Another Crouser record (gJT, 181-2, HSR)

[Marlow]

front page article excerpts:

Haley Crouser threw the javelin 181 feet, 2 inches. The Gresham High School junior eclipsed the national prep record of 176-8, set last year by Avione Allgood of North Las Vegas, Nev. At last year's Oregon Class 6A state high school track and field championships, Crouser won the javelin, was second in the shot, third in the 100 hurdles and fourth in the long jump.

Um . . . are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[26mi235]

Yea, now that it is baseball season, she hit for the cycle...

[Marlow]

Yea, now that it is baseball season, she hit for the cycle...

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the prescience of a picture like this . . . happening in a Hep!

http://media.oregonlive.com/gresham_imp ... 7dd4c4.jpg

[Daisy]

55.52 m

[DoubleRBar]

Amazing family.

[gh]

55.52 m

or was it 55.53?

[nianchengyu]

Yea, now that it is baseball season, she hit for the cycle...

what about her hep individual PB and hep PB?

[Dave]

Amazing family.

Between the Skipper family and the Crouser family, Oregon produces some amazing track families.

[26mi235]

Yea, now that it is baseball season, she hit for the cycle...

what about her hep individual PB and hep PB?

In baseball, they call hitting a single, double, triple, and home run "hitting for the cycle"; it is not easily done and her 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th matches that (and I cannot remember specifically anyone else doing it in a meet). Since she is a USA athlete it seemed to fit. But, yes, I caught your reference to her potential for the multis. If she has speed and throwing....

[rainy.here]

http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/A ... ID=1962863 gives her the following PBs:

100m Hurdles 14.84
High Jump 1.62 - 1.63 (Listed at 5'4)
Shot Put 13.52 (Listed at 44'4.5")
200m 27.49
Long Jump 5.41 (Listed at 17'9")
Javelin 55.22 (Listed at 181'2")
800m - Nothing

That's over 5000 points on her PBs without knowing 800m.

[unclezadok]

I think that I read that she has just started to high jump. I doubt if she has run too many 200s if 27.49 is her PR. She probably runs faster than that in her JT approach (slight exaggeration).

[rainy.here]

I think that I read that she has just started to high jump. I doubt if she has run too many 200s if 27.49 is her PR. She probably runs faster than that in her JT approach (slight exaggeration).

It shows one 200m in 2011, and one 200m in 2010.

[Daisy]

55.52 m

or was it 55.53?

Or even 55.54 m

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/calcula ... nversions/

Was it measured in metric or imperial?

[LopenUupunut]

181-2 is 55.21, surely?

[Tuariki]

181 x 12 = 2172
2172 + 2 = 2174
2174 x 2.54 = 5521.96
5521.96 / 100 = 55m 21cm

that is - must round down for the metric conversion

[Tuariki]

55.52 m

or was it 55.53?

Or even 55.54 m

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/calcula ... nversions/

Was it measured in metric or imperial?

The USATF site also comes up with 55.21

[Marlow]

must round down for the metric conversion

Why? it's about the 'probablity' of what the metric mark would be, which makes 55.22 the obvious answer. This is NOT science class; it is athletic statistical probability.

[Tuariki]

must round down for the metric conversion

Why? it's about the 'probablity' of what the metric mark would be, which makes 55.22 the obvious answer. This is NOT science class; it is athletic statistical probability.

it is nothing to do with statistical probability. it is to do with the fact she did not reach 55m 22

[Tuariki]

however, I agree that it is possible she may well have actually thrown 55m22.
as 55m22 is 181 feet 2.015748 inches
perhaps the imperial tape measure was actually reading 181' 2 1/4 - who knows

however, they would have needed to have used a metric tape measure to claim 55m22

[rainy.here]

What it comes down to is, did the measure in metric or imperial? If they measured with a metric steel tape, then 181-2 would have been from 55.22m. If they measured in imperial, then it was 55.21m.

[Marlow]

it is nothing to do with statistical probability. it is to do with the fact she did not reach 55m 22

You simply do not understand what we're doing here.
I quote from Track & Field News' Big [Color] Book:

The statistician's challenge is to develop a table of "most probable" marks, each a statistically defensible "estimate of what the perfromance would have been had it been measured in the Imperial system."

[gh]

For reasons outlined by Marlow, if it was an English 181-2 (with no metric), T&FN will carry it as 55.22.

[Daisy]

55.52 m

or was it 55.53?

Or even 55.54 m

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/calcula ... nversions/

Was it measured in metric or imperial?

