Note to reporter John Powers -
The marathon is 26.2 miles, not a "26 miler"!
26.2
TWENTY SIX POINT TWO!
CeeCee wrote:
Note to reporter John Powers -
The marathon is 26.2 miles, not a "26 miler"!
26.2
TWENTY SIX POINT TWO!
Note to CeeCee -
The marathon is 26.21875 miles, not "26.2 miles"!
26.21875
That picture makes her look 38.
CeeCee wrote:
Note to reporter John Powers -
The marathon is 26.2 miles, not a "26 miler"!
26.2
TWENTY SIX POINT TWO!
Pretty lame if you are worried about that distinction. Let's just be happy that marathoning is getting some positive press.
CeeCee wrote:
Note to reporter John Powers -
The marathon is 26.2 miles, not a "26 miler"!
26.2
TWENTY SIX POINT TWO!
still not right wrote:
Note to CeeCee -
The marathon is 26.21875 miles, not "26.2 miles"!
26.21875
Note to "still not right" -
The marathon is 26 miles, 385 yards, not 26.21875 miles
26 miles, 385 yards
one more time wrote:
Note to "still not right" -
The marathon is 26 miles, 385 yards, not 26.21875 miles
26 miles, 385 yards
Please explain the difference between 385 yards and 0.21875 miles.
Please explain the difference between 385 yards and 0.21875 miles.
Let me do it for him: there is none.
Since when is it "pretty lame" to expect a reporter to do bare bones research about the topic of his article?
What a jejune waste of time all of this is
CeeCee wrote:
Since when is it "pretty lame" to expect a reporter to do bare bones research about the topic of his article?
Pedantic idiot:
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/arlington/articles/2010/04/16/the_course/?page=fullIsn't anybody excited about this announcement? All anybody can do is debate the distance of the race???
Don Draper wrote:
Today's Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/running/articles/2010/06/16/flanagan_will_debut_in_marathon_in_ny/
____________________________________
I love her (Shalane). But, Wittenberg, I do not trust AT ALL!!!
What does trusting Wittenberg have to do with it? Flanagan is running the race herself.
CeeCee wrote:
Since when is it "pretty lame" to expect a reporter to do bare bones research about the topic of his article?
Since it is almost a given that the writer could have stated 26.224363blah, blah, blah but didn't want to appear like a moron. So, they simple rounded the number to "26 miler" knowing full well that the geeks who care enough already know that it is slightly longer, but the general public will react the same way to just 26 miles.
When people at work say, "Wow, good for you. I can't imagine running 26 miles." Do you actually correct them and say "Actually, it is 26.224" blah, blah, blah in the hopes that they will be even more impressed? Lame-O!
I'll also wager that you are a GPS nerd who records there daily runs as "7.254 miles at 7:32.6 pace with HR 142=78% max... "
Just run. Enjoy. Repeat daily.
Track & Field News (June 2010), on pages 28 and 30, refers to the marathon as "26-miling"(p.28 first paragraph), and "26-miler"(p.30 paragraph 6). I guess I will boycott this magazine now because the writer didn't do his "bare bones research".
Poor Cee Cee.
Why would you bother to read T&FN.