Nice Try, IAAF

[tafnut]

The homepage here has a link to an IAAF article that I find comical. To begin with, the Oly Champion is apparently of French (or is it Monacoian?!) origin, because his name is now Warnier (pronounced Wah-nee-ay, with a distinct sneer accenting the second syllable), and the idea that a 43.6r is somehow 'faster' than a 44.00 from the blocks is definitely stretching the truth. But publicity is publicity, so we'll let it go this time. Here is an excerpt:

"The fastest Olympic one lap
Wednesday 24 November 2004
Who ran the fastest 400m at the Olympics? Not the new champion Jeremy Warnier, or the individual silver medallist Otis Harris. It was a third American, Derrick Brew who finished behind those two in the 400m final.

When it came to the 4x400m Relay, Brew's 43.6 gave his team a huge lead . . ."

edit: didn't want to give too much of the article away; it's so spell-binding.

[Daisy]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

>The homepage here has a link to an IAAF article that I find comical.

Dumb would be a better word. Do you think the writer knows about track, or are the IAAF just hiring anyone to write?

[79.]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

Dumb?...
Instead of dumbly criticizing this article,
show us what you know about Track, " Miss Daisy"...

[Daisy]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

> show us what you know about Track,

So tell me how you accurately time a second leg. Do you time the baton or the person? How do you account for the rolling start compared with a start from the gun? Electronic or hand? You tell me why this article is so great. Did you write it?

> " Miss Daisy"...

Why did I even bother answering your question? That would make me dumb.

[26mi235]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

I concur. The time for some 400 m interval was shorter for that relay leg than for JW's, but I would bet that if you measure from the 5 meter mark to a point 5 meter after the finish that JW had a better time, and it might take less than 5 meters, as the reaction time alone closes a third of the gap and the first 5 meters takes a long time.

[HurdlinDub]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

While I agree the article is pretty pointless, and clearly Wariner's 44.00 from blocks would be superior if you give him the flying start, technically Brew did run the fastest "continuous" 400m of the Olympics. Daisy, despite the lack of a hundredth in the first two legs' splits, they are not hand timed - they are approximated. But make no mistake the people who produce these splits know what they are doing and the splits are generally very accurate.

However if you want to be really pernickety you might try and argue that Shawn Crawford ran the fastest 400m of the Olympics.

[HurdlinDub]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

"So tell me how you accurately time a second leg."

Easy enough, just time the baton from the middle of the 4x400m exchange zone (aka the 800m start line) to the start/finish line - calculated easily with good camera coverage and a program such as Dartfish.

[spy]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

It would appear to me that the comparisons being made in the article pertain only to relay splits.

[gh]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

I don't understand the disdain. It was a good bit of creative writing. And it worked, because it put the hook in you right away. And after you discovered they were revealign the "lost" relay splits you could simply have enjoyed it for what it was. I bet a lot more people read it than if it had led with "and here are the Athens relay splits....."

[slowcoach]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

Maybe it's because many here are of a statistical/mathematical bent, and hence dislike inaccuracy.

Will someone, with a handy program like Dartfish, please check Warnier's [sic] split from about 5m to 5m beyond the finish line (as someone proposed) in his 44.00 run?

Incidentally, what happened to the Nigerian's 41.7 split? (or whatever it was)

[gh]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

>Maybe it's because many here are of a statistical/mathematical bent, and hence
>dislike inaccuracy.>>

Since the author of the piece was one of the sport'smost respected statisticians, I wouldn't worry on that score.

[slowcoach]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

I must qualify my remark above: when I said inaccuracy I meant to refer to the claim in the title of the piece, and not the 43.6 timing itself.

As someone noted, Wariner's reaction was .27 (rounded) which makes his 'running time' 43.73 from blocks. He surely makes up more than the balance if you replace his first 5m with 5m after the finish line. If Brew's time can be recorded accurately enough from the 800m stagger to satisfy one of the world's top statisticians, then surely the same can be done in respect of Wariner's run.

[malmo]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

Daisy was right. That piece was dumb and dumberer. The only thing significant about the 4x400 was that they let Darold Williamson anchor it. What a nice touch.

[slowcoach]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

>The only thing significant
>about the 4x400 was...

... the largest winning margin in Global championship history. Darold Williamson anchoring wasn't significant at all: he and Wariner have always run the same order for Baylor, so why not for the USA. It would have been highly significant if they had changed their normal running order just for the Olympic final (not withstanding the fact that, traditionally, the champ runs the anchor. N.B. Steve Lewis ran the 2nd leg in Seoul, and Quincy Watts ran the 2nd leg in Barcelona, but they hadn't won their respective trials)

[Pierre-Jean]

Re: Nice Try, IAAF

400m relay split is not just substracting reaction time, the differencial between 400 and relay lap is about 0.7, from stats at OG 1972-2004.
And i would never laugh at anything written by Mark Butler, he does a very active work for our sport.