Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Surrendering To Metric (NOT the Metric vs. Imperial Argument AGAIN!)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Surrendering To Metric (NOT the Metric vs. Imperial Argument AGAIN!)

    It has come to my begrudging attention that I am now more comfortable looking at marks in the metric system than in my own God-Given Imperial! I blame this on following meets on the internet.
    I have always agreed with gh’s policy of ‘Imperial-First’, and I will support his ongoing efforts to keep the Imperial Forces’ hearts beating, but when he and I and the rest of the creaky septuagenarians on this board shuffle off their mortal coils, I see a rapid demise of its use.

    What gave me this epiphany was my long-time habit of instantly assessing a mark’s ‘worth’, from a stat-snob perspective. As I look at a meet’s results, I have a cognitive table of worth, for HS, college, USA, and world. And lots of sub-sets.

    Here is an example of such a table. It is geared to the Diamond League. There are the 8 field events, listed by experiential (subjective) descriptors. Their position on the Yearly List is roughly equivalent, but there are certainly exceptions in many cases. The bottom (Good) is still World-Class, but anything below that is dismissed (by my snobbishness) as insufficiently interesting.
    Men Top Excellent V Good Good
    HJ 2.38 2.35 2.32 2.30
    PV 6.00 5.90 5.80 5.70
    LJ 8.60 8.40 8.25 8.10
    TJ 18.00 17.50 17.20 17.00
    SP 23 22 21.50 21
    DT 70 68 66 65
    HT 82 80 78 76
    JT 90 87 85 82
    Women
    HJ 2.00 1.98 1.96 1.94
    PV 4.90 4.80 4.70 4.60
    LJ 7.00 6.90 6.80 6.70
    TJ 15.00 14.80 14.60 14.40
    SP 20 19.50 19.20 18.80
    DT 70 67 65 63
    HT 80 76 74 72
    JT 70 66 64 62
    .
    I’m sure this table only applies to me, but I bet the rest of you have similar ‘standards’ for following the sport.
    Last edited by Atticus; 09-03-2021, 02:02 PM.

  • #2
    "YER KILLIN' THE SPORT!!1!"

    I'm patiently awaiting the return of the 100 yard dash so we become the #1 sport again.

    Metric is much easier to remember. No pesky fractions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Right....let's start another Imperial vs Metric thread ...there have only been a few dozen so far...

      Last edited by Conor Dary; 09-01-2021, 05:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am no SP expert. (Actually I know next to nothing.) But there is no way 23m for men and 20m for women are of the equal value.

        Only two men in history have thrown 23. Even if you throw out the 20th century records, there are 17 women who have thrown over 20, including Adams who threw over 21.
        Crouser has to throw over 24m to match her level? I don't think so.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
          Right....let's start another Imperial vs Metric thread ...there have only been a few dozen so far...
          I guess you didn't notice it's not about Imperial vs. Metric; it's about dealing with the metric.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gm View Post
            "YER KILLIN' THE SPORT!!1!"

            I'm patiently awaiting the return of the 100 yard dash so we become the #1 sport again.

            Metric is much easier to remember. No pesky fractions.
            I always thought the IAAF should have kept 100 yards along with the mile when they eliminated the other Imperial records. Might have kept more interest in USA. On the other hand, the way the Mile seems to be dying I suspect the same would have happened to 100 yards as well.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
              I am no SP expert. (Actually I know next to nothing.) But there is no way 23m for men and 20m for women are of the equal value.
              Only two men in history have thrown 23. Even if you throw out the 20th century records, there are 17 women who have thrown over 20, including Adams who threw over 21.
              Crouser has to throw over 24m to match her level? I don't think so.
              I fear you missed my context note. It's about the current state of the DL. You're as likely to find as many m23s as w20s, i.e., one (if Gong were to go to a DL).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Atticus View Post

                I guess you didn't notice it's not about Imperial vs. Metric; it's about dealing with the metric.
                They all end up in the same argument...
                Last edited by Conor Dary; 09-01-2021, 06:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                  I fear you missed my context note. It's about the current state of the DL. You're as likely to find as many m23s as w20s, i.e., one (if Gong were to go to a DL).
                  Then I expect Mondo to clear 6+ every time. No one has 18 for TJ this year.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Atticus's "good" marks look to me like a plausible set of auto Q marks at an Olympics or Worlds.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
                      They all end up in the same argument...
                      Then I'll expect not to see you in this thread any more.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
                        Then I expect Mondo to clear 6+ every time. No one has 18 for TJ this year.
                        Also, no one has cleared 2.38 in mHJ. One has jumped exactly 8.60 in mLJ.

                        Five have cleared 2.00 or higher in wHJ. Eight have gone 7.00 or better in wLJ. The "top" mark in wLJ should be 7.10 instead.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                          Then I'll expect not to see you in this thread any more.
                          I wouldn't bet on that...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                            I guess you didn't notice it's not about Imperial vs. Metric; it's about dealing with the metric.
                            Whatever. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The bright side is, we are all free to build our own charts. And, as a partially metricized Imperialist, I agree, metric is easier to compare and manipulate in the field events.
                              Last edited by lonewolf; 09-01-2021, 11:49 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X