Very unusual WR for Lenton
David W
swimming it in 52.99s. She was swimming in the mixed 4 x 100m freestyle relay in
the "Duel In The Pool", a fun event between Australia and the US at Sydney's
Olympic pool.
There were two men and two women on each team, and Lenton swam the first leg
against Michael Phelps (who of course beat her easily). At first the
commentators thought the record wouldn't count, but Swimming Australia spoke to
the chairman of the FINA technical committee, who spoke to two FINA bureau
members staying with him in Tasmania (on holiday I think they said), and they
said that as long as it was a genuine race and not a deliberate attempt to pace
Lenton, they could not see why it should not be ratified. It is still yet to be
ratified, though.
David
juan...@gmail.com
swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.
David W
news:1175652605....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
> swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
> Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.
Yes, that might even explain how she went so fast, but is there a rule against
it? Maybe there should be, since in normal circumstances if you break a WR you
are necessarily at the front and unable to ride such a wave, but if there isn't
then it might be unfair but it will still count. All the reports I've seen are
suggesting that pacing is the only impediment to ratification. Let's see if the
Germans kick up a fuss.
David
Ernest_t...@hotmail.com
> <juanz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Craig Lord certainly appears to be somewhat irked at the prospect, at
least judging by this rather unnecessary piece by him published on
swimnews.com.
http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?action=get&id=5236
Mark P
Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
considering this.
David W
news:1175672909....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, that was unnecessary. He seems to discount any possible influence of
Phelps's presence in the next lane on her time and uses the time alone in his
argument. Also, Lenton is a recent world-record holder in this event, so I don't
think anyone would be shocked that she was capable of that time, even without
any assistance from the next lane. Phelps broke a couple of WRs by more than a
second last week.
David
David W
news:eiSQh.1228$zC....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.
David
Steve Curtis
>It probably isn't even well understood
>how much assistance you get from
>swimming in another swimmer's wake.
It's called "drafting," and it is well understood.
Mark P
Indeed it would have stood had he set a WR, but the difference
(obviously) is that Phelps is fast enough to lead Lenton the whole way
and man enough, so to speak, not to deprive her of the female WR.
Imagine if one day scientists develop sentient motorboats who are
permitted to compete in FINA events...
While the current situation may be unprecedented and thus not outlawed
by current rules or practice, I for one would be surprised if this were
allowed to stand.
David W
news:20659-46...@storefull-3177.bay.webtv.net...
Note "how much assistance you get". So it can be calculated how much Lenton's
time came down by being in Phelps's wake?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote in part:
>>>It probably isn't even well understood
>>>how much assistance you get from
>>>swimming in another swimmer's wake.
>>It's called "drafting," and it is well
>>understood.
>Note "how much assistance you get".
The "assistance you get" is what "drafting" is all about. Though the
following covers triathlons, the principle applies to swimming, biking,
and running. Scroll down to drafting:
http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html
>So it can be calculated how much
>Lenton's time came down by being in
>Phelps's wake?
An approximation certainly isn't out of the question.
David W
> The "assistance you get" is what "drafting" is all about. Though the
> following covers triathlons, the principle applies to swimming, biking,
> and running. Scroll down to drafting:
> http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html
> >So it can be calculated how much
> >Lenton's time came down by being in
> >Phelps's wake?
> An approximation certainly isn't out of the question.
Maybe not, but that's not the same as actually producing one in a given
instance, such as Lenton's.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"drafting" is all about. Though the
>>following covers triathlons, the principle
>>applies to swimming, biking, and
>>running. Scroll down to drafting:
>>http://www.geocities.com/triathlonrules/triques.html
>>>So it can be calculated how much Lenton's time came down by being in
>>>Phelps's wake?
>>An approximation certainly isn't out of
>>the question.
>Maybe not, but that's not the same as
>actually producing one in a given
>instance, such as Lenton's.
Perhaps the answer you're looking for might be found here, or not:
http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/
If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend.
David W
"David W" wrote:
> >Maybe not, but that's not the same as
> >actually producing one in a given
> >instance, such as Lenton's.
> Perhaps the answer you're looking for might be found here, or not:
> http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/
Well, that's a lot to absorb, especially for a possible "or not". BTW, Lenton
was a full body length behind Phelps almost from when they hit the water, and
the distance only extended after that. I think the final margin was about 4.5s.
> If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend.
Spare me the patronizing remarks.
Tony Bryant
Also from memory there used to be a requirement that to break a world
record you had to win the race. That would obviously be unenforceable
for the lead off swimmer in a relay, which may be why I can't find any
reference to it in the current SW12 rule regarding World Records.
The only doubt would be because of the pacing rule and whether
acceptance of this WR would cause a sudden rash of mixed relay events
with pacing in mind.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>> "David W" wrote:
>>>Maybe not, but that's not the same as
>>>actually producing one in a given
>>>instance, such as Lenton's.
>>Perhaps the answer you're looking for
>>might be found here, or not:
>>http://coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/
>Well, that's a lot to absorb, especially for
>a possible "or not". BTW, Lenton was a
>full body length behind Phelps almost
>from when they hit the water, and the
>distance only extended after that. I think
>the final margin was about 4.5s.
>>If you need additional info, let "Google"
>>be your friend.
>Spare me the patronizing remarks.
Spare me the ignorance with a statement like: "It probably isn't even
well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake."
The "science" was presented. Do your homework.
Ernest_t...@hotmail.com
> <Ernest_the_Sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
For what it's worth, and I'm certainly no expert, I wouldn't count
Lenton's swim as a WR because of the fact that there is always going
to be a question as to how much assistance she got from Phelps. These
doubts, whether they are valid or not, detract from the credibility of
a record, which is not good, particularly if such a record were to
last for a considerable period of time.
As for the article by Craig Lord, a bit of a rant is to follow, so
please ignore if you want.
Anyone who has been reading Lord's reports on swimnews.com will
probably be aware that he has quite a bee in his bonnet regarding
Britta Steffen and the alleged unfair insinuations from rivals, and
sections of the media, in response to her recent performances, which
included a 100 WR of course. In one particular article Lord even
provides a list of Steffen's 100M times since 1998 as a rebuttal to
suggestions that her recent times showed a spectacular rate of
improvement. All well and good, I've no problem with that. Except that
when he now describes Lenton as "a woman who has gone from over 54sec
to under 53sec like a knife through hot butter", I can't help but
notice the contradiction, and so wonder about his impartiality with
respect to this entire matter.
It seems to me that Lord has gotten a little over emotional regarding
this issue. I'm not sure why. It's all very well to pontificate along
the lines of how unfair it would be to single out Lenton for suspicion
because of her "astonishing" performance, and then proceed to do the
exact same thing that you claim to deplore. That is exactly what Lord
has done. He may claim to have been misinterpreted, but on the
evidence of past things he has written, I don't believe him. The
article in question is little more than a tit-for-tat retaliation for
the supposed unfair scrutiny that Lord believes Steffen was subjected
to, which for some unknown reason Lord appears to have taken
personally.
Just to verify the nonsense of Lord's claim, I checked the rankings
section of the swimnews.com website. Seems to be technical problems
with years prior to 2004, but in that year Lenton was ranked second
over 100m (53.66). Which appears to put the lie to Lord's claim about
Lenton's overly quick progression from over 54 sec to under 53 sec,
presuming that is what he meant, and I can't see what else he could
have been implying by the comment. Incidentally in that same year
Steffen was ranked 19th (55.05). Now I don't want to knock the guy
because I reckon he does a mostly good job in reporting on a sport
that does not get a lot of coverage in the general media outside of
World Champs and Olympics, but I also believe Lord needs to be more
honest with himself concerning his own motivation for writing this
particular article.
_
> David W wrote:
>> "Mark P" <use...@fall2005REMOVE.fastmailCAPS.fm> wrote in message
>> news:eiSQh.1228$zC....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>> juan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The problem I see, is that swimming with Phelps at your side is like
>>>> swimming in the wake of a speed boat. Probably, someone may say,
>>>> Lenton was surfing in the wave produced by Phelps.
>>>>
>>> Agreed. I find it hard to believe that the record will be ratified
>>> considering this.
>>
>> Although I said in another post that a WR breaker is usually in front and unable
>> to catch a wave, it's not always the case. There was one Olympic event that an
>> Australian (Duncan Armstrong?) won in a surprise by sitting on the lane rope
>> just behind the leader for a significant part of the race and, being the
>> fresher, going past him to win. I don't remember if he broke the WR, but if he
>> had it certainly would have stood. Records are not disallowed for that reason,
>> so it's hard to see how FINA could reject Lenton's. It probably isn't even well
>> understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> From memory he did set a world record in that swim.
>
> Also from memory there used to be a requirement that to break a world
> record you had to win the race.
I'd like a refernece for this - you are quoting form memory; ok, but should
anyone be able to confirm this it would be very interesting to see the
actual language and the date
> That would obviously be unenforceable
> for the lead off swimmer in a relay, which may be why I can't find any
> reference to it in the current SW12 rule regarding World Records.
>
Mann set the 100 Back WR in Tokyo leading off the 4x100 Medley, so unless
there has been a pair of rules changes of which I am unaware since then,
any such "must win" requirement that also eliminated lead-off swims must
pre-date this.
> The only doubt would be because of the pacing rule and whether
> acceptance of this WR would cause a sudden rash of mixed relay events
> with pacing in mind.
If allowed, why not.
Be a good way for the girls to make some dosh.
David W
> >Spare me the patronizing remarks.
> Spare me the ignorance with a statement like: "It probably isn't even
> well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
> swimmer's wake."
The key here is "how much". You'll have demonstrated my ignorance when you give
me a number. After four posts on the subject I'm still waiting.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>Spare me the ignorance with a
>>statement like: "It probably isn't even
>>well understood how much assistance
>>you get from swimming in another
>>swimmer's wake."
>The key here is "how much". You'll have
>demonstrated my ignorance when you
>give me a number. After four posts on
>the subject I'm still waiting.
The "key" here is your minimal understanding (i.e. ignorance) about the
hydrodynamic effects of drafting in swimming. As mentioned and
referenced previously, some of the research studies (i.e. "science")
were presented, which pretty much refutes your argument of: "It probably
isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in
another swimmer's wake."
You do the math if you want to quantify it. It was already suggested
that at best, an approximation was possible.
Again, no satisfaction? Think "Google."
David W
"David W" wrote:
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>Spare me the patronizing remarks.
>>Spare me the ignorance with a
>>statement like: "It probably isn't even
>>well understood how much assistance
>>you get from swimming in another
>>swimmer's wake."
>The key here is "how much". You'll have
>demonstrated my ignorance when you
>give me a number. After four posts on
>the subject I'm still waiting.
> The "key" here is your minimal understanding (i.e. ignorance) about the
> hydrodynamic effects of drafting in swimming. As mentioned and
> referenced previously, some of the research studies (i.e. "science")
> were presented, which pretty much refutes your argument of: "It probably
> isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from swimming in
> another swimmer's wake."
Not at all. You'll have to much better than that. First of all, scientific
papers on the subject need to be peer-reviewed. Providing a link to a paper
says nothing about its merits or what criticisms if the study other scientists
in the field might have. Secondly, the conditions under which the New Zealand
study took place seem rather different from those in which Lenton and Phelps
raced. For example (part I), "During the drafting situation, the lead swimmer
was towed passively (no stroking or kicking or assisted flotation) at the same
constant speed as for their swimming trials", and part II, "The swimmers were
towed at 1.18 m/s in six different prone, lateral drafting positions." Hardly
the conditions of an actual swimming race in a pool in which two laps in
opposite directions take place.
Furthermore, "Chatard et al. (3-5) found that in drafting behind another
swimmer a 3.2-5% performance gain was associated with a 13-26% reduction of
passive drag. Whereas for Toussaint et al. (16), a 5% performance gain
corresponded to a 14% reduction of active drag. Thus, in lateral drafting at 50
or 100 cm, the 6-7% drag reduction should theoretically correspond to a 1.5-3%
performance gain. At 150 cm, it should correspond to a 1-2% gain." This does
not say anything about Lenton's performance gain in the next lane and several
_metres_ behind Phelps. Hell, it doesn't even say that Lenton was assisted
rather than hindered at that position.
David
Steve Curtis
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
So, your claim is that you "know" more about the subject than the
publishers of the paper since a peer review reference was not included.
How do you know the studies weren't reviewed? Rather presumptuous on
your part, wouldn't you say? Your claim of: "It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake" is pretty much laughable.
>Secondly, the conditions under which the
>New Zealand study took place seem
>rather different from those in which
>Lenton and Phelps raced.
The hydrodynamic principles involved are universal regardless of who's
racing. Despite what you believe, drafting is a well known principle
that has been researched and is well "understood."
Not happy? A third time reminder in this thread, "Google" can be your
source of enlightenment.
David W
> "David W wrote:
>
> >"Steve Curtis" wrote:
> >
> >>The "key" here is your minimal
> >>understanding (i.e. ignorance) about the
> >>hydrodynamic effects of drafting in
> >>swimming. As mentioned and
> >>referenced previously, some of the
> >>research studies (i.e. "science") were
> >>presented, which pretty much refutes
> >>your argument of: "It probably isn't even
> >>well understood how much assistance
> >>you get from swimming in another
> >>swimmer's wake."
>
> >Not at all. You'll have to much better
> >than that. First of all, scientific papers on
> >the subject need to be peer-reviewed.
> >Providing a link to a paper says nothing
> >about its merits or what criticisms if the
> >study other scientists in the field might
> >have.
>
> So, your claim is that you "know" more about the subject than the
> publishers of the paper since a peer review reference was not included.
No. Learn to read.
> How do you know the studies weren't reviewed?
I don't.
> Rather presumptuous on
> your part, wouldn't you say?
Where?
> Your claim of: "It probably isn't even well
> understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
> swimmer's wake" is pretty much laughable.
Well, that's a convincing argument.
> >Secondly, the conditions under which the
> >New Zealand study took place seem
> >rather different from those in which
> >Lenton and Phelps raced.
>
> The hydrodynamic principles involved are universal regardless of who's
> racing.
Evidence? How about, for example, the turbulence generated by Phelps's feet?
Looking at the race, the effect was like that of an outboard motor.
> Despite what you believe, drafting is a well known principle
> that has been researched and is well "understood."
What you mean is that it is well understood that swimmers can be assisted by
drafting, which I don't dispute. What I dispute is that it is possible to look
at a race in a pool and determine a reasonable estimate of the time gained by a
particular swimmer drafting.
> Not happy?
No, I'm quite satisfied that I'm right.
Steve Curtis
>>"David W wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>No. Learn to read.
Actually, compared to you, my reading comprehension is just fine. Your
reading skills however, are clearly lacking since you fail to recognize
that extensive research has been done and referenced on the effects of
drafting in swimming (i.e. your words: "how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake") which pretty much blows your claim
of: "It probably isn't even well
understood..." out of the water (pun intended).
>>How do you know the studies weren't
>>reviewed?
>I don't.
Then your previous claim that this particular research wasn't subjected
to peer review is basically "smoke" billowing out of your ass.
>>Rather presumptuous on your part,
>>wouldn't you say?
>Where?
Re-read the above paragraph regarding billowing smoke.
>>Your claim of: "It probably isn't even
>>well understood how much assistance
>>you get from swimming in another
>>swimmer's wake" is pretty much
>>laughable.
>Well, that's a convincing argument.
You've offered no argument to convince anyone that drafting "isn't even
well understood."
Do yourself a favor and try enrolling in a "Debate 101" class to learn
some effective techniques for persuasive argument.
>>Despite what you believe, drafting is a
>>well known principle that has been
>>researched and is well "understood."
>What you mean is that it is well
>understood that swimmers can be
>assisted by drafting, which I don't
>dispute.
Then, why contradict yourself with your claim about drafting, which was:
"It probably isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake"?
>What I dispute is that it is possible to
>look at a race in a pool and determine a
>reasonable estimate of the time gained
>by a particular swimmer drafting.
Why not? As mentioned before, an approximation is possible based partly
on the studies done on drafting. The key word here, "approximation"
which allows for a margin of error.
>>Not happy?
>No, I'm quite satisfied that I'm right.
Right that "It probably isn't even well understood..."? The research
says otherwise, it is well understood.
David W
> "David W" wrote:
>
> >"Steve Curtis" wrote:
> >>So, your claim is that you "know" more
> >>about the subject than the publishers of
> >>the paper since a peer review reference
> >>was not included.
>
> >No. Learn to read.
>
> Actually, compared to you,
Compared _with_ me. The convention is to use _to_ for similarities and _with_
for differences, e.g.,
Shakespeare: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
> my reading comprehension is just fine. Your
> reading skills however, are clearly lacking since you fail to recognize
> that extensive research has been done and referenced on the effects of
> drafting in swimming (i.e. your words: "how much assistance you get from
> swimming in another swimmer's wake") which pretty much blows your claim
> of: "It probably isn't even well
> understood..." out of the water (pun intended).
Then demonstrate it. Assertions don't cut it.
> >>How do you know the studies weren't
> >>reviewed?
>
> >I don't.
>
> Then your previous claim that this particular research wasn't subjected
> to peer review is basically "smoke" billowing out of your ass.
I didn't claim that. As I said, learn to read.
> >>Rather presumptuous on your part,
> >>wouldn't you say?
>
> >Where?
>
> Re-read the above paragraph regarding billowing smoke.
>
> >>Your claim of: "It probably isn't even
> >>well understood how much assistance
> >>you get from swimming in another
> >>swimmer's wake" is pretty much
> >>laughable.
>
> >Well, that's a convincing argument.
>
> You've offered no argument to convince anyone that drafting "isn't even
> well understood."
So we're at a stand-off. You haven't done any better.
> Do yourself a favor and try enrolling in a "Debate 101" class to learn
> some effective techniques for persuasive argument.
>
> >>Despite what you believe, drafting is a
> >>well known principle that has been
> >>researched and is well "understood."
>
> >What you mean is that it is well
> >understood that swimmers can be
> >assisted by drafting, which I don't
> >dispute.
>
> Then, why contradict yourself with your claim about drafting, which was:
> "It probably isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from
> swimming in another swimmer's wake"?
Again, the key here is "how much" (you don't listen, do you?). Just try to get
it through your head that
this refers to a _quantity_, that is, a _number_.
> >What I dispute is that it is possible to
> >look at a race in a pool and determine a
> >reasonable estimate of the time gained
> >by a particular swimmer drafting.
>
> Why not? As mentioned before, an approximation is possible based partly
> on the studies done on drafting. The key word here, "approximation"
> which allows for a margin of error.
You've asserted that, but presented not a shred of evidence that this can be
done for the Phelps/Lenton
race.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>Your reading skills however, are clearly
>>lacking since you fail to recognize that
>>extensive research has been done and
>>referenced on the effects of drafting in
>>swimming (i.e. your words: "how much
>>assistance you get from swimming in
>>another swimmer's wake") which pretty
>>much blows your claim of: "It probably
>>isn't even well understood..." out of the
>>water (pun intended).
>Then demonstrate it. Assertions don't cut
>it.
It was demonstrated in the reference posted. And you're telling me to
learn to read?
>>>>Your claim of: "It probably isn't even
>>>>well understood how much
>>>>assistance you get from swimming in
>>>>another swimmer's wake" is pretty
>>>>much laughable.
>>>Well, that's a convincing argument.
>>You've offered no argument to convince
>>anyone that drafting "isn't even well
>>understood."
>So we're at a stand-off. You haven't done
>any better.
No stand-off. the reference offered pretty much serves to disprove your
"theory" that not much is understood about drafting.
Again, as a suggestion for a fourth time, additional info can be
obtained with "Google" or the search engine of your choice if you so
desire. There's plenty of stuff on drafting. So, it is well understood.
>Again, the key here is "how much" (you
>don't listen, do you?). Just try to get it
>through your head that this refers to a
>_quantity_, that is, a _number_.
Wrong Bucko, the "key" here is your baseless assertion that not much is
known about drafting in swimming. A simple search would reveal plenty of
info on the subject if you're not satisfied with the posted reference.
As far as quantifying the effect, that would depend on many factors,
some intangible, which would yield an approximation at best as was
previously mentioned several times.
>>>What I dispute is that it is possible to
>>>look at a race in a pool and determine
>>>a reasonable estimate of the time
>>>gained by a particular swimmer
>>>drafting.
>>Why not? As mentioned before, an
>>approximation is possible based partly
>>on the studies done on drafting. The
>>key word here, "approximation" which
>>allows for a margin of error.
>You've asserted that, but presented not a
>shred of evidence that this can be done
>for the Phelps/Lenton race.
"Evidence" (i.e. the aforementioned research study reference) was posted
to counter your posted argument that the effect of drafting isn't well
understood. Try following your own patronizing "advice," learn to read.
Where's your "evidence" to back up your claim? If you're naive enough to
believe that not much is known about drafting, then I would suspect your
knowledge of swimming in general is somewhat limited as well.
David W
> "David W" wrote:
> >Then demonstrate it. Assertions don't cut
> >it.
> It was demonstrated in the reference posted. And you're telling me to
> learn to read?
The experiment described in the paper cannot obviously be applied to the
Phelps/Lenton race.
> >So we're at a stand-off. You haven't done
> >any better.
> No stand-off. the reference offered pretty much serves to disprove your
> "theory" that not much is understood about drafting.
From the beginning I've been referring to quantifying the effect. You continue
to struggle with this, to the point now that you might as well give up.
> > Again, the key here is "how much" (you
> >don't listen, do you?). Just try to get it
> >through your head that this refers to a
> >_quantity_, that is, a _number_.
> Wrong Bucko, the "key" here is your baseless assertion that not much is
> known about drafting in swimming.
Once again you are having trouble with basic reading skills. I claimed that it's
not well understood how to quantify the drafting effect.
> As far as quantifying the effect, that would depend on many factors,
> some intangible, which would yield an approximation at best as was
> previously mentioned several times.
Quantifying the effect is that matters, and has been all that matters all along
(see "how much" way back at the beginning). You do recall that this is about
whether Lenton only broke the WR because of the assistance she received swimming
behind Phelps, don't you? Therefore, the _amount_ of assistance is crucial to
answering the question, and you still have not demonstrated that it is possible
to determine this.
> >You've asserted that, but presented not a
> >shred of evidence that this can be done
> >for the Phelps/Lenton race.
> "Evidence" (i.e. the aforementioned research study reference) was posted
> to counter your posted argument that the effect of drafting isn't well
> understood.
An argument I never posted. Repeating this false claim ad nauseum is not going
to make it true. Once again: "It probably isn't even well understood _how much_
assistance..."
Steve Curtis
>From the beginning I've been referring to
>quantifying the effect. You continue to
>struggle with this, to the point now that
>you might as well give up.
Let's once again revisit your assertion which was posted verbatim: "It
probably isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from
swimming in another swimmer's wake." From this statement, "how much" can
be interpreted in several different ways. "How much" can refer to a
quantity as you claim, or it can mean "in what manner" or "to what
effect" etc. If you had written "to what degree" or "to what extent"
your message would have been clear that you were referring to a
quantity. Your statement as it stands lends itself to several possible
interpretations by your intended readers.
My suggestion to you, learn how to write in a more concise and clear way
with better defined phraseology and less ambiguity.
>Quantifying the effect is that matters,
>and has been all that matters all along
>(see "how much" way back at the
>beginning). You do recall that this is
>about whether Lenton only broke the WR
>because of the assistance she received
>swimming behind Phelps, don't you?
>Therefore, the _amount_ of assistance is
>crucial to answering the question, and
>you still have not demonstrated that it is
>possible to determine this.
See my two paragraphs above.
>>>You've asserted that, but presented
>>>not a shred of evidence that this can
>>>be done for the Phelps/Lenton race.
>>"Evidence" (i.e. the aforementioned
>>research study reference) was posted
>>to counter your posted argument that
>>the effect of drafting isn't well
>>understood.
>An argument I never posted. Repeating
>this false claim ad nauseum is not going
>to make it true. Once again: "It probably
>isn't even well understood _how much_
>assistance..."
See my two paragraphs above.
David W
"David W" wrote:
> >From the beginning I've been referring to
> >quantifying the effect. You continue to
> >struggle with this, to the point now that
> >you might as well give up.
> Let's once again revisit your assertion which was posted verbatim: "It
> probably isn't even well understood how much assistance you get from
> swimming in another swimmer's wake." From this statement, "how much" can
> be interpreted in several different ways. "How much" can refer to a
> quantity as you claim, or it can mean "in what manner"
No, it can't.
> or "to what
> effect" etc.
No, it can't.
> If you had written "to what degree" or "to what extent"
> your message would have been clear that you were referring to a
> quantity. Your statement as it stands lends itself to several possible
> interpretations by your intended readers.
Rubbish. "How much did you win by?" "How much do you earn each week?" "How much
jail time did the judge give you?". "How much assistance did Lenton get from
Phelps in her WR swim?" Whatever verbal acrobatics you try, "how much" refers to
a quantity.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>From the beginning I've been referring
>>>to quantifying the effect. You continue
>>>to struggle with this, to the point now
>>>that you might as well give up.
>>Let's once again revisit your assertion
>>which was posted verbatim: "It probably
>>isn't even well understood how much
>>assistance you get from swimming in
>>another swimmer's wake." From this
>>statement, "how much" can be
>>interpreted in several different ways.
>>"How much" can refer to a quantity as
>>you claim, or it can mean "in what
>>manner"
>No, it can't.
Prove it!
>>or "to what effect" etc.
>No, it can't.
Prove it!
>>If you had written "to what degree" or
>>"to what extent" your message would
>>have been clear that you were referring
>>to a quantity. Your statement as it
>>stands lends itself to several possible
>>interpretations by your intended
>>readers.
>Rubbish. "How much did you win by?"
>"How much do you earn each week?"
>"How much jail time did the judge give
>you?". "How much assistance did Lenton
>get from Phelps in her WR swim?"
>Whatever verbal acrobatics you try, "how
>much" refers to a quantity.
Pure BS. You're blowing smoke out of your ass again. Another suggestion
for you, try familiarizing yourself with the mutiple uses of phrasings
in the English language. Phrases, as with words, can have synonymous
counterparts.
Along with "Debate 101," try enrolling in a remedial English class, you
might learn something.
David W
> "David W" wrote:
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>From the beginning I've been referring
>>>>to quantifying the effect. You continue
>>>>to struggle with this, to the point now
>>>>that you might as well give up.
>>>Let's once again revisit your assertion
>>>which was posted verbatim: "It probably
>>>isn't even well understood how much
>>>assistance you get from swimming in
>>>another swimmer's wake." From this
>>>statement, "how much" can be
>>>interpreted in several different ways.
>>>"How much" can refer to a quantity as
>>>you claim, or it can mean "in what
>>>manner"
>>No, it can't.
>Prove it!
Prove a negative? Why don't you just provide an example of your own?
>>>or "to what effect" etc.
>>No, it can't.
> Prove it!
And again.
>>>If you had written "to what degree" or
>>>"to what extent" your message would
>>>have been clear that you were referring
>>>to a quantity. Your statement as it
>>>stands lends itself to several possible
>>>interpretations by your intended
>>>readers.
>>Rubbish. "How much did you win by?"
>>"How much do you earn each week?"
>>"How much jail time did the judge give
>>you?". "How much assistance did Lenton
>>get from Phelps in her WR swim?"
>>Whatever verbal acrobatics you try, "how
>>much" refers to a quantity.
> Pure BS. You're blowing smoke out of your ass again. Another suggestion
> for you, try familiarizing yourself with the mutiple uses of phrasings
> in the English language.
Give me a break. We were talking about Lenton's WR and whether drafting behind
Phelps enabled her to achieve it. Along with reading lessons you need some basic
comprehension skills.
> Along with "Debate 101," try enrolling in a remedial English class, you
> might learn something.
It's time you were sent to Room 101.
Steve Curtis
>Give me a break. We were talking about
>Lenton's WR and whether drafting
>behind Phelps enabled her to achieve it.
No, "we," meaning you and I, were "talking" about the interpretive
context of your posted statement which was: "It probably isn't even well
understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake" and whether or not that "assistance" (i.e. drafting) is
"well understood." You want to quantify it, so I suggested that you do
the research (i.e. "Google") and determine some mathematical formula to
derive an approximate numerical value for the drafting effects
experienced by swimmers in adjacent lanes.
>Along with reading lessons you need
>some basic comprehension skills.
My skills are just fine. I'd pit my command of the English language
against yours any day.
>>Along with "Debate 101," try enrolling in
>>a remedial English class, you might
>>learn something.
>It's time you were sent to Room 101.
Again, reiterating the aforementioned tip, concentrate on the following
two words until they are indelibly imprinted into your psyche, you may
find some personal benefit for your communication skills:
"Remedial English"
David W
"David W" wrote:
>>Give me a break. We were talking about
>>Lenton's WR and whether drafting
>>behind Phelps enabled her to achieve it.
>No, "we," meaning you and I, were "talking" about the interpretive
>context of your posted statement which was: "It probably isn't even well
>understood how much assistance you get from swimming in another
>swimmer's wake" and whether or not that "assistance" (i.e. drafting) is
>"well understood."
No, at the time I made the statement "we" - meaning I and whoever had posted in
this thread up till then - were talking about whether Lenton achieved her WR
because of assistance from Phelps.
>You want to quantify it, so I suggested that you do
>the research (i.e. "Google") and determine some mathematical formula to
>derive an approximate numerical value for the drafting effects
>experienced by swimmers in adjacent lanes.
So, all this time you haven't been listening? I don't believe that that's
possible, hence the statement I made that's taken up so much of our time. For
one thing, what effect does the lane rope have? You have asserted that such a
formula is possible, but you haven't demonstrated it.
>>Along with reading lessons you need
>>some basic comprehension skills.
>My skills are just fine.
This is contradicted by the evidence in this thread. You were wrong on "how
much" and you were wrong that I claimed that the paper you referred to hadn't
been peer-reviewed. That's a poor record, particularly for such straightforward
cases.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>Give me a break. We were talking
>>>about Lenton's WR and whether
>>>drafting behind Phelps enabled her to
>>>achieve it.
>>No, "we," meaning you and I, were
>>"talking" about the interpretive context
>>of your posted statement which was: "It
>>probably isn't even well understood how
>>much assistance you get from
>>swimming in another swimmer's wake"
>>and whether or not that "assistance"
>>(i.e. drafting) is "well understood."
>No, at the time I made the statement
>"we" - meaning I and whoever had
>posted in this thread up till then - were
>talking about whether Lenton achieved
>her WR because of assistance from
>Phelps.
No, subsequent to the time you posted the statement, "we," meaning you
and I, entered into a "discussion" on how the statement should be
interpreted from a reader's point of view.
>>You want to quantify it, so I suggested
>>that you do the research (i.e. "Google")
>>and determine some mathematical
>>formula to derive an approximate
>>numerical value for the drafting effects
>>experienced by swimmers in adjacent
>>lanes.
>So, all this time you haven't been
>listening? I don't believe that that's
>possible, hence the statement I made
>that's taken up so much of our time.
Is it that you don't believe it's possible simply because you lack any
proficient mathematical skills required to develop such a formula? This
in addition to your minimal understanding of English language usage?
Think: "Remedial Math" along with "Remedial English." It just might get
you further along in life.
>For one thing, what effect does the lane
>rope have?
I'm sure it has an effect, but the principle of drafting still exists
for swimmers within close proximity in adjacent lanes. The drafting
effect is attenuated somewhat by the wave suppression characteristics of
the lane lines, but the effect is still there never-the-less.
>You have asserted that such a formula is
>possible, but you haven't demonstrated
>it.
Nor is it necessary for me to demonstrate it. As I mentioned before, you
do the math if you want quantification. I have no interest in doing so.
Besides, also as mentioned before, the value derived for such a
calculation would be an approximation at best due to intangible factors.
>>>Along with reading lessons you need
>>>some basic comprehension skills.
>>My skills are just fine.
>This is contradicted by the evidence in
>this thread. You were wrong on "how
>much" and you were wrong that I
>claimed that the paper you referred to
>hadn't been peer-reviewed. That's a poor
>record, particularly for such
>straightforward cases.
You offered no "evidence" that the phrase "how much" has_one_and
only_one_absolute meaning as you claim. Look up the definitions in the
dictionary for "how" and "much" and you'll find examples of several uses
for those words mentioned. Uses that go beyond that of having anything
to do with "quantity." You also failed to provide proof that the posted
reference wasn't peer reviewed. Possibly because you can't.
Keep thinking: "Remedial English."
David W
> "David W" wrote:
> >No, at the time I made the statement
> >"we" - meaning I and whoever had
> >posted in this thread up till then - were
> >talking about whether Lenton achieved
> >her WR because of assistance from
> >Phelps.
>
> No, subsequent to the time you posted the statement, "we," meaning you
> and I, entered into a "discussion" on how the statement should be
> interpreted from a reader's point of view.
Irrelevant. We were referring to my statement that's caused you so much
heartache, that is, the one you first replied to.
> >>You want to quantify it, so I suggested
> >>that you do the research (i.e. "Google")
> >>and determine some mathematical
> >>formula to derive an approximate
> >>numerical value for the drafting effects
> >>experienced by swimmers in adjacent
> >>lanes.
>
> >So, all this time you haven't been
> >listening? I don't believe that that's
> >possible, hence the statement I made
> >that's taken up so much of our time.
>
> Is it that you don't believe it's possible simply because you lack any
> proficient mathematical skills required to develop such a formula?
No, it's that you have presented nothing that would enable one to develop such
a formula.
> >For one thing, what effect does the lane
> >rope have?
>
> I'm sure it has an effect, but the principle of drafting still exists
> for swimmers within close proximity in adjacent lanes. The drafting
> effect is attenuated somewhat by the wave suppression characteristics of
> the lane lines,
How much? (There's that term again.) Suppose it's 99.9%. In that case Lenton
got the record almost entirely on her own.
> but the effect is still there never-the-less.
But to what degree? Remember that quantity is all-important here.
> >You have asserted that such a formula is
> >possible, but you haven't demonstrated
> >it.
>
> Nor is it necessary for me to demonstrate it. As I mentioned before, you
> do the math if you want quantification.
Do the maths on what?
> I have no interest in doing so.
> Besides, also as mentioned before, the value derived for such a
> calculation would be an approximation at best due to intangible factors.
>
> >>>Along with reading lessons you need
> >>>some basic comprehension skills.
>
> >>My skills are just fine.
>
> >This is contradicted by the evidence in
> >this thread. You were wrong on "how
> >much" and you were wrong that I
> >claimed that the paper you referred to
> >hadn't been peer-reviewed. That's a poor
> >record, particularly for such
> >straightforward cases.
>
> You offered no "evidence" that the phrase "how much" has_one_and
> only_one_absolute meaning as you claim. Look up the definitions in the
> dictionary for "how" and "much" and you'll find examples of several uses
> for those words mentioned.
But what about the two words together - "how much"? All you had to do was
provide one counter example, but you have failed to do so.
> Uses that go beyond that of having anything
> to do with "quantity."
So, give an example.
> You also failed to provide proof that the posted
> reference wasn't peer reviewed.
How dense are you? How many times do you need to be told that I never claimed
that it wasn't peer-reviewed?
Tony Bryant
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>No, subsequent to the time you posted
>>the statement, "we," meaning you and I,
>>entered into a "discussion" on how the
>>statement should be interpreted from a
>>reader's point of view.
>Irrelevant. We were referring to my
>statement that's caused you so much
>heartache, that is, the one you first
>replied to.
How dense are you? Your statement and its validity is what you and I
have been discussing all along here. Your use of the term "irrelevant"
has been misrepresented here. Get a dictionary. You seem to have a
difficulty knowing the correct definitions and usages for words.
Remember, remedial english may be your salvation.
>>>So, all this time you haven't been
>>>listening? I don't believe that that's >>>possible, hence the
statement I made
>>>that's taken up so much of our time.
>>Is it that you don't believe it's possible
>>simply because you lack any proficient
>>mathematical skills required to develop
>>such a formula?
>No, it's that you have presented nothing
>that would enable one to develop such a
>formula.
Why should I? The information about drafting was provided for you. You
do the math if you're so interested in quantification. Besides your
contention that something (in this case, drafting) has to be
quantifiable with a one-size-all formula in order to be considered "well
understood" is ridiculously laughable.
>>>For one thing, what effect does the
>>>lane rope have?
>>I'm sure it has an effect, but the
>>principle of drafting still exists for
>>swimmers within close proximity in
>>adjacent lanes. The drafting effect is
>>attenuated somewhat by the wave
>>suppression characteristics of the lane
>>lines,
>How much?
Again, you do the math if quantification is your goal.
Your continued pathetic attempts at salvaging any type of credibility is
oddly entertaining in a foolish kind of way.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>No, subsequent to the time you posted
>>>the statement, "we," meaning you and I,
>>>entered into a "discussion" on how the
>>>statement should be interpreted from a
>>>reader's point of view.
>
>>Irrelevant. We were referring to my
>>statement that's caused you so much
>>heartache, that is, the one you first
>>replied to.
>
>How dense are you? Your statement and its validity is what you and I
>have been discussing all along here.
Irrelevant. The "we" referred to those involved in the discussion before you got
involved. You are plain wrong.
> Your use of the term "irrelevant"
>has been misrepresented here. Get a dictionary. You seem to have a
>difficulty knowing the correct definitions and usages for words.
>Remember, remedial english may be your salvation.
Remember, you were wrong on "how much" and you were wrong that I claimed that
the paper you referred to hadn't been peer-reviewed (I've lost count how many
times now). You need to re-think who needs remedial English.
>>>>So, all this time you haven't been
>>>>listening? I don't believe that that's >>>possible, hence the
>statement I made
>>>>that's taken up so much of our time.
>
>>>Is it that you don't believe it's possible
>>>simply because you lack any proficient
>>>mathematical skills required to develop
>>>such a formula?
>
>>No, it's that you have presented nothing
>>that would enable one to develop such a
>>formula.
>
>Why should I? The information about drafting was provided for you.
So, you think that all you need to produce a formula is "information",
regardless of how much there is or how applicable it is to a different case?
> You
>do the math if you're so interested in quantification.
Do what maths?
> Besides your
>contention that something (in this case, drafting) has to be
>quantifiable with a one-size-all formula in order to be considered "well
>understood" is ridiculously laughable.
Where have I referred to a "one-size-all" formula? There is either sufficient
information to do the calculation or there isn't. In this case there isn't.
>
>>>>For one thing, what effect does the
>>>>lane rope have?
>
>>>I'm sure it has an effect, but the
>>>principle of drafting still exists for
>>>swimmers within close proximity in
>>>adjacent lanes. The drafting effect is
>>>attenuated somewhat by the wave
>>>suppression characteristics of the lane
>>>lines,
>
>>How much?
>
>Again, you do the math if quantification is your goal.
Do what maths? What have you provided to enable the effect of the lane rope to
be determined?
>
>Your continued pathetic attempts at salvaging any type of credibility is
>oddly entertaining in a foolish kind of way.
The oldest ploy in the book when you've got nothing. All you've come up is an
experiment far removed from the Lenton/Phelps case followed by repetitions of
"do the math". "Pathetic" and "foolish" certainly do come to mind.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>How dense are you? Your statement
>>and its validity is what you and I have
>>been discussing all along here.
>Irrelevant. The "we" referred to those
>involved in the discussion before you got
>involved. You are plain wrong.
The "we" I'm referring to is yourself and myself "discussing" the
interpretation of your "how much is well understood" statement.
>>Your use of the term "irrelevant" has
>>been misrepresented here. Get a
>>dictionary. You seem to have a difficulty
>>knowing the correct definitions and
>>usages for words. Remember, remedial
>>english may be your salvation.
>Remember, you were wrong on "how
>much" and you were wrong that I
>claimed that the paper you referred to
>hadn't been peer-reviewed (I've lost
>count how many times now). You need
>to re-think who needs remedial English.
The "you were wrong because I said so" argument doesn't fly here. You
didn't offer anything to prove the contrary. Do your homework.
>>>No, it's that you have presented
>>>nothing that would enable one to
>>>develop such a formula.
>>Why should I? The information about
>>drafting was provided for you.
>So, you think that all you need to
>produce a formula is "information",
>regardless of how much there is or how
>applicable it is to a different case?
Where do think mathematical formulas come from? Most, if not all, come
from research studies and compiled information. Anyone with common sense
knows that. Apparently you don't know that, ergo you lack common sense.
>>You do the math if you're so interested
>>in quantification.
>Do what maths?
Maths? You're pluralizing math? You really do need to get a grip on
English word usage.
>There is either sufficient information to
>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>case there isn't.
A subjective statement without merit. The information may be sufficient
for one better informed than you to develop the math. Ever consider
that?
>>Again, you do the math if quantification
>>is your goal.
>Do what maths? What have you provided
>to enable the effect of the lane rope to
>be determined?
There you go pluralizing "math" again. Did I pluralize it in my response
to you?
>>Your continued pathetic attempts at
>>salvaging any type of credibility is oddly
>>entertaining in a foolish kind of way.
>The oldest ploy in the book when you've
>got nothing.
No, the oldest ploy in the book is when someone "tells" you, the "you"
in this case being the generic "you," that you've got nothing and are
using the "oldest ploy in the book." In reality it's the accuser, in
this case, you yourself that has offered nothing to bolster your
argument (please note, "argument" is used loosely here).
>All you've come up is an experiment far
>removed from the Lenton/Phelps case
>followed by repetitions of "do the math".
>"Pathetic" and "foolish" certainly do come
>to mind.
Again, if you want quantification, find a way to be scientifically
creative, if that's at all possible for you, and use this information
along with any additional information to apply in the Lenton/Phelps case
for the purpose of crunching numbers. So, in what are by now familiar
other words, you do the math (note, it's not "maths").
Here's another idea, if you yourself know how to swim, and not knowing
you personally, I can only assume that you've acquired the skills to do
so, try some experimenting on your own or in collaboration with others,
gather data, formulate a sound theory, publish a paper, post on the
internet, and wait for the peer reviews. If your research data passes
muster, then you're onto something that can be applied to the
Lenton/Phelps case or any case for that matter. But first, before that
can happen, the remedial English has to be conquered.
David W
news:7556-461...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>How dense are you? Your statement
>>>and its validity is what you and I have
>>>been discussing all along here.
>
>>Irrelevant. The "we" referred to those
>>involved in the discussion before you got
>>involved. You are plain wrong.
>
>The "we" I'm referring to is yourself and myself "discussing" the
>interpretation of your "how much is well understood" statement.
No, look back through the posts. The "we" we've been arguing about is from:
"Give me a break. We were talking about Lenton's WR and whether drafting behind
Phelps enabled her to achieve it."
If you want to argue about a different "we" you really should say so.
>>>Your use of the term "irrelevant" has
>>>been misrepresented here. Get a
>>>dictionary. You seem to have a difficulty
>>>knowing the correct definitions and
>>>usages for words. Remember, remedial
>>>english may be your salvation.
>
>>Remember, you were wrong on "how
>>much" and you were wrong that I
>>claimed that the paper you referred to
>>hadn't been peer-reviewed (I've lost
>>count how many times now). You need
>>to re-think who needs remedial English.
>
>The "you were wrong because I said so" argument doesn't fly here. You
>didn't offer anything to prove the contrary.
Let me get this right. You claim that "how much" can mean "in what manner" or
"to what effect" without a single example, and that stands until I prove
otherwise? As for the peer-review matter, are you disputing that you got it
wrong?
>>>>No, it's that you have presented
>>>>nothing that would enable one to
>>>>develop such a formula.
>
>>>Why should I? The information about
>>>drafting was provided for you.
>
>>So, you think that all you need to
>>produce a formula is "information",
>>regardless of how much there is or how
>>applicable it is to a different case?
>
>Where do think mathematical formulas come from? Most, if not all, come
>from research studies and compiled information. Anyone with common sense
>knows that. Apparently you don't know that, ergo you lack common sense.
But the question is whether there is sufficient information to produce a formula
for a given specific situation. Is there?
>>>You do the math if you're so interested
>>>in quantification.
>
>>Do what maths?
>
>Maths? You're pluralizing math? You really do need to get a grip on
>English word usage.
And you need to realize that there's a world out there beyond your hole in the
ground. Remember that Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=
>>There is either sufficient information to
>>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>>case there isn't.
>
>A subjective statement without merit. The information may be sufficient
>for one better informed than you to develop the math. Ever consider
>that?
And is that true of the Phelps/Lenton case or not?
>
>>>Again, you do the math if quantification
>>>is your goal.
>
>>Do what maths? What have you provided
>>to enable the effect of the lane rope to
>>be determined?
>
>There you go pluralizing "math" again. Did I pluralize it in my response
>to you?
You are free to use 'math', the convention in your part of the world, and I'll
use 'maths', the convention in mine. Did I complain that you left off the 's'?
>>All you've come up is an experiment far
>>removed from the Lenton/Phelps case
>>followed by repetitions of "do the math".
>>"Pathetic" and "foolish" certainly do come
>>to mind.
>
>Again, if you want quantification, find a way to be scientifically
>creative, if that's at all possible for you, and use this information
>along with any additional information to apply in the Lenton/Phelps case
>for the purpose of crunching numbers. So, in what are by now familiar
>other words, you do the math (note, it's not "maths").
You are assuming that the information gathered in the New Zealand experiment is
sufficient to apply to the Phelps/Lenton race, but you've provided nothing to
support this. The distances are different and there's a lane rope, for starters.
>Here's another idea, if you yourself know how to swim, and not knowing
>you personally, I can only assume that you've acquired the skills to do
>so, try some experimenting on your own or in collaboration with others,
>gather data, formulate a sound theory, publish a paper, post on the
>internet, and wait for the peer reviews. If your research data passes
>muster, then you're onto something that can be applied to the
>Lenton/Phelps case or any case for that matter.
But why would I do that if the work has already been done, as you claim?
> But first, before that can happen, the remedial English has to be conquered.
Says he who continues to rack up the errors: "how much", the peer-review and now
"maths".
Steve Curtis
>>>The "we" I'm referring to is yourself
>>>and myself "discussing" the
>>>interpretation of your "how much is
>>>well understood" statement.
