Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,732
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235 View Post
    He looks to have pretty good form for a rapidly growing 14-year old; I have 2.17 as 7-1.433, so that should be the conversion to metric.
    Excuse me if I'm a pain in the ass, but why do you persist on confusing people with bizarre conversions that are outside the norm of track statistics?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Louisiana/ New York
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    Excuse me if I'm a pain in the ass, but why do you persist on confusing people with bizarre conversions that are outside the norm of track statistics?
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,441
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    Excuse me if I'm a pain in the ass, but why do you persist on confusing people with bizarre conversions that are outside the norm of track statistics?
    I thought that the jump was being cited as a metric mark of 2.16, but since it is a vertical jump and 7-1 1/2 is marginally higher than 2.17 (since 2.17 is lower than 7-1.5), I do not think that my conversion is 'bizarre', and not worthy of being called out.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    While I can’t speak for gh, he has explained on numerous occasions that in track and field statistics, metric conversions are specifically NOT intended to be mathematical conversions but instead use algorithms that are based on statistical probabilities. That your post appears to reference a straight mathematical conversion puts it outside the norm of track statistics.

    That said, the Big Gold Book explicitly states that its metric conversion tables are to be used only for converting metric measurements to imperial (and not in the opposite direction), but it does not state how to convert imperial marks to metric. As best as I can tell, the Tintinger mark was measured at 7-1½.

    The FAST Annual refers to imperial marks being converted to metric using “Tables 4, 5 and 6 from the IAAF-approved tables.” Yes, before the IAAF required all measurements to be in the metric system, there were approved tables for converting, but they have long been out of print. However, they can be found at the website of NUTS (the U.K. counterpart of FAST), and I believe the table found at the link below would be the correct way to convert an imperial mark to metric (when measured to the ¼’).

    https://www.nuts.org.uk/convq.htm

    This table would convert Tintinger’s mark as 2.17. As one would expect in the U.S., all news reporting I have seen of the jump has been using the imperial 7-1½. The only place I have seen referring to 2.16 is in the “Today’s Top Headlines” at the home page. Unless the bar was measured in both systems as 2.16 and 7-1½, I would have to believe that 2.17 is the correct conversion.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,441
    Yes, and my conversion was using the algorithm for the vertical jumps. It is a little trickier for the horizontal jumps.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •