Sammy MF Watson breaks Mary Decker's HS record!

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.

Must you bring up the FAT thing in every thread involving women?

opinionated guy wrote:

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.

This is correct.

Using the NCAA conversion system, Decker's mark converts to 1:59.83 on a 200 m banked track.

. . . 0.14 when the race starts and finishes at the same point and 0.24 when start and finish are separated

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.

Beyond the hand time/FAT issue is the fact that Decker's is a conversion from the 880y to 800m.

Hey! It's not FAIR to Little Mary to take her record away, because:

1. Sammy Watson is taller, and there is more oxygen, less methane and off-gassing from vomit, at Sammy's level than at Mary's. It gave Sammy an unfair advantage!!

2. The ambient air temperature for Mary's record run vs Sammy's was different by 1.44 degrees F, in favor of Sammy. That, per performance charts developed by Dr. Peter Snell and other performance researchers. No fair!!

3. Mary ate Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast the morning of her race. Sammy ate sugar-free organic oats, with almond butter on gluten-free whole grained toast, and soy milk, with a protein shake chaser. No fair -- the advancement in dietary research!!

4. Sammy's shoes were designed by a team of specialists in human behavior, physics, and engineering. Mary's were made by a guy with a waffle iron.

4. Blah, blah, blah.

You poor, poor, pitiful people (PPPP) who can't acknowledge, or celebrate, current stellar achievements and have to see everyone in terms of relative worth.

Get the time machine up and firing! Sammy is going back in time to race Mary head-to-head. (And while we're at it, let's give Mike Trout a chance to knock a few homers at Yankee Stadium in 1927. How do ya like THEM apples -- I mean taters -- Babe?)

At the end of the day, it is what it is...per se...if you will...

Oh, but the soy milk, my friend. No bueno on that. The estrogens in there more than negate all those advantages.

Anyone know her short list of schools yet?

She said she hadn't come close to deciding yet. If she goes sub-2:00 outdoors, a pro contract will be in the mix. Worked out for Agee.

platadebasura wrote:

Anyone know her short list of schools yet?

The apostrophe is still used when it's modifying another term:

I was alive in the 1970s.

however....

I can't stop listening to 1970's music.

Great effort and and future for her.

Unfortunately Craig M. completely missed it as he did with several other calls in the meet. Why is an unprepared Ivy league uninvolved Nike lawyer allowed to announce when they are so many other that could do a better job.

Don't forget about the overall coverage.

Ratings are not high meaning only true track fans watch. True track fans want to see the entire race finish, not the winner come to a jog and hug anonymous people. I saw Watson moving up and knew she had a chance of something special. However, instead of seeing her finish and her time I got to watch Wilson walking around aimlessly. Why? Because that is what the average viewer would want to see. But the average viewer is not watching. Why can't USATF or someone else get NBC's ear and make stuff like this known?

Kidding aside, Decker ran on that horrible 160y wooden track. LOL

What makes you think the average viewer would want to see that? Can't NBC just be wrong?

opinionated guy wrote:

Don't forget about the overall coverage.

Ratings are not high meaning only true track fans watch. True track fans want to see the entire race finish, not the winner come to a jog and hug anonymous people. I saw Watson moving up and knew she had a chance of something special. However, instead of seeing her finish and her time I got to watch Wilson walking around aimlessly. Why? Because that is what the average viewer would want to see. But the average viewer is not watching. Why can't USATF or someone else get NBC's ear and make stuff like this known?

not Casey Kasem wrote:

What makes you think the average viewer would want to see that? Can't NBC just be wrong?]

I have read the research during Olympics and just about any/every sport that says John Q. Public loves the little side stories of how LeBron came home, Susie Archery overcame cataracts, and Allison Felix's dog died. Why do you think the Olympics shows more side pieces than actual competition. However, a nothing indoor track meet (from a national perspective) does not have average fans watching, so why aim coverage at them?

And to your second question, YES, NBC can just be wrong in the aim of their coverage in my opinionated view.

Luther Poach wrote:

The apostrophe is still used when it's modifying another term:

I was alive in the 1970s.

however....

I can't stop listening to 1970's music.

Only correct if you are referring to the year 1970. If you are referring to the decade of the 1970s, it would be:

I can't stop listening to the 1970s' music.

The simple rule is that an apostrophe + s is used in two situations:

1) to form a possessive (e.g., This is John's violin), or

2) to contract a noun with the verb is (e.g., John's going to play violin for us now.).

The apostrophe should never be used for pluralization, which is what is meant by referring to the decade 1970 - 1979 as the '70s.

Good points.

I'll cheat when I don't know.

"I cannot stop listening to seventies music."