Just because you put "not to be a dickhead" in front of that comment doesnt excuse the fact that nitpicking like that makes you a dickhead. So yes, ur a dickhead.
Just because you put "not to be a dickhead" in front of that comment doesnt excuse the fact that nitpicking like that makes you a dickhead. So yes, ur a dickhead.
It's very simple. You list hand times to the tenth (.1), auto times to hundredth (.01).
interesting how he was able to bounce back so quickly from \"strep throat\". there is much more to that story and very indicative of the prospects of talent being derailed by the ego of a diva
How is a guy so un-well to run at Indoor Nationals, yet can bounce back to run a 400 two weeks later? Something is not right here.
shhhh wrote:
interesting how he was able to bounce back so quickly from "strep throat". there is much more to that story and very indicative of the prospects of talent being derailed by the ego of a diva
You are an idiot who is making stupid accusations, please stop.
maybe these two are superhuman and can accurately time to the .01, the .24 comes from a statistical average, thus technical it does not apply to a single sample, nor to every individual, since you did not sample this guy and his ability to start and stop the clock, we'll never know if its accurate to the 1 .1 or .01 position (unless we have very specific video data), therefore it was most appropriate for him to give us a non-converted reading from the clock.... so how about the wannabe high school "know it all's with the thick black glasses" go back to Trolling somewhere else.
nope.... wrote:
Just because you put "not to be a dickhead" in front of that comment doesnt excuse the fact that nitpicking like that makes you a dickhead. So yes, ur a dickhead.
Since the event Dix and Chambers competed in was not the 400m relay I wouldn't call this "nitpicking".
Hmmm... wrote:
How is a guy so un-well to run at Indoor Nationals, yet can bounce back to run a 400 two weeks later? Something is not right here.
I've recovered from strep throat which had me toast on a Sunday yet well enough to PR over 5000m the next Saturday. What's your point Doctor?
I clicked on this link thinking he ran a whole 400m relay by himself. If it was titled "...1600m relay..." I wouldn't have clicked it at all.
Hmmm... wrote:
How is a guy so un-well to run at Indoor Nationals, yet can bounce back to run a 400 two weeks later? Something is not right here.
you are retarded. it's f***ing strep throat. it's just like a normal cold, you feel crappy for 2 or 3 days and then you get better. two weeks after you feel perfectly fine, 1 week after you should feel perfectly fine. of course he was completely recovered two weeks later
alk3 wrote:
not to be a dickhead but its the 1600m relay
to most of the world it's a 4x400 relay
yep... wrote:
I clicked on this link thinking he ran a whole 400m relay by himself. If it was titled "...1600m relay..." I wouldn't have clicked it at all.
metro gnome wrote: I also.
yep... wrote:I clicked on this link thinking he ran a whole 400m relay by himself. If it was titled "...1600m relay..." I wouldn't have clicked it at all.
Gator wrote:
maybe these two are superhuman and can accurately time to the .01, the .24 comes from a statistical average, thus technical it does not apply to a single sample, nor to every individual, since you did not sample this guy and his ability to start and stop the clock, we'll never know if its accurate to the 1 .1 or .01 position (unless we have very specific video data), therefore it was most appropriate for him to give us a non-converted reading from the clock.... so how about the wannabe high school "know it all's with the thick black glasses" go back to Trolling somewhere else.
See above. The 0.24 factor is the systematic bias from the lag in reacting to the gun. It is not inherent in hand times, it is inherent in hand times reacting to the gun. Hand times in the relay do not need to be systematically biased; they just have largish standard errors (and those producing the fastest times (esp. relative to an individual) tend to be biased, but not by 0.24).
Also note that they is apparently a 'reliable' timing of 45.6 or 45.7 for the leg, so the 45.24 mark is not apparently too accurate.
Leaving aside any arguments about statistical scatter and so on, rounding to the nearest tenth is the accepted way of indicating a hand time. There's a very significant difference between a 45.20 (for example) and a 45.2. Whether or not the extra 0.04 in 45.24 has any actual significance, it's misleading to people who glance at the time.
I'm not saying it's a big deal -- just explaining that the rounding convention is about conveying relevant information quickly, not just stats.
26mi235 wrote:
Gator wrote:maybe these two are superhuman and can accurately time to the .01, the .24 comes from a statistical average, thus technical it does not apply to a single sample, nor to every individual, since you did not sample this guy and his ability to start and stop the clock, we'll never know if its accurate to the 1 .1 or .01 position (unless we have very specific video data), therefore it was most appropriate for him to give us a non-converted reading from the clock.... so how about the wannabe high school "know it all's with the thick black glasses" go back to Trolling somewhere else.
See above. The 0.24 factor is the systematic bias from the lag in reacting to the gun. It is not inherent in hand times, it is inherent in hand times reacting to the gun. Hand times in the relay do not need to be systematically biased; they just have largish standard errors (and those producing the fastest times (esp. relative to an individual) tend to be biased, but not by 0.24).
Also note that they is apparently a 'reliable' timing of 45.6 or 45.7 for the leg, so the 45.24 mark is not apparently too accurate.
Reaction time of an individual is subject to error of the individual, which may or may not be 0.24, the point is that the Trolls were being pretentious pricks about things and correcting someone's raw experimental data isnt necessary... the only way the last sig fig can be discounted is if you can prove for the individual taking the data, that he or she has an inherit bias ~.1 secs.... since you can not the little hissy-fit about "wtf it rounds to 45.3" is bull... the only reason that 0.24 secs is added to sprints is to make sure to overestimate for the delay to the gun (3 standard deviations).... also since there isnt a gun to account for (it wasnt the first leg) it is irrelevant... the only possible argument that makes any sense at all is when did they start the watch relative to the exchange.