Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction times

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Re: reaction times

    Louise,

    Give it up already on the data! One of two things has happened.

    A. DTG made a mistake in claiming to have data or to know where to find it. No doubt that DTG recalls reading an article or two addressing this issue. Perhaps he believed that the DATA would be easy to find, not realizing that raw DATA is rarely posted with the analysis. I, too, thought is might be easy to find a wealth of real information online, but I haven't had a whole lot of luck. Give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

    b. DTG is simply yanking your chain. Having read most of your posts regarding this issue, it is easy to understand why he would do this.

    If you're looking for basic info on reaction times, take a look at this page.

    http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm

    If you read this, you will find that the mean reaction time to sound stimuli for college-age students is ~0.16. Reaction time does vary by age, but tends to peak by the late 20's.

    No, the data does not accompany the literature. However, one should not expect it to. [For most people, an accurate analysis of the data is sufficient.] If you doubt the analysis, then perhaps you could try to track down the researchers and ask for the data yourself.

    No, the literature does not address world class athletes. So what? It would appear that very little work in the area has been performed on these athletes [at least it's not easy to find online]. Assuming such work has not been performed on star athletes, then the IAAF has used what's available to them and, perhaps, made an "athlete" adjustment. It may not be the most scientific, but it is what it is.

    Until someone does conduct research that shows the 0.1 sec standard is unreasonable and that it is is possible for world-class athlete to consistently react in less time, then there's no basis to demand a change.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: reaction times

      And if you want data from world class athletes, just look at the compilation of reaction times that are generated by every World Championship, Olympic Games, Euro Championship, etc. There's an enormous amount of data out there and it all confirms exactly what Garry wrote.

      No, Louise, there are not two legitimate sides to every issue. On some issues there's a demonstrable truth, and this is one of them. If you disagree, you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: reaction times

        what part of "garry, POST THE OTHER ARTICLE, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???????
        that's all i said....i don't take either article as a scientific study done on a track with olympic level athletes, etc. to specifically test reaction time to gun......not in a meet....the usual way scientific studies are carried out....now, maybe there was one...but no one yet has found it!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: reaction times

          Yo, Louise! I'm not on-call here. I actually do have a (more than) full-time job to attend to, and haven't been on the Board since early this morning.

          As to your request, I have to say no, and instead shamefacedly admit that the Alston piece never should have run in the magazine in the first place. Reflects poorly on my editorial judgment that it saw the light of day. In retrospect (as Julin quickly pointed out), it's full of unproven statements that have little foundation. I'll not further the foolishness by bringing it back to light.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: reaction times

            >Yo, Louise! I'm not on-call here. I actually do
            >have a (more than) full-time job to attend to,
            >and haven't been on the Board since early this
            >morning.

            yo, garry....figured since you took the time to post the lengthy follow-up article, you should also post the the first one...

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: reaction times

              Louise,

              Read what Garry said: "the Alston piece never should have run in the magazine in the first place...it's full of unproven statements that have little foundation. I'll not further the foolishness by bringing it back to light."

              Why repost an article that he believes lacks credibility? Based on what other posters have said in this thread regarding reaction times, it's likely they too would share Garry's opinion.

              If it's so important to you, post it yourself! You do have it don't you? I'm guessing the first thing you did after reading Garry's original post of the "Christie Not Robbed " article was pull it off your shelf. Scanners and OCR software do wonderful things today!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: reaction times

                You do have it don't you? I'm
                >guessing the first thing you did after reading
                >Garry's original post of the "Christie Not
                >Robbed " article was pull it off your shelf.

                wasn't on shelf - was right on desk...don't guess..you can get dq'ed doing that!

                not important to me..but journalistically the 2 articles should be presented...the one garry posted was an answer to the other...is it ok with you to just read one side of a debate ???

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: reaction times

                  Read what Garry said: "the Alston
                  >piece never should have run in the magazine in
                  >the first place...it's full of unproven
                  >statements that have little foundation. I'll not
                  >further the foolishness by bringing it back to
                  >light."

                  Why repost an article that he
                  >believes lacks credibility?

                  oh, ok...i guess i will become a member of garry's thinking club too...that way i don't have to think for myself...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: reaction times

                    "...don't guess..you can get dq'ed doing that!"

                    Now there's a point on which we may agree!

                    Yes, it is phyically impossible for the following events to occur simultaneously (cut and pasted from an earlier JRM post):

                    1. Gun goes off
                    2. Sound travels from gun to ear
                    3. ear registers sound, sends impulse to brain
                    4. brain processes sound, sends signal to start running.
                    5. signal is received by muscles; sprinter goes!

                    So, if a runner's reaction time is less than the legal limit (either the IAAF or the unknown scientific standard), then we can assume at least some anticipation on the part of the runner.

                    But, should we penalize an athlete for simply thinking about going before the gun? After all, if his reaction time is >= 0.0, then technically it would seem he has not false started. Yes, neurological activity may have occured before the gun to trigger the physical activity; however, according to the timing system on the blocks, phyical activity took place after the starter pulled the trigger. Since one can only guess what the "average" reaction time is and there could always be exceptions, the 0.1 sec standard is problematic at best.

