Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

[Guest]

Davidson Ezinwa was credited with 9.91 into a 2.3ms/s headwind in Azusa, CA, on April 11th 1992. Jeff Williams was second in 10.20.

Clearly this is not an accurate wind-reading, or at least not on its face. Ezinwa ran 9.96 (-0.6) one week later (Marsh 1st 9.93) and there is no doubt that the 9.91 is a legit time, if not the wind reading.

At the moment this sits in limbo in my lists and that bugs me. Was there not anyone there able to tell which way the wind was blowing? Was there a headwind or a tailwind? Was the wind swirling? Can we make a qualitative judgement as to the legality or not of this important performance?

Many thanks for any help anyone is able to offer.

[The King]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

>
Davidson Ezinwa was credited with 9.91 into a
>2.3ms/s headwind in Azusa, CA, on April 11th
>1992. Jeff Williams was second in
>10.20.

Clearly this is not an accurate
>wind-reading, or at least not on its face. Ezinwa
>ran 9.96 (-0.6) one week later (Marsh 1st 9.93)
>and there is no doubt that the 9.91 is a legit
>time, if not the wind reading.

At the moment
>this sits in limbo in my lists and that bugs me.
>Was there not anyone there able to tell which way
>the wind was blowing? Was there a headwind or a
>tailwind? Was the wind swirling? Can we make a
>qualitative judgement as to the legality or not
>of this important performance?

Many thanks for
>any help anyone is able to offer.

It has been regarded as a doubtful wind-reading.
And a minus sign before the wind-reading always symbolises the fact that it's a headwind.
If there is a '+' symbol in front of the wind-reading the wind is following and if there is a
'>' symbol in front of the wind-reading this symbolises the fact that the wind was a crosswind.
Like with Leroy Burrell's 19.61w (>4.0m/s) at College Station in 1991.

[dj]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

"if there is a
'>' symbol in front of the wind-reading this symbolises the fact that the wind was a crosswind.
Like with Leroy Burrell's 19.61w (>4.0m/s) at College Station in 1991."

Whaaaa???? Ridiculous.

The ">" means "greater than." Some anemometers would not give a reading beyond a certain limit, as in this case. Leroy Burrell's wind was UNKNOWN BUT GREATER THAN 4.0 mps.

As for the Ezinwa mark, my suspicion has always been that the gauge was facing the wrong direction, and that this was more likely a +2.3. I'm not aware of any proof one way or another - literally - but the likelihood of a 9.91 with a -2.3 is minuscule.

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

>As for the Ezinwa mark,
>my suspicion has always been that the gauge was
>facing the wrong direction, and that this was
>more likely a +2.3. I'm not aware of any proof
>one way or another - literally - but the
>likelihood of a 9.91 with a -2.3 is minuscule.

Thanks, that's what I always assumed too. 9.91w with a 2.3 wind is perfectly reasonable for a guy who ran 9.96 (-0.6) a week later. Hence the question - surely witnesses can say whether the wind was in the faces of the athletes or not? Anyone from T&FN?

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

>It has been regarded as a doubtful
>wind-reading.And a minus sign before the
>wind-reading always symbolises the fact that it's
>a headwind. If there is a '+' symbol in front of
>the wind-reading the wind is following and if
>there is a '>' symbol in front of the
>wind-reading this symbolises the fact that the
>wind was a crosswind. Like with Leroy Burrell's
>19.61w (>4.0m/s) at College Station in 1991.

Thanks for replying, but I am very well aware of how wind readings work. That's why I'm asking the question - -2.3 is clearly not an accurate reading and can be disregarded, but it should be possible to classify the performance as wind asstisted or not from eye-witness testimony.

And the > just means, as pointed out, that the wind meter reached its maximum. Wind readings are taken in a 200m the exact same way as in a 100m - a single reading from a meter on the inside of the home straight. Whether this accuratlely reflects the wind assistance in a 200m race is a moot point of course.

[The King]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

>"if there is a
'>' symbol in front of the
>wind-reading this symbolises the fact that the
>wind was a crosswind.
Like with Leroy Burrell's
>19.61w (>4.0m/s) at College Station in
>1991."

Whaaaa???? Ridiculous.

The ">"
>means "greater than." Some anemometers would
>not give a reading beyond a certain limit, as in
>this case. Leroy Burrell's wind was UNKNOWN BUT
>GREATER THAN 4.0 mps.

As for the Ezinwa mark,
>my suspicion has always been that the gauge was
>facing the wrong direction, and that this was
>more likely a +2.3. I'm not aware of any proof
>one way or another - literally - but the
>likelihood of a 9.91 with a -2.3 is minuscule.

