Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most precise measurement ever!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Most precise measurement ever!

    From the 1905 Academic Athletic League Spring Meet (Bay Area forerunner to the California State Meet) at http://www.dyestatcal.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/aal.htm

    " HJ - Channing Hall (Oakland) 6-2 34-100ths"

  • #2
    Re: Most precise measurement ever!

    Originally posted by jhc68
    " HJ - Channing Hall (Oakland) 6-2 34-100ths"
    It's merely a conversion from 4 cubits and .26 span!

    Comment


    • #3
      very strange

      it looks like they were measuring to 1/3", but inexplicably rounded up to 34/100" instead of just keeping it at 1/3" - the human eye can't actually see gradations of 1/100" on a ruler or measuring tape & you cant actually mark it on a ruler with early 20th century technology ( you have to use some sort of electron microscope aided tech to do it & then it has to be imprinted with a laser - discovery science channel :P )

      Comment


      • #4
        Almost certainly this was measured with a surveyor's rod, which breaks feet into hundredths. A 6.195 feet measurement would equal 6 feet, 2.34 inches.

        This is similar to the Norman Dole pole vault world record set in 1904 in Berkeley. Dole's mark was most commonly listed as 12 feet, 1 32/100 inches, but on a surveyor's rod that would be 12.11 feet.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks, dj... I posted this just for amusement's sake but since you know what you are talking about I actually learned something!

          Another great measurement was one I read many years ago. Describing an 800 meter race in Europe (which must have been translated into English by a news service hack somewhere along the line) my local paper reported that the winner was 6' 6 3/4" ahead of the runner-up! Me being a high jumper I immediately recognized the conversion of 2 meters, but I wondered what other readers must have thought about that phrase.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jhc68
            Thanks, dj... I posted this just for amusement's sake but since you know what you are talking about I actually learned something!

            Another great measurement was one I read many years ago. Describing an 800 meter race in Europe (which must have been translated into English by a news service hack somewhere along the line) my local paper reported that the winner was 6' 6 3/4" ahead of the runner-up! Me being a high jumper I immediately recognized the conversion of 2 meters, but I wondered what other readers must have thought about that phrase.
            FABULOUS! Makes one wonder if it was a person or computer that dropped that in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Also, overlooked by all of us so far is how impressive the jump was if the measurement was anywhere close to correct: six-two and 1/3 (1.89m) by a high school kid in 1905... Good Lord, that would win most HS dual meets 104 years later! And I assume he was using an eastern cut-off or some other scissors variation technique.

              Any track historians ever heard of this kid - Channing Hall - in any competitions past high school? What was the WR at that time? St.Louis OG's the year before was won at 5-eleven and 7/8. (1.80m). Is there a source for WR's , AR's or HSR's (such as they were) for that era?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jhc68
                What was the WR at that time? St.Louis OG's the year before was won at 5-eleven and 7/8. (1.80m). Is there a source for WR's , AR's or HSR's (such as they were) for that era?
                A source? THE source is the IAAF's WR Progression book. The record then was 1.97 (6-5 5/8) by the USA's Michael Sweeney, set in 1895 (not to be broken till 1912), so 1.94 is being to look a little 'odd' to say the least.

                edit - oh, he's legit1 I just found several google hits that feature him like this:

                http://books.google.com/books?id=UbMRAA ... &ct=result

                Comment


                • #9
                  As far as I can tell (courtesy Jack Shepard's research), Hall was #2 on the high school ATL. He trailed only John Spraker of Berkley School in New York City, who jumped 6-2 1/2 in 1899 (Princeton Interscholastics, May 6).

                  Hall finished 2nd in the national AAU in 1905 (6-1, Portland, Ore., Aug. 5), and in 1906 jumped 6-3, what I show as his PR. I don't find show him in my records beyond that, but I could probably find more with some digging.

                  amended to show 1905!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dj
                    Hall finished 2nd in the national AAU in 2005
                    Now THERE'S longevity!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      A source? THE source is the IAAF's WR Progression book. The record then was 1.97 (6-5 5/8) by the USA's Michael Sweeney, set in 1895 (not to be broken till 1912), so 1.94 is being to look a little 'odd' to say the least.
                      Where does 1.94 come into the discussion?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by dj
                        Hall finished 2nd in the national AAU in 2005
                        Now THERE'S longevity!!!
                        Oops! Usually I make the mistake in the other direction.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dj
                          Where does 1.94 come into the discussion?
                          That's my question too.
                          I suppose in 1906 it's unlikely that Channing Hall used the simple scissors technique since both Byrd Page in the late 1880's and Sweeney (Eastern Cut-off) in the mid 1890's both had used techniques that were superior to the Scissors.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I always liked the old technique labels: Eastern Cut-Off, Western Roll. They sound so elegant compared to Straddle and Flop!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jhc68
                              I always liked the old technique labels: Eastern Cut-Off, Western Roll. They sound so elegant compared to Straddle and Flop!
                              Yeah, but the newer ones sound kinkier! :wink:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X