Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hammer Record Improvements

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cottonshirt
    Originally posted by mikli
    Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959
    These are interesting numbers, thank you. They obviously paint a similar picture, with the improvements coming in an era before drugs. How does the top-20 break down geographically during that era; is it eastern Europeans all the way through as suggested by the previous table, or is it a mix of nationalities. In other words, does depth tell the same picture as the table does for the top?
    National distribution of top20 in men's hammer, 1950-1959:

    1950:
    4 URS
    3 FRG
    3 USA
    2 GBR
    2 HUN
    2 TCH
    1 ITA
    1 NOR
    1 ROM
    1 YUG

    1951:
    4 HUN
    4 USA
    3 URS
    2 FRG
    2 GBR
    2 YUG
    1 ITA
    1 NOR
    1 TCH

    1952:
    6 URS
    3 TCH
    2 FRG
    2 HUN
    2 ITA
    2 USA
    2 YUG
    1 NOR

    1953:
    8 URS
    3 TCH
    2 HUN
    2 ITA
    1 FRG
    1 NOR
    1 ROM
    1 USA
    1 YUG

    1954:
    7 URS
    4 TCH
    2 USA
    1 FRG
    1 HUN
    1 ITA
    1 NOR
    1 PAK
    1 POL
    1 YUG

    1955:
    11 URS
    2 TCH
    2 YUG
    1 FRG
    1 HUN
    1 NOR
    1 POL
    1 USA

    1956:
    9 URS
    3 USA
    3 YUG
    2 POL
    1 HUN
    1 NOR
    1 TCH

    1957:
    7 URS
    2 HUN
    2 POL
    2 USA
    2 YUG
    1 FRA
    1 GBR
    1 NOR
    1 ROM
    1 TCH

    1958:
    11 URS
    2 POL
    2 USA
    2 YUG
    1 HUN
    1 IRL
    1 SWE

    1959:
    9 URS
    2 POL
    1 AUT
    1 FRA
    1 GBR
    1 HUN
    1 IRL
    1 NOR
    1 SWE
    1 USA
    1 YUG

    So, the rise of Soviet Union was a significant contributor.

    Comment


    • #17
      Again in terms of top20 averages, 1950s was the decade of fastest improvement also in shot put. The average improved from 16.54 in 1950 to 18.19 in 1959.

      In discus, however, it was 1960s, averages improving from 57.09 in 1960 to 62.77 in 1969 (62.78 in 1968). For comparison, it was 51.52 in 1950 and 56.29 in 1959.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dj
        Originally posted by gh
        Originally posted by mikli
        Not looking at WRs but overall level, the decade of the fastest development in the history of hammer throw was 1950s. Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959 (1958 was even slightly better, 64.94).
        Undoubtedly (as in the shot and discus) coinciding with use of concrete circles and the techniques they permitted.

        Finally!

        Concrete circles allowed people who lived in varying weather conditions (i.e, outside of California) a chance to use the same technique virtually all the time. And with a smooth, solid surface comes the overall switch from two turns to three turns with the hammer, the reverse in the discus, and the glide in the shot.

        Before that, when throwing off dirt or clay circles, one had to choose whether to wear flats or spikes depending on the weather. Flats allow a smooth foot movement, spikes require hops.

        P.S. Melbourne '56 was the first Olympics to use concrete circles.
        well, we can use similar conversion from dirt tracks to synthetic in running

        a concrete circle is much harder than even a synthetic track, but using same ballpark conversion of 1s/400m improvement between 2 ( lets use 45s for 400 ):

        then improvement is ~ 1/45 in speed in the circle & also on planting foot, you are doing so on a more energy efficent return surface adding something like another (1/45)^1/2 improvement in projectile speed

        so, advantage in ballpark of ( 1 1/45)^3/2

        so, looking at quoted stats

        Originally posted by mikli
        Not looking at WRs but overall level, the decade of the fastest development in the history of hammer throw was 1950s. Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959 (1958 was even slightly better, 64.94).
        there was a 9m improvement - you can account for ~ 2m of this with change to concrete circle ( assuming same number of turns, but using 3 turns instead of 2, or a different technique like the glide will account for a lot more than 2m - maybe 1/2 of the 9m )

        Comment


        • #19
          Improvements in top20 averages in hammer by decade (in meters):
          1900-1910 3.83
          1910-1920 -0.33
          1920-1930 2.87
          1930-1940 4.62
          1940-1950 1.51
          1950-1960 10.10
          1960-1970 4.85
          1970-1980 7.72
          1980-1990 2.20
          1990-2000 0.38
          2000-2007 -1.07

          Comment


          • #20
            The same by Olympiad:
            1896 - 1900 3.76
            1900 - 1904 1.82
            1904 - 1908 1.74
            1908 - 1912 2.84
            1912 - 1920 -2.90
            1920 - 1924 1.93
            1924 - 1928 0.80
            1928 - 1932 1.14
            1932 - 1936 2.55
            1936 - 1948 1.84
            1948 - 1952 2.91
            1952 - 1956 5.02
            1956 - 1960 2.90
            1960 - 1964 1.86
            1964 - 1968 2.27
            1968 - 1972 3.17
            1972 - 1976 3.00
            1976 - 1980 2.27
            1980 - 1984 2.46
            1984 - 1988 1.21
            1988 - 1992 -1.25
            1992 - 1996 -1.28
            1996 - 2000 1.44
            2000 - 2004 0.03

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cottonshirt
              Originally posted by cullman
              I believe the so-called drug free era ends about 1953-4.
              I consider two things. 1) Most of (and perhaps all) the PED's had not even been synthesised then. 2) Knowledge of the effects of drugs on athletic performance was at such a pathetic level that there was not even agreement on whether smoking was bad for you or not, and wouldn't be for another twenty years. I put these two together and see them as a counter to your claim. I would put the period when PED's started to become available to the likes of T&F athletes as the late 60's. You would have to come up with some pretty conclusive evidence to convince me that anyone at Mexico was on drugs.

              (I'm gonna take my rose-coloured spectacles off for the rest of this post)
              Rose-coloured specs...no problem. The early to mid-1950s up to 1972 is a fascinating period of sport to delve into. ..isn't? 8-)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cottonshirt
                What I think you are saying is that, since SD for the hammer is
                greater there will be more men in the "zone" in the hammer than in the
                other three events. And, that one of this greater number of men can
                have an outlier any day that becomes the new World Record.
                That would be a large part of it. Another part is that a greater
                tendency to outliers can make the WR development less smooth, with
                some individual records have a larger distance to the ``ideal'' WR
                progression than with less outliers. To illustrate with the
                outlier-of-outliers:

                The long jump WR rose by 77cm in the sixties, 0cm in the seventies and
                eighties, 5cm in the nineties, and 0cm past 2000. This clearly does
                not reflect the ``true'' progression. Remove 8.90 and we instead have
                22cm, 17cm, 27cm, 16cm, 0cm. Obviously, with more and greater outliers
                a comparison of WRs has a reduced value.

                (Note: I used values from
                http://www.athletix.org/Statistics/wrLJmen.html
                for the above. Non-altitude, non-WRs are not given there, which means
                that e.g. Emmiyan's 8.86 has not been taken into consideration.)

                Originally posted by Cottonshirt
                And, since there are more of them this is more likely to happen in the
                hammer than in the other events.
                Not necessarily, because (as with the long jump under Beamon and,
                earlier, Owens) a sufficiently large outlier by a sufficiently great
                athlete can put the record out of reach for lesser outliers by lesser
                athletes. However, at a time where the WR is close to (or even below)
                its natural progression there is a larger chance for ``nobodies'' to
                take the record. Consider e.g. Boden's javelin WR in 1990, or (with a
                strong athlete vs. a giant and his WR) Tichon's near WR miss a few
                years back.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by eldrick
                  ... using same ballpark conversion of 1s/400m improvement ... then improvement is ~ 1/45 in speed in the circle
                  It would be difficult to find a more ridiculous example of pseudo-mathematics.

                  You start by assuming that the speed improvement gained by the change over to concrete circles is 1s/400m.

                  You then assume an initial time of 45s for 400m, and you incorporate this second assumption into a Mickey Mouse cartoon calculation that you have not shown but which somehow magically results in a speed improvement of 1/45. (no units ?)

                  If you really want to calculate it then you should proceed along lines something like this:

                  Formula for speed.............Speed = Distance / Time

                  Initial Time per 400m.................45s

                  Therefore, initial speed...............400/45 = (80/9)m/s


                  After improving by 1s per 400m

                  Time per 400m..........................44s

                  New improved speed.....................400/44 = (100/11)m/s

                  Improvement is difference between the two

                  so we have............................(100/11) - (80/9) = (20/99)m/s

                  Which is approximately nine times more than your (guess) figure.

                  Not that it means anything, because you just pulled your 1s/400m out of thin air anyway, and that time of 45s per 400m has about as much to do with hammer throwing as I do with the Large Hadron Collider.

                  You know the real funny part... having gone to all the trouble of convincing absolutely no one that you know what you're talking about, you didn't even use this nonsensical figure in anything. The big denouement to your post was the improvement in the 1950's was 9m, and you got that from mikli's figures by simply subtracting 55.92 from 64.77 = 8.85. A ten year-old child could have done that; in fact my ten year-old niece did do it!

                  So what exactly was all this magical hand-waving pseudo-BS-mathematics for?


                  Martin
                  the baton is meant to be passed on

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cottonshirt
                    It would be difficult to find a more ridiculous example of pseudo-mathematics.
                    I disagree. Eldrick's recent post estimating Henry Rono's potential at distances he competed in based on made-up PBs in events he never contested was more ridiculous than this.
                    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by imaginative
                      Let us say that, in the language of statistics, the hammer-throw has a larger standard deviation than the shot-put (in my impression so far; have not crunched the numbers, though).
                      Well now I have crunched the numbers and they don't really tell the story you assumed they would.

                      I took the top 90 throwers all-time in each event, SP, HT, and DT (I didn't do the JT because they have changed the model twice and it got too complicated to allow for the differences).

                      Using what I consider to be the standard approach to calculating SD (using n rather than n-1 as my divisor) I got the following numbers. The columns are, from the left, event, standard deviation, number of men within 1-SD of the mean.
                      1. SP 0.50m.....65 [/*:m:1tf3xt7f]
                      2. DT 1.63m.....65[/*:m:1tf3xt7f]
                      3. HT 1.17m.....64[/*:m:1tf3xt7f]


                      So, not only does HT not have a larger standard deviation than the other throws, but the event with the largest standard deviation does not have more men in that interval than the others.

                      Notice how distances in the shot are approx. 1/4 of those in the other throws but SD is approx. 1/3. What this tells us is that (for those men in the top 90 in the world) you don't have to be that much better than average in the shot to be considered really good, but you have to work damn hard at the hammer and discus to achieve the same. This supports an earlier comment (from Powell I seem to recall) that the hammer is highly technical and depends on a lot of coaching know-how.

                      I'm glad you suggested this, it's told me a lot more about the throws than I thought it would.


                      Martin
                      the baton is meant to be passed on

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cottonshirt

                        So what exactly was all this magical hand-waving pseudo-BS-mathematics for?

                        I too strongly doubt whether Eldrick's calculation above is helpful;
                        however:

                        There are common, semi-accepted approximate deltas for converting
                        non-synthetic to synthetic. The 1s is unlikely to have been made up
                        for this thread.

                        The speed improvement is roughly 1/45 (of the original speed). You
                        calculate the absolute, not the relative, speed difference.

                        The 1/45 is then used to calculate a (1 1/45)^3/2 ~ 1.034 conversion
                        factor.

                        This is applied to the previous 55.92m to yield roughly two meters
                        more---which, under the many assumptions made, would be a correct
                        calculation of the ``surface part'' of the 9m over-all improvement.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cottonshirt
                          Originally posted by imaginative
                          Let us say that, in the
                          language of statistics, the hammer-throw has a larger standard
                          deviation than the shot-put (in my impression so far; have not
                          crunched the numbers, though).
                          Well now I have crunched the numbers and they don't really tell the
                          story you assumed they would.
                          Thank you for taking the trouble. It is always nice to get numbers on
                          things. In particular, I suspect that I might have been fooled by the
                          absolute size of the numbers. Even knowing that the hammer usually
                          goes four times the distance of the shot, it is easy to view 2 "hammer
                          meters" as a greater improvement than 0.5 "shot meters".

                          I took the top 90 throwers all-time in each event, SP, HT, and DT (I
                          didn't do the JT because they have changed the model twice and it got
                          too complicated to allow for the differences).
                          It might (and I am not sure about this) be better to look at each
                          individual. If you look at the PB of the top-90 (which is my
                          impression) this will likely yield a misleading SD because the PBs
                          will all be above-to-noticeably-above the expectation value.

                          (I do not think that this would have a large effect on the
                          conclusions, however.)

                          Using what I consider to be the standard approach to calculating SD
                          (using n rather than n-1 as my divisor) I got the following numbers.
                          The columns are, from the left, event, standard deviation, number of
                          men within 1-SD of the mean.
                          1. SP 0.50m.....65[/*:m:2yyomk6b]
                          2. DT 1.63m.....65[/*:m:2yyomk6b]
                          3. HT 1.17m.....64[/*:m:2yyomk6b]


                          So, not only does HT not have a larger standard deviation than the
                          other throws, but the event with the largest standard deviation does
                          not have more men in that interval than the others.
                          The constant number of athletes was to be expected (based on how the
                          standard deviation works), and is an extra validation that the
                          calculations are good.


                          Notice how distances in the shot are approx. 1/4 of those in the other
                          throws but SD is approx. 1/3. What this tells us is that (for those
                          men in the top 90 in the world) you don't have to be that much better
                          than average in the shot to be considered really good, but you have to
                          work damn hard at the hammer and discus to achieve the same. This
                          supports an earlier comment (from Powell I seem to recall) that the
                          hammer is highly technical and depends on a lot of coaching know-how.
                          Ironically, one of the reasons why I expected the hammer to be prone
                          to outliers---the more technical an event, the harder it is to hit the
                          perfect throw/jump/whatnot, and the greater the reward when one does.
                          On second thought, this is only partially true, and the SD would
                          indeed likely shrink with a greater technical component.

                          I'm glad you suggested this, it's told me a lot more about the throws
                          than I thought it would.
                          I, in turn, am glad you went through the effort---for the very same
                          reason.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            thank you imagy

                            & while you're at it, you can tell this idiot he needs to divide the standard deviations he's got by the mean of the population in order to get viable comparisons

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Powell
                              I disagree. Eldrick's recent post estimating Henry Rono's potential at distances he competed in based on made-up PBs in events he never contested was more ridiculous than this.
                              coming from a guy who was barely out of diapers when rono was running in his pomp, i'll stick to my findings, based also on 1st hand observation - i had the good fortune to see his race against ovett in london & had him sign my programme

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by eldrick
                                thank you imagy, & while you're at it, you can tell this idiot he needs to divide the standard deviations he's got by the mean of the population in order to get viable comparisons
                                Where x is any value in the batch, and x is the mean of those values, and where n is the number of values in the batch. And, where for the sake of demonstration we shall call E the Sigma notation symbol. Then standard deviation is calculated as...


                                ..........((E(x-x)^1/2)/n)^1/2

                                In some cases it is appropriate to use n-1 rather than n. There is no need to divide by the "mean of the population" which is in any event a meaningless term for a non-existent value.

                                Please put the chalk down and let the grown ups play with the black board.


                                Martin
                                the baton is meant to be passed on

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X