Why is the legal windspeed limit at 2.0m/s, and why don't we just automatically convert times for record purposes? Like a guy running 9.99 -2.0 is way better than a guy running 9.98 +2.0, but on the all time list 9.98 guy is on top. Do they at least get converted for standards like in the NCAA?
I've always wondered this as well. Guessing there would just never be enough consensus on what exact formula to use for the conversion so we just keep on keeping on with the old-school simple way of doing things.
I remember this was particularly obvious with the 200m record back before Michael Johnson shattered it in '96. Before that it had been Pietro Mennea's 19.72(A) which had stood since '79 but had +1.8 wind and was run at very high elevation (7000'+) in Mexico City. But Mike Marsh had run 19.73 in '92 with -0.2 wind at sea level in Barcelona, which was clearly a much superior performance but not a world record...
You re not serious are you?
Wind has different effects on different people. It is not as simple as converting a mile time to a 1500m time.
But a marathoner could slow down only like 1.075 compared to 1.08
Related question: why is there no altitude limit for sprint/jumps world records? And why aren't athletes chasing times in Tibet if there isn't one?
High-altitude sprinter wrote:
Related question: why is there no altitude limit for sprint/jumps world records? And why aren't athletes chasing times in Tibet if there isn't one?
Yeah, it does seem a little stupid to me that there is no altitude limit for sprints/jumps records because it's obviously an unfair advantage especially at really high elevations like Mexico City (not to take anything away from how awesome athletes like Pietro Mennea and Bob Beamon were). Interestingly the men's high jump record was set at 2,630' which might be high enough elevation to have some advantage (maybe an extra one cm?) but is just under the cutoff (1,000 meters or 3,280') to get marked with an (A).
The thought of sprinters and jumpers intentionally going to Tibet to chase crazy marks is definitely amusing, but health risks might be the biggest concern there (in addition to the probably impractical costs of traveling and hosting a meet in such a remote place).
Altitude sickness becomes a much more serious concern once you get above 8,000'. It effects everyone differently but at extremely high elevations like Tibet (say 11,000-16,000') lots of people are susceptible to it, and people who are really susceptible can rapidly develop potentially life-threatening conditions like HACE and HAPE all while not realizing what's happening to them and the severity of their situation. As far as I know, most running and bike races tend to top out below 10,000-11,000', but I realize there are some exceptions like the Pikes Peak Marathon.