FLASH: Hardee score changes to 8465

[eldrick]

& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )

http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling

They need to have 0.001 timing discrimination because they have trials (and can have finals) that are time trials. However, note that they are all on the same track with the same camera and settings etc. (i.e., they do not use it primarily to decide who is faster across different tracks)

26'er

they do however list 500m & 1k records to 0.001s, & these are often set on different tracks, so uci do accept this level of accuracy under different settings

http://62.50.72.82/modello2.asp?1stLeve ... dnews=3455

[gh]

no---the Doha goof was clearly made by somebody who if he was doing that for a living, won't be any more!

[guru]

Helps to run your home track eh? :-)

A picture's a picture, home track or not. I would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.

In all honesty, our "objective opinion" probably not worth all that much. In the old days we used to have an Accutrac reade and regularly vet photos, but since the process got computerized--and is the norm--we have basiclaly quit worrying about it. There are people who do this kind of thing for a living, and their opinion is far more important than ours.

Care to reconsider that position?

[gh]

& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )

http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling

doesn't matter what level of precision or accuracy they can measure to if they screw it up after that!

[26mi235]

& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )

http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling

They need to have 0.001 timing discrimination because they have trials (and can have finals) that are time trials. However, note that they are all on the same track with the same camera and settings etc. (i.e., they do not use it primarily to decide who is faster across different tracks). Given the speed in the "kilo", the distance covered in 0.001 (or really 0.01) seconds is three times that of track races. Furthermore, because of wind resistence being paramont, the "Speed-squared" factor leads to a bunching up of times, especially when trying to determine the competitors that will move to the next round (which sometimes; ie., in the pursuit, has head-to-head competition at the end).

[eldrick]

& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )

http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling

[eldrick]

hey enough dissing of tissot !

they make damn good watches !

http://www.tissot.ch/

[gh]

Dateline Austin: Trey Hardee had a heart attack today when he learned that Tissot had been engaged to do the timing at the NCAA Championships in Sacramento.

[tafnut]

In all honesty, our "objective opinion" probably not worth all that much. In the old days we used to have an Accutrac reade and regularly vet photos, but since the process got computerized--and is the norm--we have basiclaly quit worrying about it. There are people who do this kind of thing for a living, and their opinion is far more important than ours. I'm asbolutely thrilled to see that FlashResults--the acknowledged masters of the field--have apparently signed off on it.

Sorta like the highly trained and professional Italian Long Jump officials?

I'm sure the time is legit, but it is not 'computerized' in the sense that the machine is coming up with the number. It's still a person who runs the cursor by eye. I've seen some prettty strange reads at FAT meets around here.

[gh]

Helps to run your home track eh? :-)

A picture's a picture, home track or not. I would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.

In all honesty, our "objective opinion" probably not worth all that much. In the old days we used to have an Accutrac reade and regularly vet photos, but since the process got computerized--and is the norm--we have basiclaly quit worrying about it. There are people who do this kind of thing for a living, and their opinion is far more important than ours. I'm asbolutely thrilled to see that FlashResults--the acknowledged masters of the field--have apparently signed off on it.

[Trackshark]

by "some dispassionate third party with a reputation for knowing how to read (finish-line) photos well."

It's already been done through Flash Results. They also read the photo and they also agreed that the time was to be recorded at 10.35.

[guru]

I would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... thlon.html

"But E. Garry Hill, editor of Track & Field News, suggested Friday that the revision of Hardee's time in the 100-meter dash by one-hundredth of a second — which gave him three extra points to nip the previous record of 8,463 points by two points — should be reviewed by "some dispassionate third party with a reputation for knowing how to read (finish-line) photos well." "


Attaboy gh :wink:

[trackstar]

I would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... thlon.html

[mojo]

What an exciting talent this young guy is.

A future star in the sport I think! 8)

I look forward to watching his progression.

[guru]

Helps to run your home track eh? :-)

A picture's a picture, home track or not. I would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.