I Support Marion Jones


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby kuha » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:40 am

Pego: Nope, sorry... I'll be at Rome and Lausanne and miscellaneous points inbetween... I begin at Rome and up in Arles, France, for their annual photo extravaganza. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it... Perhaps I'll make the US trials again in '08...or '12...or '16...? Have fun!
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Pego » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:49 am

Thank you. Enjoy your "dirty job" in Europe.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:45 pm

><<You're looking for the single explanation, but that's not the case
>here

>ARRRRRH! No I'm not.
....

>Like I said, he popped one. One for the ages.

Then why do you return to your single explanation? And why do the performance statistics from Mexico City, not only for the Olympics, but other competitions as well, refute your claim?

A 1% boost is rather large in the scheme of world performances. But let's look at the TJ in '68. The WR was improved 2% in that competition. If we use that as the starting point, and conservatively add another 1% for the wind in excess of 2 mps (as witnesses have related), then we're at 3%. That's half of the 6% improvement that Beamon put on the mark.

Physics equations can not incorporate all of the complexity of a biological process such as long jumping (I've seen too many physicists screw up their economics analyses to know this well.) Just look at the facts on the ground, and its obvious that wind and altitude had a significant effect on his jump. I'll give you that 30-50% of his improvement was that he "popped on" but no more.

And you still haven't explained why "breakthroughs" of similiar magnitude have not happened exclusively at the Olympics in prior or subsequent years?

And rereading your initial post, you really took my statement out of context. I was positing the alternative explanation to the boost being drug usage. I was simply replacing "drugs" with "wind and altitude." I NEVER said that it was the SOLE explanation, just as "drugs" would not be the sole explantion either. Read more carefully, and actually think before you fire off replies...
Last edited by RMc on Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 3:00 pm

>Pego: Nope, sorry... I'll be at Rome and Lausanne and miscellaneous points
>inbetween... I begin at Rome and up in Arles, France, for their annual photo
>extravaganza. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it... Perhaps I'll make
>the US trials again in '08...or '12...or '16...? Have fun!




Kuha - when you say you're going to Rome, do you mean for the Golden Gala meet...?
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby ycn » Thu Jun 24, 2004 3:04 pm

I don't think you can single out any amazing performance and point to possible drug use as the reason. Some people somehow find a way to do things that others haven't done before. It's called the progression of marks.

Someday someone will accomplish something similar to what Beamon did, and they won't be on drugs. It's just that every single factor that could possibly be in their favor all converge at the right place and time to produce a performance that stuns the world.

Don't forget that before Beamon's monster jump, the LJ record had been fairly stagnant for quite some time. It was at that time an event that was ripe for an amazing performance. Especially in those single short frame performance events, mainly the field events, that such performances will usually be found.

I truly believe that Beamon just happened to get off the perfect jump under the most perfect conditions, and the fact that he was as good as anyone in his event definitely didn't hurt. The fact that he never again came close to that mark is an affirmation of the "once in a lifetime" nature of his feat.

I think Beamon cried when he made that jump because he probably realized right then and there that he probably could never ever jump that far again. That's a pretty sobering thought for a top world-class athlete.
ycn
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:50 pm

>>>Then why do you return to your single explanation? And why do the performance statistics from Mexico City, not only for the Olympics, but other competitions as well, refute your claim?

MALMO SEZ: I am not returning to a single explanation. For the second time: "I'M SAYING THAT THE EFFECT OF ALTITUDE ON THE JUMPS IS MUCH LESS THAN YOU THINK IT IS" That exact same sentence that I posted above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>A 1% boost is rather large in the scheme of world performances. But let's look at the TJ in '68. The WR was improved 2% in that competition. If we use that as the starting point, and conservatively add another 1% for the wind in excess of 2 mps (as witnesses have related), then we're at 3%. That's half of the 6% improvement that Beamon put on the mark.

