Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fantastic Four

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by gh
    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.
    Not "anyone" except for one indefatigable poster who continues to challenge the First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

    Comment


    • #32
      After a mountain of useless nitpicking and rambling, back to the main topic:

      There has never before been a 4x100m team with a sub-9.7 guy, a sub-9.8 guy, and two sub-10 guys. Discuss.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 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.
        Just to be contrarian, I'll disagree with the above and agree with tandfman - 9.81 IS indeed different from 9.89 and MOST of us here DO appreciate that. I would be a very VERY frustrated fan if the Olympic results had read
        9.7
        9.9
        10.0
        10.0
        10.0
        10.0
        10.1
        10.1

        instead of
        9.69
        9.89
        9.91
        9.93
        9.95
        9.97
        10.01
        10.03

        there's SO much more to 'enjoy' in the second set of numbers.

        The excitement of seeing history's first 9.7 in the race is no different that seeing history's first 9.6x!!!

        We once had a thread entitled 'what kind of fan are you?' One of the categories was 'stat-freak'. tandfman admitted to being one. I definitely am. That's why I often refer to myself as the Marks Snob (which ALL of us are, but few of us admit to!). The semantic chasm we've created here is a result of this phenomenon. What you guys refer to as 'anal-retentive', I prefer to think as 'interested in the stats'. I think in terms of numbers, not just 'who-won-what'.

        As far as the topic of this thread goes, my rule of thumb has always been that a running start in the 4x1 can slice a full second off one's time. A stretched-out-full-speed handoff may be equal to 1.1 seconds. I also add .3 for the turns, so if you had 4 10.00 guys (forgive the hundredths you tenths people, and overlooking the fact that when discussing the time advantage of a running start, you can only talk in tenths), will run these legs (ca.)

        10.30
        9.00
        9.30
        9.00

        Which equals 37.60. That's for a good-passing team. Perfect passing would yield a 37.30.

        If the Jamaicans could have run the equivalents of 9.70-9.80-10.00-10.00 in their relay, with 'good' hand-offs we have 37.10 - with perfect hand-offs, 36.80.

        They DID run 37.10 with decent hand-offs.

        Comment


        • #34
          TO EVERYTHING TURN TURN TURN

          A TIME TO BUILD UP A TIME TO BREAK DOWN
          A TIME TO DANCE A TIME TO MOURN
          A TIME TO CAST AWAY STONES A TIME TO GATHER STONES TOGETHER

          A TIME TO GAIN A TIME TO LOSE
          A TIME TO REND A TIME TO SOW
          A TIME TO LOVE A TIME TO HATE
          A TIME OF PEACE I SWEAR IT'S NOT TOO LATE

          --The Byrds (with apologies to Ecclesiastes)

          Eliminating 1/100ths would be an unfortunate step backwards imho. But there is a time for precision, and a time for approximation; a time for exactitude and a time for categories and for close-enough for the sake of clarity.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by George P.
            --The Byrds (with apologies to Ecclesiastes)
            Apologies?! It was a great song and did more to publicize that passage than all the Bible Study Groups put together!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by George P.
              --The Byrds (with apologies to Ecclesiastes)
              Apologies?! It was a great song and did more to publicize that passage than all the Bible Study Groups put together!!
              I would have just quoted the Bible, but I figured that'd get me in dutch with the Management. Besides, probably more people here know about The Byrds than about Ecclesiastes.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by sprintblox
                There has never before been a 4x100m team with a sub-9.7 guy, a sub-9.8 guy, and two sub-10 guys.
                See! That was easy! (Sorry, George P. You have to understand that for some of us, digging is fun. )

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tandfman
                  (Sorry, George P. You have to understand that for some of us, digging is fun. )
                  Digging? What do you know about digging?! I spent over 20 years as a combat engineer in the US Army. Now, I really know about digging!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    You sure beat me. I think I had an intrenching tool when I was in basic training in the Army, but I don't recall ever using it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 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.
                      But if the IAAF had not adopted 100th-second timing, and had continued its practice of rounding all marks up to the next higher tenth, the record would now be 9.7 and that wouldn't be broken until someone ran a 9.60 or faster. The record would have been 9.9 from 1991 until Maurice Greene ran his first 9.8 (actually 9.79) in 1999. And the 9.8 record would have been tied nine times since then (including the Montgomery mark).

                      What we actually had was a record that was broken four times before Beijing (again, including Montgomery's 9.78 because I am considering the impact of the news of a record when it happens). What we would have had, if we were still timing in 10ths, was a record that was tied nine times. I can't pretend to see the sport the way Joe Sixpack would, but I wonder what's better from that point of view. Personally, I prefer 100ths.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by George P.
                        I would have just quoted the Bible, but I figured that'd get me in dutch with the Management.
                        Is that true? I know GH gets on people here about plagiarizing, but hasn't the copyright run out for the guy who wrote the Bible? Can't we quote from that by now?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I think what Garry is getting at is something he wrote about a few years ago in his column in the magazine. T&F suffers now because we have relatively few world records. Even though swimming is only popular at the Olympics, the media was freaking out about all the world records. Garry said in that column we didn't need fewer events and distances, but more of them - restore some of the arcane distances - 300m, 500m (and of course 100y - I think the IAAF should have kept that with the mile) - so there could be publicity when somebody broke a record in them. With 1/10th timing, yes, there would be a plethora of people co-holding records at 9.8 or now 9.7, it would bring publicity to the sport. We can be gearheads about this and insist on 1/100th timing, but restoring the sport to popularity can't be aimed at the people on this board. We already like it and understand it. But the general public understands records, and I think that's what Garry is getting at. (I for one think that the 500m is a great distance because of the 1-minute barrier).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bambam
                            Originally posted by George P.
                            I would have just quoted the Bible, but I figured that'd get me in dutch with the Management.
                            Is that true? I know GH gets on people here about plagiarizing, but hasn't the copyright run out for the guy who wrote the Bible? Can't we quote from that by now?
                            Of course you can. You may quote from any book, as long as you attribute the source:

                            Ecclesiates - Chapter 3
                            3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:
                            3:2 A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck up that which is planted;
                            3:3 A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up;
                            3:4 A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance;
                            3:5 A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
                            3:6 A time to seek, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to cast away;
                            3:7 A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak;
                            3:8 A time to love, And a time to hate; A time for war, And a time for peace.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by bambam
                              Originally posted by George P.
                              I would have just quoted the Bible, but I figured that'd get me in dutch with the Management.
                              Is that true? I know GH gets on people here about plagiarizing, but hasn't the copyright run out for the guy who wrote the Bible? Can't we quote from that by now?
                              Of course you can. You may quote from any book, as long as you attribute the source:
                              Well, yes, but the quote must be a relatively small part of the whole work, whether it is a book or a newspaper article. You can't quote an entire article, even if you accurately attribute the source. In the case of the Bible, as bambam pointed out, the work is in the public domain and so it could be quoted in its entirety. I assume, however, that if someone did so, the post would be deleted for reasons other than the infringement of anyone's intellectual property rights.

                              In any event, anyone who really wants to read all of Ecclesiastes can find it at: http://www.bartleby.com/108/21/

                              For those who are not familiar with it, bartleby.com is an excellent source of literature and reference books that are in the public domain. You wanna read all of Shakespeare online? Bartleby's got 'em--and lots of other good stuff as well.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Law dude
                                You wanna read all of Shakespeare online? Bartleby's got 'em--and lots of other good stuff as well.
                                Jeez, LD, if you're gonna plug that, how 'bout Project Gutenberg, which is bringing the classics on-line!!!

                                http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X