Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

One more time. You have cause and effect confused, just like my athlete did. There is a precise relationship between acceleration and the angle of the center of mass. Johnson became erect quickly because of his high rate of acceleration. He would have had the best time the sooner he became

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have cause and effect confused, just like my athlete did. Maybe, but I'm only quoting what you said... Again: he will have the best time the sooner he becomes erect. Sure sounds like you were saying the only thing affecting a good time is

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Dan, Wayne -- Are you guys trying to get this dialogue to publishable length? Or are you just working on a cure for insomnia? :-)

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote: That is, of course, assuming that the rapid rate of acceleration would not lead to an even more rapid rate of burnout late in the race. For many athletes, that probably would not be true. 100m sprinters don't burn out in the last 40m because they

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Keep up the good work guys, I know that the list is working. JL Robert Hersh wrote: Dan, Wayne -- Are you guys trying to get this dialogue to publishable length? Or are you just working on a cure for insomnia? :-)

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Robert Hersh wrote: Dan, Wayne -- Are you guys trying to get this dialogue to publishable length? Or are you just working on a cure for insomnia? :-) Actually, the sooner you get vertical after beginning to read the thread, the less likely that you'll fall asleep before reaching the end.

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

I wanted to reply to this post a long time ago, but was rather busy last week. Everyone is trying to get their track striped this time of year! The runner really can't nor does he want to extend length of his drive phase. The drive phase continues only as long as the runner continues to

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Another post that I wanted to comment on but didn't have the time. A common misconception is that a tail wind pushes a runner along. This of course is true only where the aiding wind is so great it is greater than the runners velocity with respect to the ground. Even with a tail wind a runner

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Wayne, Ignoring all the physics (which don't exactly appeal to me and don't really address the question of differing wind conditions), two related pieces stand out as begging comment: Since the runner will have the best time the earlier he reaches maximum speed, he will have the best time the

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Nah. We never compare distance results. Some postings to this list. Why didn't people that are all upset by the 100 analysis also come leaping to Ndereba's defence. Radcliffe was nine seconds slower. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Regards, Martin Her time of 2:18.56 was hailed as

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

I'll venture a guess... Different scenarios. The marathon example is more like deciding what a legal wind assistance cutoff should be -- is the pacing by men outside the rules? No attempt is being made (that I can see) to convert an assisted time to an unassisted one or vice versa, just to

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

But using the arguments already made about conditions impacting people in different ways, some people are better front runners and run better without the company. An attempt is being made here to determine which performance is superior using just one criteria. Regards, Martin Dan Kaplan wrote:

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But using the arguments already made about conditions impacting people in different ways, some people are better front runners and run better without the company. An attempt is being made here to determine which performance is superior using just

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Gerald Woodward wrote: As stated in earlier emails, different athletes perform differently under different conditions. Some athletes are able to take advantage of tailwinds, ... Wind effects are not something you can train to overcome, and are not something that a

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Richard McCann wrote: Four other key factors that have an influence outside of the athletes control: 1) rounds (have a nonlinear effect) 2) humidity (combined with temperature, also changes atmospheric density) 3) crowd presence and participation (can energize an

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wind effects are not something you can train to overcome, and are not something that a proper warmup will help you to avoid. I don't have to go out and determine how each athlete will react differently to them, because I know that they will each

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

A common misassumption made by people who do not understand the physics behind the effects of wind (and altitude, for that matter) on sprint times is that wind significantly effects the drive and acceleration phases. During these phases the force of air resistance is very small compared to the

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A common misassumption made by people who do not understand the physics behind the effects of wind (and altitude, for that matter) on sprint times is that wind significantly effects the drive and acceleration phases. I think you're disagreeing

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote: It's a good thing you are so certain of what you know, otherwise you might feel compelled to question the conclusions... That's what I've been trying to do. Care to explain away the situation I offered where an athlete might alter their drive phase

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said my figures are absolute. If you read any of my papers, you'd see that I am willing to admit limitations. Fair enough. Since we're discussing pulling figures out of the air, I would be interested in hearing how the effects you propose

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Dan, This is what I was trying to say in my previous email. I was a tall (6' 3, 206 lb.) sprinter (9.6 sec. 100 yards, 21.3 sec. 220 yards). Because of my height and breadth, I could take more advantage of tailwinds than could some of my shorter and smaller competitors (normally 5' 6 to 5'

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

I'm not objecting so much to comparing performances (I do the same for comparing XC races on the courses around Northern California in the USATF circuit), but rather the emphasis that is put on the comparisons as having sufficient precision to make valid judgements. I think the precision is

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Had Maurice been in the race, he probably would have held true to recent form and run 10.1 to 10.2. And guess what? He would have done so under similarly perfect conditions to Tim!!! Yeh, well if Jesse Owens had been in the race, he'd never have got to the finish line because he's dead.

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Had Maurice been in the race, he probably would have held true to recent form and run 10.1 to 10.2. And guess what? He would have done so under similarly perfect conditions to Tim!!! Yeh, well if Jesse Owens had been in the race, he'd never have got to the

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote: Sorry Randy, but I believe you're the one missing the (my) point. It's not about time travelling to compare races, rather that the same person will have vastly different performances (up to half a second in a race decided by mere hundreths) from day

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

At 10:56 PM 9/16/2002 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. From: Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions) I weigh the three major factors influencing sprint times as: (1) wind, (2) altitude, and (3) temperature. Four other key factors that have an

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems the point you're making is for a different case then the one being considered. The point (at least of my research, and this discussion) *is* to see how a particular race will vary with environmental conditions -- not how a particular

RE: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Dan Kaplan wrote: ...such laws... I just don't believe they're the most important thing at play here, and certainly not the most variable. I'd disagree here, but you do hit the crux of the discussion. If other factors than the wind and altitude that Jonas is considering, contribute more to the

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

RMc wrote The wind standard creates a situation where at least a third of the performances are not eligible for record consideration, but the standard ignores the many other factors that may have equal or greater influence. I have to say something about this. We have been down this road

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

If we are talking about NCAA races I would probably guess that figure is close. To which I say let the NCAA make up whatever rules they want. Where have you been? They've been making up their own rules for years. RT

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

Jonas, you can perform all the scientific and mathematical calculations based on the builds of the athletes for comparison, but have you measured each of those athletes abilities to perform with a tailwind (+), or with a headwind (-)? As stated in earlier emails, different athletes perform

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't question the validity of it under the rules. I just remarked that I didn't think it could be accomplished without anticipation. That's not the same thing? Isn't anticipating against the rules? Dan = http://AccountBiller.com -

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote: --- Wayne T. Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't question the validity of it under the rules. I just remarked that I didn't think it could be accomplished without anticipation. That's not the same thing? Isn't anticipating against the

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the point Wayne is trying to make is the following: Time Corrected - Reaction= Greene 9.79 9.80 0.120(?) 9.68 Tim 9.78 9.87 0.104 9.77 As you can see, the *actual* differential

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote: That's all well and good, but where does it get us beyond mental gymnastics? Should we also analyze which of the two slowed down the quickest after the finish line in order to determine who's spikes provide the best braking in inclement weather? The

Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)

--- Jonas Mureika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many people fail to realize that some things weigh heavier than others. The general consensus is: there are so many factors at work, we can't hope to account for them all, so it's pointless. Truth is: we don't *have* to account for them all.