sportscenter wrote:What about any non-elite marks? Any high schoolers or collegiate athletes that anybody is aware of? I'm just looking for large percentages chopped off/added to the previous time/mark. From the list so far though, I would have to think Beamon's would be the most impressive, but I could be biased towards the jumps.
Beamon's jump is biased -- correct for the 2.0+++mps wind and the 7000+ altitude and the mark is not actually as impressive. The TJ marks really took a licking at the 68 games as well, even without max (excessive) wind, as least for some of the WRs (edited as per gh's comment), but rain hit the LJ just after Beamon's jump, as I understand it.
Last edited by 26mi235 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The rain did come just after Beamon's jump. But the effect of that jump on the other competitors was also a factor. A number of great jumpers were hoping to win the thing, and after Beamon's jump (which was the third or fourth of the competition, IIRC), they were totally disspirited.
Beamon's jump is biased -- correct for the 2.0+++mps wind and the 7000+ altitude and the mark is not actually as impressive. The TJ marks really took a licking at the 68 games as well, even without max (excessive) wind, ....
Actually, it's the wind readings in the triple jump that help clue us into the fraudulent nature of the Mexico City operation.
There were 5 WRs set in the TJ, and the wind readings on those five jumps were (in order of the setting) 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0 !!!!!
gh wrote:Actually, it's the wind readings in the triple jump that help clue us into the fraudulent nature of the Mexico City operation.
There were 5 WRs set in the TJ, and the wind readings on those five jumps were (in order of the setting) 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0 !!!!!
This makes me wonder if the anemometrist (for this day/s, this event) didn't understand the concept of recording readings. Perhaps anything that was wind-legal was registered as 0.0, and anything wind-illegal was 2.0 (not realizing that it should have been listed as 2.1). Or perhaps the reading were truncated, lopping off the decimals.
One would have to see the rest of the wind readings for other jumpers and the series, but I don't have those. Anyone?
The number of readings w/ a point-zero reading fuel the fires of suspcision that something bizarre was up.
Dudkin had a 1.0, 2.0 and three 3.0s
Dia had two 0.0s, a 1.0 and a 3.0
Prudencio 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0
Schmidt 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0
Kugler 0.0, 0.0
Areta 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
May 0.0, 0.0, 2.0
Saneyev 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 2.0, 3.0 (all 6 jumps with a point-zero reading, but of four different varieties!)
etc., etc.
Mighty Favog wrote:It's easy to have big PRs in the marathon, especially if your first few efforts are bombs. My progression was 4:10:xx, 3:29:xx, 3:09:05.
It can go the opposite way, too. I've raced the half-marathon at least 20 times. None of them have been as fast as the first 13-mile training run I ever did. Getting old sucks!
This reminds me of my golf PRs for 18 holes (actually all scores, as I have only played 4 times)
99, 100, 99, 100. The first three are on Montebello's muni course and the last is San Geronimo under winter rules on Jan 1 after doing the Midnight Run in Palo Alto (1976?) (which marked an improvement in my 5-mile PR by over a minute, to tie it back to this thread).
I'm guessing there were two wind gauge operators: A, who knew what he was doing; and B, who was truncating all readings. A handled the straightaway, B handled the jumps. During breaks between hurdle groupings, A relieved B and worked the triple jump.
That would be consistent with the x.0 readings in the TJ. The TJ (operator B) has 16 successive readings of x.0 (Rd 1 and 2), followed by a break of 10 readings (operator A, but perhaps B for some of these), giving various decimals (but including 5 x.0 readings.) This brings us to the end of round 2
Then we're back to B, who has 7 x.0 readings in a row to start round 3. Then we're back and forth, apparently at short intervals to the end.
I'd suggest that roughly one of every 10 x.0 readings is an actual x.0, at least among those x.0 readings that are grouped together.
It makes me think that all the 2.0 readings appearing in x.0 clusters should be regarded as >2.0, thus wind-aided.
dj wrote:This makes me wonder if the anemometrist (for this day/s, this event) didn't understand the concept of recording readings. Perhaps anything that was wind-legal was registered as 0.0, and anything wind-illegal was 2.0 (not realizing that it should have been listed as 2.1). Or perhaps the reading were truncated, lopping off the decimals.
