T&F IAAF ranking Challenge 2012- Best 5 events count

donothoponpop · 21-01-2012 10:31PM #1

Rank your performance using 2011 IAAF tables. Highest total for 5 events at the end of the year wins. Simple:)

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
AN Other

RoyMcC · 21-01-2012 10:42PM

+ Shot Putt. Do practice throws when nobody's watching count?

donothoponpop · 21-01-2012 10:49PM

RoyMcC wrote: »

+ Shot Putt. Do practice throws when nobody's watching count?

I knew I was missing one:o

Practice throws count Roy, as does anything dreamt, pondered, or timed by counting onemississippitwomississippi... as you sprint around the track. Sure I've a 15m+ triple to my name already (down the steep slopes of Tonelagee;))

ocnoc · 21-01-2012 11:26PM

So, lets say I run a 10,000m. Can I take my splits for 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3000, 5000 and 10000??

TFBubendorfer · 21-01-2012 11:46PM

I thought tables were outlawed for that kind of thing in 2012? Where's the Google Doc?

Krusty_Clown · 21-01-2012 11:46PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

Rank your performance using 2011 IAAF tables. Highest total for 5 events at the end of the year wins. Simple:)

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
AN Other

For a man with an allergy to tables, you sure do create a lot of them.

donothoponpop · 22-01-2012 10:09AM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

For a man with an allergy to tables, you sure do create a lot of them.

Smarty Pants

.

I've nothing against tables per se, I just far prefer reading some info about why you're including yourself/moving up or down/next goals etc. Nothing wrong with people ranking themselves every day, but the Google Docs list are far more useful for that. The tables where posters update a number every day, so the threads are refreshed on the main page several times a day, are useless, that's what breaks out my allergy.

If a ranking table like this T&F one became like that, I'd call for its removal too. If however, it starts a bit of discussion, no matter how small, on other T&F events, then it will have served its purpose.

RayCun · 22-01-2012 02:37PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

If a ranking table like this T&F one became like that

I think you're safe

Pisco Sour · 22-01-2012 02:39PM

Excellent idea. I hope this will get people giving other events a lash. The 5 events which will score for me will be the 100, 200, 400, LJ and TJ. Those 5 events are significantly ahead of the rest for me. Better get the times down before the end of the season in March to set some early markers for others to beat.

Pisco Sour · 23-01-2012 12:12PM

With regards to hand timing I think it would be good to follow the IAAF tables method of adding 0.24 seconds to a 100m, 200m, and sprint hurdles time, and 0.14 seconds to a 400m or 400m Hurdles time. So if somebody runs 12.8 hand timed then that would equate to 13.04 and that would be the time used to calculate points. If somebody runs 56.7 hand timed for 400m, then 56.84 would be the time used, and so on.

Also due to being in the southern hemisphere my track season stretches across two calender years (October to March). Just wondering, can I use my performances from late 2011 for this?

ecoli · 23-01-2012 12:27PM

04072511 wrote: »

With regards to hand timing I think it would be good to follow the IAAF tables method of adding 0.24 seconds to a 100m, 200m, and sprint hurdles time, and 0.14 seconds to a 400m or 400m Hurdles time. So if somebody runs 12.8 hand timed then that would equate to 13.04 and that would be the time used to calculate points. If somebody runs 56.7 hand timed for 400m, then 56.84 would be the time used, and so on.

Also due to being in the southern hemisphere my track season stretches across two calender years (October to March). Just wondering, can I use my performances from late 2011 for this?

Would not make more sense to take Oct to end of Dec this year coming and keep it all in 2012?

Pisco Sour · 23-01-2012 12:30PM

ecoli wrote: »

Would not make more sense to take Oct to end of Dec this year coming and keep it all in 2012?

I suppose. Just would be a bit weird being the only one doing this long after the northern hemisphere track season has ended, and my performances would be based on two half seasons rather than one season.

RandyMann · 23-01-2012 01:18PM

04072511 wrote: »

With regards to hand timing I think it would be good to follow the IAAF tables method of adding 0.24 seconds to a 100m, 200m, and sprint hurdles time, and 0.14 seconds to a 400m or 400m Hurdles time. So if somebody runs 12.8 hand timed then that would equate to 13.04 and that would be the time used to calculate points. If somebody runs 56.7 hand timed for 400m, then 56.84 would be the time used, and so on.

Also due to being in the southern hemisphere my track season stretches across two calender years (October to March). Just wondering, can I use my performances from late 2011 for this?

I agree to both of your points

RoyMcC · 23-01-2012 01:28PM

04072511 wrote: »

With regards to hand timing I think it would be good to follow the IAAF tables method of adding 0.24 seconds to a 100m, 200m, and sprint hurdles time, and 0.14 seconds to a 400m or 400m Hurdles time. So if somebody runs 12.8 hand timed then that would equate to 13.04 and that would be the time used to calculate points. If somebody runs 56.7 hand timed for 400m, then 56.84 would be the time used, and so on.

But surely if the run is hand-timed properly then no adjustment is required? A trained timekeeper will never be far off the correct time, allowing for reaction time etc.

Agreed that Joe Bloggs will usually time 0.2 - 0.3sec fast.

Pisco Sour · 23-01-2012 01:47PM

RoyMcC wrote: »

But surely if the run is hand-timed properly then no adjustment is required? A trained timekeeper will never be far off the correct time, allowing for reaction time etc.

Agreed that Joe Bloggs will usually time 0.2 - 0.3sec fast.

No the 0.24 and 0.14 would be for a trained timekeeper. It would be a bit more for your mate timing ya with a stop watch while doing a solo time trial.

Hand timing can never be the same as electornic timing, no matter how good the guy with the watch in his hand is. The watch is pressed as soon as the gun goes off, but doesn't it take a fraction of a second for the sound to reach the person with the watch at the finish line? So the 100m guys hear the gun before the man with the watch.

shotgunmcos · 23-01-2012 01:59PM

04072511 wrote: »

So the 100m guys hear the gun before the man with the watch.

Unless the man with the watch is standing next to the gun

ecoli · 23-01-2012 02:04PM

Most timekeepers set the gun off on the appearance of smoke from the gun unless I am mistaken

RoyMcC · 23-01-2012 02:09PM

04072511 wrote: »

No the 0.24 and 0.14 would be for a trained timekeeper. It would be a bit more for your mate timing ya with a stop watch while doing a solo time trial.

Hand timing can never be the same as electornic timing, no matter how good the guy with the watch in his hand is. The watch is pressed as soon as the gun goes off, but doesn't it take a fraction of a second for the sound to reach the person with the watch at the finish line? So the 100m guys hear the gun before the man with the watch.

A trained timekeeper knows that his/her reaction time to the flash of the gun is between 0.2 - 0.3 secs - it varies from person to person. Therefore the timekeeper will adjust his/her stopping the watch at the finish to compensate. That's the essential difference between trained and untrained.

If you've got photofinish at your meets you'll probably have back up timekeepers as well. These guys measure their own accuracy against the electronic timing. The good ones expect to get within 0.05sec every time.

I've no idea why IAAF adjusts for hand-timing. It ought not to for a trained timekeeper. For Joe Bloggs and schoolteachers

yes.

Edit - crikey, if you were to go by sound you'd be madly out, especially for races starting out on the back straight - e.g. 200m/1500m.

RoyMcC · 23-01-2012 02:09PM

ecoli wrote: »

Most timekeepers set the gun off on the appearance of smoke from the gun unless I am mistaken

Second best, if you don't get a flash.

RandyMann · 23-01-2012 02:50PM

Would it not be fair to only accept race times that are FAT or hand timed?
I mean, before I ever did an official 100m or 200m I had an elevated opinion of what my ability was before I actually raced those disatances. My training/time trials were a whole lot faster than what I could really do.

longjump67 · 23-01-2012 06:03PM

donothoponpop wrote: »

Rank your performance using 2011 IAAF tables. Highest total for 5 events at the end of the year wins. Simple:)

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
AN Other

Doubt i will do 5 events this year, been 20 years since i competed in T&F regularly mind you I did make a comeback a few years ago in the Masters champs 2006 i think won national Sliver medals in the High & Long jump.
Will turn 45 this year and I "might" say "MIGHT" turn out again.;)

Pisco Sour · 23-01-2012 10:56PM

According to the IAAF, any record in athletics (world, Olympic, or national) or qualifying time for Olympic Games or World Championships set in a sprint event must be timed by a FAT system to be valid.

Hand times, those with humans operating the stopping and/or starting mechanisms are highly prone to error. By rule, they are only accurate to a tenth (.1) of a second, all 100ths of a second beyond zero must be rounded to the next highest tenth[2].

Many track and field statisticians use a conversion factor estimate of 0.24 seconds added to any hand-timed mark in the 100 m or 200 m event, and 0.14 seconds to any hand-timed mark in the 400 m or longer event. These conversion factors are only applicable for comparing marks from a variety of sources, but are not acceptable for Record purposes. In the case of comparing an adjusted manual time to FAT timing, an original FAT time being equivalent, the FAT time will be considered more accurate, and thus the athlete will be given the higher seed, or comparison ranking. This old method of converting times dates back to when FAT systems were much less common[3]. They are increasingly less acceptable even at low level meets and certainly not at the upper level of the sport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_automatic_time

RoyMcC · 23-01-2012 11:15PM

Fair enough. The track statisticians know full well that many hand-times are fast and they are correctly applying a caution factor. As my club's statistician I'll accept a manual timing from just one person in the club, and even then it's with a big asterisk and it doesn't override a record set with FAT.

Just to repeat though that the best timekeepers - those that appear at top meetings all year round - are fantastically accurate.

Anyway for Dpop's challenge I don't suppose we need get too anxious about it all.

Pisco Sour · 23-01-2012 11:33PM

RoyMcC wrote: »

Fair enough. The track statisticians know full well that many hand-times are fast and they are correctly applying a caution factor. As my club's statistician I'll accept a manual timing from just one person in the club, and even then it's with a big asterisk and it doesn't override a record set with FAT.

Just to repeat though that the best timekeepers - those that appear at top meetings all year round - are fantastically accurate.

Anyway for Dpop's challenge I don't suppose we need get too anxious about it all.

Yeh, I just think to keep things reasonably accurate and fair it would be good to follow the IAAF tables and add 0.24 to 100 and 200 times and 0.14 for 400m times.

Pisco Sour · 28-01-2012 12:28PM

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
04072511||26.92 (373)|59.44 (422)||||||||||||9.18 (334)||||||1129

Thought I'd get the ball rolling with this. To keep things simple I'll ignore my performances from before Christmas and just count anything from 2012. My 200 and 400 are PB's anyway and my Triple Jump is just 10cm (10 pts) off my PB.

RayCun · 28-01-2012 06:44PM

Need to delete the quote tags...

Pisco Sour · 28-01-2012 11:29PM

RayCun wrote: »

Need to delete the quote tags...

Everytime I try to do tables without the quote tags it never works for me.

RayCun · 29-01-2012 09:01AM

04072511 wrote: »

Everytime I try to do tables without the quote tags it never works for me.

You must be deleting some of the table tag too. Just delete the {QUOTE=04072511;76782695} and {/QUOTE} bits

asimonov · 29-01-2012 08:00PM

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
04072511||26.92 (373)|59.44 (422)||||||||||||9.18 (334)||||||1129
Asimonov||||||9:53 (505)|||||||||||||||505

3k time is an indoor result, so I used 2011 indoor tables - that right? If not, i'll correct no problem.

Pisco Sour · 04-02-2012 10:10AM

Name|100m|200m|400m|800m|1500m|3000m|5000m|10000m|100mH|110mH|400mH|3000SC|HJ|LJ|TJ|PV|Jav|Disc|Hammer|SP|Best 5 Total
04072511|13.26 (326)|26.92 (373)|59.44 (422)||||||||||||9.18 (334)||||||1455
Asimonov||||||9:53 (505)|||||||||||||||505

Updated for my 100m today. No improvement on my 400m sadly though. Thought I ran well and conditions were a lot better than 3 weeks ago but could only manage 59.96. A real head-scratcher.

Will get a long jump in soon, and an 800m. Long Jump should be my 5th scoring event baring a catastrophe.

donothoponpop · 04-02-2012 10:23AM

asimonov wrote: »

3k time is an indoor result, so I used 2011 indoor tables - that right? If not, i'll correct no problem.

Thats bang on the money asimonov. If you could also give a little report on what got you there/how the race went/ whats next in line, it'll help make this thread something more than just a list of tables.

Great result btw!:)

T&F IAAF ranking Challenge 2012- Best 5 events count

Comments