Age Group/Youth Nationals

[michael harvey]

Does anyone know when the names of the competitors for the age group/youth nationals will be posted by the ASA?

[ultraswim]

Competion info was sent to clubs saying that details will be available for amendment no later than 18th July.

See ASA website for info

[bobby]

The programmes for both the Bagcats and Youth Championships are now on the British Swimming website. Does anybody have any views regarding the large contingent from Canada who are coming over?

[Phil Tanner]

I haven't looked at the site yet, but with World Class programme places to be based on finals, I think they should be excluded from finals, unless of course they meet dual nationality criteria.

A couple of years ago the 12 years girls' 200 fly was won by a competitor from South Africa and her name was then mentioned in "Swimming's" list of names of to look out for. The mother of the silver medal winner wrote an excellent letter to the next issue pointing out how hurtful this slight had been to her daughter.

I'm very pleased to see they have put more space between the AG girls' 200 fly and 800 free this time - or rather, reversed them and put the 800 later in the day. Daughter had to swim the 200 last year when still knackered after the 800 and bombed, and it looked like she wasn't the only one.

[Bazza]

Had a brief browse through the programmes. I don't have a problem with swimmers from Canada (saw a New Zealander in there somewhere too) competing, but it's worth remembering if they weren't here more home swimmers would get an opportunity to go to Nationals (special achievement/experience IMO).

There seemed to be plenty of siwmmers in the BAGCAT competition, it's the Youth competition where entries are low with some events having as few as 40 home swimmers (considering it is four age groups).

Also I've never heard of Karen Holland from Bolton who has entered a 2:28 200 breast! :confused:

[Phil Tanner]

Maybe it's Karen Bolton from Holland? :)

One thing that struck me was rejigging the order of events at the last minute could dump on people who have qualified both long-course and short-course and made a tactical decision to enter on the short-course time to maximize their scope for recovery before their next event.

IIRC correctly Stephanie Proud did this last year in either the 100 or 200 back and set a British junior record in an early heat!

[Kate]

There are a lot less 11 year olds, but large numbers of 12 year old boys - 74 in 200m free, 62 in 400m free and 55 in 1500m free, compared to 18 in both the 13 yrs & 14 yrs 200m breast!

[swimmer]

yeh, the girls youth breaststroke looks severly depleated of numbers, there also does not seem to be many 17 year old girls in any event

[bobby]

I've worked out that Karen Holland is in fact Karl Holland - whoops!!!:rainbow:

[parent]

we are in Sheffield for 4 days but have no swim on Tuesday.
Can anyone give us an idea where to take an 11yr old
Not to energetic as we would like him to relax
WE also want to watch the finals at 6

[Katie]

Meadowhall!!!!!! Huge shopping centre but also has cinemas and places to eat. You can reach it on the tram from Ponds Forge it's very easy!

[mammamedley]

we always used to go to the 'flicks' at nationals!!!

[Katie]

Originally posted by bazzaroodoo
I don't have a problem with swimmers from Canada (saw a New Zealander in there somewhere too) competing, but it's worth remembering if they weren't here more home swimmers would get an opportunity to go to Nationals

I think I might have misinterpreted what you meant here, but surely as there are qualifying times, the Canadian visitors make no difference to the number of home swimmers qualifying? :confused:

[Phil Tanner]

It has to be a good thing to have a small number of overseas swimmers, because presumably other governing bodies reciprocate.

As long as it doesn't get out of hand - what would happen if, say, Australia, Germany and the US decided they'd like to send their top half-dozen age-groupers along one year? Maybe having seven out of 56 youth girls 200 breastrokers from Canada is taking it a bit far.

And as I said above, if WC programme places are decided principally on times in finals, overseas entrants should be excluded from finals and the fastest heats of HDW events which are in effect finals. By all means if they come out of the heats in the three fastest, award them a commemorative medal on that basis.

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
It has to be a good thing to have a small number of overseas swimmers, because presumably other governing bodies reciprocate.

It is also likely to increase the standard of the meet - which is, again, a good thing for the top swimmers. Let's not forget that a national championships should be aimed at, and of a benefit to, the top swimmers, not encouraging mass participation. We do not want a situation where world class swimmers don't attend the national championships because the standard is too low.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by Katie
I think I might have misinterpreted what you meant here, but surely as there are qualifying times, the Canadian visitors make no difference to the number of home swimmers qualifying? :confused:

A meet has a schedule to run to and qualifying times are based on the number of anticipated qualifiers for each event. If 10% of these swimmers are from overseas then they could relax the qualifying times slightly thus allowing a few more home swimmers to qualify.

[Phil Tanner]

I'm not sure that you could call a meet with QTs so stiff in some events that fewer than two heats' worth qualify in a particular age group anything near "mass participation". We've already made the point here that probably only around 2 per cent of competitors qualify anyway.

I just don't see yer average bright-eyed 13-year-old turning round and saying "sorry, not enough world-class competition here, I'm not going". More like it's something they work for all year and lap up every minute of.

I suppose there are people who would argue that swimmers who have only qualified for nationals are rubbish anyway, because if they were any good they'd be in the youth Olympics or European juniors.

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
I just don't see yer average bright-eyed 13-year-old turning round and saying "sorry, not enough world-class competition here, I'm not going". More like it's something they work for all year and lap up every minute of.

Yeah, that is more likely. It is unlikely to be the swimmers who decide not to go - it is possible that coaches decided that there is little point in attending, or that it doesn't fit in with their training programme or something. This probably isn't a problem at the moment, but could be a problem if the standard drops.

[lane4]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
I suppose there are people who would argue that swimmers who have only qualified for nationals are rubbish anyway, because if they were any good they'd be in the youth Olympics or European juniors.

Yes indeed, I know quite a few such people.

[Katie]

I suppose someone could think like that, but I don't think anyone could argue that a swimmer like Elspeth Taylor, for one example, is rubbish just because she's not going to the youth olympics! I think a few swimmers who will be at the nationals made the tough qualifying times for the EYOF but cannot go due to the restricted team sizes, but are definitely not rubbish. Hopefully all the swimmers at the Nationals are just pleased to be there, having made the qualifying times.

[ruthcp]

The actual draft programme is on the ASA website now, and can be printed off.
This has all the names on it!:)

[Phil Tanner]

I wonder if the fact it's in a printable format this year means that, as it's a cardless meet, they won't sell programmes at the meet but just start sheets?

[bobby]

I printed out last year's programme and they were still for sale, so hopefully this year will be the same.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
I'm not sure that you could call a meet with QTs so stiff in some events that fewer than two heats' worth qualify in a particular age group anything near "mass participation". We've already made the point here that probably only around 2 per cent of competitors qualify anyway.

Absolutely!
The boys 200m fly NQT was 'improved' by 20 seconds from 2002 to 2003, now standing at 2.40 something.
When I looked at the programme just now, I can only see a couple of true 12 year olds (ie.born 1990), the rest (of which there are VERY few) will all be 13 after the Nationals.
If this is what they were aiming for at British Swimming, then they've done a great job!

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by ruthcp
I can only see a couple of true 12 year olds (ie.born 1990), the rest (of which there are VERY few) will all be 13 after the Nationals.

Those that will be 13 this year are just as much <i>true</i> 12 year olds as any of the others.

[Phil Tanner]

Assuming whoever it was counted accurately, it doesn't look like 12-yo boys generally have come out of it too badly - 70-odd over 200 free? Though obviously it's tough if a particular swim has been cracked down on.

We've done this before, but I think it has to be fairer to have people swim on the basis of an age they have already attained, but that said maybe the cut-off date should be the closing date for entries. I know a lad who only turned 14 two weeks after the deadline, so nationals will be his first swim as a 14-yo.

[ruthcp]

The ideal way to keep most people happy would be to have 2 National, summer and winter, much as they do in Scotland and Wales.
Then most of those who see no problem with things as they are (and they do tend to be those with 'lucky' birthdays!), could not be object as everyone would get a fair crack at it.
It is doubly sad for those with 'unlucky' birthdays that this system has now been extended to choosing the World Start/Potential candidates.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that the majority of those on the programmes for 2003/2004 will have birthdays after August!

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
Those that will be 13 this year are just as much <i>true</i> 12 year olds as any of the others.

So what does that make those only just turned 12 then? True 11 going on 12, or true just 12?

Do you not see the distinction?

This is exactly the attitude that prevails in this country, whether it be swimming or indeed something like tennis.
It is a shame to exclude or put off kids this young, by sheer bloodymindedness and inability to see the wood for the trees!
Then we wonder why most other countries in Europe and elsewhere beat us so often at most sports.
The money goes to half thought out schemes such as this with, what seems to a lot of people, to be a lack of longterm planning and catering for ALL who are good at their respective sport.

[ruthcp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phil Tanner
[B]Assuming whoever it was counted accurately, it doesn't look like 12-yo boys generally have come out of it too badly - 70-odd over 200 free? Though obviously it's tough if a particular swim has been cracked down on.

Just as an example Phil, the 200m free NQT last year was 2.30 (for boys), and this year they have to attain 2.22
That seems an awful lot more 'doable' than a 20 second hike in the same period of time!!

There are just 12 boys who have qualified in the 12 year old bracket for this year's 200m fly, and infact only 69 altogether for the entire 11-14 bracket.

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by ruthcp
So what does that make those only just turned 12 then? True 11 going on 12, or true just 12?

12. Plain and simple.

Whenever you cut it off someone will be disadvantaged. Age on day is no fairer or unfairer than any other system.

It is a shame to exclude or put off kids this young, by sheer bloodymindedness and inability to see the wood for the trees!

Yes, it is a shame to exclude them. But what would you suggest? How would you make it fairer? I'm not convinced that having two sets of championships would make things much fairer - one will always be seen as more important than the other.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
12. Plain and simple.

Yes, it is a shame to exclude them. But what would you suggest? How would you make it fairer? I'm not convinced that having two sets of championships would make things much fairer - one will always be seen as more important than the other.

I don't agree Chris.
Perhaps those whose birthdays are good for champs held in the summer, as is the case now, would see that championship as more important and not bother with a winter champs where their birthdays do them no favours, and viceversa.
That would merely prove my point I think.

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by ruthcp
Perhaps those whose birthdays are good for champs held in the summer, as is the case now, would see that championship as more important and not bother with a winter champs where their birthdays do them no favours, and viceversa.

Possibly. However, winter championships don't seem to me to fit in as well with the "progression" through the season. It is naive to think that there can be two championships which are season as equal by the majority.

Incidentally, by the time you reach the age of national championships is the position of the birthday during the year all that relevant? People do not mature at the same rate so someone who is just 12 could be physically more mature than someone who is almost 13.

[lane4]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
Age on day is no fairer or unfairer than any other system.

IMHO age on day is significantly more unfair than age at end of year for a one off meet such as Nationals.

Age on day can only be considered fair when considering all meets throughout the whole year, i.e. so a swimmer has equal chance at competing at all ends of the age group at some stage within the year.

For a one off meet though, age on day means that the result is much more determined by when your birthday is than by how relatively good you are at the sport.

Now we have the case where average to good swimmers with late birthdays can win medals at Nationals and very good to excellent swimmers with birthdays before the meet struggle to win medals and make finals.

How can it be fair that you can be the fastest swimmer in Britain born in a particular year and not yet win a medal at the National championships, yet other swimmers born in the same year as you can win medals with slower times than yours!?

Hopefully all us coaches are trying to produce kids to reach their full potential. To me that means international level swimming starts out as the target for everyone. But oh what's this? All international level meets for age groupers in Britain are conducted age at the end of the year! Yet we pick swimmers for squads (who's aim is to compete internationally) based on age on the day. Try explaining the rationale of that to swimmers!

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
IMHO age on day is significantly more unfair than age at end of year for a one off meet such as Nationals.


Could not agree with you more lane4 - very well put.
This current system is losing us some good swimmers, with a lot of potential, as they become increasingly demoralised.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
Possibly. However, winter championships don't seem to me to fit in as well with the "progression" through the season.

They don't seem to have any problems in Wales or Scotland, and indeed several other countries.
Maybe it's we who should change how we chart and deliver the swimming season?
Progress in any discipline cannot remain static because that's the status quo - it shouldn't be called progress otherwise!
As we can see from the yearly changes to everything appertaining swimming, as dictated from those on high, change is the 'in thing', but only if they say so!

[lane4]

I don't know about you guys but I've been to the ASA National Age Groups every year since 1989 (either as a swimmer or coach). When it was 'age at year' you always knew that the swimmers in the final were the best 8 in the country for that age. Now, that no longer exists; now I see swimmers who I know are not in the top 8 in the country for their age making finals. I realise I have to put up with it but I know it's just not right!

:mad:

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
They don't seem to have any problems in Wales or Scotland,

Trust me when I tell you Ruth, there are huge problems with swimming in Scotland!

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
Trust me when I tell you Ruth, there are huge problems with swimming in Scotland!

I definitely bow to your superior knowledge on this one!
:)

[ruthcp]

[i]
People do not mature at the same rate so someone who is just 12 could be physically more mature than someone who is almost 13. [/B]

True, but isn't it much more likely that someone who is nearly 13 is more physically (and lets not forget mentally) more mature than someone who has just turned 12?

This is the same topsy turvy argument given when girls are considered more mature for County Champs, as an example, and can therefore swim 100m races at an earlier age than boys, yet the qualifying times for the same age groups (I'm talking 10/11) are harder for boys. Where is the logic there?

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by lane4
For a one off meet though, age on day means that the result is much more determined by when your birthday is than by how relatively good you are at the sport.

How is it different if it is age at end of year? If anyone is disadvantaged[1] then it just changes who is disadvantaged. If it is age on day then those with birthday's just after the meet are at any advantedge, if it is age at end of year then those with birthday's in january are at any advantage. Any cut off is going to result in people having to swim against others a year older than themselves, does the point at which the cut off occurs make all that much difference?

[1] and I am not convinced there is any necessary disadvantage

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
[1] and I am not convinced there is any necessary disadvantage [/B]

Don't want to be rude or anything, but I notice that your birthday is in November....?
Perhaps it doesn't convince you because you no longer swim, or if you do, you hardly have a disadvantage, do you?

(In case you are remotely curious, I don't and never have swam competitively.)

[lane4]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
How is it different if it is age at end of year?

