PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

June 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Adjusted Times

Adjusted Times

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:48 am

nep87


Can someone please tell me why the VAL persists with advertising adjusted times for sprinting performances.? They are false and misleading to all involved. I am aware of the formula they use to adjust the time and those that are interested can quickly do the calculation to get the correct time. But what bothers me most is they use adjusted times for qualification purposes etc eg from heats to semi finals and even from semis to finals in smaller gift meetings where numbers are lower. The biggest athletics federation in the world the IAAF do not use adjusted times for anything they simply give the time and then the wind reading. There has been substantial money spent on studies to discover the effect of wind on athletic performance but there is still no conclusive findings as to what that is. We all know that if you run 10.50sec into a 2m headwind it's a superior performance to 10.50 with a following wind but without exactly knowing that effect we shouldn't be using any formulas to adjust this. Also when you adjust performance you are saying that for example the runner competed the distance in 12.10sec after you have adjusted their time because they ran into a headwind but the facts are when the clock was at 12.10sec the runner was still a metre or so short of the line. So the the results you are publishing and announcing are false and misleading.
Please VAL get rid of adjusted times because there is no such thing and it is wrong.

2 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:18 pm

Mex

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Hello nep87

The difficulty for our sport is that handicaps are generated from adjusted times. It makes sense that the progression from heat to final should be the same. I wouldn't mind if there was more emphasis on the placings of the semi and then fill the final with a number of times. In this way the Terang Gift final would have had Eschebach in it as well. Perhaps this is something to look at. I would not change to raw times for progression.

3 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:21 pm

Ballarat Athletic Club


nep87 we agree this is a debate that needs to be had, the following is our response to the VAL's request for feedback on rule changes.

7.       Progression from heats to semis and finals is to be generated by winners and fastest times only.  Progression is not to proceed based on placings.  (VAL Rule Change)

While this rule change is reasonably fair for the circular events it is unfair for straight events and especially unfair and unreasonable for semi-finals progression and even more so if semis are seeded on raw times as they should be.

All times should be recorded as raw times as this is the actual time of the race and has not been manipulated by an unproven wind adjustment method used by the VAL.  As wind impacts sprinters to different degrees and the adjustment favours some over others. The fairest and best way for progression for straight line events is wins and places first and then raw times (if there is an uneven number to progress.) E.g. 4 semis then 1st and 2nd to final of 8, if 6 semi then winners and next 2 fastest raw times to final of 8.
Wins and then place followed by raw times is the fairest and best way. By removing times you remove the inaccuracies of wind adjustment and impact of wind on times

I and the BAC strongly disagree with fastest wind adjusted times being used as progression to finals. The wind adjustment currently used by the VAL is hugely inaccurate and distorts comparison of performances. The fairest progression to finals is on placing's in semi-finals especially if the semis are seeded on raw times.

Also raw times with wind readings of less that 2m should be the only times used for handicapping purposes. Performances comparisons are significantly distorted by wind readings greater than 2m and the fairest way is for them to be excluded from any calculations. The athletics world recognises this and accepts it, why does the VAL not? Races with wind readings of greater than 2m per sec are not recognised as records or as legal winds.

If winds of greater that 2m impact on handicaps then you are indirectly encouraging athletes to not try if significant tail winds are prevailing. The current wind adjustment of .05 sec for 1 metre of wind is not anywhere near accurate, I have done many experiments with this over the years and  the impact is far greater than .05 sec per 1 meter of wind and varies greatly as the wind increases and the distance increases. I fail to understand why and on what basis the VAL have chosen to adjust times in this way, what is the basis for the current wind adjustment times and why it is the same for 70m, 100m and 120m? Please provide the evidence and justification for the current wind adjustment to times.

Summary –
Straight races with wind readings of greater that 2m per sec should be ignored for handicapping purposes. The current wind adjustment method is hugely inaccurate and the VAL is the only organisation in the world that has endorsed it and use it for progression to finals.
The current wind adjustment method hugely distorts time comparisons for handicapping.
Wins and then places followed by raw times is the fairest and best way for progression to finals for straight events or events less than 400m.



Last edited by Ballarat Athletic Club on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

4 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:31 pm

JH

avatar
Expert
Expert
With due respect to Tim he had 6 next fastest to make it and ran 2nd in his semi in 12.96, the 6 beaten runners in the 2nd semi ran faster! Who deserved more to be there?

5 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:44 pm

Trackstar

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
JH wrote:With due respect to Tim he had 6 next fastest to make it and ran 2nd in his semi in 12.96, the 6 beaten runners in the 2nd semi ran faster! Who deserved more to be there?

Semis were drawn on seeded results of heats so assume the semis were evenly matched. Therefore Tim Eschebach, second in the semi deserves to be in the final before someone who ran 5th in another semi.

6 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:57 pm

Scoop


The glaring problem that no one has pointed out is that the same adjustment is used for 70, 100, 120 and 200. How is this possible? You are running further in 1 race than the other. 2m headwind creates same amount of adjustment in 70 as 120. Shouldn't it be 7/12ths of the adjustment? This is why fastest 70 times are all into headwinds.

But I do believe adjusting for wind if you're taking times is necessary. Just need to have different adjustments for every distance.

The reason for not taking top 2-3 is to stop people running for a placing in semis. Which makes sense. Yes it's strange for 7 to come out of one semi but I guess it's a matter of you win some you lose some

7 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:07 pm

Ballarat Athletic Club


Scoop wrote:The glaring problem that no one has pointed out is that the same adjustment is used for 70, 100, 120 and 200. How is this possible? You are running further in 1 race than the other. 2m headwind creates same amount of adjustment in 70 as 120. Shouldn't it be 7/12ths of the adjustment? This is why fastest 70 times are all into headwinds.

But I do believe adjusting for wind if you're taking times is necessary. Just need to have different adjustments for every distance.

The reason for not taking top 2-3 is to stop people running for a placing in semis. Which makes sense. Yes it's strange for 7 to come out of one semi but I guess it's a matter of you win some you lose some

Scoop the glaring problem was addressed in our feedback to the VAL. The same adjustment for different distances is a significant error.

The wind adjustment is inaccurate and favours some athletes over others.

For the major meetings placing progression is the fairest and rules should be focused on the sports best offerings not their poorest. It is actually harder to run second than it is to win so I disagree that runners will run for places especially in the major events.

8 Re: Adjusted Times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:04 pm

nep87


Scoop the main point here is that using adjusted times is inaccurate and wrong. if anyone from the VAL could reveal the source of where they got this formula they currently use from. I can guarantee it is not something backed up by research and studies of any note. It needs to be scrapped immediately and all qualification is done from the time that is run the wind reading is announced just for record purposes.
Tell me a 5ft7inch 65kg sprinter runs into wind as well as a 6ft2inch 90kg sprinter I think not

9 Research on wind adjusted times on Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:22 pm

smokey


Expert
Expert
Contary to some of the "hype" above conclusive and professional research has been done and supports the use of wind adjusted times by the VAL. I personally can't lfault it.
For the past 25+ years the VAL events have been electronically timed to 1/1000 of a sec. but  have only been announced and rounded as 1/100 of a second.
As the wind can fluctuate markedly on any given day and to gain a better appreciation of any two performances it is necessary to know what the wind was doing. The expression that one of the performances was with a tail or into a head wind is not really much of a guide. Particularly from the athletes point of view and of course the Handicappers.
Sure many of us can make the adjustment in our head to do this but as time goes on and the formula and equipment becomes more refined as indeed it will then this will become a task beyond a quick piece of mental arithmetic. The VAL is prepared for this and it can be implented quickly using the current equipment.

We are ahead of the pack in this regard and at some time in the future I expect other bodies to fall into line. The reason that the amatuer bodies use 2m wind as their guide is incredibly dated in that when the rules were originally written the popular stop watches of the day only timed in tenths of a second so the use of 2m a 1/10sec dates back roughly 100 years and for reason best known to others is still used today. But as I said earlier I think that one day perhaps not in the too distance future this will change as more research is done and the logic of the case becomes overwhelming.

The research done in the article below provides a strong case as to the reliablity of the use of wind adjusted time by the VAL. As it has been a great servant to the sport for over 20 years it would be a great disapointment if the current argument was carried and the VAL retreated into the dark ages.


https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0007/0007042v1.pdf

10 Re: Adjusted Times on Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:20 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
I have studies the attached article (above) in detail, it just confirms what we all know and that is- wind impacts performance but there is no accuracy ( one size fits all) what so ever in how that can be quantified to a standard adjustment across varying distances ( 70, 100, 120,200m) on different surfaces and with different classes of athletes.

The facts are clear each and every athlete is impacted differently by wind, and it is not fair to assume a standard adjustment -some are advantaged by the current adjustment some are disadvantaged.

The article confirms that the effects of wind are far more complicated than a simple standard one size fits all adjustment, most of the research done is on small winds with elite athletes ,the VAL does not have many elite athletes compete on a regular basis, and the elite athletes when they do compete are easy to handicap as they have good established form and performances.

11 Re: Adjusted Times on Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:41 am

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
Smokie said
We are ahead of the pack in this regard and at some time in the future I expect other bodies to fall into line.

I don't think so. Yes in SA we would love a wind gauge to estimate the wind however to use wind adjusted times as the official time is just ludicrous for all the points already mentioned.

When the IAAF start using adjusted times for official results then we might think about it.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

12 Re: Adjusted Times on Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:58 am

Phantom

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
JH, with all respect, if you think that the results of the 2 semi finals were accurate at Terang then you have rocks in your head. Too often we see all the times come out of 1 semi final only, when they are evenly seeded semis. Also the winner of the slowest semi actually won the final??? The use of times only is a stinking turd of an idea.

13 Re: Adjusted Times on Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:14 am

nep87


The winner of the slowest semi final at Terang
Won his semi easily had them covered by 90m so his time was irrelevant.
I totally agree with Youngy if the IAAF cannot agree on an acceptable wind adjustment and they spent a considerable amount of money and research towards it. The study that has been linked with above message just confirms that adjusting performances for wind is inaccurate. To say that the VAL is leading the way give me a spell. As long as the seeding is done correctly for semi finals etc the best runners will qualify for finals. I think a change such as first 3 in each semi finals plus 2fadtest times is a much better system of qualification than 1st plus times. Especially when the VAL are using a system that is innacuate.

14 Re: Adjusted Times on Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:20 pm

JH

avatar
Expert
Expert
Phantom wrote:JH, with all respect, if you think that the results of the 2 semi finals were accurate at Terang then you have rocks in your head. Too often we see all the times come out of 1 semi final only, when they are evenly seeded semis. Also the winner of the slowest semi actually won the final???  The use of times only is a stinking turd of an idea.

Phantom

Whether i think they were accurate or not is irrelevant it is what we have to work with at this stage.What i was saying is all the runners in the 2nd semi ran faster than Eschebach all day.Dunmill coasted to the front in the first semi and didn't have to run time the 2nd semi was pulled along by Rosen hence the result. The onus is always for the coach and athlete to be aware of what they have to do or is it easier to just complain?

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum