Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Sprint Stat Man
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >Thus every sprinter who competes regularly will get a few races in close to optimal legal conditions (between 1 and 2 mps following wind) every season. With a 5 mps limit, setting the records would be purely a matter of luck.

    A quick glance at my lists shows that the majority of 100m runners can expect to get on the end of a 5m/s wind no more than two or three times in a career. Most non-US athletes can easily go an entire career without ever receiveing such wind assistance.

    Re RMc: T&F is a European party, that's the way it is. The vast bulk of the money and the fans are in Europe. And in the states you mention, wind is largely ignored anyway. Almost all US colleges and college meets list a wind-assisted time as their record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    Setting the limit at 5 mps would in fact create fewer, not more opportunities for setting records. If a 100 meters WR was set using a favourable wind of +4.9, it would be virtually impossible to get close to it without 3mps+ following wind. Such conditions are not common - certainly not in big races. What we'd end up with would be most races on the circuit being won with times WAY slower than WRs, which would hardly generate excitement. It makes perfect sense to set the limit at a wind speed which is relatively common. Thus every sprinter who competes regularly will get a few races in close to optimal legal conditions (between 1 and 2 mps following wind) every season. With a 5 mps limit, setting the records would be purely a matter of luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • RMc
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >There are many ways that track & field makes itself unneccesarily complicated
    >to the casual fan, but wind assistance is not one of them.

    What it does it makes the sport less attractive to fans in the most populous states, and since we're trying to figure out ways to make the sport more popular in the U.S., why not increase the opportunities for records? It's not just Texas where this is an issue. Events on the West Coast in the spring also suffer from above limit winds. However, during the summer, here, as in Europe, the winds drop. Unfortunately, the Europeans have hogged the summer meet schedule, and US fans get fewer opportunities to see record allowed conditions. Of course, the Europeans don't want to change the rules--it would ruin their party!!

    Leave a comment:


  • RMc
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >RMc:
    i think wind is the biggest potential factor of all you mentioned,
    >especially at very high velocities, by far.. removing the limit altogether
    >would be pretty nuts. would championships only be held in places that are
    >notoriously windy, to bait more WRs? who knows. anyway, making it 3 m/sec or
    >maybe 4 seems reasonable to me. A LOT of stuff gets thrown out with it being 2.

    I haven't seen any evidence saying one way or the other as to which factor is the most important. For example, I suspect that the 100m record may not have been set in temps below 75F in some time if ever. Seems like that's big aid when temps get higher. Altitude is another well document effect.

    However, note that I agreed with having a 5 mps limit as being reasonable because of the effect. On the other hand, the limit should be set to encompass all but a tiny minority of performances, e.g., 5%. 5 mps fits the bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprint Stat Man
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    I added that from memory and I can't find the reference so I'd better withdraw it.

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    BTW, the AAU once tentatively introduced a limit of 4mph for wind
    >assistance, which is around 0.5mph less than the current limit

    When was this proposed, and was it for AAU rules or was it a suggestion they made to the IAAF for international rules?

    I do know that when IAAF was investigating use of anemometers, the IC4A suggested to AAU that two anemometers should be used, and the two readings averaged. They were to be place at approximately 30m and 70m along the straight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprint Stat Man
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    There are many ways that track & field makes itself unneccesarily complicated to the casual fan, but wind assistance is not one of them.

    Even someone who has never seen a 100m race in their life or been anywhere near a track instinctively understands that a wind blowing behind athletes makes them go faster and one in their faces slows them down.

    It makes perfect sense that there would be some sort of limit on such assistance. The figure can be debated but has served the sport well for nearly 70 years and it will need more than a few anguished howls from Texans to persuade me of the need for change. I estimate that a third of all the wind-assisted marks in my lists (which contain around 10,000 performances altogether) come from a handful of US states. Everywhere else in the world 2m/s would be recognised as a noticeable breeze.

    BTW, the AAU once tentatively introduced a limit of 4mph for wind assistance, which is around 0.5mph less than the current limit

    Leave a comment:


  • basehead617
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    anybody have a video link to the 10.49?

    i want to see what this wind looks like

    Leave a comment:


  • Diego Sahagún
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    "Now that WRs are measured to 100ths instead of 10ths, doesn't it follow that anything over 0.2mps (0.45mph) should constitute illegal?"

    No, then almost all the races would be illegal

    Leave a comment:


  • basehead617
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    RMc:
    i think wind is the biggest potential factor of all you mentioned, especially at very high velocities, by far.. removing the limit altogether would be pretty nuts. would championships only be held in places that are notoriously windy, to bait more WRs? who knows. anyway, making it 3 m/sec or maybe 4 seems reasonable to me. A LOT of stuff gets thrown out with it being 2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >I don't know the wind reading on
    >Thompson's 9.69A



    +5.7m/s

    Leave a comment:


  • RMc
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >Now that WRs are measured to 100ths instead of 10ths, doesn't
    >it follow that anything over 0.2mps (0.45mph) should constitute illegal?

    OK, guys, don't you know when Garry is trying to bait you into a much blown out discussion? ;^) (And don't you have enough to do at this time of year, Garry??? :^) ).

    Of, he wrote an editorial a few years back advocating an increase in the the limit to something like 5 mps. I can't remember if this discussion was in the editorial or in the preceding one on darkwing about whether the the limit logically should be adjusted downward given the change in timing methods since 1936 when the limit was first established.

    I had advocated for lifting the limit entirely because you don't see other sports declaring that one-third of their performances are not eligible for record consideration (there had been some statistic to this effect in TFN.) At the time Ken Griffey was chasing the home run record in the tiny Kingdome. Garry's argument convinced me that the 5 mps limit was sufficient and would allow 95% of the performances to stand for record consideration.

    Since we can't possibly control for all factors, e.g., temp, humidity, altitude, crowd participation, the starter, etc, it seems pretty ridiculous to overemphasize controlling one single aspect of the equation. It seems to me that you either have to move to much stricter standards on ALL of the other factors (e.g., only 70-80 degress with 40to 60% humidity, all below 500m, mechanical starter only, only in stadiums holding at least 30,000, etc.), or accept the world as it is, and relax the standard to a level that captures all but the outlier conditions (and 95% statistically is a heuristic "boundary" for outliers.)

    Note that most of the records would change little, if at all (I don't know the wind reading on Thompson's 9.69A), and FloJo's 10.49 would be much less controversial, as the winds were in the 5 mps range that day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >wow, i never knew about this..

    possible juicing, 5m/sec wind.. 10.49 starts
    >to look more like 10.80 or so =)



    There was some sort of scientific study into that race, where they tried to predict what the wind was during that race (using video tape analysis, weather reports, individual athlete analysis, etc...), and they reckon that the wind was at least 5.0m/s, which would make the 10.49 worth 10.70 at the fastest. This would make more sense, as Flo Jo always used to save her best until the final. The "real" world record should be 10.61 (from the Indy final).

    Difficult to say how much faster the juice made her! But that can be said of a load of athletes from the women's all-time sprint lists.

    Leave a comment:


  • basehead617
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    wow, i never knew about this..

    possible juicing, 5m/sec wind.. 10.49 starts to look more like 10.80 or so =)

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: What Constitutes An Illegal Wind?

    >Speaking of "The 10.49". Did any of the other women run anywhere in the
    >neighborhood of 10.80 that day with the obviously illegal winds of the day? I
    >don't recall. How about the men? Any great wind-aided times?

    In FloJo's 10.49 race, Diane Williams was 2nd in 10.86 (another big PB... her previous best was 10.94A), and Gail Devers was 3rd in 10.97.

    Sheila Echols ran in the quarter-final after FloJo's (wind was still 0.0, of course...) and she ran 10.83! Her next fastest was 10.99 (which she ran the day after in the semi final). Alice Brown was 2nd in that race with 10.92 (yep, you guessed it... a PB. Her previous best was 11.01).

    As for the men, their final was held on the same day as the women's quarter-final (the 10.49 day). However, the wind gage actually worked for that race, and it read +5.2. Seven men went under 10s in that race. The result was:

    1. Carl Lewis - 9.78
    2. Dennis Mitchell - 9.86
    3. Calvin Smith - 9.87
    4. Albert Robinson - 9.88
    5. Joe DeLoach - 9.90
    6. Mike Marsh - 9.94
    7. Emmit King - 9.98
    8. Lee McNeil - 10.08

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X