>>No, look back through the posts. The
>>"we" we've been arguing about is from:
>>"Give me a break. We were talking
>>about Lenton's WR and whether
>>drafting behind Phelps enabled her to
>>achieve it."
>If you want to argue about a different
>"we" you really should say so.
I think I already did when I wrote that the "we" I was referring to were
yourself and myself. Try following your own advice, learn to read.
>>The "you were wrong because I said
>>so" argument doesn't fly here. You
>>didn't offer anything to prove the
>>contrary.
>Let me get this right. You claim that
>"how much" can mean "in what manner"
>or "to what effect" without a single
>example, and that stands until I prove
>otherwise?
You are able to read a dictionary or a thesaurus aren't you? Relatively
simple tasks that I don't need to do for you.
>As for the peer-review matter, are you
>disputing that you got it wrong?
No, the dispute is that you got it wrong.
>>Where do think mathematical formulas
>>come from? Most, if not all, come from
>>research studies and compiled
>>information. Anyone with common
>>sense knows that. Apparently you don't
>>know that, ergo you lack common
>>sense.
>But the question is whether there is
>sufficient information to produce a
>formula for a given specific situation. Is
>there?
Possibly for someone who's informed but apparently not for you since
it's causing such a quandary for you.
>And you need to realize that there's a
>world out there beyond your hole in the
>ground. Remember that Google is your
>friend:
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=
Your point? To show you know how to use "Google"? Congratulations, would
you like a standing ovation for achieving such an accomplishment?
>There is either sufficient information to
>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>case there isn't.
To you, no. To someone else, possibly.
>>A subjective statement without merit.
>>The information may be sufficient for
>>one better informed than you to develop
>>the math. Ever consider that?
>And is that true of the Phelps/Lenton
>case or not?
Possibly, maybe not. Figure it out yourself or find someone who's more
informed to assist.
>But why would I do that if the work has
>already been done, as you claim?
Because you have doubts. Do the research if you need more info. Remember
"Google"?
>>But first, before that can happen, the
>>remedial English has to be conquered.
>Says he who continues to rack up the
>errors: "how much", the peer-review and
>now "maths".
The suggested remedial English advice still stands.
BTW, you didn't acknowledge my assumption on whether you yourself have
any swimming skills or not.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>
>>"we" you really should say so.
>
>I think I already did when I wrote that the "we" I was referring to were
>yourself and myself. Try following your own advice, learn to read.
Wrong. The "we" referred to who was in the discussion at the time of my "how
much" post. You claimed otherwise (even though it was my "we", and I certainly
knew which "we" I was referring to).
>>>The "you were wrong because I said
>>>so" argument doesn't fly here. You
>>>didn't offer anything to prove the
>>>contrary.
>
>>Let me get this right. You claim that
>>"how much" can mean "in what manner"
>>or "to what effect" without a single
>>example, and that stands until I prove
>>otherwise?
>
>You are able to read a dictionary or a thesaurus aren't you? Relatively
>simple tasks that I don't need to do for you.
So you can't produce an example.
>>As for the peer-review matter, are you
>>disputing that you got it wrong?
>
>No, the dispute is that you got it wrong.
In what way, and how is an assertion that I got it wrong a "dispute"?
>>>Where do think mathematical formulas
>>>come from? Most, if not all, come from
>>>research studies and compiled
>>>information. Anyone with common
>>>sense knows that. Apparently you don't
>>>know that, ergo you lack common
>>>sense.
>
>>But the question is whether there is
>>sufficient information to produce a
>>formula for a given specific situation. Is
>>there?
>
>Possibly for someone who's informed but apparently not for you since
>it's causing such a quandary for you.
Only "possibly"? But you were so sure before.
>>And you need to realize that there's a
>>world out there beyond your hole in the
>>ground. Remember that Google is your
>>friend:
>
>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=
>
>Your point? To show you know how to use "Google"?
Apparently, you don't.
> Congratulations, would
>you like a standing ovation for achieving such an accomplishment?
So you've suddenly gone right off the math/maths thing that so captured your
attention in your previous post. No comment at all on over 20 million references
to "maths"?
>>There is either sufficient information to
>>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>>case there isn't.
>
>To you, no. To someone else, possibly.
I see. Only possibly again.
>>>A subjective statement without merit.
>>>The information may be sufficient for
>>>one better informed than you to develop
>>>the math. Ever consider that?
>
>>And is that true of the Phelps/Lenton
>>case or not?
>
>Possibly, maybe not. Figure it out yourself or find someone who's more
>informed to assist.
Before I just had to "do the math". But now it maybe isn't even possible. That's
quite a change of tune.
>>But why would I do that if the work has
>>already been done, as you claim?
>
>Because you have doubts. Do the research if you need more info. Remember
>"Google"?
And you are confident that there is sufficient information available via Google
to determine how much time Lenton gained from drafting behind Phelps?
>>>But first, before that can happen, the
>>>remedial English has to be conquered.
>
>>Says he who continues to rack up the
>>errors: "how much", the peer-review and
>>now "maths".
>
>The suggested remedial English advice still stands.
Still nothing to say about "maths"?
>BTW, you didn't acknowledge my assumption on whether you yourself have
>any swimming skills or not.
Well, it's hardly relevant to how much time Lenton gained against Phelps, is it?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>If you want to argue about a different
>>>"we" you really should say so.
>>I think I already did when I wrote that
>>the "we" I was referring to were
>>yourself and myself. Try following your
>>own advice, learn to read.
>Wrong. The "we" referred to who was in
>the discussion at the time of my "how
>much" post. You claimed otherwise
>(even though it was my "we", and I
>certainly knew which "we" I was referring
>to).
So, which "we" is it that's now exchanging posted responses in this
thread regarding your "how much" comment?
>>You are able to read a dictionary or a
>>thesaurus aren't you? Relatively simple
>>tasks that I don't need to do for you.
>So you can't produce an example.
So, I take that response to mean that you can't read a dictionary or a
thesaurus for yourself and need to rely on me to provide the info for
you. Stick with the remedial English, you'll be able to read
dictionaries and thesauruses in due time.
>>>As for the peer-review matter, are you
>>>disputing that you got it wrong?
>>No, the dispute is that you got it wrong.
>In what way, and how is an assertion
>that I got it wrong a "dispute"?
It was your assertion itself that was disputed. Again, follow your own
patronizing advice, learn to read.
>>>But the question is whether there is
>>>sufficient information to produce a
>>>formula for a given specific situation.
>>>Is there?
>>Possibly for someone who's informed
>>but apparently not for you since it's
>>causing such a quandary for you.
>Only "possibly"? But you were so sure
>before.
I've been acknowledging "possibly" all along. Because of intangible
factors, there is no absolute certainty of an exact mathematical
solution. Common sense would lead one to that conclusion. That's why an
approximation at best was mentioned in the first place. Is that a
concept too difficult for you to grasp?
>>>And you need to realize that there's a
>>>world out there beyond your hole in
>>>the ground. Remember that Google is
>>>your friend:
>>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=
>>Your point? To show you know how to
>>use "Google"?
>Apparently, you don't.
Oh please, the reference I posted about drafting in swimming was one of
many search results on the topic from Google.
>>>There is either sufficient information to
>>>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>>>case there isn't.
>>To you, no. To someone else, possibly.
>I see. Only possibly again.
Hopefully the remedial English will pay off soon so that you'll be able
to look up the definition of "possibly" and know what it means when used
in this context.
>And you are confident that there is
>sufficient information available via
>Google to determine how much time
>Lenton gained from drafting behind
>Phelps?
With a diligent search yielding enough of the right information, and
data, a reasonable approximation is not out of the question for someone
knowledgeable, especially someone having a supportive background in
fluid dynamics, physics, etc.
>>BTW, you didn't acknowledge my
>>assumption on whether you yourself
>>have any swimming skills or not.
>Well, it's hardly relevant to how much
>time Lenton gained against Phelps, is it?
So, I take that as a "no." You don't have any swimming skills, right? If
that's the case then first hand perspective does not play a role in your
arguments.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>>If you want to argue about a different
>>>>"we" you really should say so.
>
>>>I think I already did when I wrote that
>>>the "we" I was referring to were
>>>yourself and myself. Try following your
>>>own advice, learn to read.
>
>>Wrong. The "we" referred to who was in
>>the discussion at the time of my "how
>>much" post. You claimed otherwise
>>(even though it was my "we", and I
>>certainly knew which "we" I was referring
>>to).
>
>So, which "we" is it that's now exchanging posted responses in this
>thread regarding your "how much" comment?
Relevance?
>>>thesaurus aren't you? Relatively simple
>>>tasks that I don't need to do for you.
>
>>So you can't produce an example.
>
>So, I take that response to mean that you can't read a dictionary or a
>thesaurus for yourself and need to rely on me to provide the info for
>you. Stick with the remedial English, you'll be able to read
>dictionaries and thesauruses in due time.
Let's see. There's no "how much" in my Roget's Thesaurus index, so that's no
help, but here's something in the Concise Oxford Dictionary under "how": "how
much" 1 What amount (how much do I owe you? did not know how much to take). 2
what price (how much is it?) 3 (as interrog.) joc. what? ('She is a hedonist'
'A how much?').
Sorry, nothing there about "in what manner" or "to what effect". You made the
claim, so it's all up to you now. Are you able to provide an example or not? If
you can't, I'll have to assume that you are lying.
>>>>As for the peer-review matter, are you
>>>>disputing that you got it wrong?
>
>>>No, the dispute is that you got it wrong.
>
>>In what way, and how is an assertion
>>that I got it wrong a "dispute"?
>
>It was your assertion itself that was disputed.
Is this the assertion? "First of all, scientific papers on the subject need to
be peer-reviewed." IIRC, you took this to mean that I had claimed that the
paper had never been peer-reviewed. Correct?
>>>>But the question is whether there is
>>>>sufficient information to produce a
>>>>formula for a given specific situation.
>>>>Is there?
>
>>>Possibly for someone who's informed
>>>but apparently not for you since it's
>>>causing such a quandary for you.
>
>>Only "possibly"? But you were so sure
>>before.
>
>I've been acknowledging "possibly" all along. Because of intangible
>factors, there is no absolute certainty of an exact mathematical
>solution.
Oh, I don't want an exact mathematical solution. An approximate one will do,
that is, one within a few tenths of a second, since Lenton broke the WR by 0.31
seconds.
> Common sense would lead one to that conclusion. That's why an
>approximation at best was mentioned in the first place.
That would be fine. Thanks.
> Is that a
>concept too difficult for you to grasp?
>
>>>>And you need to realize that there's a
>>>>world out there beyond your hole in
>>>>the ground. Remember that Google is
>>>>your friend:
>
>>>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=
>
>>>Your point? To show you know how to
>>>use "Google"?
>
>>Apparently, you don't.
>
>Oh please, the reference I posted about drafting in swimming was one of
>many search results on the topic from Google.
So why didn't you use it to look up "maths"? Once again, this word appears to
have mysteriously vanished after you were _so_ enthusiastic about it earlier.
>>>>There is either sufficient information to
>>>>do the calculation or there isn't. In this
>>>>case there isn't.
>
>>>To you, no. To someone else, possibly.
>
>>I see. Only possibly again.
>
>Hopefully the remedial English will pay off soon so that you'll be able
>to look up the definition of "possibly" and know what it means when used
>in this context.
What about "do the math if you want to quantify it"? Are you saying now that
it's only _possible_ to "do the math"?
>>And you are confident that there is
>>sufficient information available via
>>Google to determine how much time
>>Lenton gained from drafting behind
>>Phelps?
>
>With a diligent search yielding enough of the right information,
Of course! Enough of the "right information"!
> and
>data, a reasonable approximation is not out of the question for someone
>knowledgeable, especially someone having a supportive background in
>fluid dynamics, physics, etc.
And on what information do you base the conclusion that a suitably qualified
person could determine how much assistance Lenton received from Phelps?
>>>BTW, you didn't acknowledge my
>>>assumption on whether you yourself
>>>have any swimming skills or not.
>
>>Well, it's hardly relevant to how much
>>time Lenton gained against Phelps, is it?
>
>So, I take that as a "no."
No, just an "irrelevant". How an earth could I use my swimming experience to
assist in this matter?
Tony Bryant
Steve Curtis
statement of: "It probably isn't even well understood how much
assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake" is open to
multiple interpretations, including the assertion that either the amount
of drafting (his interpretive claim) or that drafting in and of itself
is not "well understood" and furthering the confusion by using a generic
"you" in the statement which doesn't refer to Lenton, Phelps or anyone
else by name specifically.
"David W" then closes with the following exchange:
>>>>BTW, you didn't acknowledge my
>>>>assumption on whether you yourself
>>>>have any swimming skills or not.
>>>Well, it's hardly relevant to how much
>>>time Lenton gained against Phelps, is
>>>it?
>>So, I take that as a "no."
>No, just an "irrelevant". How an earth
>could I use my swimming experience to
>assist in this matter?
To which I reply:
So, I take it from that you then have little to no personal swimming
experience to draw any insight from on the merits of drafting during
races.
Darn, I was hoping to someday possibly give you a practical
demonstration on the merits of drafting in a 200 freestyle race between
you and me as you try to keep up with me by swimming in my wake. Even
more interesting, a possible race where your entire personal wealth was
at stake in some form of wager. Ah, but I can only now dream of leaving
you penniless.
David W
> "David W" wrote the same old load of crap without acknowledging that his
> statement of: "It probably isn't even well understood how much
> assistance you get from swimming in another swimmer's wake" is open to
> multiple interpretations, including the assertion that either the amount
> of drafting (his interpretive claim) or that drafting in and of itself
> is not "well understood"
No. It says "...isn't even well understood how much assistance...". That is
unambiguously a quantity.
> and furthering the confusion by using a generic
> "you" in the statement which doesn't refer to Lenton, Phelps or anyone
> else by name specifically.
Doesn't matter. If what's known about drafting can't be used to quantify the
effect in a common case such as a race in a pool, then it's not well understood.
> "David W" then closes with the following exchange:
>
>>>>>BTW, you didn't acknowledge my
>>>>>assumption on whether you yourself
>>>>>have any swimming skills or not.
>
>>>>Well, it's hardly relevant to how much
>>>>time Lenton gained against Phelps, is
>>>>it?
>
>>>So, I take that as a "no."
>
>>No, just an "irrelevant". How an earth
>>could I use my swimming experience to
>>assist in this matter?
>
> To which I reply:
>
> So, I take it from that you then have little to no personal swimming
> experience to draw any insight from on the merits of drafting during
> races.
Then you are being presumptuous. I've said nothing about my personal swimming
experience because it is _not relevant_ to the discussion. Are you claiming that
if were a very experienced swimmer I would be able to work out how many tenths
of a second Lenton gained against Phelps? Or, are you claiming that one has to
be an experienced swimmer to understand the science sufficiently to quantify the
effect in a given case? Just why are you going off on this tangent? I can only
assume that it's an attempted distraction from all the mistakes you've made.
David W
news:461e255c$1...@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> Are you two still at it?
I'm afraid so. Curtis is being intransigent.
Steve Curtis
>No. It says "...isn't even well understood
>how much assistance...". That is
>unambiguously a quantity.
Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt here, let me ask, a quantity of
what, assistance (i.e. drafting), right? How is it that you claim that
"it isn't well understood"? Have you bothered to do any of your own
research to determine if the quantification of drafting effects in
swimming has been documented anywhere? Are you confident with the idea
that the math required for quantification "isn't well understood"?
What's your basis for "isn't well understood"?
>>...and furthering the confusion by using
>>a generic "you" in the statement which
>>doesn't refer to Lenton, Phelps or
>>anyone else by name specifically.
>Doesn't matter. If what's known about
>drafting can't be used to quantify the
>effect in a common case such as a race
>in a pool, then it's not well understood.
Repeat the questions above with two additional questions: What
conclusion leads you to know with confidence that "what's known about
drafting can't be
used to quantify the effect"? And, who says it "can't be used "?
At the time, the Wright brothers used aeronautical ideas, developed
math, engineering principles, experimentation, etc. to quantify
conditions for successfully powered flight. The same analogy could apply
to a discovery for a way to calculate swimming's drafting effect. Who
knows? Many potential discoveries don't forever lie dormant.
>>>How an earth could I use my
>>>swimming experience to assist in this
>>>matter?
>>So, I take it from that you then have
>>little to no personal swimming
>>experience to draw any insight from on
>>the merits of drafting during races.
>Then you are being presumptuous. I've
>said nothing about my personal
>swimming experience because it is _not
>relevant_ to the discussion.
So, by saying nothing, and claiming irrelevance, I take it this means
you have an excuse for not revealing little to no personal swimming
experience?
>Are you claiming that if were a very
>experienced swimmer I would be able to
>work out how many tenths of a second
>Lenton gained against Phelps?
Not particularly for you with the kind of logic displayed in this
thread, but some smart swimmers might have a better insight for ideas on
how to as a result of seeing and experimenting from a first-hand
perspective.
>Or, are you claiming that one has to be
>an experienced swimmer to understand
>the science sufficiently to quantify the
>effect in a given case?
See the preceding paragraph.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>No. It says "...isn't even well understood
>>how much assistance...". That is
>>unambiguously a quantity.
>
>Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt here, let me ask, a quantity of
>what, assistance (i.e. drafting), right?
Well, obviously. We were talking about Lenton's WR and whether it should not be
ratified because drafting made the difference. To determine that the effect must
be quantified.
> How is it that you claim that
>"it isn't well understood"?
That's a misrepresentation. I said, "probably isn't even well understood." I did
not claim to know.
> Have you bothered to do any of your own
>research to determine if the quantification of drafting effects in
>swimming has been documented anywhere?
Nope.
> Are you confident with the idea
>that the math required for quantification "isn't well understood"?
Yes.
>What's your basis for "isn't well understood"?
Correction: "probably isn't well understood".
My basis is that although there have been races in which drafting has been
claimed to have aided a swimmer (e.g., Armstrong), to my knowledge drafting has
never been regarded as a big issue in pool races. It has rarely been considered
to have made the difference to a race result or a broken record. Therefore, I
supposed that not a lot of research had been done into it. Unless someone is
aware that sufficient experimentation has been done into drafting in the pool,
taking into account the lane rope, the reversal of direction after each lap, the
turns themselves, reflections at the ends of the pool, the possible differences
between swimmers (e.g., strong kicking vs. weak kicking) etc., to determine its
effect on a swimmer's time, then I am going to stick with my supposition.
>>>...and furthering the confusion by using
>>>a generic "you" in the statement which
>>>doesn't refer to Lenton, Phelps or
>>>anyone else by name specifically.
>
>>Doesn't matter. If what's known about
>>drafting can't be used to quantify the
>>effect in a common case such as a race
>>in a pool, then it's not well understood.
>
>Repeat the questions above with two additional questions: What
>conclusion leads you to know with confidence that "what's known about
>drafting can't be
>used to quantify the effect"? And, who says it "can't be used "?
I don't know. I am supposing.
>At the time, the Wright brothers used aeronautical ideas, developed
>math, engineering principles, experimentation, etc. to quantify
>conditions for successfully powered flight. The same analogy could apply
>to a discovery for a way to calculate swimming's drafting effect. Who
>knows? Many potential discoveries don't forever lie dormant.
Maybe. But if that work is yet to be done then my supposition was right.
>>>>How an earth could I use my
>>>>swimming experience to assist in this
>>>>matter?
>
>>>So, I take it from that you then have
>>>little to no personal swimming
>>>experience to draw any insight from on
>>>the merits of drafting during races.
>
>>Then you are being presumptuous. I've
>>said nothing about my personal
>>swimming experience because it is _not
>>relevant_ to the discussion.
>
>So, by saying nothing, and claiming irrelevance, I take it this means
>you have an excuse for not revealing little to no personal swimming
>experience?
You keep taking it to mean what you want it to mean. It's got nothing to do with
quantifying drafting effects, so why bring it up?
>>Are you claiming that if were a very
>>experienced swimmer I would be able to
>>work out how many tenths of a second
>>Lenton gained against Phelps?
>
>Not particularly for you with the kind of logic displayed in this
>thread, but some smart swimmers might have a better insight for ideas on
>how to as a result of seeing and experimenting from a first-hand
>perspective.
I'm not interested in personal insight or a first-hand perspective. I'm
interested in how many tenths Lenton saved by swimming in Phelps's wake.
Steve Curtis
>>Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt
>>here, let me ask, a quantity of what,
>>assistance (i.e. drafting), right?
>Well, obviously. We were talking about
>Lenton's WR and whether it should not
>be ratified because drafting made the
>difference. To determine that the effect
>must be quantified.
And you still think that quantification isn't possible using video
records of the race, time records, simulation software, etc. to at least
approximate a numerical factor? Welcome to 2007, this isn't the "Dark
Ages."
>>How is it that you claim that "it isn't well
>>understood"?
>That's a misrepresentation. I said,
>"probably isn't even well understood." I
>did not claim to know.
If you don't know, why even offer a probable supposition in the first
place?
>>Are you confident with the idea that the
>>math required for quantification "isn't
>>well understood"?
>Yes.
Then you dismiss concepts of resourcefulness, inventiveness, ingenuity,
software applicability, as tools for a solution? Again, welcome to 2007.
>My basis is that although there have
>been races in which drafting has been
>claimed to have aided a swimmer (e.g.,
>Armstrong), to my knowledge drafting
>has never been regarded as a big issue
>in pool races.
And you've discussed this with those better informed than you and/or
more qualified to know the subject? Researched documentation to know
it's not a big issue?
>It has rarely been considered to have
>made the difference to a race result or a
>broken record. Therefore, I supposed
>that not a lot of research had been done
>into it. Unless someone is aware that
>sufficient experimentation has been done
>into drafting in the pool, taking into
>account the lane rope, the reversal of
>direction after each lap, the turns
>themselves, reflections at the ends of the
>pool, the possible differences between
>swimmers (e.g., strong kicking vs. weak
>kicking) etc., to determine its effect on a
>swimmer's time, then I am going to stick
>with my supposition.
Reliance on a supposition is hardly a confidence builder for
credibility.
>>What conclusion leads you to know with
>>confidence that "what's known about
>>drafting can't be used to quantify the
>>effect"? And, who says it "can't be
>>used"?
>I don't know. I am supposing.
Actually, you're blowing smoke.
>>At the time, the Wright brothers used
>>aeronautical ideas, developed math,
>>engineering principles, experimentation,
>>etc. to quantify conditions for
>>successfully powered flight. The same
>>analogy could apply to a discovery for a
>>way to calculate swimming's drafting
>>effect. Who knows? Many potential
>>discoveries don't forever lie dormant.
>Maybe. But if that work is yet to be done
>then my supposition was right.
How do you know that the work hasn't been done already, or isn't being
done currently? Ever hear of technology? Software? Hello, welcome to
2007.
>>>I've said nothing about my personal
>>>swimming experience because it is
>>>_not relevant_ to the discussion.
>>So, by saying nothing, and claiming
>>irrelevance, I take it this means you
>>have an excuse for not revealing little to
>>no personal swimming experience?
>You keep taking it to mean what you
>want it to mean. It's got nothing to do
>with quantifying drafting effects, so why
>bring it up?
So, your avoidance in answering a simple question about personal
swimming skills is to be taken as an omission of a possible revelation
of inadequate proficiency?
>I'm not interested in personal insight or a
>first-hand perspective. I'm interested in
>how many tenths Lenton saved by
>swimming in Phelps's wake.
If that's of such monumental importance to you, then be resourceful,
find a way, get documentation, time records, video records, talk to race
officials, e-mail race officials, do your own research, and/or use a
research consultant, hire a staff with a common goal to do the R&D for
applicable software, you're bound to find an answer in one way or
another, or at least arrive at a reasonable approximation. Oh, wait, I
forgot, you have to find success with remedial English first before any
of the above can be accomplished, in which case, you may be out-of-luck.
But, then again, it's 2007, which means the technology is there to help
with that too.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt
>>>here, let me ask, a quantity of what,
>>>assistance (i.e. drafting), right?
>
>>Well, obviously. We were talking about
>>Lenton's WR and whether it should not
>>be ratified because drafting made the
>>difference. To determine that the effect
>>must be quantified.
>
>And you still think that quantification isn't possible using video
>records of the race, time records, simulation software, etc. to at least
>approximate a numerical factor? Welcome to 2007, this isn't the "Dark
>Ages."
Yes. What are you going to simulate? How would the video and time records tell
you what component of a swimmer's velocity is due to drafting?
>>>How is it that you claim that "it isn't well
>>>understood"?
>
>>That's a misrepresentation. I said,
>>"probably isn't even well understood." I
>>did not claim to know.
>
>If you don't know, why even offer a probable supposition in the first
>place?
I answered that last time.
>>>Are you confident with the idea that the
>>>math required for quantification "isn't
>>>well understood"?
>
>>Yes.
>
>Then you dismiss concepts of resourcefulness, inventiveness, ingenuity,
>software applicability, as tools for a solution?
Without any experiments you need enough information to model what's going on,
regardless of your inventiveness, ingenuity etc. Where would you get it?
> Again, welcome to 2007.
Thank you.
>>My basis is that although there have
>>been races in which drafting has been
>>claimed to have aided a swimmer (e.g.,
>>Armstrong), to my knowledge drafting
>>has never been regarded as a big issue
>>in pool races.
>
>And you've discussed this with those better informed than you and/or
>more qualified to know the subject?
Nope.
> Researched documentation to know
>it's not a big issue?
Nope. You'd hear about it in the press and from commentators (who are often
former swimmers) if drafting were a big issue.
>>It has rarely been considered to have
>>made the difference to a race result or a
>>broken record. Therefore, I supposed
>>that not a lot of research had been done
>>into it. Unless someone is aware that
>>sufficient experimentation has been done
>>into drafting in the pool, taking into
>>account the lane rope, the reversal of
>>direction after each lap, the turns
>>themselves, reflections at the ends of the
>>pool, the possible differences between
>>swimmers (e.g., strong kicking vs. weak
>>kicking) etc., to determine its effect on a
>>swimmer's time, then I am going to stick
>>with my supposition.
>
>Reliance on a supposition is hardly a confidence builder for
>credibility.
It's either right or it isn't, and you aren't convincing me that it isn't.
>>>What conclusion leads you to know with
>>>confidence that "what's known about
>>>drafting can't be used to quantify the
>>>effect"? And, who says it "can't be
>>>used"?
>
>>I don't know. I am supposing.
>
>Actually, you're blowing smoke.
And I thought I was doing so well.
>>>At the time, the Wright brothers used
>>>aeronautical ideas, developed math,
>>>engineering principles, experimentation,
>>>etc. to quantify conditions for
>>>successfully powered flight. The same
>>>analogy could apply to a discovery for a
>>>way to calculate swimming's drafting
>>>effect. Who knows? Many potential
>>>discoveries don't forever lie dormant.
>
>>Maybe. But if that work is yet to be done
>>then my supposition was right.
>
>How do you know that the work hasn't been done already,
I don't. So what? You know what I based my supposition on.
> or isn't being
>done currently? Ever hear of technology? Software? Hello, welcome to
>2007.
_Being_ done doesn't count, since my supposition would still be correct.
>
>>You keep taking it to mean what you
>>want it to mean. It's got nothing to do
>>with quantifying drafting effects, so why
>>bring it up?
>
>So, your avoidance in answering a simple question about personal
>swimming skills is to be taken as an omission of a possible revelation
>of inadequate proficiency?
It's to be taken as irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>>I'm not interested in personal insight or a
>>first-hand perspective. I'm interested in
>>how many tenths Lenton saved by
>>swimming in Phelps's wake.
>
>If that's of such monumental importance to you,
It's not.
>then be resourceful,
>find a way, get documentation, time records, video records, talk to race
>officials, e-mail race officials, do your own research, and/or use a
>research consultant, hire a staff with a common goal to do the R&D for
>applicable software, you're bound to find an answer in one way or
>another, or at least arrive at a reasonable approximation.
In other words, do all the science because so far it hasn't been done. That's
what I've been saying all along.
> Oh, wait, I
>forgot, you have to find success with remedial English first before any
>of the above can be accomplished,
You get an elephant stamp for that brilliant and original put-down.
Steve Curtis
>>And you still think that quantification
>>isn't possible using video records of the
>>race, time records, simulation software,
>>etc. to at least approximate a numerical
>>factor? Welcome to 2007, this isn't the
>>"Dark Ages."
>Yes. What are you going to simulate?
My God, you've never heard of simulation programs run on computers?
You're more of an idiot than I thought.
>How would the video and time records
>tell you what component of a swimmer's
>velocity is due to drafting?
Never heard of video tracking either? Do your homework on the technology
available. I'm not about to lead you through it step by step. Suffice it
to say, computer technology in conjunction with tracking data will
provide factoring components to velocity variations.
The technology is sophisticated enough to graph out variations.
>>If you don't know, why even offer a
>>probable supposition in the first place?
>I answered that last time.
So, you are blowing more smoke out of your ass.
>Without any experiments you need
>enough information to model what's
>going on, regardless of your
>inventiveness, ingenuity etc. Where
>would you get it?
Google for one source. Look for studies done on it.
>>Researched documentation to know it's
>>not a big issue?
>Nope. You'd hear about it in the press
>and from commentators (who are often
>former swimmers) if drafting were a big
>issue.
Not necessarily, nothing more than a baseless assumption on your part.
It also depends on how one defines "big" in this case. Still blowing
smoke without offering any substantiation to back it up.
>>Reliance on a supposition is hardly a
>>confidence builder for credibility.
>It's either right or it isn't, and you aren't
>convincing me that it isn't.
Why would I even give a rat's ass whether you're convinced or not? For
that matter, I don't even give a rat's ass about you, your mere
existence, or even your eventual demise. It's no skin off my back. I
could care less since you dismiss suggested means to find a solution for
your quest.
>>How do you know that the work hasn't
>>been done already,
>I don't. So what? You know what I based
>my supposition on.
Based on speculative guessing? That doesn't cut it in the real world.
>>So, your avoidance in answering a
>>simple question about personal
>>swimming skills is to be taken as an
>>omission of a possible revelation of
>>inadequate proficiency?
>It's to be taken as irrelevant to the
>discussion at hand.
Which is to be taken as an avoidance to reveal minimal skills.
>>If that's of such monumental
>>importance to you,
>It's not.
Then why do you claim to need the data for Lenton's swim?
>>then be resourceful, find a way, ...
>In other words, do all the science
>because so far it hasn't been done.
Strawman argument. I never claimed that it hasn't been done. You did and
you have no proof that it hasn't.
>That's what I've been saying all along.
That's what I pointed out in the preceding paragraph.
>>Oh, wait, I forgot, you have to find
>>success with remedial English first
>>before any of the above can be
>>accomplished,
>You get an elephant stamp for that
>brilliant and original put-down.
And you get a mental image of an extended upright middle finger.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>And you still think that quantification
>>>isn't possible using video records of the
>>>race, time records, simulation software,
>>>etc. to at least approximate a numerical
>>>factor? Welcome to 2007, this isn't the
>>>"Dark Ages."
>
>>Yes. What are you going to simulate?
>
>My God, you've never heard of simulation programs run on computers?
>You're more of an idiot than I thought.
You didn't answer the question. What are you going to simulate?
>>How would the video and time records
>>tell you what component of a swimmer's
>>velocity is due to drafting?
>
>Never heard of video tracking either? Do your homework on the technology
>available.
What would video tracking tell you about a swimmer's assistance from drafting?
> I'm not about to lead you through it step by step. Suffice it
>to say, computer technology in conjunction with tracking data will
>provide factoring components to velocity variations.
>The technology is sophisticated enough to graph out variations.
And it can discriminate variations caused by drafting from all orher
variations?
>>>not a big issue?
>
>>Nope. You'd hear about it in the press
>>and from commentators (who are often
>>former swimmers) if drafting were a big
>>issue.
>
>Not necessarily,
So you have no idea?
> nothing more than a baseless assumption on your part.
>It also depends on how one defines "big" in this case. Still blowing
>smoke without offering any substantiation to back it up.
So, gold medal after gold medal at the Olympics is decided by drafting, but the
commentators - former Olympic gold-medal winning swimmers some of them - say
nothing. Amazing.
>>>Reliance on a supposition is hardly a
>>>confidence builder for credibility.
>
>>It's either right or it isn't, and you aren't
>>convincing me that it isn't.
>
>Why would I even give a rat's ass whether you're convinced or not?
I don't know. You'll have to tell us why you've responded 19 times to me in
this thread.
> For
>that matter, I don't even give a rat's ass about you, your mere
>existence, or even your eventual demise. It's no skin off my back. I
>could care less since you dismiss suggested means to find a solution for
>your quest.
It's not a quest. It was an idle supposition that you appear to have taken to
heart.
>>>How do you know that the work hasn't
>>>been done already,
>
>>I don't. So what? You know what I based
>>my supposition on.
>
>Based on speculative guessing? That doesn't cut it in the real world.
But it does cut it in a swimming newsgroup.
>>>So, your avoidance in answering a
>>>simple question about personal
>>>swimming skills is to be taken as an
>>>omission of a possible revelation of
>>>inadequate proficiency?
>
>>It's to be taken as irrelevant to the
>>discussion at hand.
>
>Which is to be taken as an avoidance to reveal minimal skills.
On what basis?
>>>If that's of such monumental
>>>importance to you,
>
>>It's not.
>
>Then why do you claim to need the data for Lenton's swim?
I don't.
>>>then be resourceful, find a way, ...
>
>>In other words, do all the science
>>because so far it hasn't been done.
>
>Strawman argument. I never claimed that it hasn't been done.
Has it been done?
> You did and
>you have no proof that it hasn't.
No, that's why I said 'probably', and that remains my opinion until someone
produces evidence to the contrary.
>>That's what I've been saying all along.
>
>That's what I pointed out in the preceding paragraph.
>
>>>Oh, wait, I forgot, you have to find
>>>success with remedial English first
>>>before any of the above can be
>>>accomplished,
>
>>You get an elephant stamp for that
>>brilliant and original put-down.
>
>And you get a mental image of an extended upright middle finger.
That's not very nice. You're so mean.
Steve Curtis
Well, uh, basically nothing new, just the same old wearisome, pointless,
pathetic, patronizing, inflammatory, pedantic drivel and strawman
arguments that he's continued all along in this thread which will not be
repeated and responded to specifically in this post in all likelihood
that it will generate more of the same old crap to follow. For some
unexplained reason (possibly naivety, immaturity?), he fails to
recognize that technology and enterprising minds can possibly find
solutions to his dilemma, or at least partial ones at best, and may
already have done so if he were to conduct a thorough enough search for
the information on his own or with the aid of others if he so desires. I
will not provide that help since I was not hired to be his personal
research consultant. He apparently fails to recognize that computer
technology in conjunction with tracking data will provide factoring
components to velocity variations, and that the technology exists to
differentiate those variations in a graphical form for analysis.
Mr. "W" then closes with:
>>>You get an elephant stamp for that
>>>brilliant and original put-down.
>>And you get a mental image of an
>>extended upright middle finger.
>That's not very nice. You're so mean.
Welcome to the world of usenet, keep the mental image.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>For some
>unexplained reason (possibly naivety, immaturity?), he fails to
>recognize that technology and enterprising minds can possibly find
>solutions
Irrelevant. I didn't comment on what _could_ be done, only on what _has_ been
done.
> to his dilemma,
It's not a dilemma. The 'di' means two, and a dilemma is a problem that has two
unsatisfactory solutions.
> or at least partial ones at best, and may
>already have done so if he were to conduct a thorough enough search for
>the information on his own or with the aid of others if he so desires.
It might have been done, but I think it probably hasn't and I'm happy to leave
it at. Someone who knows otherwise is welcome to post a correction if they want.
So far no one's done that, and that's okay too.
>I
>will not provide that help since I was not hired to be his personal
>research consultant.
Translation: "I don't have a clue either."
>He apparently fails to recognize that computer
>technology in conjunction with tracking data will provide factoring
>components to velocity variations, and that the technology exists to
>differentiate those variations in a graphical form for analysis.
You still haven't answered whether video tracking can distinguish variations
caused by drafting from all other variations. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will
suffice for the moment.
Steve Curtis
More of the following, as predicted, unsubstantiated diatribe, while
displaying a gross lack of critical thinking skills as well as any
originality of thought by continuing with the seemingly primary goal of
perpetuating a meaningless thread of his suppositions. But alas, pity
the poor soul(s) still reading this thread, for they do so only out of
sheer boredom with nothing else to do. Their indulgence however, does
not go unrecognized without some measure of appreciation.
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>For some unexplained reason (possibly
>>naivety, immaturity?), he fails to
>>recognize that technology and
>>enterprising minds can possibly find
>>solutions
>Irrelevant. I didn't comment on what
>_could_ be done, only on what _has_
>been done.
Re-read it Bucko, it wasn't written as a tense specific phrase, but
rather as an all inclusive one (i.e. was done, is being done, will be
done). While you're at it, re-think your use of the term "irrelevant"
which is certainly irrelevant in this case.
>>to his dilemma,
>It's not a dilemma. The 'di' means two,
>and a dilemma is a problem that has two
>unsatisfactory solutions.
Incorrectomeundo Bucko. Got a dictionary handy? One of several meanings
for the word including the one you mentioned is: "a difficult or
persistent problem."
>>or at least partial ones at best, and may
>>already have done so if he were to
>>conduct a thorough enough search for
>>the information on his own or with the
>>aid of others if he so desires.
>It might have been done, but I think it
>probably hasn't and I'm happy to leave it
>at.
So, you're basing this argument on what you "think" probably hasn't
occurred? The only thing that hasn't occurred here is you bothering to
look to see if it has.
>>I will not provide that help since I was
>>not hired to be his personal research
>>consultant.
>Translation: "I don't have a clue either."
A mis-translation. Corrected translation: "No need to do the tasks that
can be easily done by anyone seeking the information for themselves." My
position on that would change of course, if some kind of compensation
were offered to do those tasks for any party interested in finding the
information. In other words, show me the "money."
>>He apparently fails to recognize that
>>computer technology in conjunction
>>with tracking data will provide factoring
>>components to velocity variations, and
>>that the technology exists to
>>differentiate those variations in a
>>graphical form for analysis.
>You still haven't answered whether video
>tracking can distinguish variations
>caused by drafting from all other
>variations. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will
>suffice for the moment.
Yes, absolutely. The technology and "know how" incorporating many of the
studied hydrodynamic principles are sophisticated enough for a small
margin of error in the analysis.
Now, can readers continuing to follow this thread, and I find that
extremely hard to believe, expect any more of your predictable misguided
verbal "pabulum"?
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>More of the following, as predicted, unsubstantiated diatribe, while
>displaying a gross lack of critical thinking skills as well as any
>originality of thought by continuing with the seemingly primary goal of
>perpetuating a meaningless thread of his suppositions. But alas, pity
>the poor soul(s) still reading this thread, for they do so only out of
>sheer boredom with nothing else to do. Their indulgence however, does
>not go unrecognized without some measure of appreciation.
You waffle too much.
>>Irrelevant. I didn't comment on what
>>_could_ be done, only on what _has_
>>been done.
>
>Re-read it Bucko, it wasn't written as a tense specific phrase, but
>rather as an all inclusive one (i.e. was done, is being done, will be
>done).
Tell me again who it is that needs remedial English? I believe that "...probably
isn't even well understood..." is in the present tense.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
is:
- present third singular of BE
- dialect present first & second singular of BE
- dialect present plural of BE
>While you're at it, re-think your use of the term "irrelevant"
>which is certainly irrelevant in this case.
No, my usage of 'irrelevant' was very relevant.
>>>to his dilemma,
>
>>It's not a dilemma. The 'di' means two,
>>and a dilemma is a problem that has two
>>unsatisfactory solutions.
>
>Incorrectomeundo Bucko. Got a dictionary handy? One of several meanings
>for the word including the one you mentioned is: "a difficult or
>persistent problem."
Only because people like you use words incorrectly.
>>It might have been done, but I think it
>>probably hasn't and I'm happy to leave it
>>at.
>
>So, you're basing this argument on what you "think" probably hasn't
>occurred? The only thing that hasn't occurred here is you bothering to
>look to see if it has.
That's my choice. Why do you care?
>>Translation: "I don't have a clue either."
>
>A mis-translation. Corrected translation: "No need to do the tasks that
>can be easily done by anyone seeking the information for themselves." My
>position on that would change of course, if some kind of compensation
>were offered to do those tasks for any party interested in finding the
>information. In other words, show me the "money."
That pretty much confirms what I said: You don't have a clue. Why else would you
ask for money to find out?
>>You still haven't answered whether video
>>tracking can distinguish variations
>>caused by drafting from all other
>>variations. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will
>>suffice for the moment.
>
>Yes, absolutely. The technology and "know how" incorporating many of the
>studied hydrodynamic principles are sophisticated enough for a small
>margin of error in the analysis.
So, without making any assumptions about drafting to begin with (such as, at
distance X behind the leading swimmer you will get Y assistance from drafting),
you can just analyse a video of a swimming race and determine how much of a
swimmer's velocity is caused by drafting?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>More of the following, as predicted,
>>unsubstantiated diatribe, while
>>displaying a gross lack of critical
>>thinking skills as well as any originality
>>of thought by continuing with the
>>seemingly primary goal of perpetuating
>>a meaningless thread of his
>>suppositions. But alas, pity the poor
>>soul(s) still reading this thread, for they
>>do so only out of sheer boredom with
>>nothing else to do. Their indulgence
>>however, does not go unrecognized
>>without some measure of appreciation.
>You waffle too much.
Actually, I kind of like waffles.
>>>Irrelevant. I didn't comment on what
>>>_could_ be done, only on what _has_
>>>been done.
>>Re-read it Bucko, it wasn't written as a
>>tense specific phrase, but rather as an
>>all inclusive one (i.e. was done, is being
>>done, will be done).
>Tell me again who it is that needs
>remedial English? I believe that
>"...probably isn't even well understood..."
>is in the present tense.
Actually, the phrase I'm referring to in my "re-read it" comment was the
neutral tense one that you so conveniently omitted in this posted reply
which was: "For some unexplained reason (possibly naivety, immaturity?),
he fails to
recognize that technology and enterprising minds can possibly find
solutions." No "tense" implicitly specified here. So, let me ask you
what you asked me, tell me again who it is that needs remedial English?
>>While you're at it, re-think your use of
>>the term "irrelevant" which is certainly
>>irrelevant in this case.
>No, my usage of 'irrelevant' was very
>relevant.
Only relevant to you as you've admitted to suppositions, which makes it
irrelevant to others.
>>So, you're basing this argument on
>>what you "think" probably hasn't
>>occurred? The only thing that hasn't
>>occurred here is you bothering to look
>>to see if it has.
>That's my choice. Why do you care?
Why do you care if I care? Or not?
>>My position on that would change of
>>course, if some kind of compensation
>>were offered to do those tasks for any
>>party interested in finding the
>>information. In other words, show me
>>the "money."
>That pretty much confirms what I said:
>You don't have a clue. Why else would
>you ask for money to find out?
As you'll notice, "money" was in quotes, meaning a figure of speech, as
in "incentive," not necessarily meant to be taken completely literal as
related to anything monetary. Although, that opportunity, of course,
would be considered as well.
>>The technology and "know how"
>>incorporating many of the studied
>>hydrodynamic principles are
>>sophisticated enough for a small margin
>>of error in the analysis.
>So, without making any assumptions
>about drafting to begin with (such as, at
>distance X behind the leading swimmer
>you will get Y assistance from drafting),
>you can just analyse a video of a
>swimming race and determine how much
>of a swimmer's velocity is caused by
>drafting?
That's where "sophistication" comes into play. Look the word up.
Now, can we ("we" is used loosely here) expect more of the same?
David W
>>>tense specific phrase, but rather as an
>>>all inclusive one (i.e. was done, is being
>>>done, will be done).
>
>>Tell me again who it is that needs
>>remedial English? I believe that
>>"...probably isn't even well understood..."
>>is in the present tense.
>
>Actually, the phrase I'm referring to in my "re-read it" comment was the
>neutral tense one that you so conveniently omitted in this posted reply
>which was: "For some unexplained reason (possibly naivety, immaturity?),
>he fails to
>recognize that technology and enterprising minds can possibly find
>solutions."No "tense" implicitly specified here.
Well, you really should learn to be unambiguous. Anyway, how can "technology and
enterprising minds" possibly find solutions in the past? A time machine perhaps?
>>That's my choice. Why do you care?
>
>Why do you care if I care? Or not?
Curiosity, given your "rat's ass" remark of the past.
>>>My position on that would change of
>>>course, if some kind of compensation
>>>were offered to do those tasks for any
>>>party interested in finding the
>>>information. In other words, show me
>>>the "money."
>
>>That pretty much confirms what I said:
>>You don't have a clue. Why else would
>>you ask for money to find out?
>
>As you'll notice, "money" was in quotes, meaning a figure of speech, as
>in "incentive," not necessarily meant to be taken completely literal as
>related to anything monetary.
Irrelevant. The point is that you don't have a clue.
>>So, without making any assumptions
>>about drafting to begin with (such as, at
>>distance X behind the leading swimmer
>>you will get Y assistance from drafting),
>>you can just analyse a video of a
>>swimming race and determine how much
>>of a swimmer's velocity is caused by
>>drafting?
>
>That's where "sophistication" comes into play.
Is it now? Are you going to answer the question or not?
Steve Curtis
>>Actually, the phrase I'm referring to in
>>my "re-read it" comment was the
>>neutral tense one that you so
>>conveniently omitted in this posted
>>reply which was: "For some
>>unexplained reason (possibly naivety,
>>immaturity?), he fails to recognize that
>>technology and enterprising minds can
>>possibly find solutions."No "tense"
>>implicitly specified here.
>Well, you really should learn to be
>unambiguous.
This, coming from someone making an ambiguous statement about "how much"
drafting "isn't well understood."
>Anyway, how can "technology and
>enterprising minds" possibly find
>solutions in the past? A time machine
>perhaps?
In a manner of speaking, yes, from records of events. The "time machine"
analogy would consist of video data with grid overlay capability
integrated with recorded times (i.e. split times for each length swam in
a race, etc.) and computer program runs with applicable modeling
software for analyzing the resulting graphs. This has already been
explained ad nauseum.
