Mexico City '68 Wind Readings: wLJ


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

Mexico City '68 Wind Readings: wLJ

Postby dj » Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:34 am

Here's the next stage of the wind reading problems.

The women's LJ final was contested 10/14, at 16:00.
Round 1
-1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.6, 0.0, -0.1, no reading, -1.1, -2.0, 0.0, 0.0, -0.6, 0.0
Round 2
0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -2.0, -1.8, -1.1, 0.0, 0.0, -2.0, 0.0
Round 3
-0.1, 0.0, -2.1, -2.1, -2.1, -1.3, -2.0, -1.0, -0.8, 0.0, -3.0, 1.8, -1.1, 0.0
Round 4
-1.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.1, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
Round 5
-1.1, -1.2, -0.6, -1.6, 0.0, -1.6, -1.6, 1.6
Round 6
0.6, -3.2, -0.2, 0.0, -1.2, -0.2, -1.0, 0.0

The women's 100m quarter-finals (four races) began at 15:30, but it seems unlikely they would have still been going at the time the wLJ starts. If there was a problem with the schedule, those four races had readings of 0.6, 2.7, 0.8, 1.8.

The men's 100 semi-finals and final were both contested during the wLJ, however. The semis were scheduled for 16:00 (same start as the wLJ) and the two races had readings of 1.6 and 0.0. The final went off at 18:00, and had a reading of 0.3.

There is only one long string of x.0 readings, a string of nine at the end of round 1 and beginning of round 2. Other than that, there are x.0 runs of five, four and two threes.

If one reader knew how to record to the decimal, and another reader was rounding or truncating to the whole mps, would they have been switching off so frequently when there were so few sprints events to take them away? This doesn't seem likely, which discredits my earlier theory about the men's TJ.

What really bothers me about the wLJ readings however, is the succession of three -2.1 readings in round 3. That's such a bizarre occurence that it makes me think the gauge was stuck, or the reader forgot to turn it on for some of the jumps.

In any case, the Mexico City wind readings for the jumps are a mess, and probably always will be. The enormous prepondernce of x.0 readings means something was wrong. I'll stick with my earlier suggestion that at least one person didn't know how to record the readings properly and was either rounding the decimals up and down or merely truncating the decimals. I tend to favor the latter explanation, as almost all accounts from eye witnesses indicate the wind was blowing harder than the readings given.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:04 am

These have been very good, interesting posts. I think that any reading of 2.0 must be considered suspect and. Further, I think that some analysis will be needed to determine if it is likely that a number of the 0.0 readings were from the some truncation [by one individual doing a big subset of the readings] or if there were also cases where the instrument was effectively turned off. If that is the conclusion, any of the 0.0 readings are also suspect as not real (the truncated ones are ok because the reading range is -0.99 to 0.99.

My guess is that the number of non-truncated false zeros is probably not too large (since slight negatives also contribute. My thinking is this. When there were long strings, the readings seemed to be small, whereas when the readings became larger in later rounds of the TJ many more of the x.0 readings are 2.0 and 3.0. Further, the existence of the 3.0 readings (almost certainly truncated) indicate that the error was not "put down 2.0 whenever the reading is over the allowable". It seems unlikely that these came from the skilled reader who seems to have been there occasionally. Finally, the repeated -2.1 readings also does lead to a hypothesis that the machine was stuck; however, since the reading was not -2.0 (or -3.0) it was probably read by official B, not official A.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:29 am

At this juncture, allow me to note that when Igor Ter-Ovaneysan set the LJ record in Mexico City in '67 and Joao Oliveira the TJ mark in '75 that in both cases the wind reading was..... wait for it.....are you sitting down?.... can your heart take this?....... 0.0!!!!!!!
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby lonewolf » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:32 am

It is disturbing that wind gauge officials for an Olympics appear to have been either incompetent or dishonest. This is inexcusable. I have taught smart high school and college kids in five minutes to site, set up, properly operate a wind gauge and record results.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby dj » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:07 pm

gh wrote:At this juncture, allow me to note that when Igor Ter-Ovaneysan set the LJ record in Mexico City in '67 and Joao Oliveira the TJ mark in '75 that in both cases the wind reading was..... wait for it.....are you sitting down?.... can your heart take this?....... 0.0!!!!!!!


Nuts!

I have seen readings taken in the U.S. in which anything wind legal was listed as 0.0, and all wind-aided readings were listed as 2.0.

I've often seen a "no reading taken" getting changed to 0.0 to fit the concept of needing to place a number in that slot on a page.

I am encouraged by this note from the first round of the wLJ: "no reading." That would lead one to think that at least one person knew that no reading is different from 0.0.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby dj » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:09 pm

By the way, my thanks go to GH and Richard Hymans, who have provided most of the wind readings. I've merely put the wind readings into a different format to try to shed some light into these very dark corners.
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:24 pm

Was there a Grassy Knoll in the Olympic Stadium in Mexico City ?
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:45 pm

dj wrote:Nuts!

I have seen readings taken in the U.S. in which anything wind legal was listed as 0.0, and all wind-aided readings were listed as 2.0.

.


Wrong half of Berlin.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:48 pm

I read somewhere the official wind in the women's 100 final was 2.0....which makes NO sense given that Tyus ran 11.23 legal 4 years earlier in Tokyo, sans altitude, aveck la cinderella track. Then she takes a mighty chariot up to Mexico City and can only manage 11.08 with tartan/7000+ft altitude/max wind?

Hello??? :roll:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby rhymans » Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:27 pm

Yes - but..the weather conditions for the Women's 100 were horrendous - the race was held in a torrential storm - nice sunny conditions would have seen a sub 11 run (with the mandatory 2.0 wind, of course)
rhymans
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:19 am

Thanks rhymans, too bad I was only 7 at the time and have no recollection of seeing it on television. I should start sifting through the trading post stuff.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby runforlife » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:49 pm

gh wrote:At this juncture, allow me to note that when Igor Ter-Ovaneysan set the LJ record in Mexico City in '67 and Joao Oliveira the TJ mark in '75 that in both cases the wind reading was..... wait for it.....are you sitting down?.... can your heart take this?....... 0.0!!!!!!!
Hey, just like Flojo...can you believe it!!
runforlife
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Drake Relays: finish line - row 1


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests