NCAP Tysons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

Yes, and it’s generally only girls who make that group as high school freshmen, although there are not many of those either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

Yes, and it’s generally only girls who make that group as high school freshmen, although there are not many of those either.

Seems like a way to lose talented males who get frustrated and quit? Or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

Yes, and it’s generally only girls who make that group as high school freshmen, although there are not many of those either.

Seems like a way to lose talented males who get frustrated and quit? Or no?

No, it hasn’t worked out that way. Plenty of fast 15 year old boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

Yes, and it’s generally only girls who make that group as high school freshmen, although there are not many of those either.

Seems like a way to lose talented males who get frustrated and quit? Or no?

No, it hasn’t worked out that way. Plenty of fast 15 year old boys.

Interesting. So girls are making it at 14 and then the boys at 15? I would have guessed the boys would have been more like 16-17 so good to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

.

I don’t know if I would classify multiple as cut and dry. Could be 2 or could be 4 or could be 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

.

I don’t know if I would classify multiple as cut and dry. Could be 2 or could be 4 or could be 6.

No, there is a set number and it doesn’t include the 50 Free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

Yes, and it’s generally only girls who make that group as high school freshmen, although there are not many of those either.

Seems like a way to lose talented males who get frustrated and quit? Or no?

No, it hasn’t worked out that way. Plenty of fast 15 year old boys.

Interesting. So girls are making it at 14 and then the boys at 15? I would have guessed the boys would have been more like 16-17 so good to know.

I would say there is about a year gap between the boys and girls. The very best 14 year old girls make it, and the very best 15 year old boys make it. Then there’s another wave of girls at 15 and boys at 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Our NCAP site Gold 1 requires multiple sectional cuts. There are swimmers with more than 1 sectional cut who are still in Gold 2. It does not matter how hard of a worker you are, if you do not have cuts you aren’t getting in. It’s actually kind of nice that it’s so cut and dried.

Are there more girls than boys in the group? The times for the girls seem more achievable than those for the boys until the boys are much older.

At our site, G1 is **heavy** boys, with maybe 3 girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

Futures cuts should be the minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

Futures cuts should be the minimum.

Ha then there’s one site that would have two G1 swimmers in it an no one else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?