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
o.k. since it's been a month and nobody else has put out any time problems, I guess it's up to me.
How come nobody else has mentioned the fact that our masters age group designations are not quite right? They were wrongly designated from the beginning, but we've had over thirty years to correct 'em. Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong and should have been corrected by the first governing body (the AAU, I guess). I can't think of many things that are so awkward to say or write. It ranks right up there with such misnomers as "aluminum" and the Pedernales River... But, I digress.
Another time as it were.. has anybody, including himself, noticed the weird splits listed for Scott Rabalais's 1500? I went to the trouble of searching out all of the seeming possibilities of what might have been a misreading by the machine of another in the same heat swimmer's time, but didn't find it. I'm not in any way questioning his final time, or the fact that he had a great swim.
So what else about time? A short preamble, first. 15-20 years ago, before arthritis destroyed my right hip, my best event on a percentage basis compared to my age group's record time was the 200 breaststroke. Now it is my slowest event. I haven't had a hip replacement operation, don't intend to, and have no pain that isn't under good control. My right shoe's sole is about two inches thicker than my left, but I don't complain and get around as much I want to. That said. getting back to time , it began in Federal Way at the Long Course Nationals when my time for the 200 *** was, August, 2001 6:00.96. Next time at Canadian Nationals LCM, May, 2002 5:59.55. Next time at LouisvilleCrescent Hill, June, 2002 5:59.68. Next, a 200Butterfly Hoosier State Games, July 2002 5:59.94
In seconds only those would be 359.++, Hence my declaration of changing my moniker to include 359.
Cleveland??? Well my 200 butterfly time was 6:07.94 (marred by an ill fitting suit which scooped water) and my 200 *** time was (although with a DQ) 5:52.58,
this with my ankle length Speedo
So, obviously, my bad genii were there, trying to be unobtrusive. But they did bring to my attention that I had misnamed my moniker, which should, obviously, be 360. Those last 6 200's averaged 360.11 when properly " 'rounded' off". ( My DQ slip says that my feet were not allways pointed outwardly). What can I say to that? Except that even all of the 359's would round off to 360.
I do have more to say, or ask, about time , but I ain't got the time right now ... Later?
o.k. since it's been a month and nobody else has put out any time problems, I guess it's up to me.
How come nobody else has mentioned the fact that our masters age group designations are not quite right? They were wrongly designated from the beginning, but we've had over thirty years to correct 'em. Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong and should have been corrected by the first governing body (the AAU, I guess). I can't think of many things that are so awkward to say or write. It ranks right up there with such misnomers as "aluminum" and the Pedernales River... But, I digress.
Another time as it were.. has anybody, including himself, noticed the weird splits listed for Scott Rabalais's 1500? I went to the trouble of searching out all of the seeming possibilities of what might have been a misreading by the machine of another in the same heat swimmer's time, but didn't find it. I'm not in any way questioning his final time, or the fact that he had a great swim.
So what else about time? A short preamble, first. 15-20 years ago, before arthritis destroyed my right hip, my best event on a percentage basis compared to my age group's record time was the 200 breaststroke. Now it is my slowest event. I haven't had a hip replacement operation, don't intend to, and have no pain that isn't under good control. My right shoe's sole is about two inches thicker than my left, but I don't complain and get around as much I want to. That said. getting back to time , it began in Federal Way at the Long Course Nationals when my time for the 200 *** was, August, 2001 6:00.96. Next time at Canadian Nationals LCM, May, 2002 5:59.55. Next time at LouisvilleCrescent Hill, June, 2002 5:59.68. Next, a 200Butterfly Hoosier State Games, July 2002 5:59.94
In seconds only those would be 359.++, Hence my declaration of changing my moniker to include 359.
Cleveland??? Well my 200 butterfly time was 6:07.94 (marred by an ill fitting suit which scooped water) and my 200 *** time was (although with a DQ) 5:52.58,
this with my ankle length Speedo
So, obviously, my bad genii were there, trying to be unobtrusive. But they did bring to my attention that I had misnamed my moniker, which should, obviously, be 360. Those last 6 200's averaged 360.11 when properly " 'rounded' off". ( My DQ slip says that my feet were not allways pointed outwardly). What can I say to that? Except that even all of the 359's would round off to 360.
I do have more to say, or ask, about time , but I ain't got the time right now ... Later?
