Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
I don't know if it happened in Stacy Dragila's case or not, but one of the confusing things which can happen is that a height is measured in BOTH systems. The two heights you get by doing this will not necessarily convert to each other if you use the conversion tables. This is because the conversion tables are designed to give the MOST LIKELY conversion assuming that the mark you are converting to is unknown. But there is no guarantee that the conversion you get would really have been the measurement if the height had been measured in the other system. It would be more times than not, but there are still exceptions. Just imagine the two measuring tapes lying side-by-side and choose a distance to measure. Then it should become obvious how this can happen. David Dallman On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Roger Ruth wrote: Earlier today, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There isn't (and basically wasn't ever) any confusion over Dragila's record heights. All were metrically measured, and all were as you state them. QED. gh This was in response to my statement, that Due to problems in converting between measurement systems, there was (and is) a considerable amount of confusion over the heights cleared by Dragila; all world records. She entered the season holding the record at 4.62 meters. If I have them right, the four improvements were 4.63m at New York on 2 February, 4.65m at Pocatello on 9 February, and both 4.66m and 4.70m at Pocatello on 17 February. ~ Garry enjoys the luxury of publishing only monthly, after most of the confusion has been resolved. What I meant by confusion, in real time, due to problems in the news media converting between measurement systems, included: Stacy's Millrose Games mark was first reported, by U.S. media, as 15' 2 1/4". That would convert to 4.62m. The bar was, in fact, set at 4.63m, which does convert to 15' 2 1/4" in the only measurement system Americans apparently understand. The confusion, here, is only in guessing whether to accept the initially reported imperial mark. We have learned, over the years, that expecting U.S. media to make correct metric/imperial conversions is a very hazardous assumption. Maybe I'm too easily confused. Stacy's 9 February Pocatello result (4.65) was initally given internationally as 4.66m. That, apparently, was because of an error by Agence Press France in grappeling with the imperial mark. Still, until 2001-02-15, the IAAF website showed the new WR height as 4.66, not 4.65. I would have to admit a tiny bit of additional confusion that this mark was attained in a college dual meet for which she was ineligible to compete. That, I think, would often have been deemed an "exhibition" result. Maybe I'm too easily confused. There seems to be no problem with Stacy's 4.66m (15' 3 1/4") at Pocatello on 17 February: unless you admit my confusion that this height is shown on the USATF site as an American record, but that it doesn't appear at all on the IAAF list of 2001 indoor "top performances." Maybe I'm too easily confused. After her first-attempt clearance of 4.66m in that meet, we are told by Walt Murphy that Stacy requested a new height of 4.71m. She missed the height twice, then cleared on her third attempt. Again according to Murphy, the height was first announced as 4.71, then, after re-measurement, as 4.70. Whoa: I'm confused. Why was there a re-measurement? I thought that no longer was a part of the rule on record certification. Did someone decide that the bar height had been affected by the two earlier misses? (Who decided that, and on the basis of what rule?) If so, and the standards were readjusted, as Walt reported, from 4.71 to 4.70, what possible explanation can the vault officials provide for *lowering* an attempted height during the competition? There simply is no provision for that in the rules. Maybe I'm too easily confused. But, if I were Stacy and I'd requested (under the rules, *mandated*) a given height and the officials certified a lesser height, I would kick some serious ass. Maybe. I'm easily confused. My high school geometry class was 60 years ago, but in those long-ago days, "QED" meant, "it follows that." It doesn't seem to me, from the examples I've cited, it follows that there was no reason for confusion about Dragila's records. Over to you, Garry. Cheers, Roger David Dallman CERN - SIS
Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
In a message dated 3/26/01 11:55:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After her first-attempt clearance of 4.66m in that meet, we are told by Walt Murphy that Stacy requested a new height of 4.71m. She missed the height twice, then cleared on her third attempt. Again according to Murphy, the height was first announced as 4.71, then, after re-measurement, as 4.70. Whoa: I'm confused. Why was there a re-measurement? I thought that no longer was a part of the rule on record certification. Roger, You're adding to the confusion by misreading my attempt to "un-confuse" the original confusing situation. Stacy had requested that the bar be set at4.71, but, according to an official in Pocatello, the bar was actually set at 4.70 BEFORE she cleared the record height. There was no remeasurement after the clearance. Regards, Walt Murphy (Who agrees that there were plenty of reasons to be confused about Dragila's series of marks this year)
Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
In a message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Ruth) writes: Garry enjoys the luxury of publishing only monthly, after most of the confusion has been resolved. What I meant by confusion, in real time, due to problems in the news media converting between measurement systems, included the "luxury of publishing monthly" has nothing to do with it: it's the rule of caveat emptor that applies here, in the sense that anybody who relies on the "news media" for precise track field information is only setting himself up for huge disappointment. To reallys stretch the analogy,you wouldn't attempt open-heart surgery after reading an account in your local rag would you? Then don't trust them to handle properly something as arcane as the metric system. gh
Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
Garry Hill writes in response to Roger Ruth: the "luxury of publishing monthly" has nothing to do with it: it's the rule of caveat emptor that applies here, in the sense that anybody who relies on the "news media" for precise track field information is only setting himself up for huge disappointment. To reallys stretch the analogy,you wouldn't attempt open-heart surgery after reading an account in your local rag would you? Then don't trust them to handle properly something as arcane as the metric system. At some peril, I think I'm going to jump into this. I guess what I'm looking for in clarification is a completion to this sentence: Garry, who advises not relying on the "news media" for info, suggests that Roger instead... rely on. wait for obtain the info from I say this as somebody who did the first draft of the women's pole vault and high jump annual performances for one of the FAST annuals a couple of years ago. Notwithstanding a Track Newsletter subscription, and sometime marks from the Internet site of whoever hosted the meet, there were occasions where things were unclear and one wanted to know who to phone. I recall an example from a meet somewhere in Idaho, I think it was, where an initial source or sources showed an NCAA collegian with an imperial value which was an in-between unlisted imperial value in the TFN Little Red Book. Websites of the colleges of athletes sometimes added confusion rather than subtracting it, yielding--in rare cases--contradictions with Bob Podkaminer's qualifying marks that seemed to be of a metric vs. imperial nature. Then there was one obscure high school meet with a mark I only chanced across, and Ed Grant or somebody in New Jersey made some phone calls to clarify a related discrepancy. It turned out that there had been a double conversion, imperial to metric and back or vice versa, throwing the correct number off by a quarter-inch or centimeter. In Dragila WR cases, there are alternative sources on which to rely, at least eventually (e.g., Track Newsletter). But in the obscure cases, I found the "news media" sometimes constituted the only source. Except that in the high jump, they would do things like reporting a high school 5-0 or 5-1 as 5-10. Or a rookie helper at the meet would do it for them. I'd send a postcard to the coach, and she'd respond, "Boy, I wish!!" That was then. This is now. Websites are much improved. Also, a resource that probably could use more participation by those interested in such matters is the t-and-f_statistics list (messages archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/t-and-f_statistics). Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
When I posted women's national indoor vault records yesterday, I invited additions and corrections. First off the mark was Andy Mhlbach, who reported that Doris Auer had improved her Austrian record, given as 4.32m. Her new mark, achieved at Glasgow on 18 March, is 4.44m. As I filed her new mark, I noted that it was her 16th improvement in the Austrian record since I began keeping this list in 1995. I wondered whether that might be the greatest number of record performances during this period, so I checked some of the more obvious possibilities. With a caution that I may well have missed some records that were improved in close succession, these appeared to be the leading record-breakers: Vaulter Country Indoor Outdoor Total Monika Pyrek Poland 4 15 19 Stacy Dragila United States7 10 17 Daniela Brtov Czech Republic 1 16 17 Doris AuerAustria 5 11 16 Emma George Australia1 14 15 Let me take this opportunity to sneak in a correction to the note I posted yesterday about Alicia Warlick's world-leading outdoor 4.50m. I wrote that it was 4" better than the previous leading mark of this season, citing Tatiana Grigorieva's 4.30m. The problem wasn't with my multiplication, but with my eyesight. The previous leading mark was that of Pavla Hamckov--4.40m at Pietersburg (RSA) on 27 January--which *was* 4" below Warlick's vault. Also, Marie Poissonier's new French record, 4.35m at Cercy, was set last Sunday (25 March), not Saturday. I haven't yet seen this in any published result. Gerard Dumas made the correction after a conversation with his French Connection. Cheers
Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
Earlier today, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There isn't (and basically wasn't ever) any confusion over Dragila's record heights. All were metrically measured, and all were as you state them. QED. gh This was in response to my statement, that Due to problems in converting between measurement systems, there was (and is) a considerable amount of confusion over the heights cleared by Dragila; all world records. She entered the season holding the record at 4.62 meters. If I have them right, the four improvements were 4.63m at New York on 2 February, 4.65m at Pocatello on 9 February, and both 4.66m and 4.70m at Pocatello on 17 February. ~ Garry enjoys the luxury of publishing only monthly, after most of the confusion has been resolved. What I meant by confusion, in real time, due to problems in the news media converting between measurement systems, included: Stacy's Millrose Games mark was first reported, by U.S. media, as 15' 2 1/4". That would convert to 4.62m. The bar was, in fact, set at 4.63m, which does convert to 15' 2 1/4" in the only measurement system Americans apparently understand. The confusion, here, is only in guessing whether to accept the initially reported imperial mark. We have learned, over the years, that expecting U.S. media to make correct metric/imperial conversions is a very hazardous assumption. Maybe I'm too easily confused. Stacy's 9 February Pocatello result (4.65) was initally given internationally as 4.66m. That, apparently, was because of an error by Agence Press France in grappeling with the imperial mark. Still, until 2001-02-15, the IAAF website showed the new WR height as 4.66, not 4.65. I would have to admit a tiny bit of additional confusion that this mark was attained in a college dual meet for which she was ineligible to compete. That, I think, would often have been deemed an "exhibition" result. Maybe I'm too easily confused. There seems to be no problem with Stacy's 4.66m (15' 3 1/4") at Pocatello on 17 February: unless you admit my confusion that this height is shown on the USATF site as an American record, but that it doesn't appear at all on the IAAF list of 2001 indoor "top performances." Maybe I'm too easily confused. After her first-attempt clearance of 4.66m in that meet, we are told by Walt Murphy that Stacy requested a new height of 4.71m. She missed the height twice, then cleared on her third attempt. Again according to Murphy, the height was first announced as 4.71, then, after re-measurement, as 4.70. Whoa: I'm confused. Why was there a re-measurement? I thought that no longer was a part of the rule on record certification. Did someone decide that the bar height had been affected by the two earlier misses? (Who decided that, and on the basis of what rule?) If so, and the standards were readjusted, as Walt reported, from 4.71 to 4.70, what possible explanation can the vault officials provide for *lowering* an attempted height during the competition? There simply is no provision for that in the rules. Maybe I'm too easily confused. But, if I were Stacy and I'd requested (under the rules, *mandated*) a given height and the officials certified a lesser height, I would kick some serious ass. Maybe. I'm easily confused. My high school geometry class was 60 years ago, but in those long-ago days, "QED" meant, "it follows that." It doesn't seem to me, from the examples I've cited, it follows that there was no reason for confusion about Dragila's records. Over to you, Garry. Cheers, Roger
Re: t-and-f: Women's Indoor Vault NRs
In a message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 5:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Ruth) writes: Due to problems in converting between measurement systems, there was (and is) a considerable amount of confusion over the heights cleared by Dragila; all world records. She entered the season holding the record at 4.62 meters. If I have them right, the four improvements were 4.63m at New York on 2 February, 4.65m at Pocatello on 9 February, and both 4.66m and 4.70m at Pocatello on 17 February. There isn't (and basically wasn't ever) any confusion over Dragila's record heights. All were metrically measured, and all were as you state them. QED. gh