MALMO SEZ: ARRRHHH! This is nonsense Richard. If you figure that altitude is responsible for 1 percent, and for arguments sake I'll throw in another 1 percent for the wind, you cannot take the 2 percent (which ALREADY includes the effect of the wind) and add on another 1 percent again for wind! On top of that you are saying that the event itself, which occurs only once every four years, didn't factor into the formula? Absolute nonsense, and you know it! I'm being generous when I give the ambient conditions at Mexico City a 2 percent hand in the 6.6 percent smashing of the previous WR. Beamon improved his PR by 6.8 percent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Physics equations can not incorporate all of the complexity of a biological process such as long jumping (I've seen too many physicists screw up their economics analyses to know this well.) Just look at the facts on the ground, and its obvious that wind and altitude had a significant effect on his jump. I'll give you that 30-50% of his improvement was that he "popped one" but no more.

MALMO SEZ: Velocity is the only determinant in the long jump equation that can be affected by altitude or wind. Velocity cannot be improved by 6.6 percent because of altitude and a blowing wind, otherwise we'd hear about 10 flat sprinters hitting 9.34, and 20 flat sprinters running 18.67. One guy ran 9.76 drugged up, another ran 9.78, probably drugged up, and both did it at sea level. I heard another guy ran 19.32 for 200 meters at Atlanta's whopping 1000 feet altitude.

If I were you I'd leave the physicists alone. We've see your faulty analysis before. It ain't so hot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>And you still haven't explained why "breakthroughs" of similiar magnitude have not happened exclusively at the Olympics in prior or subsequent years?

MALMO SEZ: Why would they? I said "he popped one", not "everyone pops one." Unless you want to compare apples to apples? Lets say Victor Sanejev's 2.1 percent improvement with altitude and wind against Jonathan Edwards 1.7 percent improvement at sea level with a modest 1.3m/s wind? Using your nonsensical reasoning am I right to say that it was the low altitude and that helped Edwards beat his WR that was set at 800m altitude in Salamanca, Spain? Or was MJ 1.7 percent improvement caused by the 1000ft altitude and zero wind at Atlanta?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>And rereading your initial post, you really took my statement out of context. I was positing the alternative explanation to the boost being drug usage. I was simply replacing "drugs" with "wind and altitude." I NEVER said that it was the SOLE explanation, just as "drugs" would not be the sole explanation either. Read more carefully, and actually think before you fire off replies...

MALMO SEZ Richard you are unrepentant. This is exactly the same smokescreen you used to pull on the track list. At no point in this thread did anyone suggest that drugs were part of the equation in Beamons jump. In fact, the post that you originally responded to said exactly the opposite:

Runninghorse said: "Bob Beamon went from a 26 foot jumper to 29. Back in 68, I doubt if one could attribute that to drugs OR altitude (a racist theory)."

You responded: "Beamon went from the low 27s to 29-2. His performance WAS attributed to both the altitude (as was Robert Emmiman's 29 footer) AND the 2.0 mps wind. Because field events are generally "one-off" efforts with little or no intermediate measures by time or against other competitors, such "discontinuities" are to be expected in that set of events vs. the track events."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL TIME WORLD
http://www.algonet.se/~pela2/athletics/mlongok.htm

1 8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 1 Tokyo 30.08.1991
2 8.90A +2.0 Bob Beamon USA 29.08.46 1 Ciudad de México 18.10.1968
3 8.86A +1.85 Robert Emmiyan ARM 16.02.65 1 Tsakhkadzor 22.05.1987
4 8.79 +1.89 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Indianapolis 19.06.1983
5 8.76 +1.0 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Indianapolis 24.07.1982
5 8.76 +0.8 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Indianapolis 18.07.1988
7 8.74 +1.4 Larry Myricks USA 10.03.56 2 Indianapolis 18.07.1988
7 8.74A +2.0 Erick Walder USA 05.11.71 1 El Paso 02.04.1994
9 8.72 -0.2 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Seoul 26.09.1988
10 8.71 -0.3 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Westwood 13.05.1984
10 8.71 +0.1 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Los Angeles 19.06.1984
10 8.71 +1.9 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Salamanca 18.07.1995
13 8.70 +0.87 Larry Myricks USA 10.03.56 1 Houston 17.06.1989
13 8.70 +0.7 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 1 Salamanca 27.07.1993
13 8.70 +1.6 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Göteborg 12.08.1995
16 8.68 +1.0 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 q Barcelona 05.08.1992
16 8.68 +1.6 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Lisboa 17.06.1995
18 8.67 +0.4 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Roma 05.09.1987
18 8.67 -0.7 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Barcelona 06.08.1992
20 8.66 +1.0 Larry Myricks USA 10.03.56 1 Tokyo 23.09.1987
20 8.66 +0.9 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 1 Villeneuve d'Ascq 29.06.1990
20 8.66 +0.3 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Linz 22.08.1995
23 8.65 +0.2 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Bruxelles 24.08.1984
23 8.65 +0.7 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 San Jose 26.06.1987
23 8.65 +1.5 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Jena 03.06.2000
26 8.64 +1.7 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 New York City 15.06.1991
26 8.64 -0.5 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 2 Barcelona 06.08.1992
28 8.63 +2.0 Larry Myricks USA 10.03.56 2 San Jose 26.06.1987
28 8.63 +0.5 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 2 New York City 15.06.1991
28 8.63 +0.5 Kareem Streete-Thompson USA 30.03.73 1 Linz 04.07.1994
28 8.63 +1.1 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Padova 08.06.1997
32 8.62 +0.8 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Sacramento 20.06.1981
32 8.62 -0.1 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Bruxelles 30.08.1985
32 8.62 ±0.0 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 1 New Orleans 24.06.1992
32 8.62 +0.7 James Beckford JAM 09.01.75 1 Orlando 05.04.1997
36 8.61 +0.5 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Westwood 16.05.1982
36 8.61 -0.3 Robert Emmiyan ARM 16.02.65 1 Moskva 06.07.1986
36 8.61 +1.2 Larry Myricks USA 10.03.56 1 Budapest 12.08.1988
36 8.61 +0.2 Mike Powell USA 10.11.63 1 Rhede 07.07.1991
40 8.60 +1.5 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Zürich 16.08.1995
40 8.60 -0.1 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Praha 10.06.1997
40 8.60 +0.4 James Beckford JAM 09.01.75 1 Bad Langensalza 06.06.1998
40 8.60 +1.8 Iván Pedroso CUB 17.12.72 1 Padova 26.06.1999


349 8.33 +1.3 Bob Beamon USA 29.08.46 1 Sacramento
Last edited by malmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby big mac » Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:59 pm

At 6600m, air resistance would be 23% less which would give a potentially large advantage to jumpers. I still believe he just popped one however. Thats adrenaline for you.
big mac
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Jupiter

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby kuha » Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:04 pm

Kuha - when you say you're going to Rome, do you mean for the Golden Gala meet...?

Jon: Yes, absolutely! Are you going? We could have a T&FN message board (European branch) conference there and share gossip about all the others...
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:17 pm

Jon: Yes, absolutely! Are you going? We could have a T&FN message
>board (European branch) conference there and share gossip about all the
>others...


Haha! Definitely. There's someone else on here who is going (username 'Smister' I think), and also a couple from the IAAF forums.

Any chance you could send me an email (click on my username to get it). Cheers.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:12 pm

>At 6600m, air resistance would be 23% less which would give a potentially large
>advantage to jumpers. I still believe he just popped one however. Thats
>adrenaline for you.

I have no doubt. But that doesn't translate to 23% increase in performance does it? Not even close. Horizontal velocity increases by about a percentage point.

Hopefully, our resident expert, Jonas Mureika, could weigh in here. He's published papers on this very subject.

One thing I thought of was, if we all agree that the "thin" air at altitude causes less resistance therefore faster velocities, then conversely, the effects of a tailwind at altitude are not as great as that at sea level. I'd bet that air resistance increases by the square of velocity. Nature always seems to work that way.
Last edited by malmo on Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:24 pm

>I have no doubt. But that doesn't translate to
>23% increase in performance does it? Not even close. Horizontal velocity
>increases by about a percentage point.



At 6600m altitude and with a +2.0m/s wind, it would give a 0.20 advantage in the 100m. So a 10.2 sprinter would be a 10.0 sprinter in such conditions.

Interesting to note that Carl Lewis dropped 0.20 in his 100m times between '91 and '92, and at the same time his LJ'ing dropped about 20cm in distance. His sprinting and LJ'ing years are great to compare. His faster years produced further LJ's and his slower years produced shorter LJ's. (Marion on the other hand, seems to be a better LJ'er - in terms of consistency - even though her times are slower, but that is all mainly due to improved technique).

Anyway, I think it's fair to say that the conditions in Mexico probably accounted for an extra 20cm in LJ distance for Beamon (which would make his jump worth around 8.70 - still a big improvement).
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:34 pm

Hey guys, 6600 meters? That's the radius of the Earth in KILOMETERS --not the altitude of Mexico City (2200 meters or 7400 ft)

The 20 cm is about the max I'd concede. Jonas calculations show about a 1.4 percent increase in Hv accounting for both altitude and wind -- or 11.66cm - Beamons improvement over his PR was 57cm. 11.66/57 = 20.45 percent ambient conditions, 79.54 percent mojo.
Last edited by malmo on Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:35 pm

I only slept at a Holiday Inn Express, Jonas Mureika lives in one!

http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/track/wind/
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:43 pm

>I only slept at a Holiday Inn Express, Jonas Mureika lives in
>one!

http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/track/wind/



Lol, ok. 0.15 difference in 100m times (maybe around 15cm difference in LJ distance). I suppose it's one of those things that varies from athlete to athlete. But 15-20cm added length from the conditions sounds about right (he'd have still smashed the WR even it was worth 8.70 - 8.75m).
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:45 pm

Minus 2 cm.

Beamon's PR (8.33) was 2cm short of the WR (8.35).

How come altitude discriminated against Ralph Boston and Igor Ter-Ovanesjan, who shared the WR until Beamon broke it? In fact altitude worked against them by over 20 cm. Are you suggesting that they actually jumped over 40cm WORSE than at sea level, but the altitude mitigated the fall with a 20cm boost? I don't think so?

Lucy, you got some splainin to do?
Last edited by malmo on Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:14 pm

>How come
>altitude discriminated against Ralph Boston


But it didn't - Boston jumped a SB in the qualifying round of 8.27A, but he jumped 11cm shorter in the final. Is it too impossible to think that Boston's 8.27A from Mexico was maybe worth 8.07 - 8.12m at sea-level?

The altitude also worked wonders for Klaus Beer who improved his best by a considerable margin for 2nd place in the final.

Actually, the top six LJ'ers in Mexico set a SB there (either in qualifying or in the final), apart from Ovanesyan, whose SB of 8.28, set a couple months before Mexico, was also set at altitude (1530m).
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:25 pm

>One thing I thought of was, if we all agree that the "thin" air
>at altitude causes less resistance therefore faster velocities, then
>conversely, the effects of a tailwind at altitude are not as great as that at
>sea level. I'd bet that air resistance increases by the square of velocity.
>Nature always seems to work that way.

Geez, now I'm posting to myself. My hypothesis agrees with Jonas calculator: http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/track/wind/

example 10.00s 100meter
A= 2200m altitude W = 2.0m/s

A = 0.076s (effect of altitude)
Wa = 0.067s (effect of wind at altitude)
A + Wa = 0.143s

Ws = 0.10s (effect of wind at sea level)
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:29 pm

>The altitude also worked wonders for
>Klaus Beer who improved his best by a considerable margin for 2nd place in the
>final.

Kip Keino got a PR in the 1500. Altitude or the event?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby tandfman » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:15 am

Let's not forget (i) the totally demoralizing effect that Beamon's jump had on the rest of the field and (ii) the fact that just after Beamon's jump it started to rain, making things even tougher for everyone.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby Jon » Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:54 am

>>The altitude also worked wonders for
>Klaus Beer who improved his best by a
>considerable margin for 2nd place in the
>final.

Kip Keino got a PR in the
>1500. Altitude or the event?



Look at the top-10 list for the LJ in 1968. Half of the jumps are altitude assisted. Are you trying to say that altitude doesn't assist performance??

Look at Heike Drechsler - in '92 she had very similar conditions to Beamon in Mexico. She had +2.1 wind (although many people say it was 2.0, but that's another story) and 2000m+ of altitude, and she jumped 7.63m - 15cm than she had ever jumped before.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby malmo » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:00 am

>Look at the top-10 list for the LJ in
>1968. Half of the jumps are altitude assisted. Are you trying to say that
>altitude doesn't assist performance??

MALMO SEZ: And ALL of the OLYMPICS were at altitude? Coincidence? No one ever claimed altitude doesn't assist, just not by the degree that others claim it does. That's been the point of my contention in this entire thread.


Look at Heike Drechsler - in '92 she
>had very similar conditions to Beamon in Mexico. She had +2.1 wind (although
>many people say it was 2.0, but that's another story) and 2000m+ of altitude,
>and she jumped 7.63m - 15cm than she had ever jumped before.

MALMO SEZ: 15cm. Yup, almost exactly by the amount that I, and by extension Jonas' calculator, says it does. No news here.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby tafnut » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:10 am

I also contend that since athletes THINK that altitude helps a great deal, they go there looking for PR's (even more than a win, sometimes) and that mind-set certainly helps.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:16 am

The 20 cm is about the max
>I'd concede. Jonas calculations show about a 1.4 percent increase in Hv
>accounting for both altitude and wind -- or 11.66cm - Beamons improvement over
>his PR was 57cm. 11.66/57 = 20.45 percent ambient conditions, 79.54 percent
>mojo.

Looking at Roberty Emmiyan's improvement from 8.61 to 8.86A, it appears that the attributable increase is about 25 cm. That's 45% of Beamon's WR improvement.

I still have not seen ANY evidence presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance on a consistent basis. The cluster of extraordinary performances that withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

As for Runninghorse's orignal post, I will concede that I misread his post because the rest of his post was about how performances were drug enhanced. Surprisingly, I can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby JRM » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:54 am

>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis. The cluster of extraordinary performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

There is a very simple explanation, and it is very physical. First off, the air is thinner due to altitude (about 80% sea level density), as has been discussed here. True, altitude alone will not affect the performances that much (about 0.06s for Mexico City). However, the sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds, and those effects *are* significant, especially when combined with altitude. A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about 0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at 2200m. The effects for the 200m are even greater (explaining those outrageous results too).

Thirdly: heat and humidity play a factor. If it's very hot and very humid, the air density drops even more, and it's almost as if you're at a higher altitude than the "real" one.

By the way: there are no venues at 6600m. Generally Mexico city is as high as you get for international competition (about 2.2km).

I've heard a story that Beamon's record was actually wind-assisted, but the officials were confused about the record-keeping. Anything over 2m/s they were recording *as* 2m/s. Not sure if there is any truth to this or not, but if so then it would certainly help explain the magnitude of the jump.
Last edited by JRM on Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:02 am

>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis.

STUDY OLMYPIC HISTORY, IT'S FULL OF EXAMPLES.

The cluster of extraordinary performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

THERE WAS NO MONEY (to speak of) TO BE MADE BETWEEN OLYMPIC YEARS, THUS NO INCENTIVE LIKE IT WAS DURING THE OLYMPICS.


>Surprisingly, I can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....

THERE ARE NO ERRORS OF FACT OR REASONING IN MY POSTS. THERE WERE IN YOURS. As it were, you didn't admit to error, it was pointed out to you.

ENOUGH OF THIS.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby Shanks » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:09 am

Interesting data Jon re the Mexico LJ results - where did you obtain it?
Last edited by Shanks on Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shanks
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:19 am

True, altitude alone will not
>affect the performances that much (about 0.06s for Mexico City). However, the
>sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds, and those effects *are* significant,
>especially when combined with altitude. A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about
>0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at 2200m.

The 0.14s figure included both components of [1]altitude (0.076s) and [2] +2.0m/s wind at altitude (0.067s). As I surmised earilier (which was verified by Jonas' calculator), wind as a lower effect at altitude (0.067 for 2.0m/s at 2200m) than it does at sea level (0.10 for 2.0m/s at 2200m), not more, as you just suggested.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby JRM » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:42 am

>True, altitude alone will not
>affect the performances that much (about 0.06s
>for Mexico City). However, the
>sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds,
>and those effects *are* significant,
>especially when combined with altitude.
>A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about
>0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at
>t 2200m.

The 0.14s figure included both components of [1]altitude (0.076s)
>and [2] +2.0m/s wind at altitude (0.067s). As I surmised earilier (which was
>verified by Jonas' calculator), wind as a lower effect at altitude (0.067 for
>2.0m/s at 2200m) than it does at sea level (0.10 for 2.0m/s at 2200m), not
>more, as you just suggested.

What I meant was that the *combined* effect of wind+altitude are greater than just wind + no altitude. It depends on how you want to look at it. But, yes, your statement is essentially correct too.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:50 am

>What I meant was that
>the *combined* effect of wind+altitude are greater than just wind + no
>altitude.

I figured is was a misstatement but couldn't be sure. Just as I figured you read the entire thread and had seen I had already addressed the confusion between the "6600m altitude" and "6600km Earth's radius."
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:47 pm

>
>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics
>induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis.

STUDY
>OLMYPIC HISTORY, IT'S FULL OF EXAMPLES.

OK, name several that are as UNIQUE as Beamon's, and then demonstrate that these are much more likely to occur in the Olympics than in other competitions.

The cluster of extraordinary
>performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues
>that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in
>boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical
>explanations.

THERE WAS NO MONEY (to speak of) TO BE MADE BETWEEN OLYMPIC
>YEARS, THUS NO INCENTIVE LIKE IT WAS DURING THE OLYMPICS.

Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in 1960, 1964 and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly flawed here.


>Surprisingly, I
>can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....

THERE ARE NO
>ERRORS OF FACT OR REASONING IN MY POSTS. THERE WERE IN YOURS. As it were, you
>didn't admit to error, it was pointed out to you.

Hmmm, never made a mistake in any of your postings over the many years. That's an interesting claim....

BTW, admitting error doesn't have a requirement that the error be self-discovered; those are two different conditions.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: THATS WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT

Postby Jon » Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:16 pm

>Interesting data Jon re the Mexico LJ results - where did you obtain it?


One of the best stats sites on the web:
http://trackfield.brinkster.net/main.asp

The 1968 LJ info was on this page of the site:
http://trackfield.brinkster.net/results ... =1891-1900
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:55 pm

Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in
>1960, 1964 and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly
>flawed here.

Clearly not. Just comparing 1968 to 1972, and using my (and Jonas) really conservative 0.76 percent altitude benefit factor to equalize the two events (and leaving in the effect for wind), it appears that the events are quite similar.

1968 TJ (minus .76% for altitude in parentheses, we'll leave the wind in)
1968
1 Viktor Saneyev URS 17.39 WR (17.26)
2 Nelson Prudencio BRA 17.27 (17.14)...
3 Giuseppe Gentile ITA 17.22 (17.09)
4 Art Walker USA 17.12 (16.99)
5 Nikolay Dudkin URS 17.09 (16.96)
6 Phil May AUS 17.02 (16.89)

1972 TJ
1 Viktor Saneyev URS 17.35
2 Jörg Drehmel GDR 17.31
3 Nelson Prudencio BRA 17.05
4 Carol Corbu ROM 16.85
5 John Craft USA 16.83
6 Mansour Dia Ba SEN 16.83

Comparison to 1972 (after adjustment for altitude)
1 -0.09m (-0.52%)
2 -0.17 (-0.99%)
3 +0.04 (+0.23%)
4 +0.14 (+0.82%)
5 +0.13 (+0.77%)
6 +0.06 (+0.36%)

1968 LJ (minus .76% for altitude)
1 Bob Beamon USA 8.90 WR (8.83)
2 Klaus Beer GDR 8.19 (8.13)
3 Ralph Boston USA 8.16 (8.10)
4 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan URS 8.12 (8.06)
5 Tonu Lepik URS 8.09 (8.03)
6 Alan Crawley AUS 8.02 (7.96)

1972 LJ
1 Randy Williams USA 8.24
2 Hans Baumgartner FRG 8.18
3 Arnie Robinson USA 8.03
4 Joshua Owusu GHA 8.01
5 Preston Carrington USA 7.99
6 Max Klauss GDR 7.96

Comparison to 1972 (after adjustment for altitude)
1 +0.59m (+6.64%)
2 -0.05 (-0.62%)
3 +0.07 (+0.86%)
4 +0.05 (+0.62%)
5 +0.04 (+0.50%)
6 even
Last edited by malmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:31 am

>Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in
>1960, 1964
>and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly
>flawed
>here.

Listing of LJ and TJ results doesn't answer the question. Your assertion was that the Olympics create conditions where superlative performances occur on a regular basis in MANY events. At Mexico City, the men's WRs were set for the 100, 200, 400, 800, LJ, and TJ. Except for the 800 and TJ, each of these records stood for at least 10 years (and the 200 record was broken at Mexico City again). I know of no such previous or subsequent cluster of such records until the 1993 Chinese National Games (and that's an issue in itself.)

(edit: Add in the women's WRs at 100, 200 and LJ-coincidence?)

Also, as has been discussed here, for at least 2 reasons, the Mexico City LJ results were greatly deflated: a demoralized field after Beamon's opening jump and the onset of rain. The TJ was on the verge of a technical revolution lead by the greatest TJer in history, Saneyev. Mexico City was his coming out party.
Last edited by RMc on Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:42 am

Was Saneyev part of the Fab Five??
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:00 am

Looking at the WR progressions in the TJ and LJ, two other facts jump out:

17.89 Joao Carlos de Oliveira BRA Mexico City Oct 15, 1975

Broke the WR by 45 cm or 17 3/4", and the record stood for 10 years. Yet another "altitude" coincidence?

The LJ WR has been set in spurts over the last century. (This has nothing to do with rest of the thread.) Broken a dozen times in 1898 to 1901, then stood until 1921, then numerous WRs until 1931, then Owens 15 cm improvement that stood 25 years, then a bunch from 1961 to 1968, then nothing until 1991. I'm not aware of any other men's event that is so streaky.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Sprintstatman » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:05 am

Mexico City was also the first OG held on what we would recognise as a modern synthetic track. This was also the first generation of baby-boomer athletes - Hines, Greene, Carlos, Smith, Evans, Beamon, James and so on were an exceptional group who set new standards away from altitude as well.
Sprintstatman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby highjumpsteve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:14 am

>Mexico City was also the first OG held on what we would recognise as a modern
>synthetic track. This was also the first generation of baby-boomer athletes -
>Hines, Greene, Carlos, Smith, Evans, Beamon, James and so on were an
>exceptional group who set new standards away from altitude as well.

good point to raise about the first OG on a synthetic track, no one had brought that out before.

We'll never know, but if these games had been held at a lower altitude the results would have still been spectacular with multiple WR's, just not quite as spectacular. And Doubell's =WR @ 800 probably was hurt by the altitude, not helped. Beamon in the 28's, Saneyev in the 56's, Hemery high 48's, 1600 relay for sure under 2:59, etc.
highjumpsteve
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:28 am

...And Keino at what?...3:32...or 3:36 (and losing)?...
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby highjumpsteve » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:35 am

>...And Keino at what?...3:32...or 3:36 (and losing)?...

Keino would have still won.... his time ? for sure a WR or at worse under 3:34, all IMHO of course.
highjumpsteve
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby tafnut » Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:46 pm

The '67 Ryun would have won, but the '68 version was beatable. Ironically enough, I bet the time would have been the same at sea level, and Keino's early break would have held off the hard-charging Ryun again. Interesting to speculate.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest