This will probably be the shortest post I've done.
I just want to find out what you think about my blog.
So here's a few questions for you, my dear readers.
Hope you'll take a moment to comment (in comments section below).
1. Overall, is this blog covering Records, Marks, and List Places...
A-Better than anyone else.
B-Good, but not so special.
C-Lots of room for improvement.
2. Are my results posts (meaning, non-editorial posts!)....
A--Way too long
B--Correct length, considering amount of material
C--Wish there was more
3. Regarding my editorials, do you...
A--Like them, because you agree with my opinions
B--Like them, because you think this blog should cover the entire sport, not just Records & Marks
C--Hate them, for whatever reason(s)
4. Do you look to my blog...
A--Before any other source, to find out what happened at XYZ meet
B--As back-up source, after you've checked T&FN, House of Run, MileSplit, etc
C--for a good giggle
The next question is more an "essay" question
5. What part(s) of my blog would you like to see...
A--More of
B--Less of
C--Remain the same
Finally, some informational questions about YOU!
1. How many of the 115 posts (before this one) have you read?
2. Do you read every word, or just scan it for specific races or events?
3. Do you like that I cover the 4 groups (World, US, Collegiate, HS) about equally?
4. Are you Male or Female, and how old are you?
5. Is your interest mainly....
A--Track (which event?)
B--Field (which event?)
C--Road Racing
D--Cross Country
E--All of the above!
Thank you for reading my blog, and for answering this poll!
See you immediately after Millrose!!
I will continue my policy of no longer commenting on this blog, but I make an exception to respond to your reader poll because you have specifically asked for reader response, and I think I owe it in exchange for your enjoyable and valuable posts which I continue to read.
ReplyDelete1. Overall, is this blog covering Records, Marks, and List Places...
This question calls for comparisons with other sources, most of which I am not familiar with. Therefore I can't give a definitive answer, but I think your coverage is quite comprehensive and excellent.
2. Are my results posts (meaning, non-editorial posts!)....
B--Correct length, considering amount of material. Length is fine, though more would always be appreciated but it not necessary.
3. Regarding my editorials, do you...
B--Like them, because you think this blog should cover the entire sport, not just Records & Marks. Sometimes I agree with your opinions, sometimes not, and sometimes partially. But I find your opinions interesting and generally worthy of being expressed whether or not I agree or disagree with you conclusions.
4. Do you look to my blog...
A--Before any other source, to find out what happened at XYZ meet
Usually. But sometimes I check specific meet results from links on the T&FN homepage because I want to know some results before you post them. But then I also read your coverage of the same meets and sometimes get more details that way.
The next question is more an "essay" question
5. What part(s) of my blog would you like to see...
C--Remain the same
Generally I think you've hit a good balance. More would be asking too much of you in terms of work, and less would miss some interesting stuff that is worthy of being covered. You might get wider appreciation if you reported field event marks in meters as well as feet and inches, but I read both easily and generally prefer your use of feet and inches. (However, you sometimes make conversion errors -- you need to improve your meters-to-feet conversion technique!)
(continued next post)
1. How many of the 115 posts (before this one) have you read?
ReplyDeleteAll of them.
2. Do you read every word, or just scan it for specific races or events?
Generally speaking, I can say I read "every word". Though I have occasionally skimmed over some areas of lesser interest to me when I am short on time -- but not often.
3. Do you like that I cover the 4 groups (World, US, Collegiate, HS) about equally?
A big YES on this one. World (elite level), and US, get a lot of coverage elsewhere. Your exceptional attention to HS and Collegiate results is most welcome and appreciated. I also like your age records coverage, but I wish you went down to age 14 instead of 17. After all, many of the HS athletes covered are below 17 years of age.
4. Are you Male or Female, and how old are you?
Nosy, nosy aren't you?!?!
5. Is your interest mainly....
E--All of the above!
Though my event was the pole vault, and I am always especially interested in hearing pole vault news, I have always been a fan of the entire sport and appreciate the breadth of your coverage.
As always, thank you for this blog. It is great reading and a lot of fun. Much appreciated. And best regards to you.
Regarding the meters-to-feet conversion issue, you very recently reported Fabiana Murer's 4.83 vault as 15-9.75. I'm not sure where you got that number, but it is not correct. 4.83 converts to 15-10.15748, which according to conventional rounding should be reported as 15-10.
ReplyDeleteAccording to international standards, there are exactly 2.54 centimeters per inch, and this is the conversion factor that should always be used. So, in the example above, 483/2.54 = 190.15748 inches, or 15-10.15748, which rounds down to 15-10.
Though the above is the correct method for doing conversions, converted marks will always remain somewhat problematic because of rounding down both BEFORE and AFTER conversions are made, and because centimeters and quarter-inches are very different in size, and don't line up very well with each other.
Even so, the above-mentioned Murer mark of 4.83 should not have converted to 15-9.75. If anything, the actual height could well have been, say, 4.835 and then rounded down to 4.83. If that were the case, then she actually would have cleared 15-10.35433, which would round down to 15-10.25. That's an example of the kind of problems that crop up in meters-to-feet conversions due to rounding both before and after conversion.
I can't tell you how appreciative I am for your complete and detailed response to my "poll".
ReplyDeleteThank you VERY much!
Allow me to respond to some of what you said.
I've listed my sources (for both my Record Book and my blog!) several times--Athletics Annual, HS Track, etc.
But besides the annual books, I use several online sites as sources.
And while all of them offer SOME good stuff (even excellent stuff!!), they all have a flaw or two.
MileSplit--That's my best HS source. That's all they cover--HS. But they charge a fee for their more detailed (and interesting) material.
Also, they've made mistakes, whether typos or actual errors.
Remember that girl--Danyel White--who MS said ran 23.44 for 200? It turned out to be 24.44!! I verified that with T&FN/eTN!
TFRSS--This is a list for Collegiate NCAA qualifiers, meaning marks which Q for the Big Meet!
However, they don't list every event--only those held at the NCAA's--so no 600's or 1000's, etc!
Also, as I've noted, they do track size & altitude conversions---and post just the converted mark, NOT the real one!
eTN--This is by far the best source for me! But even here, it's not perfect!
For one thing, my lists (DDD's) go 24 deep---and sometimes longer because of ties---while TN normally reports a mark's place only through 10th place positions on A-T lists!
That's why they didn't list Kellyn Johnson's 2:28:40 marathon with any special notation---while I did!
Also, occasionally-----rarely, but it's happened!---they post a mark that turns out to not be real.
Awhile back, they reported a HS girl here in WA as PV'ing something like 14-0 or higher.
Turned out she was like a 12 footer or thereabouts.
I in fact had to confirm it by sending her a tweet asking her if she'd jumped 14 feet!
But most of the time, they're great!
In fact, many times I'll find 2 or 3 marks I didn't find elsewhere!!
(Those usually get into my next week's post!!)
I'm happy you find the length the right size.
I was worried that some posts (my Boston one, for example!) were too long.
I'd considered making two posts this past week---one for Boston, and one for the remainder of the material.
I also check meet results!
That's the way I get my material so fast!
Although, I'm sure you're aware, some meet results sites are much tougher to get results from than others---and a few are impossible!!
I also use Twitter----you'd be surprised how much stuff I get off there---and it's like "Breaking News"----I get it much faster than even T&FN does----or at least before they post it on their site!
So Twitter is a GREAT source!!
I'll continue in another comment.
There's a few reasons my youngest Age record listing is 0-17.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I cover elite marks---from each of my 4 groups.
So in the HS group, most of the Top 24 marks (and most, if not all, of the overall HSR's) come from Juniors and Seniors, not Frosh and Sophs!
One BIG difficulty in going younger than 17 is that it's VERY difficult to find EXACT birthdates for kids younger than 18.
Even Shepard's HS Track has only the year of birth listed, not the month and day.
(Although they do have Age records from 14 through 18---the average HS years. However, I believe those are only for US HS's, so they're not WORLD Age records----which is what I have! I don't have American Age records----or American Collegiate records, like T&FN provides!)
But the MAIN reason is what I said earlier----I cover the elites---even on the HS level----so Age 14 and 15 and 16 marks don't normally make my Top 24 lists!
But I do have Class Records!
So my HS 9th and 10th, and even sometimes 11th, grade marks are made by kids 16 and younger.
Occasionally, I'll report even 8th grade marks---like I did with that Alabama girl in my Boston post.
(BTW, I discovered a possible error with that mark-----TN reports the distance as 3200 meters, NOT 2 Miles, as my other source had it. I'm going to have to do some back-checking on that. Hope to have any change in my Millrose post!)
Now for the metric conversions.
I'll be changing Murer's mark to 15-10.
eTN reported it as that----as did an article on her.
