Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
Why not use it.
Your reasoning is flawed. Why not call it 9.60? Why not call it 10.00?
The original post on this thread talked about world records. This means you are comparing times set on different tracks using different timing systems, different finish line cameras, different ZGT calibrations etc, etc.
Each of these will introduce a level of uncertainty in the actual time when comparing performance across different races. As a result claiming an accuracy of 0.001 sec across different races is not reasonable.
In a photo finish the athletes are in the same race so all the factors listed above are null. Therefore you can state that Athlete A was faster than Athlete B by 0.002 seconds in a particular race. What you cannot say with any confidence that Athlete A was faster than Athlete C by 0.002 seconds when Athlete C raced on a different day in a different country with a different timing system and different cameras.
And a +.03 and .07 are different wind speeds and you should not be able to use that then.
Anyone who set a World Record at the time in Mexico City should not have been eligible.
You're literally saying that there is no way to gauge who is the true record holder because you should not be able to go to the thousandths???
Yes. It is printed right there. They were all credited with official times of 9.88. Look up the official results on their world athletics pages. Thousandths are only used head-to-head for reasons that have been explained many times in this thread. This is the perfect example of that. Thank you for clearing it up.
So there's no reason they can't be used in real time for real results to the thousandth.
And I say they run the clock to the minutest possible time and only estimate for presentation, but write the WR as it is... Even if it's 9.576786
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
Why not use it.
Your reasoning is flawed. Why not call it 9.60? Why not call it 10.00?
The original post on this thread talked about world records. This means you are comparing times set on different tracks using different timing systems, different finish line cameras, different ZGT calibrations etc, etc.
Each of these will introduce a level of uncertainty in the actual time when comparing performance across different races. As a result claiming an accuracy of 0.001 sec across different races is not reasonable.
If somebody was to run 9.569, he will break the world record.
Whereas with your method they won’t. Despite being objectively faster.
Thats why it’s calculated this way?
By your method, if someone else later runs 9.561, he will not break the record, despite being objectively faster. The record will be 9.57 until someone runs 9.55x.
See how arbitrary this is?
How about this: if and when they are accurate to the thousandth, that should be the official time.
Official or not, it's 9.572 in my book, now that I know.
No. The record will be 9.55 is somebody runs 9.55. WE are glad that you have your own list of records on the wall. I gave the record to Jesse Owens at 9.2.
It’s a rule in track and field , the world record is always rounded up. For example it could be 9.571 and it will still be rounded up
This is logical.
I love this debate because it reveals what happens when we want to "get things right" and technology allows us to parse ever more minutely. Someone else made the point that comparing different races on different tracks at different times to the hundredth or thousand of a second probably is probably not actually valid.
I understand that there can be a lot at stake when it comes to a world record or a world championship and there is a desire to "get it right." Like using replay in other sports...
But when the differences are so minuscule that the human eye can't perceive them, we end up arguing about the validity of timing systems or the angle of replay videos. In other words, I don't think tech is going to help us get it right. I think we'll just keep arguing farther and farther to the right of the decimal.
No. The record will be 9.55 is somebody runs 9.55. WE are glad that you have your own list of records on the wall. I gave the record to Jesse Owens at 9.2.
You are either not listening, or stupid. If someone ran 9.569, and then someone ran 9.561, then the record is 9.561. There is no question of who gets to 9.55 first, except for the idiots like you who insist on it.
the world record right now is 9.572, like it or not. Screw the "rules." It's not 9.58.
If somebody was to run 9.569, he will break the world record.
Whereas with your method they won’t. Despite being objectively faster.
Thats why it’s calculated this way?
By your method, if someone else later runs 9.561, he will not break the record, despite being objectively faster. The record will be 9.57 until someone runs 9.55x.
See how arbitrary this is?
How about this: if and when they are accurate to the thousandth, that should be the official time.
Official or not, it's 9.572 in my book, now that I know.
100% agree. This right here is the problem with the current system. A time of 9.561 is treated as the same time as 9.57 when clearly they are not even close. 9.572 should be brought down to 9.57 and 9.561 brought down to 9.56. They should just be using standard math rules rather than creating a rule book of their own which doesn’t make sense.
9.572 should be brought down to 9.57 and 9.561 brought down to 9.56.
Absolutely not. Someone who ran 9.572 did NOT run 9.57.
Just because you are too dumb to understand that doesn't mean that World Athletics is incorrect.
The problem isn't World Athletics rules. The problem is that you aren't smart.
No. 9.572 is 9.572. If we can get the time to that digit, let's get it to that digit.
