My point was making QUANTITATIVE comparisons. Obviously, when we start talking about "who was the greatest runner?" we're making QUALITATIVE comparisons. Quantitative comparisons, as have been made on Montgomery's 100, are too often based on spurious precision. I think that the most underrated 100m performance might be Frank Fredrick's low 9.90s in sub 60F weather a couple of years ago. Nothing quantitative about that comparison....
RMc At 10:17 AM 9/19/2002 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:06:14 -0400 From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions) Nah. We never compare distance results. Some postings to this list. Why didn't people that are all upset by the 100 analysis also come leaping to Ndereba's defence. Radcliffe was nine seconds slower. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Regards, Martin >Richard McCann wrote: > > > As another post said, we don't try to make similar > > comparisons between distance races where varying conditions have > > substantial influence. Richard McCann M.Cubed, Davis, California (530) 757-6363
