundreds of faces are glued to the water (under the water) when Mike comes off the wall on his backstroke and all of us feel the power, the smoothness, the elegance of his underwater dolphin kick. Perhaps there are no awards for providing aesthetic pleasure for swimmers, but if there were, I would give it to Ross. He has been a delight for us New England swimmers for several years now.

An aside: years ago at a small mini-meet in Norton MA I saw a new fresh faced guy warming up. I introduced myself and he told me it was his first Masters meet. Seemed like a nice guy and I told him there was no pressure and that he'd have a great time...then I saw him swim. Whew! It was Mike Ross.

Again, congrats to all and esp. to our guy Fred Schlicher!

[mctrusty]

Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson

I too think that Mike should be on the list. If not this year, then next, because I'm not sure his amazing barrage of SCM world records in December -- wasn't it six new WRs? -- were counted in this voting cycle. (If they WERE then I think he was robbed.)

Also Dennis Baker may not swim a ton of events -- or in a lot of masters meets -- but the times he does are simply outstanding. To come so close to Olympic Trials cuts in an event like the 200 fly while in his upper 40s? Incredible. His 400 LCM free was out there, too. But I don't know if he did any SCM meets.

I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.

A swimmer had to have set either 2 LCM WRs, any combo of 3 LCM + SCM WRS (w/@least 1 LC), or "a sufficient number of SCM world records during the year to force a common sense inclusion" in order to be included on the final ballot. According to the article, those criteria netted 31 men and 17 women.

[JMarsteller]

Originally Posted by mctrusty

A swimmer had to have set either 2 LCM WRs, any combo of 3 LCM + SCM WRS (w/@least 1 LC), or "a sufficient number of SCM world records during the year to force a common sense inclusion" in order to be included on the final ballot. According to the article, those criteria netted 31 men and 17 women.

Thanks, Mctrusty! One other thing about the list that gets overlooked primarily due to the timing of the article is the competition year. These are the Top 12 Masters as voted by our panel based on the FINA Masters World Record list published for the time period of Nov. 1, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2008. So, oftentimes, there's a bit of a lag based on newer results. The 2009 list will be Nov. 1, 2008 to Oct. 31, 2009. So, anyone that swam in November and December of this year and holds onto that record by the end of the year will be considered.

The ballot was incredibly deep this year compared to last.

Love hearing the commentary on here about the award. It's always interesting.

[JMarsteller]

Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson

I too think that Mike should be on the list. If not this year, then next, because I'm not sure his amazing barrage of SCM world records in December -- wasn't it six new WRs? -- were counted in this voting cycle. (If they WERE then I think he was robbed.)

Also Dennis Baker may not swim a ton of events -- or in a lot of masters meets -- but the times he does are simply outstanding. To come so close to Olympic Trials cuts in an event like the 200 fly while in his upper 40s? Incredible. His 400 LCM free was out there, too. But I don't know if he did any SCM meets.

I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.

It really comes down to each of the panelists personal weight on specific information provided on the ballot. When I am processing the ballots, I get to know that each panelist has their own personal philosophy. Some of them really lend more weight to world records that are in the higher age divisions. Others are more impressed by single swims. That's why more than 1 person is in on the voting.

I'm going to try to diversify the panel a bit more this year and maybe get us up to 10. We currently have 6 on the panel. If any of you know of any international Masters experts out there, please feel free to hook me up with them.

[orca1946]

Tough list!! And who is Karyn swimming for this week???

[pwolf66]

Originally Posted by JMarsteller

So, oftentimes, there's a bit of a lag based on newer results. The 2009 list will be Nov. 1, 2008 to Oct. 31, 2009. So, anyone that swam in November and December of this year and holds onto that record by the end of the year will be considered.

Do I understand this correctly? Swimmer A sets a WR in December but Swimmer B breaks it in September of the next year, swimmer A does not qualify for consideration?

[The Fortress]

Originally Posted by JMarsteller

It really comes down to each of the panelists personal weight on specific information provided on the ballot. When I am processing the ballots, I get to know that each panelist has their own personal philosophy. Some of them really lend more weight to world records that are in the higher age divisions. Others are more impressed by single swims. That's why more than 1 person is in on the voting.

I'm going to try to diversify the panel a bit more this year and maybe get us up to 10. We currently have 6 on the panel. If any of you know of any international Masters experts out there, please feel free to hook me up with them.

From comments and a thread on this topic last year, I thought the process was largely pre-determined by quantitative, not qualitative factors. That's one reason that SVDL was left off the list despite being the oldest swimmer to qualify for OTs ...

6 panelists does seem rather small.

[chowmi]

Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson

I think I've heard the criteria before, but I don't recall how much weight is given to the "awesomeness" of a single swim or if it is just a matter of quantity (eg, of WRs or #1 swims). Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two.

I agree 100%. Masters is all about inclusion.

Just FYI - this issue has come up when compiling USMS Pool All Stars. A very fast and very "six four" swimmer hailing from North Texas had 8 #1 swims in 2008. She did not compete in SCM. Another swimmer also had a very impressive 8 x #1 times. Only the latter was named a pool all star, so I asked about it (I still don't see why you can't have co-pool all stars). It came down to the weights of all the other top ten times you have.

Not to take anything away from the named all-star who had impressive times, versatility, and quantity of top ten finishes, but Ms. "six four"'s times are national records, and one even makes the 2009 USA world championships. So there is no consideration for national/world records or any "powerpoint" type of weight in the event of a tie of #1 swims.

[ehoch]

I think they should include a seperate category for the Top 3 swims of the year - Men and Women. This would allow the so called quality record efforts to be recognized.

When somebody just simply destroys a record and challenges times from 1 or 2 younger age groups, you should give it more recognition than somebody being versatile.

Also - I am really AGAINST recognizing times from USS meets - and I don't like the idea of people getting a meet "sanctioned" to get a record recognized. It's just not the same - I know that from personal experience.

[The Fortress]

Originally Posted by ehoch

Also - I am really AGAINST recognizing times from USS meets - and I don't like the idea of people getting a meet "sanctioned" to get a record recognized. It's just not the same - I know that from personal experience.

Getting a meet "sanctioned" that otherwise would not be sanctioned? There are some dual sanctioned meets. Not disagreeing with you, but I was wondering how you think it's different?

The importance of the sheer number of rankings seems to be behind a lot of time trials and split requests as well.

[orca1946]

Any time you make lists, some one will get left out & others will tell you who should have made it.