Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

[PELLMELL]

[Dan]

So, I take it 100m is also a non-sensical distance?

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[PELLMELL]

[Dan]

I'm not trying to be hostile, just trying to figure out what you were getting at. Every distance is pretty much arbitrary when all is said and done. I don't see why you find the 60m any less sensical than other distances or even the alternative you proposed...

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but anything that passes by me which doesn't make sense is going to be met with my best attempt at a logical analysis. If people are disturbed when their statements are analyzed in that fashion, then don't make them, especially not in public where thicker skin is a pre-requisite. People need to be a bit less sensitive. I'm not picking any favorites or looking to hurt people's feelings, just doing my part to dispell off the cuff marks that don't hold water... If I say something stupid, I fully expect someone else to point it out.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Conway]

I ran yards for a great deal of time ... Then had to switch to meters ... I am not crazy about meters, centimeters and the rest BUT that is how this sport is measured ... So I have adapted ... That's just the way things are ... To discuss them any other way (at least as far as races are measured) seems rather futile ... Now discussion of field events imperialy I can understand ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Justin]

It's a bit rich to say something as aggressive as "does anyone else think 65 yards is a dumb distance to compete at" and then get all upset when someone demurs.

No-one races 65y, they race 60m. I doubt anyone thought for a split second about what the imperial conversion would be when setting the distances in the sport. The only really stupid distance is 55m, a race no-one else in the world runs. I assume this was so as to keep close to 60y times following the NCAA's conversion to metric, but the same was not done for other events so I fail to see the point.

I have plenty of sympathy for Americans faced with field event measurements in metric, but none at all for complaints about metric distances on the track. How hard is it to work out that 400m is around a quarter mile? The USA is the only nation with this problem; even here in the country that invented Imperial measurements (hence the name!) we have no trouble mixing metric and imperial - I buy petrol in litres, beer in pints, measure long distances in miles, medium ones in metres and short ones in either inches or centimetres. Refusing to 'understand' 60m is just imbecilic; expecting the sport to adjust to accomodate one country in which track has only minority support is simply arrogance of a sort which ... hmmm, perhaps I won't go there, US vs the World is a contentious enough issue right now already.

As Conway says, the sport is and always has been metric - every Olympics since 1896 has been metric - in 1900 they even had a 60m!

Why 400m for a track? Because it fits around a standard size pitch (whether for gridiron, soccer, rubgy or whatever) and is thus perfect for a multi-use stadium. Why 200m indors? Because it's practical given venue sizes (ie large halls). Why 60m indoors? Because it fits inside a 200m oval. Not that it matters. As Dan says, all distances are essentially arbitrary - what matters is who gets to the finish line first, not how far the finish line is from the start in ones own personal measurement system.

Justin

[Dan]

Good to hear a non-dissenting voice for a change.

The only other explanation I could come up with for 55m is it's half of the 110m used for the men's hurdles, but that's a stretch seeing as how the 110m doesn't make a whole lot of sense on its own merit...

Like Justin, I'm completely used to miles for long distances and meters/kilometers for medium ones. I'd be clueless (without first doing a quick calculation) if asked how many kilometers it is to drive from here to so and so, but the measurement system seems perfectly natural for T&F distances. Probably because I don't need to know what it converts to, just that that's how far the race is... Where I get into trouble is having to convert field events to something more familiar, i.e. Imperial, as everyone "goes their own distance." The point being, the 200m could be 187.37943218m for all I care, and it would basically be the same event. Times would be a bit faster, but that's about it.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Conway]

USA v the rest of the World ... Now somehow doesn't that seem like it has always been that way !!! Not that I agree mind you ... Unfortunately we do tend to get a little caught up in ourselves over here ... But sport is sport and while we have had the likes of Edwin Moses, Evelyn Ashford, Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson - among a host of others - we did not invent track and field ... And when we don't show up the show goes on !!!! So it behooves thsoe who like the sport to get a Little Green Book from Track and Field News and move forward ... My Palm Pilot actually has a conversion program on it and I take it everywhere ... Never know when a track meet might break out !!! LOL
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Dan]

It's a bit ironic that the country where the sport arguably suffers the most in terms of popularity is the one typically claiming the rest of the world should change its ways...

My HP graphing calculator is quite nice for conversions, but I've never really considered lugging it around to meets. It would probably be more use than I ever truly got out of it in school, though.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Conway]