Now, let us discuss your attitude in this debate. There is no need for you to have insulted anyone's intelligence to have made a point.
The real problem is that many of you came from dads and coaches who thought in terms of binary. 0 and 1. W and L. Yes and no.
But this argument is not that way. It's equally valid for someone to say 9.57 and be right and for someone to say 9.58 and be right.
To say 9.57 is not dumb... it's their educated opinion. Nobody posting here is uneducated at this sport and for you to take this kind of stance is just looking to win. Like Daddy. Like Coach.
Maybe they should have been more understanding to different efforts.
Maybe you should be more understanding of different opinions without parroting the worst rhetoric gleaned of Daddy and Coach.
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
Why not use it.
Your reasoning is flawed. Why not call it 9.60? Why not call it 10.00?
The original post on this thread talked about world records. This means you are comparing times set on different tracks using different timing systems, different finish line cameras, different ZGT calibrations etc, etc.
Each of these will introduce a level of uncertainty in the actual time when comparing performance across different races. As a result claiming an accuracy of 0.001 sec across different races is not reasonable.
In a photo finish the athletes are in the same race so all the factors listed above are null. Therefore you can state that Athlete A was faster than Athlete B by 0.002 seconds in a particular race. What you cannot say with any confidence that Athlete A was faster than Athlete C by 0.002 seconds when Athlete C raced on a different day in a different country with a different timing system and different cameras.
"different tracks using different timing systems, different finish line cameras, different ZGT calibrations etc,"
This is the case whether you are measuring to 1/100th or 1/1,000 of a second.
9.572 should be brought down to 9.57 and 9.561 brought down to 9.56.
Absolutely not. Someone who ran 9.572 did NOT run 9.57.
Just because you are too dumb to understand that doesn't mean that World Athletics is incorrect.
The problem isn't World Athletics rules. The problem is that you aren't smart.
A person that throws insults like you have just done shows a direct correlation to a lack of emotional control and intelligence. You have simply exposed yourself as the not so smart one.
Absolutely not. Someone who ran 9.572 did NOT run 9.57.
Just because you are too dumb to understand that doesn't mean that World Athletics is incorrect.
The problem isn't World Athletics rules. The problem is that you aren't smart.
No. 9.572 is 9.572. If we can get the time to that digit, let's get it to that digit.
Now, let us discuss your attitude in this debate. There is no need for you to have insulted anyone's intelligence to have made a point.
The real problem is that many of you came from dads and coaches who thought in terms of binary. 0 and 1. W and L. Yes and no.
But this argument is not that way. It's equally valid for someone to say 9.57 and be right and for someone to say 9.58 and be right.
To say 9.57 is not dumb... it's their educated opinion. Nobody posting here is uneducated at this sport and for you to take this kind of stance is just looking to win. Like Daddy. Like Coach.
Maybe they should have been more understanding to different efforts.
Maybe you should be more understanding of different opinions without parroting the worst rhetoric gleaned of Daddy and Coach.
It's not rounding, it's more like a ceiling function or operation, which maps x to the smallest integer greater than or equal to x. In this case, it's not an integer but hundredths of a second.
Does it really though? What if the time was 9.5703 (regardless of whether the timing had that precision)?
I was actually unaware but just read that when Bolt set the current 100m world record he actually ran 9.572 but athletics rules state it had to be rounded up to 9.58. Does anyone know why that rule is in place? Any second grade student knows that 0.5 or above is rounded up and below 0.5 rounds down. Just seems an absurd rule to have in place.
I am Earth have we met? Oh, and we round up from nearest thousandth to the nearest hundredth on this planet!
It's not rounding, it's more like a ceiling function or operation, which maps x to the smallest integer greater than or equal to x. In this case, it's not an integer but hundredths of a second.
Does it really though? What if the time was 9.5703 (regardless of whether the timing had that precision)?
Not sure what they do with a leading zero in the thousandth place, but no matter what rounding policy they select, there inevitably is somebody that loses a whole centisecond because they were on the wrong side by a ten thousandth of a second.
I watched a football game this year where a kick returner ran a kick back 80 yards for a touchdown. Then he ran another one back 90 yards. He was credited for 6 points each time even though they were not equal. Then the other team had a kick returner come from the middle of the end zone and run a kick back but on replay, he dropped the ball at the 1" line. He got zero points even though he ran the ball 105 yards. His coach argued that he ran 104.99 yards while the other team only ran 80 and 90 yards. The ref explained that at 104.99 yards, he hadn't yet crossed the goal line so we can't round it to 105 and pretend that he did.