2023 NCAA indoors

[DET59]

I know the jury is out on altitude & it's exact impact, but I think it's about 3/100ths in those US 60ms & at least 1/10th in Alfred's 200m. Which are obviously still amazing times.

I think the average altitude on land on our planet is roughtly 800 meters. I think that should be the point where we calculate from : ) How WA got 1000 meters seems a bit random.

[Davidokun]

I think the average altitude on land on our planet is roughtly 800 meters. I think that should be the point where we calculate from : ) How WA got 1000 meters seems a bit random.

On the other hand:

Most of the worlds people live on coastal plains at elevations of 150 meters (500 feet) or less.

Source: Elevation

😁

[DET59]

On the other hand:



Source: Elevation

😁

My point exactly.... (hence the smiley face : ) It gets a bit amusing when people start to debate the value of a 900 meter mark versus say a 150 meter mark. Factor in Mondo specs, "siuper shoes," etc and we can really get lost in the weeds of track and field. I love it !

[Revenant]

For me, it comes down to 'known variables' and I guess by that I mean we know wind affects performance & we can measure the wind in a race; we know altitude has some affect on performance and we can find out the altitude of a location; we known an inside lane can disadvantage a runner, and we obviously know what lane they are running in. However, whilst we know diet/fuel/sleep can affect performance, we wont know that for every athlete 😊

Which is why, although Alfred goes 4th on the 200m lists, is her 22.26 actually better than Drechsler's 22.27? I'm not sure it is. But hey, as DET59 says, we're getting into the weeds!

[ATK]

It was obviously a great run, but the problem is Lubbock is 976m altitude, so it's hard to compare to other performances. It's the same with Hobbs & her 6.94 in New Mexico (even greater altitude at 1619m 😮 ) and Adeleke's 50.33 (also at Lubbock, 976) and Digg's 50.15 at Fayetteville (427m). Through no fault of the athletes, a lot of those runs are at a quite high altitude.

Of course, that doesn't just happen in the US, as Kambundji's 7.03 was at 669m elevation, but compare those to DAS's 7.03 in Bham (140m) or Bol/Klaver's 400s in Apeldoorn (just 16m) or Kaczmarek's 50.83 in Torun (65m).

I know the jury is out on altitude & it's exact impact, but I think it's about 3/100ths in those US 60ms & at least 1/10th in Alfred's 200m. Which are obviously still amazing times.

Here's an easy fix:

Women's 60m
Julien Alfred 6.97 (A)
Mujinga Kambundji 7.03
Dina Asher-Smith 7.03

Women's 200m
Julien Alfred 22.26 (A)

Women's 400m
Femke Bol 49.26
Talitha Digg 50.15
Rhasidat Adeleke's 50.33 (A)
Lieke Klaver 50.34
Natalia Kaczmarek 50.83

🙂 Im not reading too much into altitude conversions or comparisons. They will all race each other at the same meet at one point or another down the line.

[lonewolf]

There are so many variables, some of which may be off-setting, that, to some theoretical degree, affect a performance, I think it is futile to argue that a specific performance is inferior or superior to another under different circumstances. If the altitude, venue, weather, wind, lane, distance, competition, and physical condition planets align at a given moment, the resulting performance is what it is and should be the absolute record for that event.
Just my opinion.

[CD203]

There are so many variables, some of which may be off-setting, that, to some theoretical degree, affect a performance, I think it is futile to argue that a specific performance is inferior or superior to another under different circumstances. If the altitude, venue, weather, wind, lane, distance, competition, and physical condition planets align at a given moment, the resulting performance is what it is and should be the absolute record for that event.
Just my opinion.

Agreed. The hyper focus on altitude and altitude conversions has always felt a bit much to me since there are other factors which have significant impact as well. It also feels like people use discussions of altitude to devalue performances which is unfair to the athletes IMO. They're still running ridiculous times !!

[DET59]

Julien Alfred 6.97 (A)
Mujinga Kambundji 7.03
Dina Asher-Smith 7.03

Women's 200m
Julien Alfred 22.26 (A)

Women's 400m
Femke Bol 49.26
Talitha Digg 50.15
Rhasidat Adeleke's 50.33 (A)
Lieke Klaver 50.34
Natalia Kaczmarek 50.83

🙂 Im not reading too much into altitude conversions or comparisons. They will all race each other at the same meet at one point or another down the line.
[/QUOTE]

Why the (A) for Texas Tech, its at 983m elevation? I thought (A) starts at 1000. Should marks between 500-100 get like a small (a), maybe between 250-500 (a/2) ?

When you look at the "All-Conditions" all-time top 10 lists wind is a way bigger factor than alititude. Altitude makes almost no impact on world records and all-conditions list.

I agree with CD, the "almost (A)" comments come out usually to devalue a performance. You don't get similar "almost 2mps" comments about wind, though I'd rather have a 1.9 mps wind in the 100 or long jump than 999m of elevation and no wind.

[ATK]

Why the (A) for Texas Tech, its at 983m elevation? I thought (A) starts at 1000.

Sorry your right, technically there is no (A) for Lubbock according to World Athletics. But according to the NCAA for qualifying purposes, they adjust it for altitude (see all of Texas woman's marks here: https://www.tfrrs.org/top_qualifiers...season_hnd=577)

But honestly, I dont care that much. The mark is the mark. Alfred ran 6.97, whether it has an (A) or not next to it, and thats the record NCAA athletes will be chasing.
Mike Marsh was never the WR holder, Pietro Mennea was. Usain Bolt was disappointed when he missed Michael Johnson's 300m WR. Aleia Hobbs took down Gail Devers AR. Regardless of how many sea level lists are kept, it is what it is (IMO).

I also realize that it's unfortunately different than the very "clear line" of +2.0 wind. But I think as previously noted, that line in itself is questionable (Gay's 9.69 +2.0 is ok but Powell's 9.72 +2.1 is illegal). And wind the 200m, which has been discussed at length on this board, is a whole other thing as well. Nothings perfect.

[Atticus]

There are two ways to look at the altitude 'problem'.
1. A record is a record, no matter what the alt is.
2. People who follow the sport closely are interested in much more than records and an 'a' next to a mark is important to us. A 10.00 at sea-level is NOT the same as a 10.00a, and the distinction is very important. That's why we keep 'basic' lists, which are much more informative than a simple event list. If you want to see who really is the best at at given time, the distinction is vital. Determining favorites for championships must take that into consideration also, so yes, it DOES matter to us.

[DET59]

There are two ways to look at the altitude 'problem'.
1. A record is a record, no matter what the alt is.
2. People who follow the sport closely are interested in much more than records and an 'a' next to a mark is important to us. A 10.00 at sea-level is NOT the same as a 10.00a, and the distinction is very important. That's why we keep 'basic' lists, which are much more informative than a simple event list. If you want to see who really is the best at at given time, the distinction is vital. Determining favorites for championships must take that into consideration also, so yes, it DOES matter to us.

Good point, I would go so far as to say if we're going to "A" results we should do an (A983) for Lubbock and an (A2240) for Mexico City to make the information even more worthwhile, just as we list windspeed to the 1/10th mps rather than just putting a (W) next to a mark. Then it would matter even more. But as CD pointed out, the (A) is often used in discussion not to determine best/prognosticate but to denigrate an individual performance. Back in the day before wind guages I remember discussions about "Texas Times" when early outdoor season results came out.

I was surprised in quickly glancing over the all-time men's and women's performance list how few (A) marks there are. Are venues over 1000m intentionally avoided or is it simply a matter that most places/cities where pros compete are near sea level ?

(A) is the T&F equivalent of (*) in MLB home run records : )

[El Toro]

I was surprised in quickly glancing over the all-time men's and women's performance list how few (A) marks there are. Are venues over 1000m intentionally avoided or is it simply a matter that most places/cities where pros compete are near sea level ?

It's about where people live, the science of which is Hypsographic Demography as I learned today. This is stuff like how many people live above or between latitudes, in areas with maximum temperatures exceeding some mark, etc.

In relation to eleveation, a 1994 study said the following:

As of 1994, an estimated 33.5% of the world’s population, lived within 100 vertical meters of sea level, but only 15.6% of all inhabited land lies below 100 m elevation.

The median person lived at an elevation of 194 m above sea level.

Numbers of people decreased faster than exponentially with increasing elevation.

Source: https://lab.rockefeller.edu/cohenje/...SHypsoDemo.pdf


A 2021 article gave the following estimate of humans above elevation thresholds

500.3 million humans live at ≥1,500 m, 81.6 million at ≥2,500 m, and 14.4 million at ≥3,500 m.

If you go here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33903258/ you can see the nice graphic of countries with lots of high altitude residents and most aren't hotbeds of sprinting.

[Revenant]

I was surprised in quickly glancing over the all-time men's and women's performance list how few (A) marks there are. Are venues over 1000m intentionally avoided or is it simply a matter that most places/cities where pros compete are near sea level ?

I don't actually think there are that many. Certainly the majority of DL & World Tour meetings are held way below 1000m.

We mark wind, so IMO we should mark altitude. Hobb's performance at over 1000m should be marked with an (A), and whilst Alfred's was under 1000m it was only 24m off, so it should be noted by us geeks.

[clementina]

Agreed. The hyper focus on altitude and altitude conversions has always felt a bit much to me since there are other factors which have significant impact as well. It also feels like people use discussions of altitude to devalue performances which is unfair to the athletes IMO. They're still running ridiculous times !!

the point above looks solid, but you surely cannot compare two similar performances, say a 10.00 100mm sprint, at Mexico City and the same performance at sea level. So, since only big tf fans have the slightest interest in such matters, we may as well be appropriately informed in top lists.

[El Toro]

I don't actually think there are that many. Certainly the majority of DL & World Tour meetings are held way below 1000m.

We mark wind, so IMO we should mark altitude. Hobb's performance at over 1000m should be marked with an (A), and whilst Alfred's was under 1000m it was only 24m off, so it should be noted by us geeks.

We should mark altitude in the same way that we mark wind - with actual measurements.

The (A) measurement is an artefact of the print only age and is ridiculous in the modern database era, just like using "city" locations to opaquely denote venues rather than actual venue names, like the IAAF has finally started doing recently (but annoyingly badly).

Altittude, like wind, has an affect on a continuum and using a single point of 1000m nowadays to denote the barrier between OK and somehow suspect is absurd, especially when the dominant factor in most sprints is the wind not the altitude.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the IAAF database schema includes provision for venue altitude and it and other statistical collections are mired in the limitations of the 1970s on this matter.