View Full Version : it's about time!

January 31st, 2002, 11:35 PM
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.

Matt S
February 1st, 2002, 09:43 AM

I'm not necessarily against your proposal, but does the convenience of calculating split times justify effort and expense of reverse engineering all the software packages we use to post times, or (shudder) manually recalculating them and fat-fingering the converted times into a big word processed document?

I see your point that if we were starting from scratch, it would make more sense to list times in seconds (exclusively base 10 mathematical calculations), rather than our more traditional methods which mix base 10 and base 6 calculations. About all we would lose would be the cache of swimming a 100 under a minute, or a 200 under 2 minutes, or...

However, I keep coming back to the fact that USMS is a volunteer organization, and volunteers run every USMS meet I have ever attended. Yes we could do what you suggest, but given that we do not have a limitless labor pool, is this the best use of our volunteers efforts? I missed your previous posts. Could you review the bidding on the other benefits you see in addition to more easily calculated split times?


jim thornton
February 1st, 2002, 10:59 AM

Our coach Bill White wrote an Excel spread sheet program that works great. It allows you to enter a 100 time and then cranks out what this pace would translate to in any event you want to figure--1000, 1650, 3000, you name it.

It also works in reverse. You enter your final time for the 1650, 3000, what have you, and it will automatically calculate your 100 pace.

If you would like, I can ask Bill to e-mail this to you. If someone out there is web-savvy, they may be able to post it somewhere on the web so that anyone who wants to can take advantage of this.

I don't know if you ever saw the discussion I started a year or two ago on "age-related decline in swimming times", but one guy eventually posted a great idiot proof formula that has proven, to me at least, very fun to play around with. Check this out:


I think it would be great if USMS came up with a one-stop "conversion utitility" address that would add this age conversion program, the 100 pace/distance conversion program, the meters to yards conversion, plus any other formulae the math wizzards in our ranks could think up.

Anyhow, let me know if you want Bill's spreadsheet.

February 3rd, 2002, 06:35 PM
hey, matt and jim
thanx for paying attention. My subject is not really about converting anything. It is simply about adapting the simple answer to all our timing problems. If we were to adapt the "seconds only" system we would eliminate forever the various complications and their concomitant mistakes. As it is, all of our calculations are suspect when we try to discover what relevancy one time has to another.

As I mentioned before this applies to splits figuring at any stage or intention. How do I study splits? For simplicity's sake the 1650: I want to compare the times in the different segments of the swim, early laps, middle laps, and later, leading up to closing laps and the "sprint to the finish". I want to study them in relation not only to my times but to my peers, to my realistic asperations.

The record setters in my age group are out of sight, but I can aspire to match those of some great and glorious swimmers in the next group up, or the women in my own and younger age group.

They all differ in significant ways, ways that are on the public (but now obscure, and often incorrectly stated) record. The seconds only system would put and end to all the nonsensical need to recalculate.

When a sprinter swims a race he checks out his time against everyone's else and he sees what happened. When I swim a hundred, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3K, 5K, etc. I have hours ahead of me trying to figure out what happened.

On the distance pool races I have to study what the timer has written and make corrections by interpolation to various mistakes that always happen before mailing in the results. There is always a reason for the mistakes, but they need to be found to be corrected. None of them would have happened if the system were seconds only. If it weren't for the electronic timing to keep some kind of control, it would be hopeless in many cases.

Enuf for now.

February 3rd, 2002, 06:48 PM
Hmmmmm....seems to me converting to seconds only would be something you'd need to do internationally to eliminate confusion with things like world records.

February 3rd, 2002, 07:36 PM
thanx emmett

You're right, as always. A one time conversion, and it's done.
All records, including the newly found YMCA Top Ten.

And speaking of conversions, how about this.

Fact I: In 2001 I swam the 200 meter free in five meets with the best time of 3:25,86.

Fact II: In 1942 at the age of 17 I swam the 220 yard free, virtually the same distance, in 2:37.5.

This earned me a second place in the Indiana state high school championship meet. (The first place swimmer was so far ahead of me that I never paid attention to his time).

Applying the "Finnish Formula" which is on the www a couple of posts ago, by jim thornton, at age 19 (the youngest in the list of those presented) my projected time should have been 2:09.80, or using an alternate formula without the Finnish insight I should have done a 2:00.78.

