Fantastic Four

[tandfman]

Re: Fantastic Four

If a guys runs a 4.46, he's a ...4.4 guy. Then there's...he's a sub10.00 guy. You understood the point....right?

No. If a guy runs a 4.46, he's is a 4.46 guy. Or you could say he's a sub 4.5 guy. By no principle of rounding that I've ever heard of does a 4.46 become a 4.4.

When I first heard about Beamom's 1968 leap it was...."over 29 feet!!!!!!!!!!!!"......getting it?

I didn't hear about Beamon's leap. I saw it. And I had a similar reaction, once I figured out what 8.90 meant in Imperial measure. But I don't see what that has to do with referring to a 9.69 time as a 9.6.

[tandfman]

Re: Fantastic Four

you need to find some less anal-retentitive friends :P

You, of all people, are lecturing me about being anal-retentive? :P

[Paul Henry]

Re: Fantastic Four

you need to find some less anal-retentitive friends :P

You, of all people, are lecturing me about being anal-retentive? :P

I was just about to highlight that same observation. Good call. :wink:

[eldrick]

Re: Fantastic Four

you need to find some less anal-retentitive friends :P

You, of all people, are lecturing me about being anal-retentive? :P

still gotta go with tex

if a guy runs 9.79 ( assuming little wind ), he can always justify in saying it wasn't his "perfect" race ( they never will be - better RT, better start, may have been into a wind, sub-optimal weather etc ) & he was capable of quicker

so calling him 9.7 is justified in most cases ( obviously not though if it was with a 0.11 RT/+2 wind/800m altitude )

[tandfman]

I don't think that's his rationale for referring to a 9.69 as a 9.6.

[Texas]

Re: Fantastic Four

If a guys runs a 4.46, he's a ...4.4 guy. Then there's...he's a sub10.00 guy. You understood the point....right?

No. If a guy runs a 4.46, he's is a 4.46 guy. Or you could say he's a sub 4.5 guy. By no principle of rounding that I've ever heard of does a 4.46 become a 4.4.

When I first heard about Beamom's 1968 leap it was...."over 29 feet!!!!!!!!!!!!"......getting it?

I didn't hear about Beamon's leap. I saw it. And I had a similar reaction, once I figured out what 8.90 meant in Imperial measure. But I don't see what that has to do with referring to a 9.69 time as a 9.6.

Apparently you know...0....about football. Ever talk to a football coach or a scout? Well I have. Trust me nobody is talking 4.46...ok? He's a 4.4 guy. Ya see it doesn't need to be broken down to the exact anything...ok? Nobody cares if it's 4.46 or 4.49 or 4.41. It's not that exact...ok?

Now run along.,.....sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tandfman]

Re: Fantastic Four

Apparently you know...0....about football. Nobody cares if it's 4.46 or 4.49 or 4.41. . . . .It's not that exact...ok?

No, I don't know much about football. But I do know something about track. And track IS that exact. In track, there's a difference between a 9.69 and a 9.61--a big difference.

The last time I looked, this forum dealt with track, not football. And the mark that started our discussion was a track mark (9.69), not a football 40.

I'll stand my ground.

[DentyCracker]

it is simply semantics
when Texas says a 9.6, it is obvious to me that he means a 9.6x
I'm with those who say tandfman is being anal retentive

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Fantastic Four

There has never been a 4x1 team with a 9.6, 9.7 and two 9.9 guys on it. No doubt all four Jamaites will also be world ranked in the 100m. Could the best USA 4x1 team have hung with them? I doubt it!

The 2004 U.S. team had a 9.7 guy, two 9.8 guys and a 9.9 guy, but they couldn't break the NCAA record.

[Texas]

Re: Fantastic Four

Apparently you know...0....about football. Nobody cares if it's 4.46 or 4.49 or 4.41. . . . .It's not that exact...ok?

No, I don't know much about football. But I do know something about track. And track IS that exact. In track, there's a difference between a 9.69 and a 9.61--a big difference.

The last time I looked, this forum dealt with track, not football. And the mark that started our discussion was a track mark (9.69), not a football 40.

I'll stand my ground.

Wasn't I talking the 4x1? There we don't need to be exact about 100 times because we aren't dealing with the 100...ok? Have you not read..."remember that French team with no sub10.00 sprinters?" That's all that needed to be known......ok? No need to break it down to their PR's....ok? That Jama team had a 9.6. 9.7 and two 9.9 guys on it. To take it down to 9.69 and......why? It's not needed....ok?

[George P.]

Re: Fantastic Four

I'll stand my ground.

This thread is starting to sound like the First Battle of Bull Run. :lol:

[tandfman]

Re: Fantastic Four

Wasn't I talking the 4x1? There we don't need to be exact about 100 times because we aren't dealing with the 100...ok? . . . That Jama team had a 9.6. 9.7 and two 9.9 guys on it.

I think you're contradicting yourself. You were indeed talking about the relay. But when you start mentioning 9.6, 9.7 etc., you are dealing with the 100.

Let's see if I can make this a little more clear. If one man runs 100m in 9.69 and another runs it in 9.70, you would refer to them as a 9.6 guy and a 9.7 guy. But the difference between them is .01, not .1, as your manner of speaking would imply. To me, that makes no sense at all. Why be so inaccurate, when it's easy enough to be accurate?

[Half Miler]

Why be so inaccurate, when it's easy enough to be accurate?

Or another question might be, why comment on the inaccuracy when you (and everyone else) knew what he meant?

[tandfman]

Or another question might be, why comment on the inaccuracy when you (and everyone else) knew what he meant?

It's fairly simple. If you had said, just now "why comment on the innaccuracy--you knew what he meant and he didn't do no harm," I would have understood perfectly well what you meant, but I would not have commented on your substandard grammar because this is not a forum for discussing double negatives or other niceties of written English.

But this is a forum for discussing track and field and I believe that in discussing track and field, and particularly its numbers, accuracy matters. Football coaches may think the difference between 4.49 and 4.40 is unimportant (and given what I've heard about the way they time 40's, they may be right). But in our sport, accuracy about names and numbers is important. So when I see stuff like that, I'll correct it, just as I might correct the misspelling of an athlete's name, even though the athlete's identity is clear to me.

[gh]

This discussion helps explain why it was stupid for the IAAF to have adopted 100th-second timing in the first place. When they did so, there were 3 kinds of world-class sprinters: 9.9 guys, 10-flat guys and 10.1 guys. Overnight there were suddenly 30 kinds instead of 3, 10 in each division (for the purposes of this discussion, we'll ignore the hand/auto differential thing). Other than the gearheads in the ATFS, I'm not sure that anyone started referring to them as 9.91 guys vs 9.99 guys; they were still 9.9 guys, plain and simple. I think that's still very common parlance.

And reflects how we uneccsarily complicated the sport.