I don't know if it happened in Stacy Dragila's case or not, but one of
the confusing things which can happen is that a height is measured in BOTH
systems. The two heights you get by doing this will not necessarily
convert to each other if you use the conversion tables. This is because
the conversion tables are designed to give the MOST LIKELY conversion
assuming that the mark you are converting to is unknown. But there is no
guarantee that the conversion you get would really have been the
measurement if the height had been measured in the other system. It would
be more times than not, but there are still exceptions.
Just imagine the two measuring tapes lying side-by-side and choose a
distance to measure. Then it should become obvious how this can happen.
David Dallman
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Roger Ruth wrote:
> Earlier today, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >There isn't (and basically wasn't ever) any confusion over Dragila's
> >record heights. All were metrically measured, and all were as you state
> >them. QED.
> >
> >gh
>
> This was in response to my statement, that
>
> <<Due to problems in converting between measurement systems, there was (and
> is) a considerable amount of confusion over the heights cleared by Dragila;
> all world records. She entered the season holding the record at 4.62
> >meters. If I have them right, the four improvements were 4.63m at New York
> >on 2 February, 4.65m at Pocatello on 9 February, and both 4.66m and 4.70m
> >at Pocatello on 17 February.>>
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Garry enjoys the luxury of publishing only monthly, after most of the
> confusion has been resolved. What I meant by confusion, in real time, due
> to problems in the news media converting between measurement systems,
> included:
>
> Stacy's Millrose Games mark was first reported, by U.S. media, as 15' 2
> 1/4". That would convert to 4.62m. The bar was, in fact, set at 4.63m,
> which does convert to 15' 2 1/4" in the only measurement system Americans
> apparently understand. The confusion, here, is only in guessing whether to
> accept the initially reported imperial mark. We have learned, over the
> years, that expecting U.S. media to make correct metric/imperial
> conversions is a very hazardous assumption.
>
> Maybe I'm too easily confused.
>
> Stacy's 9 February Pocatello result (4.65) was initally given
> internationally as 4.66m. That, apparently, was because of an error by
> Agence Press France in grappeling with the imperial mark. Still, until
> 2001-02-15, the IAAF website showed the new WR height as 4.66, not 4.65. I
> would have to admit a tiny bit of additional confusion that this mark was
> attained in a college dual meet for which she was ineligible to compete.
> That, I think, would often have been deemed an "exhibition" result.
>
> Maybe I'm too easily confused.
>
> There seems to be no problem with Stacy's 4.66m (15' 3 1/4") at Pocatello
> on 17 February: unless you admit my confusion that this height is shown on
> the USATF site as an American record, but that it doesn't appear at all on
> the IAAF list of 2001 indoor "top performances."
>
> Maybe I'm too easily confused.
>
> After her first-attempt clearance of 4.66m in that meet, we are told by
> Walt Murphy that Stacy requested a new height of 4.71m. She missed the
> height twice, then cleared on her third attempt. Again according to Murphy,
> the height was first announced as 4.71, then, after re-measurement, as
> 4.70. Whoa: I'm confused. Why was there a re-measurement? I thought that no
> longer was a part of the rule on record certification. Did someone decide
> that the bar height had been affected by the two earlier misses? (Who
> decided that, and on the basis of what rule?) If so, and the standards were
> readjusted, as Walt reported, from 4.71 to 4.70, what possible explanation
> can the vault officials provide for *lowering* an attempted height during
> the competition? There simply is no provision for that in the rules.
>
> Maybe I'm too easily confused.
>
> But, if I were Stacy and I'd requested (under the rules, *mandated*) a
> given height and the officials certified a lesser height, I would kick some
> serious ass.
>
> Maybe. I'm easily confused. My high school geometry class was 60 years ago,
> but in those long-ago days, "QED" meant, "it follows that." It doesn't seem
> to me, from the examples I've cited, it follows that there was no reason
> for confusion about Dragila's records.
>
> Over to you, Garry.
>
> Cheers,
> Roger
>
>
>
David Dallman
CERN - SIS
