You don't know what you're talking about. It is very common for sprint analysts to adjust even wind legal times to evaluate and compare performances. Track & Field News maintains a list of adjusted 100m performances on its website.
There's nothing controversial about saying Kenny's performance was better. It's not some American bias thing, and it's nothing personal against Australia. In fact, Track & Field News uses the Dapena-Linthorne Tables for making adjustments. The tables were developed by Jesús Dapena at Indiana University and Neal Linthorne at University of Western Australia.
When wind is within the allowable limits it is officially not deemed a factor in a performance. This is because it is seen as not aiding the performance. To factor it in when assessing performances is merely subjective opinion. It counts for nothing. If it were otherwise then there would be no allowable wind limit of 2mps or less - everything over zero would be ruled impermissible because of a perceived advantage.
When wind is allowable the main variable will be the track. And altitude.
When wind is within the allowable limits it is officially not deemed a factor in a performance. This is because it is seen as not aiding the performance. To factor it in when assessing performances is merely subjective opinion. It counts for nothing. If it were otherwise then there would be no allowable wind limit of 2mps or less - everything over zero would be ruled impermissible because of a perceived advantage.
When wind is allowable the main variable will be the track. And altitude.
Of course the wind is a factor in performance. If it's wind legal, that just means the wind wasn't deemed to be excessive. It's still a factor. Do you really think a 10.0 with a 1.9 tailwind is the same quality of 100m performance as a 10.0 into a 1.9 headwind?
The adjustment tables take into account both wind and altitude. If they counted for nothing, the tables wouldn't exist, and Track & Field News wouldn't maintain a list of adjusted times.
When wind is within the allowable limits it is officially not deemed a factor in a performance. This is because it is seen as not aiding the performance. To factor it in when assessing performances is merely subjective opinion. It counts for nothing. If it were otherwise then there would be no allowable wind limit of 2mps or less - everything over zero would be ruled impermissible because of a perceived advantage.
When wind is allowable the main variable will be the track. And altitude.
Of course the wind is a factor in performance. If it's wind legal, that just means the wind wasn't deemed to be excessive. It's still a factor. Do you really think a 10.0 with a 1.9 tailwind is the same quality of 100m performance as a 10.0 into a 1.9 headwind?
The adjustment tables take into account both wind and altitude. If they counted for nothing, the tables wouldn't exist, and Track & Field News wouldn't maintain a list of adjusted times.
The wind is not deemed to be a factor until it reaches 2mps. Hence, when it is less than that it is officially determined to not have assisted the time. It also remains conjecture that at what point a head-wind becomes a factor in conversely limiting performance. You are assuming that vidtually any degree of wind will affect performance. It doesnt necessarily follow, especially when you consider that a sprinter is running far faster than an accompanying 2mps tailwind. If a runner is moving much faster than a tailwind it is difficult to determine how they are being aided by the wind - it may be less than we think.
The wind is a factor, just not an excessive one if it's under 2.0.
Please answer my question. Do you really think a 10.0 with a 1.9 tailwind is the same quality of 100m performance as a 10.0 into a 1.9 headwind?
I'll put it this way. I think a 1.9 tail wind is not a measurably significant factor in a 10-flat time compared with no wind (which is the official view) but 1.9 head wind will be a factor because of resistance. But that resistance may not be significant at, say, 1 mps or less.
The wind is a factor, just not an excessive one if it's under 2.0.
Please answer my question. Do you really think a 10.0 with a 1.9 tailwind is the same quality of 100m performance as a 10.0 into a 1.9 headwind?
I'll put it this way. I think a 1.9 tail wind is not a measurably significant factor in a 10-flat time compared with no wind (which is the official view) but 1.9 head wind will be a factor because of resistance. But that resistance may not be significant at, say, 1 mps or less.
Okay, so you acknowledge that a legal headwind can be a factor but you're skeptical about legal tailwinds. I won't try to change your mind. I'll just go by what the researchers say and follow the conversions used by Track & Field News and other sprint analysts.
I'll put it this way. I think a 1.9 tail wind is not a measurably significant factor in a 10-flat time compared with no wind (which is the official view) but 1.9 head wind will be a factor because of resistance. But that resistance may not be significant at, say, 1 mps or less.
Okay, so you acknowledge that a legal headwind can be a factor but you're skeptical about legal tailwinds. I won't try to change your mind. I'll just go by what the researchers say and follow the conversions used by Track & Field News and other sprint analysts.
A head wind offers a resistance, especially as it gets stronger. The effect of a tail wind will be less, as a runner will be running considerably faster than the wind behind them. In my own experience it has to be pretty damn strong to help. The main thing is not encountering resistance. It would have to be a virtual gale to provide a significant boost.
A head wind offers a resistance, especially as it gets stronger. The effect of a tail wind will be less, as a runner will be running considerably faster than the wind behind them. In my own experience it has to be pretty damn strong to help. The main thing is not encountering resistance. It would have to be a virtual gale to provide a significant boost.
I suppose it depends on your definition of significant. In the sprinting world, hundredths of a second are significant. That's the type of difference legal winds can make for or against a sprinter.
A head wind offers a resistance, especially as it gets stronger. The effect of a tail wind will be less, as a runner will be running considerably faster than the wind behind them. In my own experience it has to be pretty damn strong to help. The main thing is not encountering resistance. It would have to be a virtual gale to provide a significant boost.
I suppose it depends on your definition of significant. In the sprinting world, hundredths of a second are significant. That's the type of difference legal winds can make for or against a sprinter.
That's true but it also means that the possible effect of wind in a given race remains speculation, not fact. The fact is that within allowable wind limits Gout Gout has the faster time. Maybe Kenny might have been faster with the same conditions - but it is still only conjecture.
You don't adjust for wind if it is within the allowable limits. Not deemed wind-assisted.
Sprint analysts make that adjustment all the time to evaluate whose performance was better. Kenny's performance was objectively better.
Not for the 200.
For the 200, it’s more just an amusement.
Gout runs 200 in Oslo tomorrow, but I think it’s his first meet in Europe this year, plus that’s a huge flight and time difference, so don’t expect much.
Arguing whose prior performance was superior is pointless, imo.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.