Showing posts with label World Records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Records. Show all posts

November 15, 2008

How Fast Could Usain Bolt Have Run?

File this one in the category of Left-Brain specials from somebody else’s brain (thanks to SportsFilter for picking up on this, many weeks ago).

In September, four physicists from the University of Oslo submitted a scientific paper cleverly titled Velocity Dispersions in a Cluster of Stars: How Fast Could Usain Bolt Have Run? As the abstract describes, the paper investigates the question of what Bolt’s 100 metre time might have been in the Olympic final, had he not spent the last 20 metres of the race celebrating his victory:

We revisit this question by measuring Bolt’s position as a function of time using footage of the run, and then extrapolate into the last two seconds based on two different assumptions. First, we conservatively assume that Bolt could have maintained Richard Thompson’s, the runner-up, acceleration during the end of the race. Second, based on the race development prior to the celebration, we assume that he could also have kept an acceleration of 0.5 m/s2 higher than Thompson. In these two cases, we find that the new world record would have been 9.61 ± 0.04 and 9.55 ± 0.04 seconds, respectively, where the uncertainties denote 95% statistical errors.

I will have more to say about Bolt's astounding performance at a later date, assuming that I find time to keep this up.

August 22, 2006

All Those Who Have Achieved a World Record …

… please step forward. Not so fast, Mr. Gebreselassie!

From the guilty-until-proven-innocent-department, here's a little fact (courtesy of the People's Daily — read past the part about the Gatlin case) that I did not know about world records in athletics:

"We are very specific. Any record from 100m to 100km must have been tested for EPO. This has been the case for two years now, but it seems that not all the laboratories know about it," said [secretary general of the IAAF Pierre] Weiss.

According to the same article, the IAAF has refused to ratify at least three world record performances in 2006 because the testing laboratory failed to test an athlete's urine for EPO. You heard that right; not for a failed test, but for a failure to perform the test properly.

The section concerning world records in the IAAF Rulebook is seven pages long. Athletes are required to submit an application form, signed by numerous officials who certify the course, conditions, equipment, etc. A doping control officer also has to certify that a sample was collected from the athlete and sent to the laboratory for analysis.

The most recent record to be rejected was for the men's 25 km road race, where Ethiopia's legendary Haile Gebreselassie recorded a time of 1:11.37 in the Netherlands earlier this year. That accomplishment will not stand as a world record, thanks to bureaucratic incompetence.

November 09, 2005

Peak Performance?

A report from two British scientists claims that today's athletes are running at or near the limits of human performance:

For the first time we have identified that there could be a limit to performance and that world records will not continue to rise.

This quote, and the BBC News article, insinuate that "previous scientific research [showed] that there was no limit to human performance." What does that mean, exactly? That someday, if we just wait long enough, human beings will break the sound barrier? I gather from the study abstract that the authors have suggested an improvement to the "linear-improvement-with-time" model of human performance. That's nice and all, but surely it's obvious that a linear improvement can't continue forever. Did any scientist ever seriously suggest that there is no limit to the speed that a human can run?

The real conclusion of the study — that that limit is being reached right now — is interesting enough on its own. You don't need to make it sound like previous scientists in this field were idiots.

(Thanks to Statue John for pointing to the BBC News article at The Ultimate Olympian.)

POSTSCRIPT

RunnersWeb.com has a better description of the method and the results. Interesting stuff!

August 16, 2005

WR ≠ PB

An athletics quiz: when is a world record not a personal best?

The answer is: in the pole vault, very often.

At the recently-completed world athletic championships in Helsinki, Russian superstar Yelena Isinbayeva broke the world record in the women's pole vault, jumping 5.01 metres.

Breaking the world record is nothing new to Isinbayeva, of course. Here's a list (source) of her world-record outdoor vaults:

Table 1 — Yelena Isinbayeva's World Record Vaults (Outdoors)
DateRecord VaultPrevious Record
2003 JUL 074.82 m4.81 m
2004 JUN 274.87 m4.83 m
2004 JUL 254.89 m4.88 m
2004 JUL 304.90 m4.89 m
2004 AUG 244.91 m4.90 m
2004 SEP 034.92 m4.91 m
2005 JUL 054.93 m4.92 m
2005 JUL 164.95 m4.93 m
2005 JUL 225.00 m4.95 m
2005 AUG 125.01 m5.00 m

As you would expect from such a dominant performer, Isinbayeva also holds the indoor world record in the pole vault at 4.89 metres. She's been making the same kind of progress there (source):

Table 2 — Yelena Isinbayeva's World Record Vaults (Indoors)
DateRecord VaultPrevious Record
2004 FEB 154.83 m4.81 m
2004 MAR 064.86 m4.85 m
2005 FEB 124.87 m4.86 m
2005 FEB 184.88 m4.87 m
2005 FEB 264.89 m4.88 m
2005 MAR 064.90 m4.89 m

You don't have to be an expert to see that Isinbayeva is only toying with the world record. This past winter she broke the world indoor record four times in as many weekends, each time by exactly one centimetre. She's held the outdoor record for about a year, and has raised the record by 12 cm in eight very small steps. The only way you can break the world record with this kind of regularity is if you are still well below your maximum capacity.

So why would an athlete do that? Since she had already secured the world championship, why didn't Isinbayeva ask for the bar to be set at 5.15 in her final attempt in Helsinki, so that she could have a true test of her ability? The answer is very simple: breaking the world record is worth a lot of money for Yelena Isinbayeva.

In addition to $60,000 for winning the competition, Isinbayeva earned $100,000 from the IAAF and its sponsors for breaking the world record. This BBC story claims that Isinbayeva earns $100K every time she breaks the world record, presumably from Russia. I think that this claim is probably incorrect, but there is no doubt that the incentives are considerable. Many of the top European meets offer cash prizes in the tens of thousands of dollars for world records, to encourage the athletes to give their best efforts and to add to the excitement of the competition.

Olympic champion Tim Mack suggests that "she’s probably jumping 5.20 in practice." If that's a reasonable estimate, then she might have 19 more world outdoor records, and perhaps a similar number of indoor records, even if she doesn't improve at all. That adds up to a lot of money. It's no wonder she chooses to set each new record by the smallest possible margin.

The pole vault and the high jump are both susceptible to this kind of world record manipulation for a couple of reasons. Most importantly, the score is determined not by the height of the jump but by the height of the bar. This gives competitors extremely precise control of their results. Second, the competition proceeds by multiple attempts and a process of elimination. This means that a dominant performer can wait until all of his or her competitors are defeated before attempting the world record; there is then no danger that any other competitor will break the record, and therefore no reason to push it out of reach.

I don't mean to denigrate Isinbayeva in any way. She is clearly the best female pole vaulter the world has ever seen, and her accomplishments are unlikely to be matched any time soon. But I would like to see a world record that truly reflects her abilities, and we aren't seeing that right now.

One way to make the records more "honest" is to have tougher competition. The only reason Isinbayeva (and Sergei Bubka before her) can get away with this strategy is that she is head and shoulders above the rest of the field. If she had a real rival, then both of them would be forced to compete at their limits.

That's not really a solution that the IAAF can implement, though. Another idea would be to change the world record incentives for these events. For example, the incentive could scale according to the margin of the record-breaking attempt (e.g., pay ten times more for a ten-centimetre break than for a one-centimetre break). Another idea would be to offer the bonus only for certain milestones reached (5.10 m, 5.20 m, and so on).