On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote:
> Sorry Randy, but I believe you're the one missing the (my) point. It's
> not about time travelling to compare races, rather that the same person
> will have vastly different performances (up to half a second in a race
> decided by mere hundreths) from day to day, yet we are trying to explain
> away the *few* factors we can account for which have a minute overall
> effect. Sure, a strong tailwind is likely to help a sprinter run faster,
> but feeling less than perfect that day wil negate any such benefit and
> then some. Surely we have to "correct" for that, too?
>
It seems the point you're making is for a different case then the one
being considered. The point (at least of my research, and this
discussion) *is* to see how a particular race will vary with environmental
conditions -- not how a particular *athlete* will vary from race to race.
As is pointed out frequently: we're talking about 1 race: the world record
setting one. So, how does 9.78 (+2.0) stack up to 9.79 (+0.2) or 9.84
(+0.7) etc..., not how does Montgomery compare on a day to day basis with
Greene, Bailey, Big Ben, and so on.
> My guess is he wouldn't have run any faster, but that's just a guess. And
> no amount of correcting or adjusting will ever amount to any more than a
> guess, albeit a slightly educated one...
>
Your guess is, to use your own words, not a very educated one, because you
refuse to recognize the physical laws governing the situation. When it
boils down to it, sprinters are bodies which accelerate forward with
propulsive forces and are hindered by drag forces. As such, if I know the
velocity profile of the runner and their cross-sectional area, along with
the wind speed and altitude, I can *calculate* the drag forces they
experience, and obtain a *calculated* estimate of the time difference
created. These are done using well-behaved and well-defined physical
laws. No magic guesswork involved. No matter how the athlete "feels",
there's no escaping those effects. They are effectively no different from
one person to another -- everyone obeys the laws of physics!
> Sure, if you ignore the fact that we have to, for lack of a less
> repetitive word, ignore the bulk of the data at hand in order to do so,
> then yeah, let's proceed with normalizing the conditions... Let's hear it
> for "real" science!
>
"Real" science recognizes the limitations of a problem, and the reality of
what can be simulated, what can't, and what is important to the outcome.
No one is asking "If Tim had a fight with Marion, how would that have
effected his race, compared to if Greene had won the lottery the night
before his?", because we can't hope to model that (nor is it pertinent to
the question at hand). The physical laws don't care how the athlete
feels, or how perpared they are going into the blocks -- neither, for that
matter, do the officials who ratify the records.
J.
