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
"...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better!"
Speak for yourself. I'm VERY glad we use the terminology that we do. As a coach I already have enough stuff to explain to newbies about the world of Masters without adding ambiguous age groups. Why would you want to build unnecessary ambiguity into the system by officially naming the age groups something different than what we actually do? I find our current system much less awkward than using your system and then explaining that I didn't say what I really meant.
I'm curious, what keeps you from using your ambiguous terminology when you want to? You are free to use it if it communicates your thoughts. Of course, then, where it makes a difference you need to explain things or your thoughts haven't been completely communicated. Imagine explaining to the newbie 30 yr old swimmer that , no, he is not allowed to swim in the 25-30 age group.
I'd hate to see the rule book use 25-30, 30-35,... (plus the requisite explanation) wherever age groups are mentioned.
When conversing with others who understand our system I say 25+, 30+, 35+ etc. That's even less awkward than 25-30, 30-35 etc. And, perhaps, even less ambiguous to the uninitiated.
"...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better!"
Speak for yourself. I'm VERY glad we use the terminology that we do. As a coach I already have enough stuff to explain to newbies about the world of Masters without adding ambiguous age groups. Why would you want to build unnecessary ambiguity into the system by officially naming the age groups something different than what we actually do? I find our current system much less awkward than using your system and then explaining that I didn't say what I really meant.
I'm curious, what keeps you from using your ambiguous terminology when you want to? You are free to use it if it communicates your thoughts. Of course, then, where it makes a difference you need to explain things or your thoughts haven't been completely communicated. Imagine explaining to the newbie 30 yr old swimmer that , no, he is not allowed to swim in the 25-30 age group.
I'd hate to see the rule book use 25-30, 30-35,... (plus the requisite explanation) wherever age groups are mentioned.
When conversing with others who understand our system I say 25+, 30+, 35+ etc. That's even less awkward than 25-30, 30-35 etc. And, perhaps, even less ambiguous to the uninitiated.