With age at the end of the year, the exact date of the meet does not matter, the results will be the same no matter what.

With age on day, the exact scheduling of the meet significantly affects the outcome of the results and who qualifies for the meet in the first place.

The results are affected in some people's favour and to others disadvantage depending on if the meet is held in week/on day X, Y or Z.

If the date of the meet does not stay exactly the same each year, some swimmers could stay in the same age group two years running, or miss out an age group altogether - depending on whether the meet moves forwards or back!

With age on year and a meet at the start of August, nobody can change age groups for another 5 months. Age on day means swimmers could change age group the very next day.

[Linny]

It's a difficult one isn't it - someone is always going to miss out and the age group mentioned (12/13) is an age where for so many it is make or break and it is also an age of huge physiological and psychological changes where months (even weeks) really do matter.
Although it may be seen as grossly unfair to December birthday folk I agree with lane 4 in that if there is to be only one set of Nationals then they should be age on one specific date for consistency and that date may most practically be 31 December. However I remember when I was a kid in England that some were in favour of that date being 1 September to align with academic years..............I guess that 1 March would become our year end lane4 - how would that suit???

[Phil Tanner]

But why is/was it fair to have two-thirds of a field swimming on the basis of an age they have already attained and one third on the basis of an age they are yet to reach?

I know a couple of swimmers with birthdays in the last few days of December who without the change in regime would have gone right through an age group/youth career literally never having a single swim on the basis of their actual age when they did it!

[Phil Tanner]

now I see swimmers who I know are not in the top 8 in the country for their age making finals. I realise I have to put up with it but I know it's just not right!

But this is just a matter of how the rankings are put together. All they would need to do is reprogramme the computer, I imagine in a very straightforward way, and bingo! Rankings based on age at nationals rather than year of birth, and an accurate picture beforehand of those who are literally of each age.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
Rankings based on age at nationals rather than year of birth, and an accurate picture beforehand of those who are literally of each age.

I really hope not Phil!
This is the last section of hope left, for those who have always been good enough for their year, but have an 'unlucky' birthday (June infact).
At least they know by looking at the rankings based on the actual year of birth, that they are good swimmers, and that perhaps when reaching the age of 14/15 and upwards, when body mass and development have equalled somewhat, their birth date won't matter so much.
If you change everything to suit those born after the Nationals, you will kiss goodbye to many currently hanging on as I mentioned above.

[Pete]

My opinion? Bring back year of birth so that everyone knows where they are.:) Also; bring back the Derby Baths, Blackpool, as the atmosphere created there was always amazing.:D

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by ruthcp
Perhaps it doesn't convince you because you no longer swim, or if you do, you hardly have a disadvantage, do you?

I have never been good enough that this should be an issue :)

I am not convinced through thinking about it. I know 12 year olds who are bigger, stronger, etc. than some other 15 year olds. Is there really a general problem over a single year?

[Phil Tanner]

I just see it as a straightforward philosophical/semantic point. If you are 13 (for example) on a particular date, you are 13. During the calendar year of your 13th birthday, you are either 12 or 13. I think the championship for 13-year-olds should be contested by 13-year-olds.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
I know 12 year olds who are bigger, stronger, etc. than some other 15 year olds.

I am sure most people know someone like this Chris, but the fact still remains that MOST are not bigger than any 13 year old, let alone a 15 year old.
Should we therefore continue to favour a lucky few and disregard the majority?
How elitist is that?
Then again, that appears to be the whole problem and affects not only swimming in this country, but other sports too.

[chris_lamb]

Originally posted by ruthcp
I am sure most people know someone like this Chris, but the fact still remains that MOST are not bigger than any 13 year old, let alone a 15 year old.

That is not really the point. When looking at kids over a range of a single year, is there really much of a corellation between age and size/strength? Is this really a major issue or just an easy one to jump on to avoid the much more fundamental problems with the sport?

[Kate]

Given that selection for Youth Olympics and European Juniors (the first opportunity for an International swim) is based on age at 31st December (for all countries involved), then surely selections for the World Class programme should reflect this. We had the instance where some of the 88 boys on the WCP did not make qualifying times for British trials this year.

I also find the prospect of swimmers competing in the same age group for two consecutive years ridiculous - as has happened in Districts and Nationals this year. We have District Champions that have not made National Qualifying Times. A couple of the 14 yrs boys swimming as 14s for the second time have already made qualifying times for Youth Nationals and are days off being 15 - so is there any point in them doing age-groups, apart from to gain selection for WCP?

[lane4]

Originally posted by Kate
Given that selection for Youth Olympics and European Juniors (the first opportunity for an International swim) is based on age at 31st December (for all countries involved), then surely selections for the World Class programme should reflect this. We had the instance where some of the 88 boys on the WCP did not make qualifying times for British trials this year.