                    A very simple solution would be to do away with the 0.1 rule. Only reaction times <0.0 trigger the warning. But, to discourage this "anticipation", institute the "one false start and you're out" rule. Yes, allow starters and their assistance to call false starts clearly visual false starts (even if the machine doesn't see it). Furthermore, allow officials to view video of the start at a later time and dq anyone they didn't catch the first time around.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: reaction times

                      The incident in
                      >1996 with Linford was based on the notion that he
                      >*knew* his reaction time was naturally faster
                      >than 0.10s, and refused to leave the track on
                      >that premise. If this was clearly known to him,
                      >and not just a hunch, then why didn't they share
                      >their data with the rest world? It would
                      >certainly provide support for changing the
                      >rule!

                      I seem to remember the announcers for the US broadcast saying something to the effect that Linford supported, or was even pushing for, the false start rule with the .12 second allowance which is what I think it was back in '96 (as gh said above), and how ironic it was that he was waiving his hands at the officials and refusing to leave the track after he got DQ'd at the Olympics. Anyone else remember something to this effect? If he had any prior knowledge of his ability to react in less than .1 seconds he shouldn't have been supporting the rule being put into place by the IAAF in the first place. Don't quote me on this for sure as I haven't seen the race in over 7 years, but I seem to remember something along those lines being said.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: reaction times

                        oh, ok...i
                        >guess i will become a member of garry's thinking
                        >club too...that way i don't have to think for
                        >myself...

                        But, you have read it and have formed your own opinion. I'm sure others who read this thread will pull out there old mags and read the article themselves. They, too, will form their own opinion.

                        Is it necessary for Garry to present both sides of an argument when he posts here? As a journalist, I would expect his writings to be unbiased. But this applies to the articles he writes for T&FN. If he visits and contributes to this message board, I would hope he does so for his own reason, to express his own views and opinions. The same applies to anyone who posts here, journalist or not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: reaction times

                          I seem to remember
                          >the announcers for the US broadcast saying
                          >something to the effect that Linford supported,
                          >or was even pushing for, the false start rule
                          >with the .12 second allowance which is what I
                          >think it was back in '96 (as gh said above), and
                          >how ironic it was that he was waiving his hands
                          >at the officials and refusing to leave the track
                          >after he got DQ'd at the Olympics. Anyone else
                          >remember something to this effect?


                          yes..if gh had posted the OTHER article, it's in there...!!!!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: reaction times

                            But, you have
                            >read it and have formed your own opinion.
                            no..i've read it...but rather than an opinion, i want to see the testing done or have someone do elite athlete testing..like i said earlier, i'll check with gideon ariel..he should know


                            Is it
                            >necessary for Garry to present both sides of an
                            >argument when he posts here? As a journalist, I
                            >would expect his writings to be unbiased. But
                            >this applies to the articles he writes for T&FN.
                            >If he visits and contributes to this message
                            >board, I would hope he does so for his own
                            >reason, to express his own views and opinions.
                            >The same applies to anyone who posts here,
                            >journalist or not.

                            sounds good, xcept it's his board!!!! t&fn is on top...that's NOT me....

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: reaction times

                              DTG is
                              >simply yanking your chain. Having read most of
                              >your posts regarding this issue, it is easy to
                              >understand why he would do this.

                              I'm not (trying) to pull anyone's chain. As mentioned by personal communication to Louise, this is still a work-in-progess (finding the original study). I haven't forgotten the task. Thanks

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: reaction times

                                then we can
                                >assume at least some anticipation on the part of
                                >the runner.

                                But, should we penalize an athlete
                                >for simply thinking about going before the gun?

                                YUP, THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT ANTICIPATION IN IAAF RULES


                                >After all, if his reaction time is >= 0.0, then
                                >technically it would seem he has not false
                                >started. Yes, neurological activity may have
                                >occured before the gun to trigger the physical
                                >activity; however, according to the timing system
                                >on the blocks, phyical activity took place after
                                >the starter pulled the trigger. Since one can
                                >only guess what the "average" reaction time is
                                >and there could always be exceptions, the 0.1 sec
                                >standard is problematic at best.

                                A very simple
                                >solution would be to do away with the 0.1 rule.
                                >Only reaction times <0.0 trigger the warning.
                                >But, to discourage this "anticipation",
                                (DARN, YOU WERE DOING GOOD UNTIL HERE!!!
                                >institute the "one false start and you're out"
                                >rule.

                                Yes, allow starters and their assistance to
                                >call false starts clearly visual false starts
                                LIKE THE GOOD OLE DAYS!
                                >(even if the machine doesn't see it).
                                UNFORTUNATELY THE MACHINES ARE GETTING MORE SOPHISTICATED ...
                                >Furthermore, allow officials to view video of the
                                >start at a later time and dq anyone they didn't
                                >catch the first time around.THAT'S NOT TOO BAD....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X