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

  • Pego
    replied
    [quote=bad hammy]
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by "bad hammy":21s7h08b
    The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
    If that is a case, how do you explain global decline of interest? Correlation does not mean causation.
    Second paragraph: http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/disc...=508251#508251[/quote:21s7h08b]

    I don't get it.

    BTW, I have no quarrel with the concept of the American soul being attached to the imperial measurements. All I am saying that metrication is not the primary reason for the decline of interest. That is happening everywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    Most of the US is surveyed in a system based on 5280' miles. Most of the mid-continent is surveyed in a Township and Range grid, 6 x 6 miles, Many/most towns are laid out in mile grids. I believe the average American has a very good concept of the mile.
    Exactly what I've been ranting about for years. The American landscape is build on a framework of imperial measure.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
    If that is a case, how do you explain global decline of interest? Correlation does not mean causation.
    Second paragraph: http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 251#508251

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by ed gee
    Why doesn't TFN use the official abbreviation for kilometer? Even USATF gets it right much of the time.

    http://www.usatf.org/calendars/national.aspx

    Simply because "K" or "k" is often used, does not make it correct.....
    When you see "NCAA" do you say "National Collegiate Athletic Association" or "en-see-eh-eh"?

    When you see 6K in our pages you're supposed to say "six-kay"; just like real people talk, not "6 kilometers."

    It's a form of acronym (although not exactly), not an abbreviation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
    If that is a case, how do you explain global decline of interest? Correlation does not mean causation.

    Leave a comment:


  • dukehjsteve
    replied
    Wow, if I ever saw a non-issue, this sure is it.


    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by ed gee
    "Run DMC" Why is the Marathon 26.2mi? "

    It isn't, it's 42.195 kilometers
    I always thought it was 26 mile, 385 yards . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • ed gee
    replied
    Why doesn't TFN use the official abbreviation for kilometer? Even USATF gets it right much of the time.

    http://www.usatf.org/calendars/national.aspx

    Simply because "K" or "k" is often used, does not make it correct.

    Metric Abbreviations

    Abbreviation Unit of Measurement
    b bit
    B byte
    C Celsius, Centigrade
    cc or cm³ cubic centimeter (cm³ is standard)
    cm centimeter
    G,GB gigabyte (GB is standard)
    g, gr gram (g is standard)
    ha hectare
    K Kelvin
    K, KB kilobyte (KB is standard)
    kg kilogram
    kl kiloliter
    km kilometer
    l liter
    m meter
    M, MB megabyte (MB is standard)
    mcg or µg microgram ( µg is standard)
    mg milligram
    ml milliliter
    mm millimeter
    MT metric ton
    t, T metric ton
    w, W watt (W is standard)
    kw, kW kilowatt (kW is standard)
    kwh, kWh kilowatt-hour (kWh is standard)

    Leave a comment:


  • ed gee
    replied
    "Run DMC" Why is the Marathon 26.2mi? "

    It isn't, it's 42.195 kilometers

    Leave a comment:


  • Run DMC
    replied
    I know 20 people who were or are distance runners who can't name a single distance runner from the US Olympic team. These are probably the most informed people around. Changing from metric to imperial won't change interest. If Ryan Hall had won the Olympic Marathon and Teg won the 5k and Webb won the 1500, people might start to be interested. Without wins, it will stay a niche sport with little to no interest among non runners and only mild interest among runners. Nobody knows who the athletes are, so they don't care who wins - except in the Olympics because it is "Rah, Rah, USA" then. That is, until we lose, then they don't care anymore.

    Another much better way to get interest is to cater to runners as fans. Ever been to a road race where they announced tickets for a track meet? Me neither.

    Also, imagine if on TV they showed the hike, broke for a commercial, then came back to show where the tackle ended up in football. That is what happens in TV coverage of distance races. Not very interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Blaming declines in USA track & field on the metric system is just a flat out excuse to my way of thinking.
    Just so we are clear, this is not an argument about the metric system and the performance of US athletes, but rather the popularity of the sport amongst sports fans.

    And additionally, a point which Marlow was apparently not able to comprehend, no one is claiming the metric system is solely responsible for this decline in popularity - it is one of a number of factors (PEDs, other sports, bad marketing/management, no Cold War, etc.) But to say that it has had no bearing on fan popularity is ludicrous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    This has been a fun (sic) little discussion, but like the 1600m vs. Mile debate, who here REALLY think there's a chance in H-E-L-L it's going to change back to Imperial??!! Yeah . . . I thought so.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    I think all here will agree that cross country courses by their nature are not conducive to exact measurement, all runners in a race will not run the same distance and the variance in topography, surface and weather render precise time comparisions between different venues largely irrelevant.

    Most of the US is surveyed in a system based on 5280' miles. Most of the mid-continent is surveyed in a Township and Range grid, 6 x 6 miles, Many/most towns are laid out in mile grids. I believe the average American has a very good concept of the mile.

    IMO, expressing race distances in miles/fractions may not create more interest but it will certainly not diminish it.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by dj
    Originally posted by kuha
    As long as US runners continue to quantify their race results by "mile pace," we remain hard-wired to thinking in imperial measure. Period.
    As long as U.S. runners quantify their weakly "mileage" this only makes sense.
    Yes, very true.

    And, for the record, MY mileage is done weakly; the good runners, I hope, accomplish it somewhat differently.... %-)

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Originally posted by kuha
    As long as US runners continue to quantify their race results by "mile pace," we remain hard-wired to thinking in imperial measure. Period.
    As long as U.S. runners quantify their weakly "mileage" this only makes sense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X