T&FN publishes their "Little Gold Book" or whatever they call it.
I've never bought a copy!
But I SHOULD!!
In place of that, I created my own list of conversions----a long time ago!
How?
By using the numbers published in T&FN over the years.
So when X athlete had a SP mark of whatever in feet and inches, T&FN would also print the mark in metric!
I copied both marks.
In due time---using mainly T&FN, but also whatever other sources provided BOTH---I'd created a LENGTHY list of metric/English marks.....all the way from a 1.80 HJ to a 95+ meter JT!-----and 100's of marks inbetween!!
However, my list----covering 6 pages--3 columns on each page---is by no means complete.
There are gaps!!
BIG gaps....sometimes.
So for some marks, I need to ESTIMATE the conversion!
I do this by taking the number of centimeters apart from a lower (or higher) mark I have----then looking at some other marks i have---and find two marks with the SAME number of centimeters gap-----so, say my "other" gap measures out to 7 and three-fourths inches----so I'll take that and use those numbers to find the mark I need.
As YOU have pointed out----that is a PISS POOR (my words!! LOL) way of doing it.
That's how i came up with 15-9.75 for Murer, not 15-10!!
I WILL change that!!
But unless I do the intricate math myself----the formula you provided---I must rely on published sources for my "conversions".
If THEY are wrong, then so am I.
Not with Murer's mark, but with others, there have been some examples of disagreement----even among normally accurate sources.
When Shawn Barber got his 19-3---his first CR---the metric mark was given as 5.86, I believe. (Or was it 5.87?? Can't remember!)
PoleVaultPower----Becky Holliday----normally a VERY reliable source0000even was confused.....or just not sure.
She said that 5.86 (or 5.87?) could be converted as either 19-2.75 OR 19-3.
Well, it turned out to be 19-3----since broken!! LOL
But I think even T&FN has stated that SOME metric marks don't measure EXACTLY to English marks of feet and inches.
A few metric marks can be EITHER one English mark OR another!!
I think I really NEED to buy their "Golden" book!!
LOL
Well, again, thank you VERY MUCH for your fabulous responses!!
And I'm so happy to know you've read ALL of my posts!!
The Millrose post should be another LENGTHY one!!
I'm gonna brag here!
ReplyDeleteRemember Cam Levins's double of 3:54 & 8:15?
Well, TWO Canadian organizations---I think one was a media group, the other "Athletics Canada" or something like it---tweeted that he had broken the Mile National Record!!
I knew that Nate Brannen had run 3:54.32 for the Canadian record at Millrose in 2014.
So I tweeted to them the fact that he had NOT broken the Canadian records!!
Both of them tweeted back an "OOPS!" and thanked me.
Can you believe it?
CANADIANS didn't even know their own National Records!!!
I DID!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. However, as for the metric conversions, the math is not at all intricate. It's as simple as it could possibly be. You can accurately convert centimeters to inches, or inches to centimeters, with one single simple calculator function. The whole process is several thousand times simpler, and more accurate, that what you are trying to do.
ReplyDeleteWith much less effort than what you already put into writing about how you've been going about this, you could have done several thousand accurate calculations -- enough for several years worth of posts.
You only need to know one fact, which is this: there are 2.54 centimeters per inch. That's it.
OK, you also need to know that there are 12 inches in a foot, and 100 centimeters in a meter. But I assume you do know that. Otherwise, it's just 2.54 cm per inch. That's all you need to know. You need a pocket calculator, or use one on the internet.
ReplyDeleteNo tables needed. No searching for conversions reported by others. No repeating of other's mistakes. Why not do it the simple, accurate way, instead of the complicated error-prone way?
No need for you to reply.
ReplyDeleteI made a mistake---my "conversion chart" has FOUR columns per page, not three---but there's just FOUR full pages (and a;most 2 full columns on the 5th page), not 6, like I said earlier.
Bottom line, I presently have 572 marks covering the range from 1.84 (not 1.80, as I stated earlier!) to 98.48 (the JT WR).
I'm going to expand the list---I'll go through the Annual issue of T&FN and see if there's some metric/English marks I DON'T have now---and add them to my list.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but that 2.54 cm per inch thing has one flaw, as I perceive it!
Marks in field events are now measured in quarter-inch increments in the West.
You never see eighths of an inch anymore, or fifths.
So that 2.54 CAN be divided in half---1.27 per half inch.
But for quarter inch increments, it can't be divided in a way useable by Westerners--because it comes out to 63.50 cm per quarter inch, NOT a round number!
63.50 can be rounded up OR down....to either 63 or 64.
That's probably where T&FN and people like Becca (Gillespie, NOT "Holliday", as I said earlier!! LOL) get confused.
Even T&FN has stated----like I said earlier----that SOME metric marks can NOT be converted to its EXACT equivalent in feet and inches (and fractions of inches!)----or vice versa!
Anyway, I'm STRONGLY considering buying a copy of their "Golden" book.
I've never even SEEN the book----except for the cover, in ads----but from what I gather, it has a COMPLETE list of mark conversions!
(Plus the scoring tables for Multis!!)
Anyway, enough!!
Can't wait for Millrose.
Oh yeah---I know you're interested in Desiree Freier's activities.
Like I said, Sandi Morris tweeted she was resting a couple of weeks ago----not injured or sick!
Last weekend, she competed in NM, but reached only 13-7 or so----missing her tries at 13-11.
She's just a freshman, so is probably going through the normal freshman ups and downs!
(Raven Saunders and Elise Cranny have had the same problems, it seems!)
I'm sure she'll be back at her PR heights again----soon, and maybe even higher!
The Weeks twins haven't gotten over 14 again....but they continue to get the SAME heights in EVERY meet----I think this past weekend was 13-9's for BOTH!!
See ya!!
You are obviously very confused about the metric conversion issue, so you might as well get a book to help you, since you apparently don't want to make the effort to understand the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe divisibility of the centimeter is irrelevant because marks are reported in whole centimeters. There ARE issues with rounding down (or sometimes even up), but these are ROUNDING issues, which is separate from, but related to, strict conversions.
You keep saying that "SOME metric marks can NOT be converted to its EXACT equivalent in feet and inches (and fractions of inches!)----or vice versa!" but you say this because you're not thinking the issue through. In fact, hardly ANY marks convert exactly -- probably less than one in a hundred. I gave the reason for this in my first comment on the issue -- the difference in size between the centimeter and quarter-inch, and also because marks are typically rounded down before they are even recorded and reported. And then they are typically rounded down again after conversion.
For example, Murer's 4.83 vault could easily have actually been 15-10.25, and might have measured that if it had been measured in feet and inches, but due to double-rounding, it ends up converted to 15-10, even though that may not be representative of the actual height she vaulted. A bar exactly 15-10.25 high would be reported as 4.83 if it was measured in meters, and then converted to 15-10. A bar of EXACTLY the same height but measured in feet and inches, would be reported as 15-10.25. This is typical of kind of inaccuracy that creeps into conversions due to rounding.
Just for laughs, you might be surprised to learn that if the bar Murer cleared was ACTUALLY EXACTLY 15-10.5 inches high, and measured in meters, it would STILL have been reported as 4.83, and converted to only 15-10. This is because 15-10.5 is exactly 4.8387 meters, which rounds down to 4.83m. Then if someone in Europe sees as U.S. publication with the height reported as 15-10, and decides they want to know what that is in meters, it converts to 4.826, which rounds down to 4.82! Rounding down and converting introduces serial inaccuracies which compound the more converting you do.
While accurate conversions between centimeters and inches are mathematically very easy, the ROUNDING issues and the fact that marks reported are NOT exact, but rather already rounded down, makes nearly all marks somewhat inaccurate from the outset, even before conversion. Converting after rounding, and then rounding again, compounds the inaccuracy. So with only extremely rare exceptions, ALL converted marks are approximations.
You can easily learn and employ the commonly-used rounding conventions. They don't produce exact conversions, which are rarely ever possible when rounding is employed, but they will agree with others using the same conventions. Most basically you round down the next lowest whole centimeter, or the next lowest quarter-inch. (Occasionally T&FN rounds UP, but I don't know exactly what their policy is on this, or if they have one.)
It's like rounding up to the next highest .01 second in timing races. Most races these days are timed in thousandths, but are rounded up to the next highest hundredth before they are even reported. Occasionally you see the thousandths reported when justifying placing one athlete ahead of another when their times in hundredths are the same. But this is less problematic with times, because they are not converted to another system of units. It is similarly less problematic with field event marks when they are measured in meters, and also recorded and reported in meters and never converted to feet and inches.
I'll now retire back into invisibility.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the USA should NOT have joined the Metric Community!!
ReplyDelete(At least not in the field events!)
LOL