Working the facts the other way, that is with the reality of the timeI did swim in 1942, which was 2:37.5, I should now be doing the 200 meter free in a time of either 4:09.07 (Finnish formula) or 4:27.68, just plain vanilla, I guess you could call it.

Or, it seems to me an exercise in futility to be messing with such formulae.

Did I say enuf before?

Bert Petersen
February 3rd, 2002, 11:58 PM
Hey Doug; congratulations on your 3600 swim, And a Happy 40,471,140th Birthday to you. You didn't fool us sprinters with the 7 and 11 puzzle-just went right to the calculator as usual. Regards : Bert ;)

February 4th, 2002, 06:40 AM
If Masters were to adopt the seconds-only concept we'd be entirely out of step with the rest of the world - or, rather, we'd be adding confusion every time a person wanted to compare their time to what's being done in other countries, by USA swimmers, in the Olympics etc.

If all of swimming, worldwide, were to change we'd eliminate the above problems but you'd still have the watches. Right now virtually any watch that claims stopwatch functions is a swimming stopwatch. But, in a seconds-only environment we'd have to find and buy special swimming watches (of course the triathletes in our programs would revel in the opportunity to purchase one more piece of equipment).

If all sports adopted seconds-only timing we'd eliminate all the above problems but we still have spectator appeal. Is 32,000 a good Ironman time? Not sure, better get out the calculator. Imagine John Madden verbally stepping all over the "120-second warning" in the SuperBowl - or, worse, MISSING the game due errors trying to figure out what time the game was really going to start in your time zone.

Mebbe if we got the whole world to switch over to seconds-only timing for everything....yeah.....THAT's the ticket!

Philip Arcuni
February 4th, 2002, 01:41 PM
The problem is that remnant of Babylonian science, the base 60 number system. I'm surprised the French didn't go after our measurement of time like they did our measurements of everything else. Anyway, is 32 kilosecs a good triathlon time? It wouldn't take too long to get adjusted to it.

February 5th, 2002, 09:50 PM
thanx guys for giving the timing in seconds only your attention.

'Specially for being the serious proposal that it is. So far it seems to be pretty much ignored, or at least I haven't heard any one "second the motion".

On the other hand the negatives, of which there must be some, need to be put on the table so that they can be compared with the proposal. So far, I really appreciate the good humor with which the minor objections have been tendered.

I have a bunch of stuff to put out there to support the idea, but I don't want to take the extra time or effort if there is really something of substance that I haven't considered.

So far the objections mentioned seem to be minor and what I'm hoping for is for some expert to step in and say that the clocks already exist that know how to continue counting seconds without having to bother with minutes.

I'm not sure that volunteerism would be a problem or anything of the sort. And just think how great it would be to count yourselves as having been part of an eathshaking decision.

For instance it didn't just happen that the swimming events in my time as a masters swimmer (I used to blush when I said or wrote that I was a master) are what they are now. Added are the 50's of the three specialty strokes, the 1000 yard, and 800 meter free. As late as the sixties the 440 was changed to 500 for the NCAA, and the 220 to 200. It was done by vote and I knew of those who wanted the events be 250 and 400. (My list of my personal bests as a master shows a 400 freestyle of 6:11.004 in 1971 [our electronic timers used three places after the decimal point in those days]).

But I digress. If there are objections to "seconds only", I want to see them.

February 5th, 2002, 10:19 PM
I'll rephrase my (serious) objection - if we (US Masters) go to seconds-only, we'd be entirely out of step with:

A) the rest of the Masters Swimming world,
B) the rest of the swimmimg world,
C) the rest of the sporting world,
D) the rest of the world.

This would create confusion and conversion complications at every intersection point with A,B,C, or D above.

Frankly, I don't see where there is a problem using the system we have right now. Most modern software does time math quite handily - even generic apps like spreadsheets. And all the existing hardware seems well suited to the task.

February 5th, 2002, 10:39 PM
Thanx, Emmett.

I'll get busy and dig up my recent problems.

Do you remember one I mentioned to you in December 1999 that happened in Bryan, Texas? Seconds only was not the main cause, but might have helped in finding a solution that nevere happened.

February 5th, 2002, 10:49 PM
Refresh my memory.

Tom Ellison
February 6th, 2002, 09:02 AM
I'm lost again...

February 14th, 2002, 12:32 AM
These are the official splits that I ran across while searching for the answer to what happened to my correct splits. Obviously somewhere along the line the timing electronic system slipped a cog and got some stuff mixed up. If you put your mind to it or are a natural genius who can see things upsidedown and inside out you would see that even with the combination of minutes and seconds something ain't right and whatever this swimmers time was it ain't what it got. Don't worry, it didn't make it into the top ten so nobody got squeezed out of just deserts.


February 14th, 2002, 01:39 AM
I don't know what happened to what I was writing a few moments ago, but I hit the tab key as part of my writing and some power that be siezed what I had written and posted it long before I had written the evidence which follows. I am using the semicolon rather than the colon itself to seperate minutes from seconds, and I trust that that won't bother you too much. This way I'll be using the keyboard's lower case for the whole exercise.
So here goes with the numbers for the 1500 in question.
48.43 1;48.02 2;51.85 5;06.25
6;11.61 7;19.36 8;27.63
9;34.87 10;42.31 11;50.02 13;01.43
14;10.15 15;19.42 16;29.59 17;46.59
18;58.69 20;07.07 21;14.60 22;22.65
23;33.28 24;41.00 25;47.36 26;54.88
28;01.53 29;07.60 30;14.50 31;14.55
32;10.54 32;22.17

Let me guess at a correction. There should be instead of the last stated time something like 33;06 and 34;02. Or maybe instead of the last three stated times something like 31;20, 32;26, 33;32; and 34;34. Whatever!!! It is certainly not what is written. And nobody knows about it but us chickens. Whereas, if the Seconds Only System were in use it would have been obviously wrong especially if the times were written in reverse order. Thus:
1942.17 1930.54 1874.55 1814.50 1747.60 1681.53 etc.

For some reason that I don't understand, what I have written in nice columns like the results s sheet lists them when it goes to the printer, so to speak, for display in this forum, they don't come out so orderly. Thus you are not made aware that the space above the 13;01.43 is left blank and that there needs to be another time after what is listed as the final 32;22.17.

Seconds Only System

February 14th, 2002, 09:41 PM
The event-Postal One Hour Swim

Being timed by hand with times for each 50 yards being recorded to two decimal places. I use the semicolon to separate the minutes from the seconds to prevent errors from occurring by involving an unnecessary key...
1350 26;21.24
1400 27;20.33
1450 28;19.42
1500 29;18.27
1550 30;12
1600 31;14
1650 32;12
1700 33;10
1750 34;09
1800 35;07
2850 55;23
2900 56;19
2950 57;13
3000 58;06
3050 58;59

the next, and last entry is 3065 with 1;00.00 written indicating the swim is over, naturally.

However, there is another minute and one second that occurred before the event was completed and the swimmer did not stop until the race was completed at the end of an hour which was ticking off on a wall clock in synchrony with the hand watch.

I think you'll agree that the timer did right in pacing the side of the pool to find the exact spot of the swimmer at the stroke of 60
minutes, but did not notice that there was a specific time that the swimmer touched the wall at the end of 3100. which he had not written down, which would have been 59;52 or less and leaving the push-off and a few strokes before the 60th minute was reached. Thus the 3065 written was in error and should have been 3115.

30;12 at the 1550 point was also obviously an error. The time had to have been 30;16, instead. I am sure that the watch was correct at this point, but that the timer had been confused, since the watch no longer had the capacity to include a decimal reading. The timer had been told of this watch problem in advance and, indeed was expecting it to happen. But, when it actually did happen, he was confused enough to be distracted into writing down an incorrect time.

I contend that these things would not have happened and need to be corrected if a Seconds Only system were used.

I say that we could and should avoid such confusion by adopting a Seconds Only system!

July 24th, 2002, 08:00 PM
hey Ion! you were half right! and thanx for your interest.
About 200M359xx, that is.
At the time, I said that I would explain when I have the time to devote to it, but've got lots a thangs t'do before flying to Cleveland. I expect to be in heat one most of the time, but not always. See yez or y'all there.

In case anyone is interested, the Hoosier State Games masters results from last Saturday are on line now. Everything is there, including the no show indications. Everthing, splits for the 100's even.

Except for my 400IM! The timing system has left me to speculate how the 643.18 seconds were distributed. I can see what all the other swimmer's splits were, but am left to guess where it was that I caught up with and passed the younger woman in lane 2.

Chalk up another for my "bad genii"!

