PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Bay Sheffield Carnival - HANDICAPS for senior events
Today at 5:01 pm by Admin

» 2018 Bay Sheffield - U/18 & U/14 HANDICAPS
Today at 4:09 pm by Admin

» Marysville Results
Today at 3:05 pm by vicoutsider

» Marysville Gift
Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:02 pm by Mex

» Keith Patching Sprint Poll
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:27 pm by Trackstar

» Brighton Athletic Carnival (SAAL) Handicaps - Sunday 16th dec 2018
Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:31 pm by Admin

» Womens Gifts
Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:19 pm by Mex

» Waverley Results
Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:55 pm by JH

» Waverley Gift
Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:25 pm by Mex

December 2018
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Electronic timing at Stawell

Electronic timing at Stawell

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Electronic timing at Stawell on Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:15 pm

tasmanian


What year did electronic timing begin for the Stawell Gift?
It would be interesting to do some comparisons between winners times over the years.

2 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:44 pm

Admin

avatar
Admin
Admin
tasmanian wrote:What year did electronic timing begin for the Stawell Gift?
It would be interesting to do some comparisons between winners times over the years.

1982 - Chris Perry.

http://protrack.forumotion.com

3 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:15 pm

thecrimsonflash


What year did they start “adjusting times”.

The VAL is unique in it’s stance on adjusting times for wind but it may be holding the sport back.

Let’s leave the times raw and give a wind reading. Adjusting them doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

4 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:41 pm

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
In my time in the sport the acceptance of artificially adjusted times as the official times by the VAL is the most bizarre and nonsensical decision ever made.

I certainly understand the wind readings being taken into account for handicap purposes. That's not the issue.

This is about the historical recording of times for all of our races.

Funny that no one has ever owned up to sanctioning it and making it a part of the rules. Nor should they. It makes them look like a complete and utter imbecile who's knowledge of athletics and wind readings should be written down then rolled up, placed in a cylinder and shoved up their backside, never to see the light of day again.

If I had my way every pro race, especially the Stawell Gift that had an adjusted time in its history would be changed to the raw time with the wind reading in brackets. But that won't happen until a few of the idiots behind this nonsense are pensioned off.

In my view it cost Devon Allen a spot in the Stawell Gift final. The 4.0 tail wind for heat 4 was ridiculous. It effectively pushed Allen from a top 6 fastest time into the 12th fastest. Thereby into a semi against the fastest qualifier - Jacob Despard. He should not have drawn Despard.

The Commonwealth Games 100m track events will be on soon and thankfully we won't have to put up with wind adjusted times distorting results.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

5 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:47 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Youngy most of the pro-running world agree with you, when I introduced the wind guage to the VAL never did I expect an ignorant few would highjack it and make up false adjusted times and think they should be official times and that wind over every distance and at every speed impacts every runner the same...Ludicrous

6 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:10 pm

SANCHEZ


What is ridiculous is you people thinking that a 12.40 run with zero wind is the equivalent of a 12.40 run with a 3m headwind. Because that is in effect what you are saying. I've got no problem with real times being recorded in history as the official time, but for handicapping and stewarding the adjusted times give a far more realistic comparison between runners on the day. It is nowhere near exact, but it is gives a far superior comparison between performances than taking no notice of the wind. Imagine having your handicap determined for a 5 year period using unadjusted times. Every time you'd turn up to a meeting with a tailwind you'd be tempted to scratch if you were running well. Adjusted times are a must with our current system of handicaps determined by your two best Rpm's.

7 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:42 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
There is a simple solution to that Sanchez and that is only performance with legal wind readings are to be considered in determining and influencing handicapping.

By legal wind readings, I mean wind readings of less than 2m/s as is internationally recognised. Why a few individuals in the VAL think they are more qualified than international experts does astound me.

Performance with wind readings greater than 2m/s would be ignored, just as poor performance are for handicapping purposes.

It has been proven with many research papers that the wind adjustment (0.05sec for 1m of wind) is massively inaccurate for wind readings greater than 2m/s and even more hugely inaccurate for women and times slower than 10.20 sec for the 100m.

