"PR" for Gatlin in Monaco

[gh]

adjusted for wind/altitude, the all-time men's 100 list

Adj. Clock Wind Name Site Date Pos. Meet

9.63 9.58 +0.9 Usain Bolt Berlin 16-Aug-2009 1 WCh WR

9.69 9.69 0.0 -----Bolt Beijing 16-Aug-2008 1 OG WR

9.70 9.77 -1.3 -----Bolt Brussels 5-Sep-2008 1 VD

9.70 9.63 +1.5 -----Bolt London 5-Aug-2012 1 OG

9.70 9.69 -0.1 Yohan Blake Lausanne 23-Aug-2012 1 Athl

9.75 9.72 +0.2 Asafa Powell Lausanne 3-Sep-2008 1rA Athl

9.75 9.76 -0.1 -----Bolt Rome 31-May-2012 1 GGala

9.76 9.83 -1.3 -----Powell Brussels 5-Sep-2008 2 VD

9.76 9.71 +0.9 Tyson Gay Berlin 16-Aug-2009 2 WCh AR

9.76 9.78 -0.4 -----Gay London 13-Aug-2010 1 LGP

9.76 9.77 -0.3 -----Bolt Moscow 11-Aug-2013 1 WCh

9.76 9.78 -0.3 Justin Gatlin Monaco 17-Jul-2015 1 Herc

[bobguild76]

Great list. Thank you.

How does Yohan Blake's 9.69, into a -0.1, convert into a slower time (9.70)? Or was it with a +0.1 wind?

[booond]

Great list. Thank you.

How does Yohan Blake's 9.69, into a -0.1, convert into a slower time (9.70)? Or was it with a +0.1 wind?

Altitude is my guess.

[bobguild76]

Altitude is my guess.

Good point. Thank you.

[JRM]

Altitude is my guess.

Correct. The wind slows the time, but the thinner air cranks it the other way.

Shameless plug, for those who are interested (and also for those who are not):

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/

A bunch of different calculators that account for wind, altitude, humidity, etc... The basic 100m one is here:

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html

[Dickson]

I have a question....

If talking wind shouldn't mass be taken into consideration? Wind effects 135 pound female sprinters/light males the same way it does Usain Bolt?

And wouldn't the track surface be factored in?

My thing is if we need to get this precise don't we need to really get precise?

[gh]

There are indeed different tables for men and women

[Dickson]

There are indeed different tables for men and women

So a 150 pound woman and a 140 pound Cliff Wiley...???

[Dave]

So a 150 pound woman and a 140 pound Cliff Wiley...???

Which is why the tables are mildly interesting for those of us who pay attention to them. Otherwise, the official numbers are only ibased on wind of 2.0 m/s or less.

[Dickson]

Which is why the tables are mildly interesting for those of us who pay attention to them. Otherwise, the official numbers are only ibased on wind of 2.0 m/s or less.

I get that.

My thing is to totally ignore mass/track surface/temp while just concentrating on a wind reading.....hmmm?

The track record is 9.82, cat runs a 9.83 + 1.5, he weighs 170pounds.
The track record in 9.72, cat runs a 9.83 + 1.5 he weighs 140 pounds.

Now if we need to worry about that +1,5 why not worry about track surface and mass? To ignore all the factors involved......why?

[dustoff]

The easiest argument to all of this is this:

FloJo 10.49 +0.0

I certainly never understood the idea that people this these conversions are even close to reality, particularly when there is no measurement taken of the direction of the wind, air pressure, track surface, temperature, or anything else. It assumes that all of these factors are identical in every race and applying them to every situation as-if they are identical. It makes no sense.

Look at Brussels 2008. Bolt ran a fantastic 9.77 into a -1.3 that, according to the calculator, is essentially the same as his Beijing performance. But then we look closer and can see that Asafa ran his 'adjusted' personal best in this race.... and so did Nesta Carter (up until that point in his career)... and even Michael Frater ran his second fastest 'adjusted' time. It is generally unlikely that 4 athletes all run their personal best in the same race, particular in a race that isn't a championship (well after, in fact) and in suboptimal conditions.

[gh]

Your Flojo example is a red herring. All other empirical evidence suggests a reading of about 5.0 and a malfunctioning wind gauge. Which is why you don't find that mark on T&FN's all-time lists. It's a fraud.

[JRM]

I certainly never understood the idea that people this these conversions are even close to reality, particularly when there is no measurement taken of the direction of the wind, air pressure, track surface, temperature, or anything else. It assumes that all of these factors are identical in every race and applying them to every situation as-if they are identical. It makes no sense.

Because some of those factors matter much more than others. Wind has the most effect, altitude second, the others a distance third/fourth (i.e. a matter of 0.01s at most for a wide range of temperatures and pressures). Also, the wind direction doesn't matter for the 100m. It's just the wind in the direction of motion that makes a difference.

Look at Brussels 2008. Bolt ran a fantastic 9.77 into a -1.3 that, according to the calculator, is essentially the same as his Beijing performance. But then we look closer and can see that Asafa ran his 'adjusted' personal best in this race.... and so did Nesta Carter (up until that point in his career)... and even Michael Frater ran his second fastest 'adjusted' time.

So, maybe Bolt just didn't try as hard. Ockham's razor.

[dustoff]

Your Flojo example is a red herring. All other empirical evidence suggests a reading of about 5.0 and a malfunctioning wind gauge. Which is why you don't find that mark on T&FN's all-time lists. It's a fraud.

What about the Eugene Men's 100m quarter final? Is that a red herring as well? 10 personal bests (including American Record and AJR), most of which were never improved upon. Rodney Martin's fastest race after that was a 10.19 in Rieti of all places and never went sub 10.2 again; he went 9.95. I could bring up a number of others, but there is no need to drag them all through this.

On the converse, the calculator does a piss poor job of account for very detrimental weather. Example, Bolt 19.57 +1.4 in Lausanne.

[dustoff]

Because some of those factors matter much more than others. Wind has the most effect, altitude second, the others a distance third/fourth (i.e. a matter of 0.01s at most for a wide range of temperatures and pressures). Also, the wind direction doesn't matter for the 100m. It's just the wind in the direction of motion that makes a difference.



So, maybe Bolt just didn't try as hard. Ockham's razor.

How can you possibly claim the vector of wind doesn't matter? This tells me you have never even competed in the sport. Are you claiming there is no difference in performance with 0 wind in any vector (ie Beijing 2008) versus an extremely stiff, perfectly perpendicular wind?

How can you even claim that these other factors don't matter? You cannot even quantify all of them. For example, you cannot quantify the benefit of a track. You don't have information on the wind direction at the track because that is significantly obscured by the stadium itself and surroundings. Your calculator doesn't even factor in local humidity (see Lausanne).

I could buy into Bolt 'trying' more if 3 other people didn't run 'adjusted' personal bests in the exact same race.