Philip Arcuni
July 24th, 2002, 08:17 PM

I think you can do better than a 5:59 200m LC fly. I'll be rooting for you!


(so many hints!)

July 24th, 2002, 10:29 PM
hey, Ion & Phil
Youse's both on the right track, but it's a looong track. And I ain't got the time to devote to it now. And, of course it's about time, but not "once upon a time".
And thanx for the "elbow bending" invitation. (That's not the usual reference for swimmers to have for the bent elbow approach. What would Doc Counsilman say?")!!

August 25th, 2002, 08:00 PM
o.k. since it's been a month and nobody else has put out any time problems, I guess it's up to me.

How come nobody else has mentioned the fact that our masters age group designations are not quite right? They were wrongly designated from the beginning, but we've had over thirty years to correct 'em. Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong and should have been corrected by the first governing body (the AAU, I guess). I can't think of many things that are so awkward to say or write. It ranks right up there with such misnomers as "aluminum" and the Pedernales River... But, I digress.

Another time as it were.. has anybody, including himself, noticed the weird splits listed for Scott Rabalais's 1500? I went to the trouble of searching out all of the seeming possibilities of what might have been a misreading by the machine of another in the same heat swimmer's time, but didn't find it. I'm not in any way questioning his final time, or the fact that he had a great swim.

So what else about time? A short preamble, first. 15-20 years ago, before arthritis destroyed my right hip, my best event on a percentage basis compared to my age group's record time was the 200 breaststroke. Now it is my slowest event. I haven't had a hip replacement operation, don't intend to, and have no pain that isn't under good control. My right shoe's sole is about two inches thicker than my left, but I don't complain and get around as much I want to. That said. getting back to time , it began in Federal Way at the Long Course Nationals when my time for the 200 breast was, August, 2001 6:00.96. Next time at Canadian Nationals LCM, May, 2002 5:59.55. Next time at LouisvilleCrescent Hill, June, 2002 5:59.68. Next, a 200Butterfly Hoosier State Games, July 2002 5:59.94

In seconds only those would be 359.++, Hence my declaration of changing my moniker to include 359.

Cleveland??? Well my 200 butterfly time was 6:07.94 (marred by an ill fitting suit which scooped water) and my 200 breast time was (although with a DQ) 5:52.58,
this with my ankle length Speedo

So, obviously, my bad genii were there, trying to be unobtrusive. But they did bring to my attention that I had misnamed my moniker, which should, obviously, be 360. Those last 6 200's averaged 360.11 when properly " 'rounded' off". ( My DQ slip says that my feet were not allways pointed outwardly). What can I say to that? Except that even all of the 359's would round off to 360.

I do have more to say, or ask, about time , but I ain't got the time right now ... Later?

Paul Smith
August 25th, 2002, 09:52 PM
I'm thinking we should blame it all on the French! :)

Rain Man
August 25th, 2002, 10:23 PM
I believe the Hytek Meet Manager program allows splits to be printed both cumulative and subtractive. I don't see where the confusion is. The readout for a 200m for example is 30.0 34.5 35.5 33.0 2:13.0 or 30.0 1:04.5 1:40.0 2:13.0. Emmett et al were correct. It would add much more confusion to switch than it is to just deal with the current system. Roman numerals is the way to go... II:XIII.? (is there a zero in RN system?)

August 26th, 2002, 11:10 AM
"Like, what they ARE and always have been is 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50 etc. Whoever said it should be 25-29, 30-34, 35-40, etc. was wrong ..."

I don't understand what you are getting at. In any given course (yards or meters), when your actual age is 30 you are in only one age group, not two. In fact, only in the last few years has there been a gray area where you could be one age yet swim in the next higher age group in meters courses.

In yards swimming, 19-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39... is precisely what we ARE, and have been, doing.

August 26th, 2002, 11:35 PM
It never occurred to me that it might be assumed that I was complaining about the FINA aging-up system, which has the year of birth as the sole consideration. I can understand the fact of sincere opposition, but it's a reasonable simplification of record keeping.

My objection is merely to the awkwardness of counting what we all know to be true. i.e. We swim from age 25 in one age group until we become 30, at which time we swim in the group from 30 until we are 35, at which time...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better! If we were counting fence posts we would not be marking or saying "19, 24, 25, 29,30,34,35,39,44,etc. Nobody counts this awkward way except masters swimmers.

