I'd put both of them on the list in this case too.Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
Hand time vs FAT 10.8h is going to be 10.90 to 11.06 If it was me, I'd put one as H and one as FATHere in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
In my experience 10.89 is significantly faster than a 10.8. The 10.8 is probably more like an 11.1 electronic. The conversion is .24 but in reality it is usually more than that.Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
My alma mater is a small school and does not have a history of producing hurdlers. The school record for the 120 yard hurdles is 16.0. I don't remember the year, but you get the idea...it's an old record. I ran a 16.4 in the 110 meter hurdles in 1996. In 25 years, I would wager nobody at that school has come within a second of my time, much less the record.I would STRONGLY recommend that all schools do this!!! It is not fair to compare. It does a disservice to both.
My alma mater is a small school and does not have a history of producing hurdlers. The school record for the 120 yard hurdles is 16.0. I don't remember the year, but you get the idea...it's an old record. I ran a 16.4 in the 110 meter hurdles in 1996. In 25 years, I would wager nobody at that school has come within a second of my time, much less the record.
You say it's not fair to compare, but how is it fair to retire this record? This mark is clearly superior to any mark in at least the last 30 years. It would be a disservice to him to remove him from the list simply because the technology was not there 50+ years ago.
As I said in post #3, you do what works for your institution. There are perfectly valid reasons to include manual times and records from before the switch to metric on the track.
But you weren't "just relaying". You made the recommendation that all schools follow this standard. It's a standard that works when you have thousands of people and data points to compare, and the FAT marks are semi-close to the old MT marks. That standard is not appropriate at a small school where some years they have trouble getting 5 boys and 5 girls on the team and it's only been in the last 10 years where they have been using FAT at meets before District.I'm just relaying how it's handled professionally amongst statisticians.
Point taken. I should've added the caveat "when possible".But you weren't "just relaying". You made the recommendation that all schools follow this standard. It's a standard that works when you have thousands of people and data points to compare, and the FAT marks are semi-close to the old MT marks. That standard is not appropriate at a small school where some years they have trouble getting 5 boys and 5 girls on the team and it's only been in the last 10 years where they have been using FAT at meets before District.
Javman is right in most cases. Your unique situation though is a common sense one. If the hand timed record is so significantly faster that in no possible scenario is it bested by an electronic time then the hand time stays in my opinion.Point taken. I should've added the caveat "when possible".
Looking back at our history we have kids who clocked 10.4 hand-timed and in the very same season never had an electronic time faster than the 10.9s or 11.0s.The official rule-of-thumb IF one chooses to list manual times with automatic timing, which is asinine in itself and a futile effort, is the following:
0-300m: Add 0.24 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
400m: Add 0.14 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
Distances over 400m: NO conversion is made. There used to be the 0.14 second "conversion", but not any more. An 800m time of 2:00.0 MT would be equivalent to any FAT time of 2:00.00-2:00.09. Therefore, an FAT of 2:00.09 would be equivalent to a 2:00.0 MT.
The problem with conversion, ESPECIALLY at the HS/JrHS level of things, is that the vast....VAST majority of people that have ever been involved in timing were not trained timers. The conversion factors developed by statisticians some 50-60 years ago were for trained timers, not for the local yahoos like you and I. For this very reason, the SWOTCCCA organization decided to consign manual timed marks for 400m and below to the retired marks lists. I would STRONGLY recommend that all schools do this!!! It is not fair to compare. It does a disservice to both.
Yep...seen that many times over the years!Looking back at our history we have kids who clocked 10.4 hand-timed and in the very same season never had an electronic time faster than the 10.9s or 11.0s.
I would list both until the legal wind FAT meets the so-called "conversion" factor application.Javman is right in most cases. Your unique situation though is a common sense one. If the hand timed record is so significantly faster that in no possible scenario is it bested by an electronic time then the hand time stays in my opinion.