2:01.78 v. 2:01.8c from 1974! One of the oldest records on the books from little pigtailed Mary Decker days.
2:01.78 v. 2:01.8c from 1974! One of the oldest records on the books from little pigtailed Mary Decker days.
HOLY CRAP
FREAKY FAST
Move over Rachel McArthur!!!
50 Shades Of Grey Area wrote:
2:01.78 v. 2:01.8c from 1974! One of the oldest records on the books from little pigtailed Mary Decker days.
If you knew anything at all about significant decimals you'd know how wrong you are.
wasn't the carol lewis LJ record taken down recently too?
50 Shades Of Grey Area wrote:
2:01.78 v. 2:01.8c from 1974! One of the oldest records on the books from little pigtailed Mary Decker days.
That is a tie. All hand times are roudend up to the next tenth of a second. That means that if Mary was hand timed at 2:01.71 that would go to a 2:01.8. That would also be statistically faster than a 2:01.78 FAT.
no high schooler has endurance wrote:
Move over Rachel McArthur!!!
Huh??? Then move over, Douglas MacArthur.
Slammin' Sammy Watson!
Yawn, Decker ran on a 10 lap to the mile board track, so Watson has a faster time, but not a better performance.
Not a faster time for those that know the history of the sport.
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:
Not a faster time for those that know the history of the sport.
But a faster time for those of us who know how to count!
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:
50 Shades Of Grey Area wrote:2:01.78 v. 2:01.8c from 1974! One of the oldest records on the books from little pigtailed Mary Decker days.
That is a tie. All hand times are roudend up to the next tenth of a second. That means that if Mary was hand timed at 2:01.71 that would go to a 2:01.8. That would also be statistically faster than a 2:01.78 FAT.
2:01.71 hand time does not become 2:01.8. The hand time to FAT conversion is the addition of a few tenths, not simply rounding up to the nearest tenth.
Also, if you ran 2:01.8 FAT as well as a hand time that converts to exactly 2:01.8, they are exactly the same statistically, that is the whole point of the conversion: a conversion based on comparing hand timing with FAT statistically over many comparison samples.
Twentyfive wrote:
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:That is a tie. All hand times are roudend up to the next tenth of a second. That means that if Mary was hand timed at 2:01.71 that would go to a 2:01.8. That would also be statistically faster than a 2:01.78 FAT.
2:01.71 hand time does not become 2:01.8. The hand time to FAT conversion is the addition of a few tenths, not simply rounding up to the nearest tenth.
Also, if you ran 2:01.8 FAT as well as a hand time that converts to exactly 2:01.8, they are exactly the same statistically, that is the whole point of the conversion: a conversion based on comparing hand timing with FAT statistically over many comparison samples.
Wouldn't it be 201.8 + .24 or 2:02.04?? Converting it from a HT to FAT?
Not in 1974. There was no conversion to FAT because there was no FAT. The .24 is reaction time and added to a current hand time. That is not how it was done in the 70's.
'70s, not 70's.
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:
Not in 1974. There was no conversion to FAT because there was no FAT. The .24 is reaction time and added to a current hand time. That is not how it was done in the 70's.
You are correct but hand times are also rounded up something like .12 also to match FAT times. Not sure exactly how much. Have not done this for several years.
In the 70s 70's was acceptable. Some "grammarians" decides to had to change it to 70s for reasons they failed to explain.
action.plan wrote:
'70s, not 70's.
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:Not in 1974. There was no conversion to FAT because there was no FAT. The .24 is reaction time and added to a current hand time. That is not how it was done in the 70's.
While some posters still struggle with comprehending the statistics, it is official: new HSR:
http://www.milesplit.com/articles/202369-sammy-watson-breaks-800m-national-record-
herr.schiklgruber wrote:
Yawn, Decker ran on a 10 lap to the mile board track, so Watson has a faster time, but not a better performance.
It’s sad, I have always felt high regard for Mary Decker since I saw some newsreel footage in 1973 of some little 14 year old pigtailed American girl weighing only 40kg, silencing the spectators at a USA-Soviet meeting in Minsk, by beating the two mighty Soviet couple in the 800mt event.
One of those Soviets she beat went on to be the Olympic silver medallist.
It was an amazing achievement for a 14 year old and I doubt she was taking any illegal substances at that age.
New Nordstrom shopper wrote:
Not in 1974. There was no conversion to FAT because there was no FAT. The .24 is reaction time and added to a current hand time. That is not how it was done in the 70's.
The 0.24 add is a convention. It has nothing to do with reality, because neither the tenths or the hundredths are actually measured.
All of this talk about conversions is moot anyway because of the problem with significant decimal rules. You cannot add a 2 SD number to a 1 SD number an get a 2 SD sum. Being that 0.24 is a 2 SD number that is made up from the ethers you are really compounding the issue to absurdity.
Add .24, round hand times up,........ this stuff could go on and on.
Anyone who ever ran on one of the old wood 10 lap tracks that sucked your energy knows that Decker's mark is clearly superior.
However, that is not Sammy's fault or problem, she ran faster.
Congratulations to the new HS indoor record holder Ms. Sammy Watson.
The 'conversion" also changed rules at least a couple of times - from 2.01.71ht rounds up to 2.01.8.8, or .2.01.75 rounds up to 2.01.8 but 2.01.74 rounds down to 2.01.7. It was an era when both Ht and FAT were acceptable for record purposes. That is no longer the case.
Also, I believe the conversion from Ht to FAT was .14 for events over 400m, but .24 for the sprints.
Thankfully this arbitrariness is no longer relevant.
A bit surprised that it wasn't mentioned that Decker was much younger than Watson -- doesn't this invalidate the performance since they weren't the same age to the exact month (typical LRC obsession with age)- so Decker's was the superior performance, not even including the difference in the track quality.