I have lots of thoughts about time in many of its aspects, and I'm not going to bring them all up here, because most of them are not related to swimming, but rather, to music.

Seeding, heat assignments, etc. in a swim meet are concerns of us all and affect us in various ways, to the extent that we need to compromise from time to time in various ways. Whatever the way, we should know what the compromises are.

Like, deck seeding in Cleveland. How many of us were expecting to be swimming in our own age group for all events of 50, 100, and 200 meters? Was I glad? Yes. Was I surprised? Kinda.
Especially since I had slyly made the suggestion in a post in response to the announcement that the 6th event had been dropped from our particpation. The opportunity to respond that it would be so was not taken, or maybe, of course, my wording was too obscure. I have to keep reminding myself that other people can't really read my mind.

Enuf for now.

Rob Copeland
August 27th, 2002, 08:26 AM
So let me get this straight, if I was 29 (and at one time I was 29) I would not really be 29 because I was almost 30?

Does this also mean that today is actually Tuesday-Wednesday, since it is 8 hours after the beginning of Tuesday?

That would make today, if it really is still today, the 27th-28th of August-September, 2002-2003 :p

August 27th, 2002, 11:14 AM
"...35-40, 40-45, 45-50, etc. It is so awkward to say anything else, that we never should have allowed it to happen, and we all know better!"

Speak for yourself. I'm VERY glad we use the terminology that we do. As a coach I already have enough stuff to explain to newbies about the world of Masters without adding ambiguous age groups. Why would you want to build unnecessary ambiguity into the system by officially naming the age groups something different than what we actually do? I find our current system much less awkward than using your system and then explaining that I didn't say what I really meant.

I'm curious, what keeps you from using your ambiguous terminology when you want to? You are free to use it if it communicates your thoughts. Of course, then, where it makes a difference you need to explain things or your thoughts haven't been completely communicated. Imagine explaining to the newbie 30 yr old swimmer that , no, he is not allowed to swim in the 25-30 age group.

I'd hate to see the rule book use 25-30, 30-35,... (plus the requisite explanation) wherever age groups are mentioned.

When conversing with others who understand our system I say 25+, 30+, 35+ etc. That's even less awkward than 25-30, 30-35 etc. And, perhaps, even less ambiguous to the uninitiated.

August 27th, 2002, 06:34 PM
ya got it right. 19+, 25+,30+ is the way to say it among masters swimmers. When your gramma asks, say 60-65, 65-70, etc.

19-24, 25-29,30-34 sounds wrong, as any musician will agree, if asked.

sorry to be so abrupt , but gotta get to a mandatory meeting accross town.

Philip Arcuni
August 27th, 2002, 06:51 PM
Hey Doug,

have a look at the latest Scientific American. There may even be enough information about time for you! (if you have the time)

Have you seen the Far Side cartoon - Einstein looks at a board filled with equations, such as E=mc^3, c=E/m, m=cE^2, . . . circled is t=$. The caption "Einstein discovers that time is money"

The real cause of your problem, of course, is the Babylonians. If only the French had been more aggressive in their reforms . . .

Paul Smith
August 27th, 2002, 07:26 PM
Phil, Phil, Phil.....it's ALWAYS the French!

August 27th, 2002, 08:02 PM
I just picked up my kids from school which, by the way, is officially designated as a K-5 school.

Ohmygod! Does that mean all those kids in 5th grade classroom have actually been going to the WRONG SCHOOL! Boy are THEY (and their teachers and principal) gonna feel stupid when I tell them.

Doug, please feel free to call the age groups anything you want. But do us all a favor and don't talk to any newbies (or MY gramma :) ) and don't mess with the rule book.

August 28th, 2002, 12:21 AM
I'm only guessing, but my assumption is that the lil' chillins is still being taught to count by fives without paying any attention to giving voice to all those odd things ending in 4 or 9 on the way. They still know they are there but don't feel the need to acknowledge them after their first day in class.

They still have the ears to tell them what sounds right and what doesn't.

Maybe it is a form of political correctness insinuating itself into our way of expressing a simple designation. I liken it to the inroduction of and/or, he/she, chair person, "I could care less", "as of yet", etc., ...all of which are ofensive to the ear.

Anyway, as I said before, there are lots of aspects of "time" that need to be brought to our attention, now and then.

Like, a look at the splits of the 1500 M swum in Cleveland earlier this month will show, if I counted correctly, that for eight of the men and fifteen of the women, there are some that are clearly not correctly stated.

This is not to say that their final times are not correct, but that something has caused the machine to give out information that is not correct. This is not to say,either that they don't give out some intriguing information.

Like, Scott Rabalais swam every single 100 of his 1500 as an individual negative split , if ya'll'l give him credit for a great start off the block.

It's late, gotta git.

August 28th, 2002, 09:07 AM

Take it from a professional editor (and incidentally, the volunteer editor of the USMS rule book): 25-30, 30-35, etc., not only does not SOUND right, it is NOT right! It is absolutely incorrect to have one number belong to two groups. As Emmett has pointed out, under your system, how would a 30-year-old know which age group he/she belongs to? The hyphen indicating a span of ages (technically, it's an em dash, not a hyphen) means "through," not "to" (regardless of whether you pronounce it "25 to 29" or "25 through 29"). So the 25-29 age group is made up of people ages 25 THROUGH 29. You say that only Masters swimmers use this system? Not true. My real job is editing scientific material, and my "Bible" is "Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey." STA recommends expressing spans of numbers the exact way USMS does it. Also, age-group swimming expresses age groups the same way we do (actually, we were probably copying USA Swimming when we came up with ours). You don't have the 9-11, 11-13, etc., age groups. You have 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, etc.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sound right to you, Doug. Nevertheless, it IS right. And it's not a matter of political correctness; it's a matter of clarity.

August 28th, 2002, 08:32 PM
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!

August 30th, 2002, 01:13 PM
I just finished reading through all the posts in this thread.

Why not eliminate all references to time other than seconds? Splits will be easier to compute and we can certainly eliminate a lot of confusion. Of course, we should be consistent which would meand that the 19-24 group would become the 1,641,600 - 2,159,999 group and so on. (There are 86,400 seconds in a year.) The only downside would be the added pressure on meet officials to determine a swimmers age for each event. I could start a heat in the 3,024,000 - 3,455,999 age group and finish the race in the 3,456,000 - 3,887,999 age group.

Sorry - I just couldn't resist.


August 30th, 2002, 05:02 PM
I could start a heat in the 3,024,000 - 3,455,999 age group and finish the race in the 3,456,000 - 3,887,999 age group.

You've not been paying attention...that SHOULD be "the 3,024,000 - 3,456,000 age group and... the 3,456,000 - 3,887,999 age group" - It SOUNDS better that way (I'm a convert!). :)

August 30th, 2002, 05:04 PM
Ooops, I meant 3,888,000, not 3,887,999.

Phil Arcuni
August 30th, 2002, 05:19 PM
Oh, you guys make light of a serious proposal. It would not be such odd numbers that you discuss, but the 3.0Ms (Megasecond (million seconds) ) to 3.5Ms age group. Given the precision of seconds, one would not really have to worry about the overlap that Doug seemed to allow, and you all sneer at.

Except that we wouldn't use Michael as our recorder. There are actually about 31.5Ms in a year, and his age group is *quite* young. ;) multiples of 150Ms would be appropriate.

Yes, I remember fondly my 1Gs (Gigasecond - a Billion (American) seconds) birth second. You do need to keep track of leap years, and those years when there should have been one, but wasn't (like 2000). Occasionally a second is added here and there, also.

You see, if the French had been braver it could have worked . . .

August 30th, 2002, 07:51 PM
ALLRIGHT!! Like, youse're gonna make me show my hand that has both a digital, I mean decimal, time system all ready to go which starts by dividing the day, not into 24 hours, but only ten each, before and after the sun reaches its meridian, which most of us can see on most days if we look. That would divide the day, from meridian to meridian, into 2000 minutes rather than the 1440 under the present system. Seconds would be 200,000 instead of 86,400.

And, like, didn't I say a "both" in the first sentence? Meaning I had another system up my sleeve. This I call a Metric System (of musical pitch) which would be very useful in music and related sciences. Here the A's on the piano would relate to 400 instead of 440 although the sound would be the same, and its octaves downward would be 200, 100, 50, and 25 ( the lowest on the piano as we know it). As they are, they are 440, 220, 110, 55, and 27.5 cycles per second, as we used to say. This would allow mere mortals to make harmonic calculations "in the head".

But that doesn't have much of a place in a swimming context, so I'll spare you any more (we Hoosiers usually say it as "anymore"). But enuf already.