Well, "their" rule is not to truncate when going from metric to Imperial. They add event-specific offsets that make it round up if "close enough" and the factors are figured on maximum liklihood and assumed probability distributions (overly complex derivation, but any rounding decision can be reduced to an offset). For that mark, it does round up. If a 0.08" offset pushes it over the next quarter inch, it rounds up. The offset is different for horizontal jumps and throws.
(That example is VERY close to the breakpoint where it JUST barely rounds up) ________________________________ From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 12:34:47 PM Subject: [USMA:50852] US Track & Field: Trapped in a \"Culture of Conversion One of the big problems when dealing with conversions of Track & field events is the requirement that numbers be downsized to the nearest quarter inch in USC and the nearest centimetre in metric. This means the stated value is made to appear round but is not equal to the original measurement. Possibly before the time of 76 Olympics, when all the old non-metric distances were cast off the record books, it may have been difficult to determine which was measured and which was a conversion. But now with all of the important events requiring a measurement in metric it is the USC that is the converted value. Since the article you posted indicates the the 2.10 m is the true dimension as that is where the bar is placed (at 5 cm increments), the 6-10.75 is in error. 2.10 converts to 6-10.677 and via the rounding rules should be stated as 6-10.5 instead of the 6-10.75. This means a lot of the measurement conversions to USC may be wrong and over (or under) stated. It may be the reason the records are kept in metres as those are the only numbers that can be considered reliable. They are the actual numbers used. If the media and others change the numbers it doesn't matter as long as the official records get it right. The Wikipedia track & field article is interesting in that someone wanted to make sure everyone was aware that all of the metric events originated as rounded USC/Imperial events. You can see for yourself at this link (see Running - Sprints): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_%26_field I guess we can be thankful that the French created the modern Olympics and made sure it done all in metric. If the British had created them, the events would be in feet yards and miles to this very day. The reasoning would be that it is historical. You bring up the comment that the participants in the American colleges still think in USC. Being young, you would think they could adjust easier and even prefer the simpler numbers in metres. Especially if they learned some metric in school. I wonder at what age a person has to reach when it becomes difficult to adjust to something new. If these college athletes can't adjust to metric units in the sports world, how will they ever adjust in the job world if they go onto engineering or other fields where metric only is required? [USMA:50852] US Track & Field: Trapped in a "Culture of Conversion John M. Steele Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:46:19 -0700 US Track is truly metric, run on metric courses. The field events (jumping and throwing) are usually measured in Imperial at the high school level, in metric at the college and above levels. In metric, they are measured in meters to two decimals (whole centimeters, any fraction is truncated), and in Imperial, feet and inches to the whole quarter inch (whole inch in long throws). So that is some progress, right? Not really, as the sport is trapped in a "culture of conversion." This article is not about the problem, but illustrates the problem. A college athlete still thinking in feet and inches at the end of his college career. http://erstarnews.com/2011/07/09/elks-in-gopherland-theres-3-left-after-high-jumper-clauer-enters-workforce/ Pat and I have disagreed about conversion here. It may or may not be necessary in the process of metrication, but failure to complete metrication often involves becoming trapped in a "culture of conversion." True metrication involves getting past the conversion and USING metric. There seem to be several problems: *The use of Imperial at the high school level creates an annual band of new recruits at the college level who don't understand metric marks. *As illustrated by the article above, the athletes never become comfortable with metric marks and continue to think in Imperial. *The meet officials emphasize reporting the Imperial conversion over the measured metric mark to the audience and to the media, even though they are "secretly" recording only the metric mark in the meet records. *The audience and the media either don't understand that the Imperial marks are "fake" and rounded approximations (obtained by conversion) or don't care. For the media, it perfectly fits the AP policy of converting metric. The sport is reduced to MEASURING in meters, then running to the "Big Gold Book" (conversion tables) to look up and announce the "TRUE" result in Imperial. To further complicate the situation, they use three slightly different rounding rules for different events to determine the Imperial conversion, which I think CLEARLY shows they take the Imperial conversion more seriously than the true metric mark. Their metrication plan has failed and they are trapped in a "culture of conversion." How could they escape the culture of conversion: *First, they have to care. If they don't want to, they won't. *They have to encourage high school sports to measure in metric. If they won't, they have to get them to convert and report the metric conversion only. *They have to emphasize posting the metric result to audience and the media. *For one season only, they should adopt a single, simplified Imperial conversion rule and report that conversion as supplemental information. They should announce IN ADVANCE that the conversion will NOT be reported the following season. Most metrication failures do not involve a simple return to Imperial or Customary. They involve getting trapped in duality (both systems equally good) and a culture of conversion. The solution is that the two systems are not "equal." One is required, and the other is tolerated as poor quality supplemental information but discouraged, possibly forbidden. Break the cycle, USE the metric.
