An editorial on the use of metric by sportswriters. Appeared in the Pasadena Star. Does Uganda really use imperial or customary? I always heard the other countries were Burma and Liberia. (Doesn't matter, some mediocre third-world nations and us)

His whole point: If the sports uses metric measure, leave the data in metric in articles. Since the author is the paper's editor, this might be policy now at the Pasadena Star.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~22097~3019942,00.html
<<Follow me in metric measure

TO: DOUG Spoon, sports editor.
From: L.W.
Re: Metric whatnot.
My father, Milt Wilson, decamped from Pasadena to Honolulu after many years of working at Aerojet and Parsons, is not only a chemist, he's a careful reader and skillful writer. Being a scientist forever influences his take on the world and especially the world of words, and there are more than a few things about mere writers that keep him scratching his head.
Last week he copied me on a letter he sent to the sports editor of the Honolulu Advertiser: "The U.S. and Uganda are the only two nations left in the world still using the so-called English system of measurements. Our sports pages could do us all a favor by permitting Uganda to have that dubious distinction by itself.'

Son's editorializing: Being a son, I've heard this bit before. And it never fails to amaze. I think most of us American sticks-in-mud believe that Britain, Australia hell, the entire former Commonwealth at the very least still use the archaic system with which we grew up. But Uganda. Jeez. That does put it in a certain perspective. You mean it's just us and the Friends of Idi Amin?

And yet, and yet if logic ruled the world, things in general would be more ... logical than they are, what? Never underestimate the American ability to crankily go it alone, or alone plus the likes of Idi. If we were all, I don't know, Friends of Kofi Annan types, we wouldn't be who we are or where we are. No Westward Expansion. No man on the moon. We'd be Canadians, and very nice and well-loved indeed. But we are not. We're terrible at learning new languages, for instance, and so our terribly illogical and unlikely solution was to make everyone else in the world speak American. Guess what: It worked.

OK, back to Dad: "You do not write about a 109.36-yard dash, because it really measures out at 100 meters and you seem content with that. Likewise with the 200-, 400- and 1,500-m (etc.) races. Why then do you claim the female world's record for pole vaulting was broken the other day at 16 feet, 5 1/4 inches? The measure that would have been taken would have been 5.01 m. If the American reader can understand 100 m, why do you underestimate his or her intelligence to comprehend 5.01 m?'

The beverage industry has given the U.S. familiarity with the 1-liter and 3/4-liter bottle. Druggists do not bother to convert your 5-mg pill over to the difficult-to-use grain system. How about the sports pages of America getting together and quoting sports results in the metric system when that was the original measurement (with parenthetical conversions to English units) in order to hurry along the process of Uganda being one of a kind?'

Hard to argue with, eh, Doug But then again, remember when we were in elementary school and our teachers insisted the country would go entirely metric by, what was it, 1970? Didn't happen. We're incremental types. Liters, sure. Indianapolis 800 whatever km, no. The old computer's on the fritz here today, though Dad insists there are conversions available "right down to the femtometer' available.

Want to go cutting edge or stay damn Yankee? Let's do lunch and talk about it. I'll stand you a pint of beer.

Larry Wilson is editor of the Pasadena Star-News. His column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Write him at larry.wilson@sgvn.com .
>>

I think the author just used Uganda as a derogatory reference not knowing that Uganda switched to the metric system right after it declared independence from Britain. In fact most or all of British Africa converted at the same time.

The idea is to associate imperial usage with some backward looking, poverty stricken hell hole of a nation, and for some reason Uganda came to mind.

I agree with Daniel. The author probably picked Uganda out of the blue. That's a very good reason to be skeptical of anything else he says in the article. If he is willing to tell a blatant lie just to make his point, I don't think we can take him seriously.

The wrong choice of place has no influence on what he want's to bring across.

The editor is apparently wrong on Uganda:
*I found an Ugandan travel agency info page that says they are metric
*I found a stamp commemorating when they and two other African countries converted to metric.

Back to his main point. Should sports writers use the official units of the game, or should they convert to what their readers use? International games appear to have all converted to metric, I suppose following Olympic rules. (There is a metric international hockey rink, and a US-Customary one used only by the NHL in the US)

If the readers are likely to have about the same amount of familiarity with the original measures as with their own, then the original ones should be used. For example, most Americans who read about sports know metres just as well as yards, so it need not be converted. But most Americans won't understand a wrestler's weight given in kilograms, so it should be converted.

Bud wrote

<<
But most Americans won't understand a wrestler's weight given in kilograms, so it should be converted.
>>

So if it was given in a form that most Brits would understand (ie stone and pounds), would you be happy?

I've often wondered that - because boxing tends to be done in massive events in both America and the UK when i'ts an international bout.

When its in the UK the ref says - "and in the blue corner, weighing in at 16 stone, 2 and a half pounds....etc" and in the US the "pound" equiv is heard. Does this mean that US watchers get to hear st/lb when the fight is taking place in the UK? I doubt they over-dub it.

"But most Americans won't understand a wrestler's weight given in kilograms, so it should be converted. "


They can learn what a kilogram is, or do you feel Americans are incapable of learning anything new or different?

<<When its in the UK the ref says - "and in the blue corner, weighing in at 16 stone, 2 and a half pounds....etc" and in the US the "pound" equiv is heard. Does this mean that US watchers get to hear st/lb when the fight is taking place in the UK? I doubt they over-dub it.
>>

I'm not a big wrestling fan. I'm guessing you'd hear the ref say it, then the local announcer would offer a conversion.

If you think few Americans understand kilogram, I guessing stone is not understand by one-tenth that number.

I was referring to the game of boxing - not wrestling (which is basically 'violent ballet').

I've seen bouts played late here so that its not transmitted too early in the US and st/lb was used.

I can't imagine, with the crowd cheering away, that a seperate soundtrack is used for the US.

I missed your switch to boxing.

In the few I've seen here (and I don't think any were from the UK), there was quite a large table of "announcers;" more than one network would require in my view. I always assumed they were providing "color" for different regions, networks, whatever.

I'm sure you'd hear the ref, but the sportscaster feed would probably be regional, and he'd convert to pounds, and for some regions, maybe kg.

SteveH,

As long as the boxer is within the class weight limits for the fight, his weight isn't very integral to the game.

What about Highland games, where the weight of objects carried is integral to the scoring. Would they weigh stones in stones?

I think they have soft conversions to metric - if one needs it that way.

I'm not entirely sure though.

Re; The boxking: They always seem to make a song and dance about the fighter's weight - unlike any other sport.

BTW - I'm not a big boxing fan.

<<
<<
But most Americans won't understand a wrestler's weight given in kilograms, so it should be converted.
>>

So if it was given in a form that most Brits would understand (ie stone and pounds), would you be happy?
>>

If it were a British newspaper, meant to be read by Brits, then yes, I would be happy. If it were an American newspaper, then I would prefer kilograms to stones/pounds, because at least scientists and a few others will understand or be able to mentally convert the kilograms, whereas almost everyone will not be able to understand stones without looking it up.

<<
What about Highland games, where the weight of objects carried is integral to the scoring. Would they weigh stones in stones?
>>

I don't have teh exact refereences to hand, but from what I remeber, the older events in the highland games are use Imperial units (like throwing the hammer) whereas the newer events (like throwing the hammer for women or for juniors) use metric units. The same ais found in many other sports. For example, the length of the pitch in international [field] hockey is a round number when using Imperial units, but the width (which was fixed in much more recent times) is a round number of metric units.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that in many sports, existing rules have soft conversiosn to metric, but new rules are made using metric units.

Martin - it can be in either.

I could tell you a football ground in metres and a rugby ground in yards.


I could (get this) *even measure a 12" record to the nearest millimetre*

;-)

P.S. Scotland is good at the ridiculous "game" of curling. A sport entirely quoted in imperial.

<<P.S. Scotland is good at the ridiculous "game" of curling. A sport entirely quoted in imperial.>>

Certainly the dimensions are "round" in feet. Canada gives dual dimensions however, in metres and feet.

See if Danny will say that the metric one is smooth and beautiful with a shiny gloss on it whilst the imperial based one is all lumpy and dirty and regularly attracts devil worshipers who play Elton John songs at full volume.

X-D

Re: US editorial: Follow me in metric measure August 24 2005, 1:25 PM

JS
Certainly the dimensions are "round" in feet. Canada gives dual dimensions however, in metres and feet.


metre
Only countries stuck in a measurement limbo have to bother with such trivialities. .

<<metre:
Only countries stuck in a measurement limbo have to bother with such trivialities. >>

I don't know. The exact metric conversions look a little silly. If you round them you change the game. That is probably OK if everybody changes their dimensions at once, but is a problem if some rinks or fields are foot-based, and some metric. The "bull's eyes" in curling probably aren't very changable without everyone screaming. The total field length could be changed slightly to a round number.

In other sports, baseball could easily round dimensions to metric. In American football, "yards gained" is so important to possession of the ball in the rules, that I don't think it would change well. So it really depends on the sport. (Again, if everyone changed their field, changing yards to meters would work, but the game would change, more passing, less running as first down gets tougher)

John - you've just been party to reading what some, lets say, more "extreme" advocates of metric (who quite commonly do not know the system to which they profess to support - extremely so in this case) believe.

And that is that every facet of life should involve lots of metric words and no imperial words for the sake of containing lots of metric words and no imperial words.

It's a shame for these people that they will leave their lives with an intense feeling of supreme unacomplishment.

(It's a little like hoping that the Welsh language will simply "go away")

Re: US editorial: Follow me in metric measure August 24 2005, 2:19 PM



JS
I don't know. The exact metric conversions look a little silly.
In other sports, baseball could easily round dimensions to metric. In American football, "yards gained" is so important to possession of the ball in the rules, that I don't think it would change well. So it really depends on the sport. (Again, if everyone changed their field, changing yards to meters would work, but the game would change, more passing, less running as first down gets tougher)

metre
It is like metrication itself. Older people do not want to change anything and it usually is these older guys that set and defend those rules. But if it is done, two generations later nobody knows that it was ever different. Europeans are a good example, they use 11 m as penalty distance. Having never been interested in these games, I do not know its equivalent in feet, or yards.

<<<Europeans are a good example, they use 11 m as penalty distance>>>

I assume that the distance is 12 yards, but it is very rarely referred to in the same way that in some languages the distance is contained in the word.

Interestingly a new rule has come in recently: I have heard the commentators talking about it in several of the games I have watched so far this season.

Players of the opposing team must now be 2 metres away from the throw in taker.

BTW, for any americans/aussies here, I'm talking about proper football here (as in the game where you use your foot to kick the ball) ;-)

and it is NOT called soccer!

It's soccer-football, to distinguish it from rugby-football, american football, gaelic football, australian football etc.

And to think of commentators talking in terms of metres?

Pah! Don't make me laugh!

soccer-football?!

thats even worse! I suppose I should add the welsh to the list.

although in 10 days time you lot will be into football ;-)

Is it only 10 days time?

Blimey.

Better iron the jersey then......

;-)

Re: US editorial: Follow me in metric measure August 24 2005, 3:53 PM
<<<Europeans are a good example, they use 11 m as penalty distance>>>

Andy
I assume that the distance is 12 yards, but it is very rarely referred to in the same way that in some languages the distance is contained in the word.

metre
As said, I am no football fan, my interest starts and ends with world cup games. I remember that those ended often in penalty shoot outs. This prompted some commentators to recommend increasing the goal size to make it somewhat easier to score. The idea was based on the fact that players 100 years ago were smaller in stature and could not cover the existing goal opening as well as today’s much taller goalies. That would apply to almost all games in different ways. So changing today’s distances may improve games.