Oh ok. Thanks for pointing that out.
I knew that was a greater than sign, but for some reason I thought it also symbolized cross-wind.
Sorry for confusion

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

Actually, the wind-reading is perfectly legitimate, as anyone whose ever trained, competed, or worked a wind-gauge at Azusa Pacific's stadium could testify. It not at all uncommon to have swirling wind at the track, which sits just south of the San Gabriel Valley foothills, east of Los Angeles. On many occasions while working the wind-gauge for 100m races at APU I've witnessed a wind-reading of +2.0 mps on one race, followed by a negative wind-reading on the following race. The suggestion that the wind-gauge was facing in the wrong direction is rediculous, since that would mean that all of the other wind-readings were wrong, and would have also had to have been negative as well. This is, of course, not the case. Davidson was an incredible sprinter at the time, backing up his collegiate record runs with many outstanding sub-10 times in 1992. The whole controversy about his time seems to just be another example of the track community's predjudice against NAIA schools, not wanting to believe that such a great performer could come out of a non-NCAA school.

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

I was an assistant coach at the time at Azusa, and now currently the Head Men's Coach at Azusa Pacific and was at the meet.
While we were happy that Davidson confirmed the time the following week at MtSAC, the issue with the wind read was indeed unique. We do have video of the race, and unique to our stadium we sometimes get a swirling wind. On the video the first 50m of the race the flags show a tail wind, and the last 50m of the race, the stadium flags show a head wind. Is this not why we put the wind guage in the center of the track to get an average.....The wind guage was manned by one of the most respected officials in Southern California.
Hopefully this solves some confusion and adds some legitimacy to the mark.

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

For what it's worth I was at that meet too. When they announced the time and wind reading I simply didn't believe it. I wandered down to the start and there was definately a significant tail wind (as kevin said). A year or two later Mike Marsh also ran by far his best time of the year (can't remember the time or year plus it may have been a year or two before!), since then I've basically disregarded any sprint times at Mt. Sac.

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

The existance of swirling winds within a stadium is nothing unique or new. The IUPUI facility in Indy, Welcome Stadium (Dayton, OH), and the former Jesse Owens track in the "Shoe" at Ohio State all had swirling winds. It was and is quite common for winds to be rather strong at the start of a race, then 50m down the track (where the wind guage is located) to be rather still. This is where the entire science of "wind assistance" is completely out-of-whack. As a mechanical engineer with some knowledge of basic fluid mechanics (yes, air is a fluid), I can categorically state the ability of mankind to determine just HOW MUCH an athlete receives in assistance from the wind is AN INEXACT methodology! There is no practical way in which to measure such assistance! Current methodologies are an ATTEMPT to compare effects upon between 0 wind and wind-aided aerodynamic effects upon similarly-shaped bodies. I always find it amusing to read comments from track fans about an athlete whose performance was no good because it was "wind-aided", even though the average wind was measured at +2.1 mps, where as an athlete whose performance had a +2.0 mps prevailing wind was "legal". I know that +2.0 is defined as the limit. This is mere conjecture on the part of the authorities as to what actually constitutes "wind-assistance". The whole "wind-aided/non-wind-aided thing has been presented to Joe-Q-Fan (and that covers most of you track fans out there as well, given the unknowledgeable comments I've seen on this board) as being somehow an exact science. BS!

Oh well, I have better things to do than to continue on this rant.

Kurt

[Pierre-Jean]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

One thing is sure, -2.3 doesn't give an idea of what kind of wind there was during the race. Nobody contests the fact that Ezinwa ran 9.91, the problem is that wind measurments and methodology are very inacurate. With a wind blowing even during all the race at -2.3, impossible for Ezinwa (or anybody i think) to run 9.91.

[Guest]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

I don't know if this has any bearing but at APU they run the 100m west to east in their stadium. the wind during the spring months usually comes in from the west/north west and sometimes shifts to east/north east. It is possible that when the wind reading was taken the wind had shifted.

[RMc]

Re: Davidson Ezinwa, 9.91 (-2.3) Azusa '92

>I always
>find it amusing to read comments from track fans about an athlete whose
>performance was no good because it was "wind-aided", even though the average
>wind was measured at +2.1 mps, where as an athlete whose performance had a
>+2.0 mps prevailing wind was "legal". I know that +2.0 is defined as the
>limit. This is mere conjecture on the part of the authorities as to what
>actually constitutes "wind-assistance".

Which is why I've advocated raising the wind-limit to a much higher level. (Garry Hill agreed and suggested 5 mps in a TFN editorial a few years ago.) What other sport says that 34% of all performances are NOT eligible for record consideration? The current standard is crazy for that reason. 5 mps would cover about 90-95% of all performances, and the records would NOT be astronomical. Just look at the best wind-aided marks and they are not that much better than "legal" marks.