Indeed, it is a most ludicrous situation. It makes no sense at all.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
That is not really the point. When looking at kids over a range of a single year, is there really much of a corellation between age and size/strength? Is this really a major issue or just an easy one to jump on to avoid the much more fundamental problems with the sport?

If that isn't the point, then why do you make it, as on the previous message you posted!
I agree that there is more wrong with the sport than just this, but at the end of the day, it is the kids who feel sorry for, as they are the ones putting up with this particular 'error'.:confused:

[chris_lamb]

I was pointing out that not everyone grows at the same rate - so even though most 12 year olds are smaller than 15 year olds it is not necessarily so. You keep saying it is an 'error' without addressing the point - is it actually a problem?

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by chris_lamb
I was pointing out that not everyone grows at the same rate - so even though most 12 year olds are smaller than 15 year olds it is not necessarily so. You keep saying it is an 'error' without addressing the point - is it actually a problem?

Point agreed a few messages back - again the salient point being that MOST 12 year olds are smaller.
I do believe it is a problem, especially for that majority of swimmers whose birthdays do them no favours, therefore a problem of fairness.
Error was perhaps a wrong choice of word though. I should have said lack of forethought!

[Pete]

Ruth! Do you have a swimmer who is a victim of the system?

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Pete
Ruth! Do you have a swimmer who is a victim of the system?

Whatever gave you that idea Pete!
Yes, I have 1 son who has already endured 1 year of a really low patch after reaching Nationals last year and realising who he was up against - his birthday is June.
He has qualified again, and realises he'll get nowhere, but he has a lot of determination, and so far wants to keep going.
I also have 2 younger sons - 1 born in March, so not quite as bad, and the youngest born in July. I hope they grow up to develop the same strength of character that their older brother has, otherwise they won't stay in the sport, though they have a great deal of potential.
Of course it's personal, but as I have said in previous messages, now that they have also changed the criteria for choosing World Start/Potential, they are effectively shutting every door open to those like my eldest currently, and younger ones in the future.
Eventually it's not just the parents that get the message, but the kids realise too that they are not really going to get the same chance as others due to their birthday, and give up.

[Phil Tanner]

Every sympathy, but you are making a generalization based on how it affects your family. For every one in your son's position, there will be another who was/would be disadvantaged by year-of-birth.

But the crucial difference, if you step back a bit, is that under the current regime there will be points in the season where your son is one of the oldest in his group at particular meets - he will be one of the oldest at counties, for example. It shares things out a bit, which a sport which aims to be inclusive should do.

Under y-o-b there is a much greater likelihood of the same swimmers winning out right through the season, and those who are in the youngest segment every single time they swim giving up.

The youth Olympics is a red herring, IMHO. They are only held every two years, so does this mean we should gear nationals to this with two-year age bands throughout? And as someone mentioned, understandable constraints on the team size might mean it is possible to meet the qualifying time and still not go.

It's great that they are there to aim at, but it would be taking things too far to have the entire sport at age group level revolve around the interests of the tiny numbers who reach that level by basing the age regime on it.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
Every sympathy, but you are making a generalization based on how it affects your family. For every one in your son's position, there will be another who was/would be disadvantaged by year-of-birth.


If you have read the rest of the messages I have posted on the subject, you will see that in no way am I just saying change everything to suit my family or those in the same position.
In contrast to the many who see no problem at the moment, invariably because it suits them, I argue that we should have 2 championships to benefit all.
To take up your point about being in the older bracket at some Open meets, what is the main purpose of Open meets if not to get NQTs?
If you get the NQTs but you are then disadvantaged when you get to Nationals, how do you think that makes you feel?

I cannot and do not agree with your points - the only reason we all travel to these Open meets is to gain those times for Nationals, so it actually highlights my point about disadvantage, further compounded by the new ideology around World Start/Potential criteria. Potential for some but not others is what I would call it.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
But the crucial difference, if you step back a bit, is that under the current regime there will be points in the season where your son is one of the oldest in his group at particular meets - he will be one of the oldest at counties, for example. It shares things out a bit, which a sport which aims to be inclusive should do.


Another point that I would like to take up with you Phil - Counties are not what we are all supposed to gear ourselves for now.
If one is fortunate enough to gain a place in a Start or Potential camp, Counties and other league events are something you should forget - swimmers have in the past been told not to enter County champs as they are no longer important once you have reached the hallowed heights of these camps, and even the Speedo league is seen as not worthy by some.
Furthermore, counties are a stepping stone to greater things, such as the Nationals. Or are you suggesting that those with birthdays before the nationals should merely aim for counties and no further?

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
Or are you suggesting that those with birthdays before the nationals should merely aim for counties and no further?

EVERYONE should aim to be a senior swimmer when birthdays don't matter.

Did you know that in years gone by, we had more senior swimmers when there was not as much emphasis on age group swimming as there is now?

All of age group swimming is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
what is the main purpose of Open meets if not to get NQTs?
...the only reason we all travel to these Open meets is to gain those times for Nationals

The only reason YOU travel to Open meets is to gain National times. Swimmers at my club travel to them...

* to improve personal best times
* to get county, district or national times
* to learn about competitions and competing
* to practive skills developed in training
* to assess their stamina/speed/skill/tactical abilty
* to learn how to race
* to compete against different people
* to gain experience in how to prepare for competition
* to try out new ideas, methods, skills etc
* to achieve goals
* to attain a sense of personal achievement
* to improve self-esteem and self-confidence
* to have fun
* to participate in a team environment among friends and peers
* to meet new people and to make new friends
* to learn how to deal with success/failure/pressure etc


However, these are all secondary to the main purpose of the open competition - which is pure and simply, to make money for the organising club.

[chris_lamb]

lane4 - I would add just one more reason to your list:

* because they enjoy it

[Phil Tanner]

In contrast to the many who see no problem at the moment, invariably because it suits them

I don't know how you make the leap to this. Try and convince me why any competition billed as being for, say, 12-year-olds, in any context, should not be competed for by 12-year-olds rather than a mixture of 12s and 11s.

I agree with Chris L. that it would be naive to think you could have two national championships with equal status.
I can see some appeal in an alternative national AG short-course championships, but the analogy with the Welsh winter championships isn't really valid - that's done senior/junior, and the one time I've been there the fields were fairly small. The new pool should spice it up a bit this year, though. And of course, fields for last year's Southern Counties Winters were tiny with several events going straight to finals.


If one is fortunate enough to gain a place in a Start or Potential camp, Counties and other league events are something you should forget

Simply not true. There were some scheduling clashes last year, but it's a gross over-statement to say people have been told to forget them. And it's not a matter of being "fortunate". There's a huge amount of hard work goes into it by swimmers, coaches and parents.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
If one is fortunate enough to gain a place in a Start or Potential camp, Counties and other league events are something you should forget - swimmers have in the past been told not to enter County champs as they are no longer important once you have reached the hallowed heights of these camps

Who has told the swimmers this exactly?
The swimmers I've known who've been at Potential camps certainly have not been told this, nor have the coaches I've known through Potential ever said this.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
now that they have also changed the criteria for choosing World Start/Potential, they are effectively shutting every door open to those like my eldest currently, and younger ones in the future.

Changed it from what to what?

Potential has been picked age on day for the past 3 years so you can't mean this.

[Kate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phil Tanner
[B]I don't know how you make the leap to this. Try and convince me why any competition billed as being for, say, 12-year-olds, in any context, should not be competed for by 12-year-olds rather than a mixture of 12s and 11s.


Sorry, I have to disagree with this - most sports are played U10s, U11s etc meaning that the children taking part are under 10 on the 1st September. My son will be playing U11s rugby from September even though he is only just 10.

[chris_lamb]

You are talking about team sports. Swimming is fundamentally an individual sport so has different needs to the likes of football or rugby.

Regardless, are other sports in this country succeeding? I don't think there is any sport where this country really excells at an international level, so maybe they are not that good an example to follow.

[Shamu]

QUOTE - .originally posted by Phil Tanner But the crucial difference, if you step back a bit, is that under the current regime there will be points in the season where your son is one of the oldest in his group at particular meets - he will be one of the oldest at counties, for example. It shares things out a bit, which a sport which aims to be inclusive should do.


My birthday is just before Nationals. i'd rather be one of the older ones at Nationals than at Counties and have good chance of getting onto a worldclass camp. I am faster than some of the people in it and they are just a couple of months younger than me

[GettingFaster]

Look what happens when you don't log on for a day - the boards go mad! ;)


Lots of people wondering why they're called races for 12-yr-olds but swum by 11-yr-olds as well.

Whether it's age on day or 31st Dec, the potential spread of ages is 12 months - no more, no less. For end of year races, why not say "this is a race for boys born in 1991" or "girls born in 1989". In effect that's how most parents I know look at the programmes, and even coaches ask swimmers if they're an 89 or a 90. This is what happens in league competitions already.

It is true that the youngest swimmers in any competition are disadvantaged. For Nationals, which are widely seen as THE competition to aim for during the year, the fact that the youngest swimmers were the oldest at Counties for example is small consolation.

Age on day for one-off's like Nationals does indeed cause more anomalies than year of birth. However, younger swimmers DO manage to get to Nationals, and DO manage to do well, albeit having to work relatively harder than their older fellow swimmers. Looking back to when it was 31st Dec rather than age on day, we still got swimmers with 2nd half of year birthdays getting to Nationals and doing well or even winning.

We've had discussions about "fair" before, and the conclusion has generally been there's no such thing as "fair". There is clearly no easy answer to this one - either we have age on day competitions and try to give swimmers a chance to shine at some stage through the year but have more anomalies, or we disadvantage the same swimmers throughout the year but at least everyone knows where they stand.

Should we do a poll, just to see what most people think? Chris, can you help out with this one, I don't know how to. "Should Nationals, Districts, Counties etc be organised as age on day or year of birth." It would be interesting to see the spread of opinions.

[Phil Tanner]

the fact that the youngest swimmers were the oldest at Counties for example is small consolation.

Agreed. But at least it is available as a small consolation. There is no equivalent consolation for the majority of late-birthday swimmers under year-of-birth.

[Timekeeper Taff]

My daughter has qualified for 200 breast and so after reading this thread I thought it would be interesting just to count up how many 13 year olds were 1990 and how many were 1989. I was surprised how evenly balanced it proved to be:

short course 89 = 3
short course 90 = 5
long course 89 = 4
long course 90 = 4

Although my daughter is an 'April baby' I am not too concerned about the changes made to 'Age on Day'. Her coach is a November baby and she managed to go to the Olympics! (under the old system of age at end of year).

However I do feel sorry for one of my daughter's team mates whose birthday is 29th July! Another day or two younger and she would have been chasing 11 year old times and not 12's. Unfortunately, she has not managed to gain a NQT.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
Simply not true. There were some scheduling clashes last year, but it's a gross over-statement to say people have been told to forget them. And it's not a matter of being "fortunate". There's a huge amount of hard work goes into it by swimmers, coaches and parents.

Again I disagree with you, unless you have some insight into the camps that the rest of us don't...I have heard differently from people involved, therefore I take their point above yours.
Obviously this is one where you and others have one way of looking at it, and myself and others a different way - in other words, I am never going to be able to agree with your point of view and viceversa.
Shame you have chosen to ignore the actual points though and appear to insinuate that my boys and others don't work hard, or that our coaches (and indeed us parents) don't either. This of course is daft, and those particular swimmers (and those involved with them) probably strive even harder.

If as you say there were 'some scheduling clashes' last year, how come there still will be in 2004/2005, in particular with Speedo?
If the Speedo dates are know this far in advance you'd think the 'scheduling clashes' could be avoided, don't you?

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
Changed it from what to what?

Potential has been picked age on day for the past 3 years so you can't mean this.

Must have missed out on this then lane4 - last year this was NOT the case - look it up.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
Who has told the swimmers this exactly?
The swimmers I've known who've been at Potential camps certainly have not been told this, nor have the coaches I've known through Potential ever said this.

That's the swimmers you've known then, not those some of the rest of us know.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
The only reason YOU travel to Open meets is to gain National times. Swimmers at my club travel to them...


If you wanted a list, I could have provided it!
Again you have beautifully sidestepped the point, and managed to sound self-righteous in the process.
Everyone I know who attends open meets goes to improve times, etc - my second son has only started competition this year, so all those points on your list apply. However, their goal (please note I said 'their goal'!) is to gain better times and NQTs for those old enough to try for them.
I must say that I am not remotely apologetic for standing right behind them with this ambition - if you don't have the ambition to succeed, coupled with the talent, it is much, much harder.

I await the 'pushy-parent' insults with baited breath, but resolutely NO apologies!!

I do agree (!!) with the money making bit for clubs though...

[Phil Tanner]

My take on the camps is as the father of a swimmer who was on WCS this season. What's yours? Hearsay.

I'm insinuating nothing. You are the one who used the term "fortunate", which I know is waaaay wide of the mark. And it's a crazy leap to suggest I imply other people don't work hard. You implied that mere good fortune via birth date could get people onto WC programmes. I know that isn't the case.

I'm all for striving, believe me.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
My take on the camps is as the father of a swimmer who was on WCS this season. What's yours?

I'm insinuating nothing. You are the one who used the term "fortunate", which I know is waaaay wide of the mark. And it's a crazy leap to suggest I imply other people don't work hard. You implied that mere good fortune via birth date could get people onto WC programmes. I know that isn't the case.

I'm all for striving, believe me.

I still stand by what I said, not only regarding WCamps, but also regarding the term fortunate.
As you say yourself, this is a term - what would you say instead?You can hardly argue that someone whose birthday is in the middle of August is 'unfortunate', so by the same token, someone who happens to be born in June/July can hardly be called 'fortunate' where Nationals are concerned!

As for implying, just re-read your previous message!

All of this is chat anyway, which is very interesting and passes the time, as well as giving one insight into what people think. It will however not change a thing, not even opinions, or so it seems!

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
My take on the camps is as the father of a swimmer who was on WCS this season. What's yours? Hearsay.


Seems to me you should be striving for discussion, not insults Phil.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
Must have missed out on this then lane4 - last year this was NOT the case - look it up.

I can categorically assure you that I am correct on this point. Potential was picked age on day from the Nationals last year and will be again this year.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
That's the swimmers you've known then, not those some of the rest of us know.

Given that I've known all the swimmers on Potential for the last 2 years, I ask you again who are the ones you know and I don't?

[Phil Tanner]

Seems to me you should be striving for discussion, not insults Phil.

Eh? 450-odd posts under my real name suggests I'm up here for discussion, to learn where I can and inform where I can. If you want insults - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[lane4]

Originally posted by ruthcp
If you wanted a list, I could have provided it!

But you didn't.

Originally posted by ruthcp

Again you have beautifully sidestepped the point, and managed to sound self-righteous in the process.

I have sidestepped nothing, I just responded to an aspect of your post.

Originally posted by ruthcp
Everyone I know who attends open meets goes to improve times, etc - my second son has only started competition this year, so all those points on your list apply. However, their goal (please note I said 'their goal'!) is to gain better times and NQTs for those old enough to try for them.

This is actually contradictory to your post. I remind you again of your EXACT words...

Originally posted by ruthcp
the only reason we all travel to these Open meets is to gain those times for Nationals

Sorry, I can't find the use of the word "their" in that statement. However, I clearly see the use of the word "only", which by definition means you (you said "we all"), have just one reason for attending open meets and no other reasons whatsoever. If you had other reasons, you would not have used the word "only".

It is hard to determine whether your use of the phrase "we all" referred to 'all those in your family' - for who you can speak with wisdom; or were you referring to a wider collective body of people - for who you cannot speak for with certainty of being accurate.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
I have sidestepped nothing, I just responded to an aspect of your post.

Quite right lane4, you have responded to AN aspect, in order to make your points.
Not to worry, I think I have already made the points that I wanted, and I am happy with that, and nothing I have heard from yourself or a couple of others has either enlightened me in any way, nor made me change my views.

[Pete]

Whatever is decided about the format of this competition someone will always complain it is not fair:( Shall we move on?:confused:

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Phil Tanner
Eh? 450-odd posts under my real name suggests I'm up here for discussion, to learn where I can and inform where I can. If you want insults - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Seems to me you are calling out from the same type of hole Phil!
If you think my position or take on this is a hole I've dug, no doubt you are entitled to your vociferours opinion.
I must say I am not surprised you hold the opinion you do, considering your swimmer was born in November, but this again reinforces my point that not every one is happy to try for the best deal for ALL swimmers, as long as they are ok.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by Pete
Whatever is decided about the format of this competition someone will always complain it is not fair:( Shall we move on?:confused:

Pete, that sounds like a grand idea!
Points made on all sides I think!;)

[lane4]

When concluding this topic it might be appropriate to paraphrase George Orwell...

All swimming competitions are unfair but some swimming competitions are more unfair than others.

[ruthcp]

Originally posted by lane4
All swimming competitions are unfair but some swimming competitions are more unfair than others.

lane4 I think that's a good conclusion!

The only thing I would add, is good luck to ALL swimmers at Nationals this year, regardless of birthdays, etc.
It takes a great deal of hard work and dedication to get there, and all who make it deserve our praise! :)

[Phil Tanner]

Yep, I'll second that. Or third it. Or whatever.

[Katie]

Hi everyone! I know this thread has kind of finished, but I've been away for the weekend and would just like to say from first-hand knowledge that this:

If one is fortunate enough to gain a place in a Start or Potential camp, Counties and other league events are something you should forget - swimmers have in the past been told not to enter County champs as they are no longer important once you have reached the hallowed heights of these camps, and even the Speedo league is seen as not worthy by some.

is not the case as far as I know. I think you will find many in the same mind as me: for instance, looking at the Surrey County Champs this year it is evident that all 6 (I think this is right) Surrey swimmers who are members of the World Class Potential Squad swam at some point during the championships. Also, the 6 Surrey swimmers on the World Class Start South or World Class Start IM programmes all competed in these championships at some point. I don't think any of these swimmers can have been told not to compete in the counties, as they would not have wished to go against the wishes of the ASA.

I think it was unlucky that the dates of some of these camps clashed with those of the Speedo league competitions, but I think with so many events it is nearly impossible to find a weekend where nothing is going on. It was unlucky that some clubs had one or more swimmers missing for Speedo League meets, but there is only so much a single swimmer can do in one of these competitions, and so I'm not sure the overall result would have been affected too much.

But just to agree with Phil on one point he made regarding his daughter's inclusion on a World Class squad, I know that I have never been discouraged from swimming in either the county champs or the Speedo league, and I think it's a pity if this seems to be the case for some swimmers.

Good luck to everyone for the nationals! :)

[Phil Tanner]

Beautifully put, Katie. :)

I don't want to dig this up, but I did wonder at the time if maybe the Speedo League venues had even been chosen to help minimize the impact of Round 1 being on the same day as the WCP/WCS induction day at Loughborough. Oxford is the northernmost club in the southern section and they hosted a gala, which meant swimmers from several participating clubs could get there in plenty of time to swim.