Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to boot meters out of XC

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by kuha
    Originally posted by gh
    And they actually allow you to teach our kids?
    I believe he teaches astrology, alchemy, and phrenology...
    Do those cover palmistry and tarot card readings??

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?
    For the same reason the Olympics didn't go to (God Forbid) 1600m, 3200m, 6400m - it's not a nice round number. I'm sure they would've preferred the men ran the 100H also, but that darned male physiology kept interfering.

    P.S. the popularity (or lack thereof) of T&F and XC has zero to do with units of measurement.
    And they actually allow you to teach our kids?
    I believe he teaches astrology, alchemy, and phrenology...

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?
    For the same reason the Olympics didn't go to (God Forbid) 1600m, 3200m, 6400m - it's not a nice round number. I'm sure they would've preferred the men ran the 100H also, but that darned male physiology kept interfering.

    P.S. the popularity (or lack thereof) of T&F and XC has zero to do with units of measurement.
    And they actually allow you to teach our kids?

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?
    For the same reason the Olympics didn't go to (God Forbid) 1600m, 3200m, 6400m - it's not a nice round number. I'm sure they would've preferred the men ran the 100H also, but that darned male physiology kept interfering.

    P.S. the popularity (or lack thereof) of T&F and XC has zero to do with units of measurement.
    I agree with your P.S., Marlow, but 220, 440 and 880 ar not nice round numbers either.
    Maybe it is because 100y fits better on the straight of 440 track without track extensions beyond the curve.
    To be completely inconsistent, while I am OK with vertical jumps measured Imperial, I prefer throws and horizontal jumps measured metric. Easier to record and place and I have mental benchmarks which allow me to convert to Imperial close enough for my own satisfaction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?
    For the same reason the Olympics didn't go to (God Forbid) 1600m, 3200m, 6400m - it's not a nice round number. I'm sure they would've preferred the men ran the 100H also, but that darned male physiology kept interfering.

    P.S. the popularity (or lack thereof) of T&F and XC has zero to do with units of measurement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    As an unrepentant track Luddite, I vote that henceforth all track races be run in fractions or multiples of the Imperial mile. 50y, 100y, 220y, 440y, 880y, 1 mile, 3 mile, 6 mile...................,
    Which raises a question. As the sport evolved, chopping the distance in half downward from the mile to 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/8 mile.. why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?

    X-C distances should just fit the course and be expressed as miles or approximate miles.
    Here, here, a wonderful idea. Hey, now that the political season is over we can agree on things again! 8-)

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    As an unrepentant track Luddite, I vote that henceforth all track races be run in fractions or multiples of the Imperial mile. 50y, 100y, 220y, 440y, 880y, 1 mile, 3 mile, 6 mile...................,
    Which raises a question. As the sport evolved, chopping the distance in half downward from the mile to 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/8 mile.. why did 1/16 mile (110y) not become the standard short dash instead of 100y? Of course, that puts us at approx. 100 meters..
    'Did anyone give this any thought?

    X-C distances should just fit the course and be expressed as miles or approximate miles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    I don't really understand this fixation on cross country course distance measurements. In track, yes, I believe the conversion to metric was a quick way to kill off interest. But in cross country? Who really cares? When I ran in high school distances were all over the place. Our home course was 2.65 miles. York HS's was 1.81. etc. When I ran the 87 TAC at Van Cortlandt it was 10,100 meters. Why not 6.35 miles. It is all pretty stupid.

    Bring back the 3 mile and 880! Vote now.

    Leave a comment:


  • cornstarchwilson
    replied
    thank god xc is a sport that exist and will continue to exist because people love to to do it. this is what true amateurism is all about.

    one of my hobbies is watching the development of women running.
    when i was in high school ( the 60s) organized women's running barely existed. now i look at the division l xc country regionals and see major increases in the number of participants and also major improvement in overall times. this trend seems to be true at all levels of the sport.

    all this is happening without any major increase in spectators. except for the internet, there is hardly any media coverage. i'm not one of those who would like the sport to become another nfl or nba or mlb or, heaven forbid, gymnastics.

    the trouble with running a sport for the benefit of the so-called average joe/joetta is that these kinds of fans have add. the sport would have to be continually changing in ways good and bad in order to keep their attention.

    the nbc formula seem to be to cover everything about the sport without actually showing the boring part, the sport itself. supposedly this is the way to get and keep the interest of the average fan.

    making xc "popular" will probably have the same results as those of football, baseball, basket. once you could see these games being played all over the neighborhood on any available field. kids would even play them in the streets.
    now you drive by most playing fields and they're empty. everyone is home watching tv.

    the only good way to make xc "popular" is to execute the meets with love and skill and respect for the participants, not for the fans: make sure the course is accurate, whatever the distance; make sure the times are accurate and posted in a timely manner. provide adequate restroom facilities, parking, etc.

    for those who just like to watch, there are more than enough sports on television for that. we don't need to jump through hoops to attract mass audiences. we don't need to become bread and circuses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Regardless of the dictionary my point was the size is variable. I used standard in the scientific sense despite any flexability Webster might give to the definition.
    Ya gotta love how far afield (npi) these discussions get. :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Merriam-Webster:

    Something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion.
    Regardless of the dictionary my point was the size is variable. I used standard in the scientific sense despite any flexability Webster might give to the definition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    The length of a pitch must be between 100 yards (90m) and 130 yards (120m) and the width not less than 50 yards (45m) and not more than 100 yards (90m).
    A range is not a standard.[/quote]
    Disagree. The dimensions are standard within that range. A standard is that which one must adhere to in order to be 'acceptable'. Pitch length my not exceed 120m nor be less than 90m. 75m or 125m would be, by definition, non-standard.

    Merriam-Webster:

    Something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Daisy
    I don't think there is even a standard size for soccer pitches.
    There is indeed. FIFA says so. It's a range minimum/maximum.

    The length of a pitch must be between 100 yards (90m) and 130 yards (120m) and the width not less than 50 yards (45m) and not more than 100 yards (90m).
    A range is not a standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    I agree, Brian, doesn't hurt a thing for people to turn out for x-c meets, whatever their motivation. I am not knocking it. Blessings on them.
    I go to x-c meets, enjoy them when the weather is good or I care who wins. I used to run from vantage point to vantage point back when I could still beat the runners to the finish.
    Old age and a knee replacement put an end to that. Now I work the chute and enjoy palavering with like minded folks.

    My point is, it is a difficult sport to spectate, even if you are physically fit and the course layout is spectator friendly.
    Soccer is unwatchable for me, not because it is difficult to see all the action or do not admire the athleticism of the players but if I don't have an emotional interest it is booorrrriiiiinnnnnggg.
    I should not pick on soccer. I just realized that is semi-true of most sports for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    mojo makes a good point, x-c is not a spectator friendly sport. Unless you have a close relative or team with which you are emotionaly involved competing, it is about as unwatchable as soccer.

    Disagree strongly with both of you.

    At least in the places I've lived (Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon), MANY people watch even the smaller high school meets.

    For most, half of the fun is dressing for the weather and running/walking to viewing points on the course. Even older people walk out on the course under umbrellas--they usually plant in one spot, but they're out there.

    So why not add to their pleasure by allowing them to tell others they were there to see "that hot shot high school kid/nice young man" run under 5 minutes for all three miles--??

    What would it hurt, really?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X