One would have to see the rest of the wind readings for other jumpers and the series, but I don't have those. Anyone?
I remember hearing a similar story about 10ish years ago: i.e. that winds in excess of 2m/s were simply recorded as 2.0 m/s. As some of the data suggests, that isn't the case, but perhaps it was a single individual out of several who wasn't clued in on the process.
In the data reproduced below there are 49 entries. with 10 digits, the expected frequency is 5 per digit. What we have is none of the other digits hit this level, with only one entry above 2, while there are 36 zeros. The likelihood of this distribution being drawn from a uniform distribution (which is essentially what we expect) is vanishingly small. Vanishingly in this case is 10^-27; by comparison, lotteries are a piece of cake. Furthermore, most of the non-zero entries appear that they might arise from a different operator.
It's possible that the '68 problem was with the gauge raather than the operator. The official '68 film shows the 8.90 and some of the TJ WRs from the front, and the operator looks to be a different individual for the 2 events - almost certainly it would have been the same anemometer.
Looking at the 68 film, it seems quite clear that the Gentile mark (17.22/0.0) was correctly read - you can see through the wind gauge from the end of the pit and the blades inside are just not rotating. You can't see what's happening withthe Prudencio jump - 1 of the jumpers (Kugler) obscures the view, while the gauge's blades are visibly rotating on Saneyev's 17.39 - but not whirring, so it's difficult to asceratin whether the reading was ok or not - in truth the blades are not moving quickly at all - it's possible that the operator mis-read the wind on the high side. The blades are moving more quickly on Beamon' jump - you get to see the gauge for perhaps a second so it's difficult to tell - we'll never know for sure - if I had to take an educated (?) guess, I'd say that the 17.39 was ok and the 8.90 was windy.
rhymans wrote:It's possible that the '68 problem was with the gauge raather than the operator. The official '68 film shows the 8.90 and some of the TJ WRs from the front, and the operator looks to be a different individual for the 2 events - almost certainly it would have been the same anemometer.
Looking at the 68 film, it seems quite clear that the Gentile mark (17.22/0.0) was correctly read - you can see through the wind gauge from the end of the pit and the blades inside are just not rotating. You can't see what's happening withthe Prudencio jump - 1 of the jumpers (Kugler) obscures the view, while the gauge's blades are visibly rotating on Saneyev's 17.39 - but not whirring, so it's difficult to asceratin whether the reading was ok or not - in truth the blades are not moving quickly at all - it's possible that the operator mis-read the wind on the high side. The blades are moving more quickly on Beamon' jump - you get to see the gauge for perhaps a second so it's difficult to tell - we'll never know for sure - if I had to take an educated (?) guess, I'd say that the 17.39 was ok and the 8.90 was windy.
It's posting such as this, erudite, painstaking, that make reading messages on this board a pleasure.
During this period, there were two straightaway races, the w200 final at 15:30 (2.0), and the w80H final at 16:20 (0.0).
The TJ possibilities seem simple compared to the LJ possibilities. With the LJ, it seems unlikely that different gauges were used at different times for the event. It also seems less likely that one operator worked for a while at the w200F, came back to the LJ, went away for the w80HF, and came back and finished at the LJ.
There are too many separate strings of x.0 readings for there to be two readers, with one leaving to work the two running events and return to the LJ. In the LJ, we get seven spearate runs of x.0 readings. We start with one run of 4 x.0 readings in round 1, and another run of 5 x.o reading to close round 1. Then, in round 2, we get another run of 5 x.0 readings, and later a run of 6 x.0 readings to end the round. Midway through round 3 there is a run of 8 x.0 readings, broken by a -0.6, then another run of 6 0.0 readings in rounds 3 and 4. In round 5, we get another run of 5 x.0 readings.
There seem to be too many runs separated from each other to make my hypothesis of two different readers work here as there were only two races that might require one of the readers to leave.
I'm at a loss now. It doesn't seem the gauge is broken, as it seems to work intermittently. And this isn't the sort of gauge that records up to a maximum setting (potentially 2.0) but not further, as there are several readings beyond 2.0 that do not end in .0. (I know of one gauge two decades ago that measured only up to 4.0, so that on a very windy day the max reading was 4.0.)
With the distribution of the tenths digit it cannot be from a slight mis-reading (0.1 to 0.3 off) because that would still give a random distribution of the tenths digit, and those digits are so far from randomly distributed (one part in 10^27) that any explanation must deal with that aspect. It is also the case that there are an excess of 0.0 compared to the other x.0
Among the 43 (I undercounted the x.0s before and the odds against uniform are even greater than 36) x.0s there are
25 0.0s
2 1.0s
9 2.0s
7 3.0s
These are distributed over time in a manner that is consistent with increasing wind (but Round 3 seems improbable without the issue of the x.0s). I like the interpretation that there was someone making appropriate readings along with the primary reader who was making mistakes in a very high-profile statistic.
BTW, has anyone figured out the non-Beamon WR progression (which guys may have gotten robbed)? It seems like Lewis would have been a multiple WR setter and had an even greater GOAT consideration.
26mi235 wrote:BTW, has anyone figured out the non-Beamon WR progression (which guys may have gotten robbed)? It seems like Lewis would have been a multiple WR setter and had an even greater GOAT consideration.
WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991
8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983
8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982
8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981
8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980
8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979
8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975
8.35 +0.8 Josef Schwarz 1 Stuttgart 15.07.1970
8.35A ±0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan 1 Ciudad de México 19.10.1967
8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
Edit: added 8.35 by Igor Ter-O amd Schwarz
Last edited by pela2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
26mi235 wrote:BTW, has anyone figured out the non-Beamon WR progression (which guys may have gotten robbed)? It seems like Lewis would have been a multiple WR setter and had an even greater GOAT consideration.
WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991 8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980 8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979 8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975 8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
Wouldn't Carl's 8.87 or 8.84 at Tokyo technically belong in there as well? I don't remember the exact progression of his marks in the meet but I know Powell's WR didn't come until the 5th round.
BisonHurdler wrote:Wouldn't Carl's 8.87 or 8.84 at Tokyo technically belong in there as well? I don't remember the exact progression of his marks in the meet but I know Powell's WR didn't come until the 5th round.
Carl's 8.87 was in 5th round (after that Powell jumped 8.95) and his 8.84 was in last round.
BisonHurdler wrote:Wouldn't Carl's 8.87 or 8.84 at Tokyo technically belong in there as well? I don't remember the exact progression of his marks in the meet but I know Powell's WR didn't come until the 5th round.
Carl's 8.87 was in 5th round (after that Powell jumped 8.95) and his 8.84 was in last round.
rhymans wrote:It's possible that the '68 problem was with the gauge raather than the operator. The official '68 film shows the 8.90 and some of the TJ WRs from the front, and the operator looks to be a different individual for the 2 events - almost certainly it would have been the same anemometer.
Looking at the 68 film, it seems quite clear that the Gentile mark (17.22/0.0) was correctly read - you can see through the wind gauge from the end of the pit and the blades inside are just not rotating. You can't see what's happening withthe Prudencio jump - 1 of the jumpers (Kugler) obscures the view, while the gauge's blades are visibly rotating on Saneyev's 17.39 - but not whirring, so it's difficult to asceratin whether the reading was ok or not - in truth the blades are not moving quickly at all - it's possible that the operator mis-read the wind on the high side. The blades are moving more quickly on Beamon' jump - you get to see the gauge for perhaps a second so it's difficult to tell - we'll never know for sure - if I had to take an educated (?) guess, I'd say that the 17.39 was ok and the 8.90 was windy.
What about Gentile's first WR in the prelims as well as Saneyev's first WR in the final? I seem to recall Gentile's WR in the final saw him landing, standing up. If so, he could have jumped much further. My take is that a 1969-1970 edition Saneyev would have jumped 58 feet plus in (1968) Mexico conditions, showing how much altitude (and wind?) helped out.
rhymans wrote:It's possible that the '68 problem was with the gauge raather than the operator. The official '68 film shows the 8.90 and some of the TJ WRs from the front, and the operator looks to be a different individual for the 2 events - almost certainly it would have been the same anemometer.
Looking at the 68 film, it seems quite clear that the Gentile mark (17.22/0.0) was correctly read - you can see through the wind gauge from the end of the pit and the blades inside are just not rotating. You can't see what's happening withthe Prudencio jump - 1 of the jumpers (Kugler) obscures the view, while the gauge's blades are visibly rotating on Saneyev's 17.39 - but not whirring, so it's difficult to asceratin whether the reading was ok or not - in truth the blades are not moving quickly at all - it's possible that the operator mis-read the wind on the high side. The blades are moving more quickly on Beamon' jump - you get to see the gauge for perhaps a second so it's difficult to tell - we'll never know for sure - if I had to take an educated (?) guess, I'd say that the 17.39 was ok and the 8.90 was windy.
What about Gentile's first WR in the prelims as well as Saneyev's first WR in the final? I seem to recall Gentile's WR in the final saw him landing, standing up. If so, he could have jumped much further. My take is that a 1969-1970 edition Saneyev would have jumped 58 feet plus in (1968) Mexico conditions, showing how much altitude (and wind?) helped out.
If the film is taken at a 24 frames per second rate then one must be very careful about inferring gauge blade rates from the film ... just sayn. It is possible that Saneyev and Beamon had gauges spinning like a turbine and one would see them moving quite slow on a 24frame rate film. We would need to know the gauge spin rate calibration to do the inverse problem from the film. It can certainly be done.
If the film is taken at a 24 frames per second rate then one must be very careful about inferring gauge blade rates from the film ... just sayn. It is possible that Saneyev and Beamon had gauges spinning like a turbine and one would see them moving quite slow on a 24frame rate film. We would need to know the gauge spin rate calibration to do the inverse problem from the film. It can certainly be done.
Yes, rotating wheels can be very deceptive on 24fps film. That is why wagon wheels look like they are going backwards in old westerns, which is of course, an illusion.
pela2 wrote: WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991 8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980 8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979 8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975 8.35 +0.8 Josef Schwarz 1 Stuttgart 15.07.1970 8.35A ±0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan 1 Ciudad de México 19.10.1967 8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
pela2 wrote: WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991 8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980 8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979 8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975 8.35 +0.8 Josef Schwarz 1 Stuttgart 15.07.1970 8.35A ±0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan 1 Ciudad de México 19.10.1967 8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
pela2 wrote: WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991 8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980 8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979 8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975 8.35 +0.8 Josef Schwarz 1 Stuttgart 15.07.1970 8.35A ±0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan 1 Ciudad de México 19.10.1967 8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
Edit: added 8.35 by Igor Ter-O amd Schwarz
Why is Emmiyan's 886 from 1987 not included here?
Tsakhkadzor is another altitude site, c1840m
Yes, but the point was the wind, not altitude, wasn't it? (Ter-Ovanesyan's Mexico result was added here, too.)
pela2 wrote: WR progression if we don't count Beamon's jump
8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991 8.79 +1.9 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski 1 Moskva 28.07.1980 8.52 ±0.0 Larry Myricks 1 Montréal 26.08.1979 8.45 +2.0 Nenad Stekic 1 Montréal 25.07.1975 8.35 +0.8 Josef Schwarz 1 Stuttgart 15.07.1970 8.35A ±0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan 1 Ciudad de México 19.10.1967 8.35 ±0.0 Ralph Boston 1 Modesto 29.05.1965
Edit: added 8.35 by Igor Ter-O amd Schwarz
Why is Emmiyan's 886 from 1987 not included here?
Tsakhkadzor is another altitude site, c1840m
Yes, but the point was the wind, not altitude, wasn't it? (Ter-Ovanesyan's Mexico result was added here, too.)
Sorry, missed the point. Particularly as Ter-O's mark was in there.
