USMS Nationals

USMS Nationals

Post by John Gr » Thu, 08 Apr 1993 05:02:39


Does anyone know what approximately it will take to place (top-10)
in the 100 and 50 yd *** at the USMS Nationals meet this year?
How fast was 10th place last year?  Oh, by the way, I'm interested
in men's 25-29 age group.

Thanks,

John Graf
Santa Clara Swim Club Masters

 
 
 

USMS Nationals

Post by Bruce Chen » Fri, 09 Apr 1993 01:28:01

Quote:

>Does anyone know what approximately it will take to place (top-10)
>in the 100 and 50 yd *** at the USMS Nationals meet this year?
>How fast was 10th place last year?  Oh, by the way, I'm interested
>in men's 25-29 age group.

Can't this be approximated by looking at the Qualifying Time Standards?
My understanding is that the Qualifying Time is the slowest 10th place
time from the previous 3 nationals. I'll look at the entry form to
verify this.

Bruce Cheney

 
 
 

USMS Nationals

Post by Julie Paq » Fri, 09 Apr 1993 02:04:56

Quote:


>>Does anyone know what approximately it will take to place (top-10)
>>in the 100 and 50 yd *** at the USMS Nationals meet this year?
>>How fast was 10th place last year?  Oh, by the way, I'm interested
>>in men's 25-29 age group.

>Can't this be approximated by looking at the Qualifying Time Standards?
>My understanding is that the Qualifying Time is the slowest 10th place
>time from the previous 3 nationals. I'll look at the entry form to
>verify this.

>Bruce Cheney

Ah, but the slowest 10th place time includes short course nationals that
have been held in all three regions of the country, and nationals that
are on the west coast have historically been the largest and fastest.

Julie

 
 
 

USMS Nationals

Post by Albert Frederick Spo » Fri, 09 Apr 1993 06:30:57

Quote:

> Does anyone know what approximately it will take to place (top-10)
> in the 100 and 50 yd *** at the USMS Nationals meet this year?
> How fast was 10th place last year?  Oh, by the way, I'm interested
> in men's 25-29 age group.

> Thanks,

> John Graf
> Santa Clara Swim Club Masters

Hopefully, someone has the times from last year, but I can take a wag:

100 *** => 59.0
50  *** => 26.8

The more I think about it, the more wild these guesses are.  Definately don't
place any stock in them.  If I can find last year's times I'll post them.

You won't have far to travel, will you?  :-)

I won't have far for long course nationals (I'm in MN)!

 
 
 

USMS Nationals

Post by Bruce Chen » Sat, 10 Apr 1993 00:39:16

Quote:

>>Can't this be approximated by looking at the Qualifying Time Standards?

>Ah, but the slowest 10th place time includes short course nationals that
>have been held in all three regions of the country, and nationals that
>are on the west coast have historically been the largest and fastest.

Ah, thats why I used the word "approximated", also note the word "slowest"
this means that the time standards are most likely a lower bound for
the time. That means that the 10th place time is very likely to be
FASTER than the time listed.

The definition of the time standard is correct, I believe, although I
did not get a chance to look at the entry form last night.

I've been to busy compiling EMAIL Swim Meet results.

Bruce Cheney

 
 
 

USMS Nationals

Post by Julie Paq » Sat, 10 Apr 1993 03:23:48

Quote:


>>>Can't this be approximated by looking at the Qualifying Time Standards?

>>Ah, but the slowest 10th place time includes short course nationals that
>>have been held in all three regions of the country, and nationals that
>>are on the west coast have historically been the largest and fastest.

>Ah, thats why I used the word "approximated", also note the word "slowest"
>this means that the time standards are most likely a lower bound for
>the time. That means that the 10th place time is very likely to be
>FASTER than the time listed.

>The definition of the time standard is correct, I believe, although I
>did not get a chance to look at the entry form last night.

>I've been to busy compiling EMAIL Swim Meet results.

>Bruce Cheney

The definition of the time standards is correct - at least that's
what I put in the USMS Rule Book.  Although it isn't the method used
for the 19-24 age group since they haven't been at nationals for
the requisite three years yet.  I did e-mail the original poster
with the results from last years nationals for the events he was
concerned about (but I have since forgotten the times...).

Julie