The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ]


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ]

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:21 pm

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.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby tandfman » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:22 am

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.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:54 am

26mi235 wrote:...

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
 
Posts: 46308
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby dj » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:17 am

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?
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby rhymans » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:36 am

DJ (and everyone else) - here is the TJ chart for the '68 OG - in jumping order:

Stoikovski 16.28/0.0, 16.46/0/0, 16.19w/3.0
Dudkin 16.15/1.0, 16.70/2.0, 16.37w/3.0, 16.73w/2.3, 17.09w/3.0, 16.53w/3.0
Dia 16.71/0.0, 16.48/1.0, 15.44/0.0, 16.73w/3.8, 16.64w/3.0, 15.83/1.9
Prudencio 16.33/0.0, 17.05/1.8, 16.75/0.0, F/0.0, 17.27/2.0, 17.15/1.8
Schmidt 16.06/0.0, 16.77/0.0, F/2.0, 16.66/2.0, F/1.6, 16.89/1.8
Kugler 12.87/0.0, F/1.5, 15.90/0.0
Areta 15.72/0.0, 15.75/0.0, 14.80/0.0
May 15.48/0.0, 16.58/0.0, 16.51/1.9, 17.02/2.0, F/1.8, retired
Saneyev 16.49/0.0, 16.84/1.0, 17.23/2.0, 17.02/0.0, 16.81w/3.0, 17.39/2.0
Walker 15.43/0.0, 16.45/0.0, 16.77w/2.9, 16.48/0.0, F/3.0, 17.12w/2.5
Gentile 17.22/0.0, F/1.4, F/3.0, F/1.8, 16.54w/4.2, F/0.0
Kalocsai 16.45/2.0, 16.39/0.6, 16.20/0.0
Ciochina F/0.0, F/0.4, 15.62/2.0

62 jumps - 25 nil readings, 2 between 0.1 and 0.9, 13 from 1.0 to 1.9, 9 at 2.0, 11 from 2.1 to 3.0, and 2 over 3.0

3 days earlier the W-LJ also saw a WR, with 26 of 66 jumps showing a nil reading, most reading negative and just 1 reading over 1.0
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:36 pm

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.
gh
 
Posts: 46308
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:23 pm

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).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby dj » Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:59 pm

The mTJ final took place on 10/17, starting at 15:00. In jumping sequence, here are the wind readings:

Round 1
0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0
Round 2
0.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.8, 0.0, 1.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.4, 0.6, 0.4
Round 3
3.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.9, 2.0, 2.9, 3.0, 0.0, 2.0
Round 4
2.3, 3.8, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8
Round 5
3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.6, 1.8, 3.0, 3.0, 4.2
Round 6
3.0, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, 0.0

During that period on 10/17, here are the wind readings for successive races on the straight:

m110Hsemis 15:00
1.8, 0.0
w80Hheats 16:20
2.4, 0.2, 0.8, 2.0, 1.5
m110H final 17:00
0.0

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
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:19 pm

WOW! As (believable) conspiracy theories go, this one is priceless. I like it!
gh
 
Posts: 46308
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby malmo » Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:49 pm

dj wrote:
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.


So would "whoosh" be anemometopoeia?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:09 pm

Excellent! :D :D :D :D :D
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby JRM » Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:13 pm

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.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:55 pm

JRM

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.



0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0
Round 2
0.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.8, 0.0, 1.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.4, 0.6, 0.4
Round 3
3.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.9, 2.0, 2.9, 3.0, 0.0, 2.0
Round 4
2.3, 3.8, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8
Round 5
3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.6, 1.8, 3.0, 3.0, 4.2
Round 6
3.0, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, 0.0
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby rhymans » Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:09 am

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
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby catson52 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:45 am

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.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Postby dj » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:07 am

And now for the men's LJ final, 10/18 at 15:30:

Round 1 (4th jump is Beamon's 8.90)
1.3, 0.2, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 0.6, 1.4, 1.6, -0.2, 0.0, -1.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
Round 2
4.2, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.6, 0.0, 1.4, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.6, 0.0
Round 3
2.2, 0.4, 0.0, 3.2, 0.2, 0.4, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 4.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -0.6, 0.0
Round 4
0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.4, 1.4, -0.4
Round 5
0.0, 1.6, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0
Round 6
2.2, 0.0, 0.0, -1.6, -1.0, 0.0, -1.6

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.)
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:11 am

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.

0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0
Round 2
0.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.8, 0.0, 1.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.4, 0.6, 0.4
Round 3
3.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.9, 2.0, 2.9, 3.0, 0.0, 2.0
Round 4
2.3, 3.8, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8
Round 5
3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.6, 1.8, 3.0, 3.0, 4.2
Round 6
3.0, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, 0.0
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby pela2 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:34 am

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.
pela2
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N 58°18.76' E 12°16.28'

Postby BisonHurdler » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:07 am

pela2 wrote:
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
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby pela2 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:16 am

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.
pela2
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N 58°18.76' E 12°16.28'

Postby gh » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:29 am

Ter-Ovanesyan 8.35 in Mexico City in '67 as well (assuming you're not killing all altitude marks, just the bad Beamon one)
gh
 
Posts: 46308
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:30 am

gh wrote:Ter-Ovanesyan 8.35 in Mexico City in '67 as well (assuming you're not killing all altitude marks, just the bad Beamon one)


Do you mean '68 (not '67)?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby pela2 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:54 am

gh wrote:Ter-Ovanesyan 8.35 in Mexico City in '67 as well (assuming you're not killing all altitude marks, just the bad Beamon one)


it's there now, I sorted the performances wrongly. Thanks for the amendment. I also added the 8.35 by Josef Schwarz from 1970.
pela2
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N 58°18.76' E 12°16.28'

Postby BisonHurdler » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:02 am

pela2 wrote:
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.



Thank you, I couldn't recall.
BisonHurdler
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby catson52 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:13 pm

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.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re:

Postby user4 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:33 am

catson52 wrote:
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.
user4
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re:

Postby kuha » Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:12 am

catson52 wrote:It's posting such as this, erudite, painstaking, that make reading messages on this board a pleasure.


Yes. This whole thread is great fun.
kuha
 
Posts: 9014
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Re:

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:54 am

user4 wrote:


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.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ]

Postby bambam » Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:12 pm

So it seems like DJ is postulating a second gauge operator conspiracy - sort of like a second shooter theory
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re:

Postby Olli » Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:25 pm

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?
Olli
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:44 am

Re: The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ]

Postby dj » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:49 am

bambam wrote:So it seems like DJ is postulating a second gauge operator conspiracy - sort of like a second shooter theory


Arlen Specter was my senator. Doesn't mean I go along with a magic-wind gauge theory!
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Re:

Postby dj » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:52 am

Olli wrote:
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
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ]

Postby user4 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:16 am

dj wrote:
bambam wrote:So it seems like DJ is postulating a second gauge operator conspiracy - sort of like a second shooter theory


Arlen Specter was my senator. Doesn't mean I go along with a magic-wind gauge theory!


Fortunately there is a 24 fps video taken from a grassy area near the events to corroborate!
user4
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Olli » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:04 pm

dj wrote:
Olli wrote:
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.)
Olli
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:44 am

Re: Re:

Postby dj » Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:06 am

Olli wrote:
dj wrote:
Olli wrote:
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.
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests