Why do we keep posting only the metric for field events?

crumpolina wrote:

I know what 6 metres is.

6 full strides of a tall man. What could be simpler?

That's what the "mile" was originally, a thousand paces. Then post-roman Europe screwed it all up. Now it's 8 times the length of a smelly English peasant's field, based on the standard of how far their ox can pull the plow without stopping.

high school xc coach wrote:

always teaching a lesson wrote:

They just want to get rid of us older people so hardly anybody is left to watch track and field. It would be much easier to post both metric and imperial than make us all punch it into a calculator. 6.17 or 6.18 doesn't mean sh!t to me. Is that over 20 ft?

Kids don't know metric either. and we still use feet and inches in high school. only exception is pentathlon, so that the iaaf scoring tables can be used. and it drives everybody crazy. coaches and parents sit over by the jumps and throws with calculators and conversions charts instead of just coaching and watching.

BINGO #1

Buzz kill wrote:

waltertompatton wrote:

Most people still have metric minds.

I know this thread will only produce insults.

That is not why I posted it.

Wipeout all things which ruin our sport.

Have the GUTS to do the right thing.

Nobody is watching field events, so it doesn't matter what it's measured in.

I LOVE the field events and do not want them to die! That's the point.

Opinionated guy wrote:

I am a huge track fan, watch meets on tv, and attend 10 or more meets per year at all levels.

I have no issue with moving to metric marks, but I believe there should have been a learning curve. If there had been a time span when both marks (imperial & metric) were listed, I would be converted to all metric by now. Instead, I ignore the field events listed in metric only and have basically lost interest in them. I pay little to no attention. The governing body has driven off at least one fan by a lazy move. I suppose their thinking was convert and fans will be forced to follow but they misdiagnosed the laziness of most fans. I did not think it would, but this includes me.

BINGO #2

high school xc coach wrote:

it's not even about learning. we are just not hard wired to care about metric numbers. the sport should do their numbers any way they want. but, if you are an american publication or broadcasting company, you should be showing the customary measurements alongside the metric measurements. It is just lazy not to. their job is to cater to the fans, not the other way around.

BINGO #3

HRE wrote:

Buzz kill wrote:

Nobody is watching field events, so it doesn't matter what it's measured in.

You have a good point. And it's hard to think that more people are going to get interested in watching field events if they don't know how far something is thrown or how high or far someone has jumped. It's one thing to say that Americans should learn metric distances so they appreciate field event performances but that's asking an awful lot of your fans and is mostly an unrealistic thing to expect. It's the responsibility of those promoting as port to make it attractive and understandable to prospective fans. If you don't you're going to have a very knowledgeable and very small following.

BINGO #4

high school xc coach wrote:

our sport becomes more and more niche, year after year. people who are in the sport will always adapt and continue to be with the sport. but fans matter. they matter a lot. that is where money comes from. they will NOT adapt for you.

we can only hope that whoever is broadcasting the olympics this year is smart enough to post imperial, along with metric measurements.

I say this all as a track guy who doesn't even really care about field events as it is.

BINGO #5

(Great comeback to CO Coach who "obviously knows nothing about marketing.")

HRE wrote:

I believe the goal is to get that casual fan who watches the Olympics every four years to watch a bit more frequently. European fans are not going to buy Millrose Games tickets. Honestly, I don't get why this is contentious except for contentious being what goes on here. What possible problem can there be with marks being given in both measurements, which is what's done at all the "big" meets I've been to?

BINGO #6

Opinionated Guy had several other great points. Too many to choose from.

He understands that WE must go to the fans, the fans will not come to US.

Thank you for all the respondents. I think it's safe to say this is a relevant point worth

taking to Coe and Company. It's not as relevant as saving the 5 and 10, but it's still

important if you truly LOVE Track & Field.

What metrics do most americans know?

2 liter of pop/soda

5k roadrace

gram of cocaine

9 mm gun (because americans like to shoot people)

Sports that make Billions in the U. S.

Football-Field 100 yards

Basketball-Rim 10 feet high

Baseball-Bases 90 feet, pitching mound to home 60 ft 6 inches Fastball 100 miles/hour

Pretty clear that americans have no interest in the metrics and anybody trying to use them will be cast aside and ignored.

Sports that draw little interest

Bicycling Tour de France once per year-speed and distance in kilometers

Track and Field-measurements in metric-How far is 1,500 meters?

Soccer-Just boring to watch

waltertompatton wrote:

FengYun wrote:

Most place in the world use metric. If it need to be changed, it should remove miles, foot etc

The above is an old argument and not a good one. It's not hard to list both.

Over time it's more likely that people will catch on to both!

Nobody outside the US uses feet and inches. Just not worth the bother tobacommodate every idiot who sticks to his prejudices.

FengYun wrote:

Most place in the world use metric. If it need to be changed, it should remove miles, foot etc

Exactly, only people with Alzheimer think about feet. They remember how it was in the Victoria era 200 years ago. It's called history mate.

planning their own demise wrote:

Pretty clear that americans have no interest in the metrics

US Army uses metric, doesn't mess around at all. Could easily force NFL football to follow suit if it wanted. Put ads on the super bowl, Metric for Victory.

You have track fans on this thread who state that they have lost interest in field events because of metric. You have fans here that say they don’t really know how far some of the distances are.

Yet we continue with the metric nonsense when reporting.

For you idiots that continue with this metric crap, go to your local HS track meet this spring and ask to measure for the long jump. When kids jump tell them their distances in metric. Also announce the distance in metric. After one round ask them if they understand it. When 100% of them say no, just tell them the rest of the world does it that way.

waltertompatton wrote:

Thank you for all the respondents. I think it's safe to say this is a relevant point worth

taking to Coe and Company. It's not as relevant as saving the 5 and 10, but it's still

important if you truly LOVE Track & Field.

^

This

I agree. I don't think a single person in this thread advocates changing from metric to imperial, just list both at every meet on the performance boards as well as in the results.

There is another thread on LRC right now that reads: MONDO sets WR again. 6.18 or something similar to that. My first thought when I saw it, and I believe the first thought of many was "Well, I wonder how far that is over 20 feet." Sorry if I am archaic but if I see 6.18 listed in headlines with imperial following in parenthesis, I won't need imperial in a year or less.

List both!!

high school xc coach wrote:

it's not even about learning. we are just not hard wired to care about metric numbers. the sport should do their numbers any way they want. but, if you are an american publication or broadcasting company, you should be showing the customary measurements alongside the metric measurements. It is just lazy not to. their job is to cater to the fans, not the other way around.

So do you want conversions for track events listed also? Do you want to see the times for 100m and 400m listed next to the times for 100 yards and the 440?

Someone please explain to me precisely why Americans have adopted metric measurements for track events but not field events. it doesn't make sense.

YOU may not need imperial measurements after a year of seeing both imperial and metric ones listed for field event performances but one would hope that each new season brings a few more new fans to the sport who will continue to need to see imperial measurements. Again, what possible reason is there in a country that uses imperial measurements not to use both kinds at a track meet?

34bat wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

it's not even about learning. we are just not hard wired to care about metric numbers. the sport should do their numbers any way they want. but, if you are an american publication or broadcasting company, you should be showing the customary measurements alongside the metric measurements. It is just lazy not to. their job is to cater to the fans, not the other way around.

So do you want conversions for track events listed also? Do you want to see the times for 100m and 400m listed next to the times for 100 yards and the 440?

Someone please explain to me precisely why Americans have adopted metric measurements for track events but not field events. it doesn't make sense.

when we went from 440 to 400, the conversion was very small. people immediately knew what the times meant and how they compared to everything they always knew.