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.
Doug,
Take it from a professional editor (and incidentally, the volunteer editor of the USMS rule book): 25-30, 30-35, etc., not only does not SOUND right, it is NOT right! It is absolutely incorrect to have one number belong to two groups. As Emmett has pointed out, under your system, how would a 30-year-old know which age group he/she belongs to? The hyphen indicating a span of ages (technically, it's an em dash, not a hyphen) means "through," not "to" (regardless of whether you pronounce it "25 to 29" or "25 through 29"). So the 25-29 age group is made up of people ages 25 THROUGH 29. You say that only Masters swimmers use this system? Not true. My real job is editing scientific material, and my "Bible" is "Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey." STA recommends expressing spans of numbers the exact way USMS does it. Also, age-group swimming expresses age groups the same way we do (actually, we were probably copying USA Swimming when we came up with ours). You don't have the 9-11, 11-13, etc., age groups. You have 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, etc.
I'm sorry if this doesn't sound right to you, Doug. Nevertheless, it IS right. And it's not a matter of political correctness; it's a matter of clarity.
Doug,
Take it from a professional editor (and incidentally, the volunteer editor of the USMS rule book): 25-30, 30-35, etc., not only does not SOUND right, it is NOT right! It is absolutely incorrect to have one number belong to two groups. As Emmett has pointed out, under your system, how would a 30-year-old know which age group he/she belongs to? The hyphen indicating a span of ages (technically, it's an em dash, not a hyphen) means "through," not "to" (regardless of whether you pronounce it "25 to 29" or "25 through 29"). So the 25-29 age group is made up of people ages 25 THROUGH 29. You say that only Masters swimmers use this system? Not true. My real job is editing scientific material, and my "Bible" is "Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey." STA recommends expressing spans of numbers the exact way USMS does it. Also, age-group swimming expresses age groups the same way we do (actually, we were probably copying USA Swimming when we came up with ours). You don't have the 9-11, 11-13, etc., age groups. You have 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, etc.
I'm sorry if this doesn't sound right to you, Doug. Nevertheless, it IS right. And it's not a matter of political correctness; it's a matter of clarity.