>>>That's my choice. Why do you care?
>>Why do you care if I care? Or not?
>Curiosity, given your "rat's ass" remark
>of the past.
As I remain curious about the level of your personal swimming skills,
you'll remain curious about my caring or the lack thereof.
>>As you'll notice, "money" was in quotes,
>>meaning a figure of speech, as in
>>"incentive," not necessarily meant to be
>>taken completely literal as related to
>>anything monetary.
>Irrelevant. The point is that you don't
>have a clue.
It is relevant. The clue here is that you don't have a point.
>>>So, without making any assumptions
>>>about drafting to begin with (such as,
>>>at distance X behind the leading
>>>swimmer you will get Y assistance
>>>from drafting), you can just analyse a
>>>video of a swimming race and
>>>determine how much of a swimmer's
>>>velocity is caused by drafting?
>>That's where "sophistication" comes
>>into play.
>Is it now?
Yes, the type of sophistication that's way beyond your level of
understanding as evidenced by your continuing query about the process.
>Are you going to answer the question or
>not?
The question has been answered several times before and continues to be
answered as you keep asking the same question, albeit with different
phrasings.
Bottom line, the resources and means are out there. It just takes a
little effort to find the ones you need and can use. To quote a "well
understood" cliche: "Where there's a will, there's a way."
As for the Phelps/Lenton race specifically, it would depend on whether
one were able to gain access to the race data (i.e. video, time, etc.)
collected during the event. Without that data, one would be out of luck,
hence, the result would be that the "how much" of drafting in the race
could not be approximated reliably and would indeed not be "well
understood." If the data's there, and is used efficiently, the
understanding follows.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>Actually, the phrase I'm referring to in
>>>my "re-read it" comment was the
>>>neutral tense one that you so
>>>conveniently omitted in this posted
>>>reply which was: "For some
>>>unexplained reason (possibly naivety,
>>>immaturity?), he fails to recognize that
>>>technology and enterprising minds can
>>>possibly find solutions."No "tense"
>>>implicitly specified here.
>
>>Well, you really should learn to be
>>unambiguous.
>
>This, coming from someone making an ambiguous statement about "how much"
>drafting "isn't well understood."
Not ambiguous at all. Which part didn't you understand?
>>Anyway, how can "technology and
>>enterprising minds" possibly find
>>solutions in the past? A time machine
>>perhaps?
>
>In a manner of speaking, yes, from records of events. The "time machine"
>analogy would consist of video data with grid overlay capability
>integrated with recorded times (i.e. split times for each length swam in
>a race, etc.) and computer program runs with applicable modeling
>software for analyzing the resulting graphs. This has already been
>explained ad nauseum.
It's all so easy isn't it? Just get a video, run some fancy software and you can
find out anything you want. The amount of velocity due to drafting, the amount
due to kicking, even the minute currents generated by the swimmer's little
finger: they all just pop out.
>>>>So, without making any assumptions
>>>>about drafting to begin with (such as,
>>>>at distance X behind the leading
>>>>swimmer you will get Y assistance
>>>>from drafting), you can just analyse a
>>>>video of a swimming race and
>>>>determine how much of a swimmer's
>>>>velocity is caused by drafting?
>
>>>That's where "sophistication" comes
>>>into play.
>
>>Is it now?
>
>Yes, the type of sophistication that's way beyond your level of
>understanding as evidenced by your continuing query about the process.
I'll keep querying until you present some real evidence.
>>Are you going to answer the question or
>>not?
>
>The question has been answered several times before and continues to be
>answered as you keep asking the same question, albeit with different
>phrasings.
Because every answer so far has been unsatisfactory. Nothing but assertions and
no substance whatsoever.
>Bottom line, the resources and means are out there.
How convenient. You've come across them then?
> It just takes a
>little effort to find the ones you need and can use. To quote a "well
>understood" cliche: "Where there's a will, there's a way."
You could say the same about every scientific problem.
>As for the Phelps/Lenton race specifically, it would depend on whether
>one were able to gain access to the race data (i.e. video, time, etc.)
>collected during the event.
It was televised. I saw it.
>Without that data, one would be out of luck,
>hence, the result would be that the "how much" of drafting in the race
>could not be approximated reliably and would indeed not be "well
>understood." If the data's there, and is used efficiently, the
>understanding follows.
Marvellous. I'm sure that anyone reading this will agree that you've explained
it all thoroughly now.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>Well, you really should learn to be
>>>unambiguous.
>>This, coming from someone making an
>>ambiguous statement about "how
>>much" drafting "isn't well understood."
>Not ambiguous at all. Which part didn't
>you understand?
What part in this whole thread did I claim to have not understood
anything? I only suggested that your initial "well understood" statement
as posted was open to possible alternative interpretations. One, being
the one you offered, and one being the one I suggested. This was argued
ad nauseum, and seems to be headed in the direction of ad infinitum as
well.
>It's all so easy isn't it? Just get a video,
>run some fancy software and you can
>find out anything you want. The amount
>of velocity due to drafting, the amount
>due to kicking, even the minute currents
>generated by the swimmer's little finger:
>they all just pop out.
Pretty much, yes, if you know what you're doing and looking for (e.g.
swimmer's bow wave propagation, pool wall and lane line wave suppression
characteristics etc.) . Not sure about the little finger part.
>>>>That's where "sophistication" comes
>>>>into play.
>>>Is it now?
>>Yes, the type of sophistication that's
>>way beyond your level of understanding
>>as evidenced by your continuing query
>>about the process.
>I'll keep querying until you present some
>real evidence.
You keep querying with same rephrased question over and over which has
been responded to over and over with the same rephrased answer.
>>>Are you going to answer the question
>>>or not?
>>The question has been answered
>>several times before and continues to
>>be answered as you keep asking the
>>same question, albeit with different
>>phrasings.
>Because every answer so far has been
>unsatisfactory. Nothing but assertions
>and no substance whatsoever.
Your questions have been unsatisfactory being based on nothing but
assertions
without substance.
>>Bottom line, the resources and means
>>are out there.
>How convenient. You've come across
>them then?
Don't have a need for them. Should I ever be on a drafting
quantification quest as you've claimed to be, then I'll know they're out
there and start exploring possibilities.
>>It just takes a little effort to find the
>>ones you need and can use. To quote a
>>"well understood" cliche: "Where there's
>>a will, there's a way."
>You could say the same about every
>scientific problem.
You could say the same about most facets of life in general.
>>As for the Phelps/Lenton race
>>specifically, it would depend on whether
>>one were able to gain access to the
>>race data (i.e. video, time, etc.)
>>collected during the event.
>It was televised. I saw it.
Good, then there's probably a video recording of the event somewhere.
Get a copy, and part of the "battle" is won.
>>Without that data, one would be out of
>>luck, hence, the result would be that the
>>"how much" of drafting in the race could
>>not be approximated reliably and would
>>indeed not be "well understood." If the
>>data's there, and is used efficiently, the
>>understanding follows.
>Marvellous. I'm sure that anyone reading
>this will agree that you've explained it all
>thoroughly now.
I don't presume to speak for other NG readers' reading skills and
comprehensiveness when it comes to matters of interpretation. Like
"beauty," "interpretation" and "understanding" are in the eye of the
beholder, or specifically, as in this case, reader.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>>Well, you really should learn to be
>>>>unambiguous.
>
>>>This, coming from someone making an
>>>ambiguous statement about "how
>>>much" drafting "isn't well understood."
>
>>Not ambiguous at all. Which part didn't
>>you understand?
>
>What part in this whole thread did I claim to have not understood
>anything? I only suggested that your initial "well understood" statement
>as posted was open to possible alternative interpretations. One, being
>the one you offered, and one being the one I suggested.
No.
>This was argued
>ad nauseum,
And you were wrong. "how much assistance" is unambiguously a quantity.
> and seems to be headed in the direction of ad infinitum as
>well.
Perhaps, if you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
>>It's all so easy isn't it? Just get a video,
>>run some fancy software and you can
>>find out anything you want. The amount
>>of velocity due to drafting, the amount
>>due to kicking, even the minute currents
>>generated by the swimmer's little finger:
>>they all just pop out.
>
>Pretty much, yes, if you know what you're doing and looking for (e.g.
>swimmer's bow wave propagation, pool wall and lane line wave suppression
>characteristics etc.) . Not sure about the little finger part.
Amazing. What will they think of next?
>
>>>Yes, the type of sophistication that's
>>>way beyond your level of understanding
>>>as evidenced by your continuing query
>>>about the process.
>
>>I'll keep querying until you present some
>>real evidence.
>
>You keep querying with same rephrased question over and over which has
>been responded to over and over with the same rephrased answer.
And always with an assertion or a platitude.
>>Because every answer so far has been
>>unsatisfactory. Nothing but assertions
>>and no substance whatsoever.
>
>Your questions have been unsatisfactory being based on nothing but
>assertions
>without substance.
Look up 'assertion'.
>>>Bottom line, the resources and means
>>>are out there.
>
>>How convenient. You've come across
>>them then?
>
>Don't have a need for them. Should I ever be on a drafting
>quantification quest as you've claimed to be, then I'll know they're out
>there and start exploring possibilities.
How will you know they're out there?
>>>It just takes a little effort to find the
>>>ones you need and can use. To quote a
>>>"well understood" cliche: "Where there's
>>>a will, there's a way."
>
>>You could say the same about every
>>scientific problem.
>
>You could say the same about most facets of life in general.
So you agree that you added nothing helpful with your cliché?
>>>As for the Phelps/Lenton race
>>>specifically, it would depend on whether
>>>one were able to gain access to the
>>>race data (i.e. video, time, etc.)
>>>collected during the event.
>
>>It was televised. I saw it.
>
>Good, then there's probably a video recording of the event somewhere.
>Get a copy, and part of the "battle" is won.
Wow. Isn't technology wonderful?
David W
someone might offer something mildly interesting, here is a video of Lenton's
record swim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9bAVFXF78U
The race is reported to begin at about 2:30 (I saw it on TV, so I haven't
watched this).
The link was posted in this long discussion of the "Duel in the Pool", most of
which is discussing Lenton's record and drafting. There is plenty of
disagreement on the drafting issue, with some people even claiming that Lenton
was hindered rather than assisted by Phelps. So, r.s.s. drafting expert Steve
Curtis needs to get over there right now and set them straight. He needs to tell
them that a bit of Googling is all that's necessary to find everything they need
to easily determine a very good estimate of the drafting assistance Lenton
received from Phelps.
http://www.collegeswimming.tv/viewtopic.php?t=2341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
One poster claims the following:
"In the post race interview Lisbeth was asked about the drag benefit. She said
she definitely felt it on the way down, but had no benefit on the way back. She
actually said she had to fight through a lot of waves on the way back "
Steve Curtis
>>What part in this whole thread did I
>>claim to have not understood anything?
>>I only suggested that your initial "well
>>understood" statement as posted was
>>open to possible alternative
>>interpretations. One, being the one you
>>offered, and one being the one I
>>suggested.
>No.
Re-read the thread. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"
>>This was argued ad nauseum,
>And you were wrong. "how much
>assistance" is unambiguously a quantity.
No refuting proof was offered to indicate that I was wrong. Get your
facts straight.
>>and seems to be headed in the
>>direction of ad infinitum as well.
>Perhaps, if you keep trying to defend the
>indefensible.
And your defense of the argument that drafting effects are
unquantifiable is what?
>Amazing. What will they think of next?
Try getting out more. Many things have been thought of.
>>You keep querying with same
>>rephrased question over and over which
>>has been responded to over and over
>>with the same rephrased answer.
>And always with an assertion or a
>platitude.
Look up "platitude." It's misused in this context.
>>>Because every answer so far has been
>>>unsatisfactory. Nothing but assertions
>>>and no substance whatsoever.
>>Your questions have been
>>unsatisfactory being based on nothing
>>but assertions without substance.
>Look up 'assertion'.
How about taking your sanctimonious assertions and putting them where
the sun doesn't shine and looking them up yourself.
>>>It was televised. I saw it.
>>Good, then there's probably a video
>>recording of the event somewhere. Get
>>a copy, and part of the "battle" is won.
>Wow. Isn't technology wonderful?
As a matter of fact, yes. But, apparently not for you, as you appear to
be living in a "Stone Age" cave.
Steve Curtis
>Just in case anyone is still reading this
>thread with a glimmer of hope that
>someone might offer something mildly
Anyone in their right mind would find that hard to believe, considering
the circumstances.
>There is plenty of disagreement on the
>drafting issue, with some people even
>claiming that Lenton was hindered rather
>than assisted by Phelps. So, r.s.s.
>drafting expert Steve Curtis needs to get
>over there right now and set them
>straight.
Look up "strawman argument" and see how it applies to your claim that
I've claimed to be an "expert" on the subject.
>He needs to tell them that a bit of
>Googling is all that's necessary to find
>everything they need to easily determine
>a very good estimate of the drafting
>assistance Lenton received from Phelps.
Another strawman, I never claimed "Google" was "all that's needed." I
acknowledged "Google" as one of several, sources out of a possible many.
>One poster claims the following:
>"In the post race interview Lisbeth was
>asked about the drag benefit. She said
>she definitely felt it on the way down, but
>had no benefit on the way back. She
>actually said she had to fight through a
>lot of waves on the way back "
Let me ask, first, is there a reference source for this interview? And
second, on the way down (first swim leg), she was closer to keeping up
with Phelps, maintaining a closer distance through greater effort,
benefitting from some drafting, while on the way back (second swim leg)
she was further behind Phelps, fighting the increased turbulence with
little to no drafting advantage, right? What's so unusual about that?
David W
>>drafting issue, with some people even
>>claiming that Lenton was hindered rather
>>than assisted by Phelps. So, r.s.s.
>>drafting expert Steve Curtis needs to get
>>over there right now and set them
>>straight.
>
>Look up "strawman argument" and see how it applies to your claim that
>I've claimed to be an "expert" on the subject.
Did I say you claimed it? No else here has claimed that you can quantify
drafting assistance from a video without any prior assumptions about drafting.
No one on the message board I linked to claimed that this is possible either.
You are clearly _the_ expert on the subject in swimming forums.
>>He needs to tell them that a bit of
>>Googling is all that's necessary to find
>>everything they need to easily determine
>>a very good estimate of the drafting
>>assistance Lenton received from Phelps.
>
>Another strawman, I never claimed "Google" was "all that's needed." I
>acknowledged "Google" as one of several, sources out of a possible many.
A quick look in the first few of your posts yields:
'If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend.'
'"Again, no satisfaction? Think "Google."'
'Not happy? A third time reminder in this thread, "Google" can be your source of
enlightenment.'
No sign there that any other source is needed.
>>One poster claims the following:
>
>>"In the post race interview Lisbeth was
>>asked about the drag benefit. She said
>>she definitely felt it on the way down, but
>>had no benefit on the way back. She
>>actually said she had to fight through a
>>lot of waves on the way back "
>
>Let me ask, first, is there a reference source for this interview?
Why don't you look? You don't even need Google. I've given you the link to make
it easy.
> And
>second, on the way down (first swim leg), she was closer to keeping up
>with Phelps, maintaining a closer distance through greater effort,
>benefitting from some drafting, while on the way back (second swim leg)
>she was further behind Phelps, fighting the increased turbulence with
>little to no drafting advantage, right? What's so unusual about that?