8 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:53 am

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
SANCHEZ wrote:What is ridiculous is you people thinking that a 12.40 run with zero wind is the equivalent of a 12.40 run with a 3m headwind. Because that is in effect what you are saying. I've got no problem with real times being recorded in history as the official time, but for handicapping and stewarding the adjusted times give a far more realistic comparison between runners on the day. It is nowhere near exact, but it is gives a far superior comparison between performances than taking no notice of the wind. Imagine having your handicap determined for a 5 year period using unadjusted times. Every time you'd turn up to a meeting with a tailwind you'd be tempted to scratch if you were running well. Adjusted times are a must with our current system of handicaps determined by your two best Rpm's.

Sanchez, you ignoramus, what part of this sentence did you not understand.

"I certainly understand the wind readings being taken into account for handicap purposes. That's not the issue."

At no stage have I ever suggested that a 12.40 with a 2m headwind is the same as a 12.40 with no wind. You are being completely disrespectful and incredibly ignorant to suggest that we don't know the difference.

If you are so fricken smart, Sanchez explain exactly at what stage of the race did a 4.0m tail wind pop up in heat 4 of the gift.  The very next heat was a -0.3; where did the wind go? Perhaps up your bum? That gale blowing them up the track hang didn't hang around very long did it? There's no way it was a 4.0m tail wind. Hence the premise of the argument being it should only be used as a guide and not be regarded as 100% accurate.

In my view as soon as the 4.0m wind reading popped up it should have been ignored as not accurate and a default 0.0 wind reading be given.

The thing is Devon Allen ran a seriously fast time of 12.27sec that was ridiculously distorted by a dubious wind reading.  

The VAL  is the only organisation in the world that makes adjusted times the official times And that is wrong.

One more thing -the difference in track conditions is massive throughout the circuit. A 2.0m tail wind at Terang with a wet lush track is not the same as a dry fast track at Bendigo. Avondale Heights was a slow track and even a 4.0m tail wind is not going to change it to the extent you will run as fast there as Bendigo.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

9 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:08 pm

justheshot


It would be optimal to know Raw times & Wind
Or even Adjusted times in addition to Wind

Wind effects different runners of varied power & technique - so a simple 0.1 adjust for 2m + wind is not accurate either & this is more pertinent in Womens Sprinting

Take one of my runners - Kiara Reddingius - she is a strong girl (180kg parallel Squat+) who's best race results are set into Head Winds on heavy grass tracks

Bay Sheff - good weather 3m+ Wind soft ground
Ballarat - With slightly lower but similar otherwise
Parkdale - Wet soft ground into 3m Wind

Kiara's Parkdale win of 14.30 (14.45 raw) would indicate to many girls a 13.80 ish run at Stawell on much faster ground with Tail winds but she does not have the technique, turnover & rhythm to run the 11.70 100 on synthetic that it takes to run 13.80 on Stawell grass from 3.0m

But on Challenge Mondo with Tail Winds her best 100 race was at the State Champs a week after her Ballarat Win where she placed in 12.15

Her real speed is franked better at the Hep sprint of 200m where she is meters off breaking 24sec & is always full on for points

But at Stawell she has 23.06 Coates & 11.60+ junior within 1.5m of her 3.0m

WINNER ONLY PROGRESSION

I think Stawell lost its nature when it went "Amateur" in its round progression nature & allowed time & placing to effect advancement

Used to be the cut throat winners only progression

Then Hit Winners with fastest losers needing to Win Repocharges on Day 1 - also categoric

I would rather see Winners only progress with Repocharges & Raw times + Wind readings published - let us decide whether Tim Mason or Nugget Naylor would be more at ease into a 4m Head wind



10 Re: Electronic timing at Stawell on Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:56 pm

Whispers


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
I know you have to beat everyone to win the Gift, but Despard surely didnt deserve to draw Allen in his Semi after running the fastest heat.
You really have to appreciate Despards effort really when you consider he had to get over Whyllie in his heat then Allen in the Semi.
There was a couple of easier Semis , and you have two drawcards who should have been in the final facing off in the Semis because the draw was distorted by wind readings.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum