One of the very last posts of 2001 was from me on New Year's Eve. I don't remember whether the title was mine or the administrator who decided that it was a sub topic of something remotely connected with the subject that I was proposing. But, no matter.
Since the change of format this week to the new system, I don't know how to check it out or whether or not it makes any difference. However, after two weeks of no response of any kind and since it was my prerogative, being my birthday, the rare one that is divisable by both sevenses and elevenses, I went back to the subject to give it a boost, hoping that someone would give it some kind of notice. But, alas...
With Ground Hog's (or is it s'?) Day looming around the next corner I'm very much determined to thrust the subject forward a third time in the hope that it will get some serious attention. And it is about time whatever way you choose to take the title.
I don't remember everything I wrote the first two times but I'll simply make the proposal without any but the barest essential elaboration.
As soon as possible post all swimming times in seconds only!
Eliminate the use of minutes, or hours entirely. Having just yesterday having competed in the National Championship Event, The Hour Swim, (a Mail-in Event) I could consent to keeping the title. But for all listing and taking of times it would be 100% beneficial to use seconds only.
The only reason to oppose the notion that I can think of would be related to the existing hardware. But transpositions would be easily done until the mass of the hardware is ready to conform on its own. My guess being that the computer timing systems would need only a nudge to adapt.
Sprinters, of course, wouldn't understand what I'm talking about. But all swimmers who have a use for splits in their calculations run into stumbling blocks, not to mention common errors, that are bound to creep in whenever minutes become part of the results.
I have one other helpful suggestion to make on the subject, and because of the opportunity, why not... If Splits, for example, of a 200 or a 1500 were listed in reverse order, it would be infinitely easier and more instructive to see their value and significance.
Parents
Former Member
The event-Postal One Hour Swim
Being timed by hand with times for each 50 yards being recorded to two decimal places. I use the semicolon to separate the minutes from the seconds to prevent errors from occurring by involving an unnecessary key...
1350 26;21.24
1400 27;20.33
1450 28;19.42
1500 29;18.27
1550 30;12
1600 31;14
1650 32;12
1700 33;10
1750 34;09
1800 35;07
etc
etc
2850 55;23
2900 56;19
2950 57;13
3000 58;06
3050 58;59
3100
the next, and last entry is 3065 with 1;00.00 written indicating the swim is over, naturally.
However, there is another minute and one second that occurred before the event was completed and the swimmer did not stop until the race was completed at the end of an hour which was ticking off on a wall clock in synchrony with the hand watch.
I think you'll agree that the timer did right in pacing the side of the pool to find the exact spot of the swimmer at the stroke of 60
minutes, but did not notice that there was a specific time that the swimmer touched the wall at the end of 3100. which he had not written down, which would have been 59;52 or less and leaving the push-off and a few strokes before the 60th minute was reached. Thus the 3065 written was in error and should have been 3115.
30;12 at the 1550 point was also obviously an error. The time had to have been 30;16, instead. I am sure that the watch was correct at this point, but that the timer had been confused, since the watch no longer had the capacity to include a decimal reading. The timer had been told of this watch problem in advance and, indeed was expecting it to happen. But, when it actually did happen, he was confused enough to be distracted into writing down an incorrect time.
I contend that these things would not have happened and need to be corrected if a Seconds Only system were used.
I say that we could and should avoid such confusion by adopting a Seconds Only system!
The event-Postal One Hour Swim
Being timed by hand with times for each 50 yards being recorded to two decimal places. I use the semicolon to separate the minutes from the seconds to prevent errors from occurring by involving an unnecessary key...
1350 26;21.24
1400 27;20.33
1450 28;19.42
1500 29;18.27
1550 30;12
1600 31;14
1650 32;12
1700 33;10
1750 34;09
1800 35;07
etc
etc
2850 55;23
2900 56;19
2950 57;13
3000 58;06
3050 58;59
3100
the next, and last entry is 3065 with 1;00.00 written indicating the swim is over, naturally.
However, there is another minute and one second that occurred before the event was completed and the swimmer did not stop until the race was completed at the end of an hour which was ticking off on a wall clock in synchrony with the hand watch.
I think you'll agree that the timer did right in pacing the side of the pool to find the exact spot of the swimmer at the stroke of 60
minutes, but did not notice that there was a specific time that the swimmer touched the wall at the end of 3100. which he had not written down, which would have been 59;52 or less and leaving the push-off and a few strokes before the 60th minute was reached. Thus the 3065 written was in error and should have been 3115.
30;12 at the 1550 point was also obviously an error. The time had to have been 30;16, instead. I am sure that the watch was correct at this point, but that the timer had been confused, since the watch no longer had the capacity to include a decimal reading. The timer had been told of this watch problem in advance and, indeed was expecting it to happen. But, when it actually did happen, he was confused enough to be distracted into writing down an incorrect time.
I contend that these things would not have happened and need to be corrected if a Seconds Only system were used.
I say that we could and should avoid such confusion by adopting a Seconds Only system!
