Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The One-World-Record syndrome

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    What you're forgetting, JRM, is that the reason people thought/think Bolt can go faster than 19.30 and 9.69 is this:

    1. His 19.30 was run into a headwind. His basic-time was a 19.23 in that race. If they had run that race in the opposite direction, he would have been sub 19.20 in that race. So the wind alone already cost him quite a bit of time, meaning that even if he never ran as fast as he did in that 200 ever again, he could still break his world record, just by getting a tailwind instead of a headwind.

    2. His 9.69 was with him not running to the tape. If he ran to the tape, it would've been more like a 9.64 or 9.65. And there was no tailwind either. With a good tailwind it's sub 9.6. So AGAIN we realize that running to the tape with good wind conditions, he could run more than a tenth of a second faster than he did, meaning that even if he never ran as fast as he did in that race ever again, he could still break his world record, simply by getting a decent tailwind and running to the tape.




    So the point isn't that people necessarily thought he would genuinely get even faster than he was in his 2008 season, rather, they simply realized that even if he gets a tenth of a second slower in each event, he could STILL get world records in both races, simpy by getting a tailwind in the 200, and getting a tailwind and running to the tape in the 100.

    Comment


    • #17
      I too have observed this phenomenon; however, I have been more focused on rapid improvements, mostly in younger athletes and (relatively speaking) beginners.
      Take Klüft in 2003: Many posters, most Swedish newspapers, and (the young and
      naive) me, assumed that after going from roughly 6.000 in 2001 to 6.500 in 2002
      to 7.000 in 2003, she would be bound to improve noticeably in 2004 (obviously
      in a much smaller jump, say 100 points). With hindsight, considering how
      everything clicked in Paris and considering ``diminishing returns'' from aging
      and training, this was highly naive.

      There are plenty of such, if less extreme examples.

      A similar principle likely explains the world record discussion: To set even
      one WR, an athlete in a mature sport has to be on the top of his game and have
      everything come together in one race/jump/throw. For an athlete to manage more
      than one WR, he has to be something truly special, be in a sport that is not
      mature (or otherwise has unstable records, e.g. due to technological
      improvements), or be very lucky.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

        Originally posted by JRM
        When someone sets a WR, does that likely (statistically) indicate their ultimate performance has been achieved?
        The answer is obviously a resounding yes.
        However, likely simply means a greater than 50% chance that they have run their ultimate performance. The problem you have with some of these posters is that they construe it as an attack on their god, U. Bolt, of which it is assuredly not.

        Comment


        • #19
          JRM's respond would be this:

          Also, Bolt's age is not a guarantee that he will improve. There have been many young, talented athletes hit their peak in their early 20s and subsequently drop off the map by 26.Why not extend this to 18 and say the same about the good 18yr olds we are now seeing.

          A substantial percentage of the current World beater sprinters (and at their primes) are 25/26. Further I believe that majority of good sprinters reach their prime at 25/26 THEN tend to go down. Bolt is only 22 and you have to be 22 before you reach 26. So I wouldn't use that fry him.

          His age might not be a gurantee he'll better but a damn good indicator!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

            Originally posted by 2 cents
            Originally posted by JRM
            When someone sets a WR, does that likely (statistically) indicate their ultimate performance has been achieved?
            The answer is obviously a resounding yes.
            However, likely simply means a greater than 50% chance that they have run their ultimate performance. The problem you have with some of these posters is that they construe it as an attack on their god, U. Bolt, of which it is assuredly not.
            Let the church say amen.
            on the road

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

              Originally posted by JRM
              Originally posted by toyracer
              Originally posted by JRM
              How many sprinters have actually set WRs in the same event in consecutive or non-consecutive years, for *any* reason?
              Originally posted by JRM
              Oversight on Powell noted. Equaling one's WR doesn't count, though.
              You're making up the rules as you go along, LOL.
              My original question was "How many people *bettered* their own WR in a future year?", not how many people "tied or bettered" their WR.
              You also originally said "or non-consecutive years". Isn't that what Asafa did?

              In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that Asafa's first tie of his 9.77 record was quicker than the actual time he ran for the record, before rounding up occurred.
              Regards,
              toyracer

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JRM
                Originally posted by chriswitt
                powell break his own wr 9.77 to 9.74 never mind how many times he equal 9.77

                bolt will break his own 9.69 most of the other guy you mention did it a lot older/
                Oversight on Powell noted. Equaling one's WR doesn't count, though. We're not discussing Bolt because he hasn't done it yet.

                Also, Bolt's age is not a guarantee that he will improve. There have been many young, talented athletes hit their peak in their early 20s and subsequently drop off the map by 26.
                I guess I'm not reading this post right, because Bolt has broken the world record in the 100 twice: 9.72 and 9.69.
                Or did you mean that he hasn't equalled the record yet?
                Anyway, Greene's wr was in close to 0 wind(was it 0,1?), yet he never broke it.
                Came damn close, though....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

                  Originally posted by toyracer
                  You also originally said "or non-consecutive years". Isn't that what Asafa did?
                  Yes, and I corrected myself for omitting Asafa's second WR.

                  Originally posted by The Norwegian
                  I guess I'm not reading this post right, because Bolt has broken the world record in the 100 twice: 9.72 and 9.69.
                  Or did you mean that he hasn't equalled the record yet?
                  Anyway, Greene's wr was in close to 0 wind(was it 0,1?), yet he never broke it.
                  Came damn close, though....
                  Bolt's two WRs were in the same year -- I was asking about setting the WR in different years. Agreed on Greene, but "damn close" doesn't break the WR. I wasn't interested in getting bogged down in wind corrections, etc..., but rather who actually did it, insofar as the record books are concerned.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

                    Originally posted by JRM
                    Originally posted by toyracer
                    You also originally said "or non-consecutive years". Isn't that what Asafa did?
                    Yes, and I corrected myself for omitting Asafa's second WR.
                    I think I get it now.
                    sorry

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

                      Originally posted by knite
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      Originally posted by Powell
                      Originally posted by JRM
                      The rampant predictions of Bolt breaking his WRs this summer bring me back to the post-Atlanta days. It wasn't a matter of *if* MJ would lower 19.32s, but rather by how much (and whether or not he would break 19s).
                      Really? I don't remember any such speculation at the time. I thought most T&F fans did realize at the time it was a Beamon-esque performance.
                      I think you're right.
                      Precisely.
                      I never thought MJ would break 19.32. I did think he would break the 400 WR sooner than he did. MJ may have slipped out of the blocks at the start of the 19.32, but the degree to which Bolt's 9.69 fell short of a perfect full-out effort was ridiculous. He may not run faster this year, but given the right circumstances, he's clearly capable of it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I never thought that MJ would go faster than 19.32. I think there is about a 50% chance that Bolt will break his own record.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I think Bolt is a lot more likely to break his 100 record than his 200 record. In the latter, he was running hard through the finish line. In the 100, obviously not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Atheist
                            What you're forgetting, JRM, is that the reason people thought/think Bolt can go faster than 19.30 and 9.69 is this:

                            1. His 19.30 was run into a headwind. His basic-time was a 19.23 in that race. If they had run that race in the opposite direction, he would have been sub 19.20 in that race. So the wind alone already cost him quite a bit of time, meaning that even if he never ran as fast as he did in that 200 ever again, he could still break his world record, just by getting a tailwind instead of a headwind.

                            2. His 9.69 was with him not running to the tape. If he ran to the tape, it would've been more like a 9.64 or 9.65. And there was no tailwind either. With a good tailwind it's sub 9.6. So AGAIN we realize that running to the tape with good wind conditions, he could run more than a tenth of a second faster than he did, meaning that even if he never ran as fast as he did in that race ever again, he could still break his world record, simply by getting a decent tailwind and running to the tape.




                            So the point isn't that people necessarily thought he would genuinely get even faster than he was in his 2008 season, rather, they simply realized that even if he gets a tenth of a second slower in each event, he could STILL get world records in both races, simpy by getting a tailwind in the 200, and getting a tailwind and running to the tape in the 100.
                            yes, yes we know, u always write ish like that :roll:

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              However, in the 100m, he has so little room for error. In the 200m, he has the opportunity to correct for slow starts and/or technical inefficiencies unavailable at half the distance. There should only be so many high-powered 100m races in the human body, though somehow Powell continues to stretch what I earlier believed one could consistently attain. This is not to say that one can repeat a 200m race of the Olympic-calibre one where Bolt established his PB, but the strain and wear-and-tear on the body would appear to be less than 0-100m in 9,69s.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The One-World-Record syndrome

                                Originally posted by berkeley
                                Originally posted by knite
                                Originally posted by tandfman
                                Originally posted by Powell
                                Originally posted by JRM
                                The rampant predictions of Bolt breaking his WRs this summer bring me back to the post-Atlanta days. It wasn't a matter of *if* MJ would lower 19.32s, but rather by how much (and whether or not he would break 19s).
                                Really? I don't remember any such speculation at the time. I thought most T&F fans did realize at the time it was a Beamon-esque performance.
                                I think you're right.
                                Precisely.
                                I never thought MJ would break 19.32. I did think he would break the 400 WR sooner than he did. MJ may have slipped out of the blocks at the start of the 19.32, but the degree to which Bolt's 9.69 fell short of a perfect full-out effort was ridiculous. He may not run faster this year, but given the right circumstances, he's clearly capable of it.
                                I don't think any one made that comment. I believe fols knew MJ was ready to break the 200 WR but not by the margin he set it in, no one could foresee 19.32, in any way imaginable. However it was conceivable with Bolt. MJ had an Beamonesque performance in that 200m's. Bolt just qualified what many of us thought after his 100m race.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X