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
well, thanx to Meg and youse guys who took what I had to say seriously. I was somehow on the wrong track and one of these days I'll reveal how that all got started. For now, I'll just say it was one aspect of time that I should have avoided for a while, at least until some of the other aspects had been attended to. I'll also admit that there are a lot more important things to be spending time on than the awkward sound of our age grouping.
The inclusion of the "subtractive" as well as the accumulative splits in the results is very helpful in many ways. So was the deck seeding that ahered to age grouping in all but the 400 or greater distances. I remember an hour or so's delay of one of the events at the Munich World Masters 2000 Meet when the seeding had to be redone to correct the consternation that had resulted from deviation from what had been published would be.
O.K. What would sound right , but I'm not proposing it, would be if the age groupings were 19-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45. But let's try to forget that I ever brought up the subject!
well, thanx to Meg and youse guys who took what I had to say seriously. I was somehow on the wrong track and one of these days I'll reveal how that all got started. For now, I'll just say it was one aspect of time that I should have avoided for a while, at least until some of the other aspects had been attended to. I'll also admit that there are a lot more important things to be spending time on than the awkward sound of our age grouping.
The inclusion of the "subtractive" as well as the accumulative splits in the results is very helpful in many ways. So was the deck seeding that ahered to age grouping in all but the 400 or greater distances. I remember an hour or so's delay of one of the events at the Munich World Masters 2000 Meet when the seeding had to be redone to correct the consternation that had resulted from deviation from what had been published would be.
O.K. What would sound right , but I'm not proposing it, would be if the age groupings were 19-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45. But let's try to forget that I ever brought up the subject!