The USATF site also comes up with 55.21

Not sure why, but I was working with 182' 2" by mistake.

So 55.22, 55.23 and 55.24 all convert to 181' 2"

Do we know if it was measured in metric?

[gh]

55.24 is 181-3 to us.

[Daisy]

55.24 is 181-3 to us.

Interesting, so there are no standard conversion charts?

[26mi235]

181 x 12 = 2172
2172 + 2 = 2174
2174 x 2.54 = 5521.96
5521.96 / 100 = 55m 21cm

that is - must round down for the metric conversion

182-1 is 55.51, so it would be an easy.

As for the 'rounding down, it is a little more subtle than that. In the veritcal jumps where the bar has been set, then rounding down is done. However, in the horizontal jumps, the mark has already been rounded down to the next full increment. To see the subtle difference, compare the conversion tables for the horizontal and vertical jumps.

For instance, 6.10 in the PV is 20-0, but in the LJ it is 20-0 1/4; gh has the best rendition of the explanation that I have read.

[OregonThrows]

Haley's throw was measured in metric at 55.22 with a steel tape. The Imperial measurement was 181' 2" and some change.

[Tuariki]

For reasons outlined by Marlow, if it was an English 181-2 (with no metric), T&FN will carry it as 55.22.

With all due respect to GH, while TnF News is entitledto use any methodoogy it wants, including rounding up, I beleve the TnF methodology is not acceptable to the IAAF. I refer to the IAAF manual below regarding measurements.

Page 8
Reading
To the next lower graduation if it is not an even graduation.

55.22m = 181 ft 2.0114 inches

Therefore, she did not reach 55.22m if her throw was only measured by an imperial tape as 181 ft 2 inches.

The IAAF rule states that the reading is to be the next lower graduation which is 55.21m

However, as Oregon Throws is now reporting that the thow was measured at 55.22m with a metric steel tape then the throw would be properly recorded as 5.22m and 181'2".

[26mi235]

Without context it is not clear that the cited text applies to this case. It might be in reference to a vertical jump. The Big Gold Book, and prior editions are consistent with gh's comments and the prior example I cited came from that edition of the book.

[Tuariki]

Without context it is not clear that the cited text applies to this case. It might be in reference to a vertical jump. The Big Gold Book, and prior editions are consistent with gh's comments and the prior example I cited came from that edition of the book.

I have no idea about any Big Gold Book. I was just quoting from the IAAF Calibration and Testing Manual because Big Gold Book or no Big Gold Book at the end of the day the IAAF rules are what is official.

I am also puzzled as to why you would think vertical jumps would have a different measuring standard compared to horizontal jumps. That would appear to be nonsensical to me.

[dj]

Without context it is not clear that the cited text applies to this case. It might be in reference to a vertical jump. The Big Gold Book, and prior editions are consistent with gh's comments and the prior example I cited came from that edition of the book.

I have no idea about any Big Gold Book. I was just quoting from the IAAF Calibration and Testing Manual because Big Gold Book or no Big Gold Book at the end of the day the IAAF rules are what is official.

I am also puzzled as to why you would think vertical jumps would have a different measuring standard compared to horizontal jumps. That would appear to be nonsensical to me.

The T&FN books of various colors have corresponded to the conversion tables that were formally adopted by the IAAF back in the 1970s. These tables are based on probability, not precision.

The reason for differing tables between horizontal and vertical jumps is that a vertical jump is measured from a random point between two centimeters, whereas a bar is pre-set, usually to as low a point as possible above the prescribed height.

[gh]

....

Therefore, she did not reach 55.22m if her throw was only measured by an imperial tape as 181 ft 2 inches.....

The part that you are missing is that if it was "measured" at 181-2 the actual distance could have been as high as 181-2 15/16. In essence, there's almost a whole inch there to play with which the mark may well have been. So a proper conversion table has an algorithm which figures out the probability of what the metric measure was. This is a concept that has been used by all the world's statisticians for as long as I've been in the sport.

Any English-measure jumps you had at Wazoo were certainly converted to metric using such a table, not mathematical precision, I can assure you of that.

[Dave]

Haley's throw was measured in metric at 55.22 with a steel tape. The Imperial measurement was 181' 2" and some change.

Let's not let fact wreck a lot of highly informed speculation.

[gh]

166-5, 181-2, f, p, p, p

(oh, and since nobody mentioned it earlier, it's also an American Junior Record)

[Daisy]

Good interview linked from the home page under the "The Day’s Best Reading" section. And from that interview there is a link to her throw.