Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High-tech shoes put Bolt's records in danger of being spiked but better than drugs

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by bobguild76 View Post
    2. The athletes are presently required to have their hands behind the start line. Nothing about where their head and shoulders are.
    With the start position determined by the hands and the finish determined by the torso, the 100m is really a 99.8m race.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Atticus View Post
      Simply set the laser along the start-line to sense the fingers moving forward. If fingers move before the gun, FS.
      Atticus - Best redefinition of a start yet ! When whatever is closest to the start line on the ground moves forward. Simple. No need for reaction times. Problem solved. Doesn't cost $100 million.

      Thanks for the summary Bobguild76

      Comment


      • #93
        i rather doubt these ideas are going anywhere with WA.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
          Simply set the laser along the start-line to sense the fingers moving forward. If fingers move before the gun, FS.
          instantly causing sprinters to develop a rolling start technique without lifting fingers

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by gh View Post
            instantly causing sprinters to develop a rolling start technique without lifting fingers
            If you can time that right (hips moving, but nothing having left the starting position), NO FS!
            The days of jiggling feet in the blocks and being called a FS are over.

            Comment


            • #96
              The link below popped up on my Google news feed, last night. Interesting read, but I will leave it for others with more knowledge of the history of the sport to weigh in on how much truth is in there.

              https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/23...gy-human-limit

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by KevinR View Post
                The link below popped up on my Google news feed, last night. Interesting read, but I will leave it for others with more knowledge of the history of the sport to weigh in on how much truth is in there.
                https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/23...gy-human-limit
                I'm not sure anyone can react in less than 0.1 sec, but I am positive that the people setting up the machinery can mis-calibrate it as they probably did with Devon Allen . . . .and with Gaither.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by KevinR View Post
                  The link below popped up on my Google news feed, last night. Interesting read, but I will leave it for others with more knowledge of the history of the sport to weigh in on how much truth is in there.

                  https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/23...gy-human-limit
                  This part is disturbing. WA should make it a requirement for the algorithms and other details of the detection technology to be made public by the manufacturers if they want their blocks to be used in WA-recognized meets. "Just trust us, it's accurate" should not be acceptable.

                  Scientists aren’t even sure how, precisely, the official recording systems are calibrated. According to Milloz and colleagues writing in the journal Sports Medicine, “The precise details of event detection algorithms [i.e how the starting blocks record a start] are not made public by SIS [start information system] manufacturers.”

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    It seems to me that WA has not a darned thing to lose by being completely about the algorithms, and more buy-in from the competitors and the stats geeks who spend a lot of our time in here. I cannot think of any way that such information could be used by the athletes to "game" the system.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by KevinR View Post
                      It seems to me that WA has not a darned thing to lose by being completely ______ about the algorithms,
                      You forgot a word there.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                        You forgot a word there.
                        open

                        transparent

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by clementina View Post
                          i rather doubt these ideas are going anywhere with WA.
                          Yep. There is exactly zero chance of WA instituting any system where the first runner to hit the finish line may not be the winner (DQs aside), or that you have to wait for calculations to determine the winner. Zero chance. I don't know why these ideas keep being raised.

                          As I've repeatedly shown - e.g. see threads here and here - it was the 2022 World Championships that was unusual. Competitions before and after, in various locations around the world including the US, all have reaction times in line with historical norms and everything works just fine without controversy. The much faster reaction times were instantly identified on this forum. Someone from Seiko messed up badly in Eugene, probably in calibrating the equipment.

                          Various articles quote 'studies' that 'demonstrate' that athletes can react faster than 0.100 seconds. The most quoted are the Finnish study (here) and Pain and Hibbs (here), which reported reaction time tests from seven and nine non-elite athletes respectively, finding that some of these could consistently react in significantly less than 0.100 seconds (e.g. 0.085 seconds)

                          Neither of the studies attempt to explain why these results are totally at odds with the 2000+ reaction times from elite athletes in real major athletics competitions.

                          The fastest average reaction time for any athlete across all events over the past 20 years (excluding the 2022 WCs) is British sprinter Asha Philip, whose reaction times averaged 0.127 seconds. Here is her complete record in majors (not including relays):

                          0.136 2013 Round 1
                          0.138 2013 Round 2
                          0.133 2015 Round 1
                          0.125 2015 Round 2
                          0.120 2016 Round 1
                          0.124 2016 Round 2
                          0.114 2017 Round 1
                          0.116 2017 Round 2
                          0.145 2019 Round 1
                          0.110 2021 Round 1
                          0.134 2021 Round 2

                          I don't think Asha Philip ever false started at a major. Ben Johnson also averaged 0.127 seconds from the seven results I have, although most these are normally excluded through his disqualifications.

                          She also ran the lead-off leg in the 4x100 relay at the Tokyo Olympics. Her reaction times in the heat and final were 0.132 and 0.121 seconds, the two fastest of the entire relays competition (men, women and mixed).
                          At the 2019 World Championships, Philip's reaction time in the heats was 0.130 (the fastest) and in final was 0.127 (easily the fastest).
                          At the 2017 World Championships, Philip's reaction times in the heats and final were 0.131 and 0.118, the fastest (men and women) and third fastest of the competition.
                          At the 2016 Olympics, Philip also recorded the fastest reaction time for the relays of 0.118 seconds.

                          Asha Philip is the fastest reactor to the starting gun in all history. Often her reaction times are way faster than anyone else in the race - she is a freak - and yet her fastest reaction time was 'only' 0.110 seconds and her average is around 0.125 seconds (including the relays), well above the threshold of 0.100 seconds.

                          Now, this means that these two studies just happened across several non-elite athletes who had much faster reaction times than the fastest reacting athlete who has ever competed at major championships. The authors do not discuss how they could have been so fortunate that these freak individuals just happened to turn up in their study. Its a really obvious question that is left unanswered.​

                          I guess all those British athletes in the 2007 Pain and Hibbs study who could consistently react faster than 0.100 seconds were by then too old to be in the British teams between 2016 and 2021?

                          Seriously though, it is staggering that the authors of these papers never addressed this blindingly obvious question - why do the unexceptional subjects of your studies seem to be reacting so much faster than anyone else in all of history in actual races? This is just not credible.

                          The other, much more likely, explanation is that these studies were not replicating actual starting blocks and processes for major competitions, yet they amazingly make recommendations for them.
                          Last edited by JC100; 09-24-2022, 04:30 AM.
                          100m - A New Look at the World's Greatest Race

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JC100 View Post
                            Neither of the studies attempt to explain why these results are totally at odds with the 2000+ reaction times from elite athletes in real major athletics competitions.
                            It may be that since there apparently was no penalty for reacting faster than a predetermined threshold (other than redoing the start), they had the liberty to guess the gun without fear.

                            If the study had been set up such that the payment for participating in the study would be cut by 70% for anybody who false started, that would have forced the participants to be more honest.

                            Nevertheless, it's time for a new study to be done with elite international athletes and starting blocks which have actually been used in elite competitions.
                            Last edited by 18.99s; 09-24-2022, 01:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                              Nevertheless, it's time for a new study to be done with elite international athletes and starting blocks which have actually been used in elite competitions.
                              Why? As JC100 just explained, we have plenty of data with such athletes and equipment.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Davidokun View Post

                                Why? As JC100 just explained, we have plenty of data with such athletes and equipment.
                                Yes there's masses of real-world data indicating that, in normal circumstances, anyone putting pressure on the blocks within 0.100s of the gun being fired is not responding to the gun. However, it appears that circumstances were not normal at the Eugene WCs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X