I don't know. Is it unusual?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>There is plenty of disagreement on the
>>>drafting issue, with some people even
>>>claiming that Lenton was hindered
>>>rather than assisted by Phelps. So,
>>>r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis
>>>needs to get over there right now and
>>>set them straight.
>>Look up "strawman argument" and see
>>how it applies to your claim that I've
>>claimed to be an "expert" on the
>>subject.
>Did I say you claimed it?
Then why the "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis" remark?
>No else here has claimed that you can
>quantify drafting assistance from a video
>without any prior assumptions about
>drafting.
I haven't made that claim either. Video is only one of several tools or
"pieces of the puzzle" when it comes to finding a reasonable
approximation. Other data along with the technology to handle that data
can be incorporated too. Hasn't this concept sunk in yet? It's been
repeatedly explained more than enough times here.
>No one on the message board I linked to
>claimed that this is possible either.
Did anyone claim that it was impossible?
>You are clearly _the_ expert on the
>subject in swimming forums.
How so? I'm simply looking at the drafting effect analysis from a
practical and common sense perspective. There are others, who I'm sure,
are better informed and are free to weigh in on the subject.
>>>He needs to tell them that a bit of
>>>Googling is all that's necessary to find
>>>everything they need to easily
>>>determine a very good estimate of the
>>>drafting assistance Lenton received
>>>from Phelps.
>>Another strawman, I never claimed
>>"Google" was "all that's needed." I
>>acknowledged "Google" as one of
>>several, sources out of a possible
>>many.
>A quick look in the first few of your posts
>yields: 'If you need additional info, let
>"Google" be your friend.' '"Again, no
>satisfaction? Think "Google."' 'Not
>happy? A third time reminder in this
>thread, "Google" can be your source of
>enlightenment.'
How about a quick look at the rest of my posts? See any other mention of
other sources? Read them carefully, they're there. Some other suggested
possible sources not previously mentioned: libraries, swim coaches,
former and current competitive swimmers and triathletes.
Your feeble attempts at saving face is, uh, how should I put this,
mildly amusing?
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>>There is plenty of disagreement on the
>>>>drafting issue, with some people even
>>>>claiming that Lenton was hindered
>>>>rather than assisted by Phelps. So,
>>>>r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis
>>>>needs to get over there right now and
>>>>set them straight.
>
>>>Look up "strawman argument" and see
>>>how it applies to your claim that I've
>>>claimed to be an "expert" on the
>>>subject.
>
>>Did I say you claimed it?
>
>Then why the "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis" remark?
Where in "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis" does it say that you claimed it?
*rolls eyes*
>>No else here has claimed that you can
>>quantify drafting assistance from a video
>>without any prior assumptions about
>>drafting.
>
>I haven't made that claim either. Video is only one of several tools or
>"pieces of the puzzle"
The video is not a "tool". It's the data - the data from which you claim the
draft assistance can be extracted.
> when it comes to finding a reasonable
>approximation. Other data along with the technology to handle that data
>can be incorporated too. Hasn't this concept sunk in yet? It's been
>repeatedly explained more than enough times here.
No, it's been _asserted_ again and again, with no supporting evidence
whatsoever.
>>No one on the message board I linked to
>>claimed that this is possible either.
>
>Did anyone claim that it was impossible?
Why would anyone even bring the subject up unless someone claimed it could be
done?
>>You are clearly _the_ expert on the
>>subject in swimming forums.
>
>How so? I'm simply looking at the drafting effect analysis from a
>practical and common sense perspective. There are others, who I'm sure,
>are better informed and are free to weigh in on the subject.
But no one else has done so. You are the one and only person claiming that a
video of the race can be analysed to produce a good estimate of the time Lenton
saved by drafting behind Phelps.
>>A quick look in the first few of your posts
>>yields: 'If you need additional info, let
>>"Google" be your friend.' '"Again, no
>>satisfaction? Think "Google."' 'Not
>>happy? A third time reminder in this
>>thread, "Google" can be your source of
>>enlightenment.'
>
>How about a quick look at the rest of my posts? See any other mention of
>other sources?
So what?
> Read them carefully, they're there. Some other suggested
>possible sources not previously mentioned: libraries, swim coaches,
>former and current competitive swimmers and triathletes.
So what? Do you understand simple, straightforward logic? If you claim in some
places that Google is all you need, then, duh, you are claiming that Google is
all you need. Just because you say elsewhere that there are sources other than
Google hardly alters that fact.
You probably think that the logic that follows is sound: "All dogs have four
legs, My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog."
>Your feeble attempts at saving face is, uh, how should I put this,
>mildly amusing?
And yours are hilarious.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>>There is plenty of disagreement on
>>>>>the drafting issue, with some people
>>>>>even claiming that Lenton was
>>>>>hindered rather than assisted by
>>>>>Phelps. So, r.s.s. drafting expert
>>>>>Steve Curtis needs to get over there
>>>>>right now and set them straight.
>>>>Look up "strawman argument" and
>>>>see how it applies to your claim that
>>>>I've claimed to be an "expert" on the
>>>>subject.
>>>Did I say you claimed it?
>>Then why the "r.s.s. drafting expert
>>Steve Curtis" remark?
>Where in "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve
>Curtis" does it say that you claimed it?
>*rolls eyes*
Where in this entire thread is there evidence to support the "expert"
status you've so ascribed to me in the remark: "r.s.s. drafting expert
Steve Curtis"? Get back to me when you've got a plausible answer
"Davey-boy."
>>>No else here has claimed that you can
>>>quantify drafting assistance from a
>>>video without any prior assumptions
>>>about drafting.
>>I haven't made that claim either. Video
>>is only one of several tools or "pieces of
>>the puzzle"
>The video is not a "tool". It's the data -
>the data from which you claim the draft
>assistance can be extracted.
Did you stop to think that video data comes from the video? Need I
explain the obvious? The video with the inclusive data are used in
combination as a "tool" along with other "tools" (e.g. computers etc.).
The asking, re-asking, explaining, and re-explaining of this is getting
tiresome and exceptionally nauseatingly redundant.
>>when it comes to finding a reasonable
>>approximation. Other data along with
>>the technology to handle that data can
>>be incorporated too. Hasn't this concept
>>sunk in yet? It's been repeatedly
>>explained more than enough times
>>here.
>No, it's been _asserted_ again and
>again, with no supporting evidence
>>whatsoever.
Correction, it's been _explained_ again and again, because you keep
asking the same thing again and again with no supporting counter
evidence whatsoever.
>>>No one on the message board I linked
>>>to claimed that this is possible either.
>>Did anyone claim that it was
>>impossible?
>Why would anyone even bring the
>subject up unless someone claimed it
>could be done?
For the same reason that someone would bring the subject up if anyone
claimed it couldn't be done.
>>>You are clearly _the_ expert on the
>>>subject in swimming forums.
>>How so? I'm simply looking at the
>>drafting effect analysis from a practical
>>and common sense perspective. There
>>are others, who I'm sure, are better
>>informed and are free to weigh in on
>>the subject.
>But no one else has done so. You are
>the one and only person claiming that a
>video of the race can be analysed to
>produce a good estimate of the time
>Lenton saved by drafting behind Phelps.
Others may have very well considered that possibility of using video as
well, without a particular need to post as a claim here. Have you
bothered to take a poll?
>>How about a quick look at the rest of
>>my posts? See any other mention of
>>other sources?
>So what?
So what, you ask? If you'd bothered to take a "quick look" at the rest
of my posts you would see there many mentions.
>>Read them carefully, they're there.
>>Some other suggested possible sources
>>not previously mentioned: libraries,
>>swim coaches, former and current
>>competitive swimmers and triathletes.
>So what? Do you understand simple,
>straightforward logic?
Not only do I understand simple, straightforward logic, I understand
logic with a little more complexity as well. You on the other hand,
appear to have a limited understanding as evidenced by your inanely
convoluted posted logic.
>If you claim in some places that Google
>is all you need, then, duh, you are
>claiming that Google is all you need.
"Google is all you need" in this context was used in a figurative sense,
to imply something like, "a popular well known site ("Google") is a good
start." Learn to read between the lines. It wasn't meant to be taken
literally, as in: "exclusively the only source." Admittedly, the phrase
as is, leads to some ambiguity, sort of like your "well understood"
phrase.
>Just because you say elsewhere that
>there are sources other than Google
>hardly alters that fact.
Gee, really? I would think that the phrase "there are other sources" is
pretty self-explanatory, meaning something like: "there are other
sources."
>You probably think that the logic that
>follows is sound: "All dogs have four
>legs, My cat has four legs. Therefore my
>cat is a dog."
Why would you even be presumptuous enough to believe that I would find
that particular logic sound? What is believable however, is that style
of logic has been demonstrated in your posts.
>>Your feeble attempts at saving face are,
>>uh, how should I put this, mildly
>>amusing?
>And yours are hilarious.
Actually, the thought of you imagining that mental image suggested a
while back is hysterical.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>
>
>>Where in "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve
>>Curtis" does it say that you claimed it?
>>*rolls eyes*
>
>Where in this entire thread is there evidence to support the "expert"
>status you've so ascribed to me in the remark: "r.s.s. drafting expert
>Steve Curtis"?
Ever heard of an opinion?
> Get back to me when you've got a plausible answer
>"Davey-boy."
*sigh* Do you think it needs to signed into law that someone is an expert before
they can be referred to as such?
>>The video is not a "tool". It's the data -
>>the data from which you claim the draft
>>assistance can be extracted.
>
>Did you stop to think that video data comes from the video? Need I
>explain the obvious? The video with the inclusive data are used in
>combination as a "tool" along with other "tools" (e.g. computers etc.).
No, the video is the data, and the computers, mathematics and such are the tools
that process that data.
>>>when it comes to finding a reasonable
>>>approximation. Other data along with
>>>the technology to handle that data can
>>>be incorporated too. Hasn't this concept
>>>sunk in yet? It's been repeatedly
>>>explained more than enough times
>>>here.
>
>>No, it's been _asserted_ again and
>>again, with no supporting evidence
>>>whatsoever.
>
>Correction, it's been _explained_ again and again,
No, you've _asserted_ again and again that the knowledge and tools are out there
to process the race data to produce a good estimate of the drafting assistance,
but you've provided not a shred of evidence for this.
>
>>Why would anyone even bring the
>>subject up unless someone claimed it
>>could be done?
>
>For the same reason that someone would bring the subject up if anyone
>claimed it couldn't be done.
Why would anyone even bring the subject up unless someone claimed it could be
done? (It seems to take multiple postings for messages to get through.)
For example, suppose that someone asks how to travel from New York to London in
the shortest possible time. Do you think that anyone would bother pointing out
that it is _not_ possible to step into a teleport machine and travel there
instantaneously unless someone else had first claimed that this _is_ possible?
>>But no one else has done so. You are
>>the one and only person claiming that a
>>video of the race can be analysed to
>>produce a good estimate of the time
>>Lenton saved by drafting behind Phelps.
>
>Others may have very well considered that possibility of using video as
>well, without a particular need to post as a claim here.
Until someone does, you are the expert on the subject.
>>So what? Do you understand simple,
>>straightforward logic?
>
>Not only do I understand simple, straightforward logic, I understand
>logic with a little more complexity as well. You on the other hand,
>appear to have a limited understanding as evidenced by your inanely
>convoluted posted logic.
>
>>If you claim in some places that Google
>>is all you need, then, duh, you are
>>claiming that Google is all you need.
>
>"Google is all you need" in this context was used in a figurative sense,
>to imply something like, "a popular well known site ("Google") is a good
>start." Learn to read between the lines. It wasn't meant to be taken
>literally, as in: "exclusively the only source."
And it wasn't. Read my last post and think about it carefully before replying
again.
>Admittedly, the phrase
>as is, leads to some ambiguity, sort of like your "well understood"
>phrase.
No ambiguity. It's quite clear: Google will find you what you need to know.
>>Just because you say elsewhere that
>>there are sources other than Google
>>hardly alters that fact.
>
>Gee, really? I would think that the phrase "there are other sources" is
>pretty self-explanatory, meaning something like: "there are other
>sources."
It certainly is, and it still doesn't alter the fact that, according to you a
number of times, Google is all you need.
>>You probably think that the logic that
>>follows is sound: "All dogs have four
>>legs, My cat has four legs. Therefore my
>>cat is a dog."
>
>Why would you even be presumptuous enough to believe that I would find
>that particular logic sound?
Because your previous posts lead me to that conclusion.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>Where in "r.s.s. drafting expert Steve
>>>Curtis" does it say that you claimed it?
>>>*rolls eyes*
>>Where in this entire thread is there
>>evidence to support the "expert" status
>>you've so ascribed to me in the remark:
>>"r.s.s. drafting expert Steve Curtis"?
>Ever heard of an opinion?
Ever heard of mischaracterization?
>>Get back to me when you've got a
>>plausible answer "Davey-boy."
>*sigh* Do you think it needs to signed
>into law that someone is an expert
>before they can be referred to as such?
Again, ever heard of mischaracterization?
>>>The video is not a "tool". It's the data -
>>>the data from which you claim the
>>>draft assistance can be extracted.
>>Did you stop to think that video data
>>comes from the video? Need I explain
>>the obvious? The video with the
>>inclusive data are used in combination
>>as a "tool" along with other "tools" (e.g.
>>computers etc.).
>No, the video is the data, and the
>computers, mathematics and such are
>the tools that process that data.
You're arguing semantics. The recorded video itself is the first "tool"
used to provide any useful data that can be gleaned from it and
processed (e.g. measurements of the swimmers' positions obtained through
a superimposed grid overlay in an integrated computer/video
application). Considered individually, each item (i.e. video, computer,
math and such) are each a "tool" or a means of application for the data
used.
>>>>Hasn't this concept sunk in yet? It's
>>>>been repeatedly explained more than
>>>>enough times here.
>>>No, it's been _asserted_ again and
>>>again, with no supporting evidence
>>>whatsoever.
>>Correction, it's been _explained_ again
>>and again,
>No, you've _asserted_ again and again
>that the knowledge and tools are out
>there to process the race data to produce
>a good estimate of the drafting
>assistance, but you've provided not a
>shred of evidence for this.
Semantics again. An _explanation_ was offered again and again, over and
over. You've offered no shred of counter evidence to show that it can't
be done and/or is out of the realm of possibilities.
>It seems to take multiple postings for
>messages to get through.
That's what I've been saying all along about the answering and
re-answering to your questioning and re-questioning in this thread.
>For example, suppose that someone
>asks how to travel from New York to
>London in the shortest possible time. Do
>you think that anyone would bother
>pointing out that it is _not_ possible to
>step into a teleport machine and travel
>there instantaneously unless someone
>else had first claimed that this _is_
>possible?
Teleportation technology hasn't been developed yet, to my knowledge.
When it is, someone may make that recommendation.
>But no one else has done so. You are
>the one and only person claiming that a
>video of the race can be analysed to
>produce a good estimate of the time
>Lenton saved by drafting behind Phelps.
Doesn't mean that others necessarily haven't considered the possibility
and just decided not to post about it.
>>Others may have very well considered
>>that possibility of using video as well,
>>without a particular need to post as a
>>claim here.
>Until someone does, you are the expert
>on the subject.
I don't ascribe that label to myself as I'm aware that there are some
who are better informed than me. And, I might add, you as well.
>>"Google is all you need" in this context
>>was used in a figurative sense, to imply
>>something like, "a popular well known
>>site ("Google") is a good start." Learn to
>>read between the lines. It wasn't meant
>>to be taken literally, as in: "exclusively
>>the only source."
>And it wasn't. Read my last post and
>think about it carefully before replying
>again.
"Careful thinking" is not your strong suit as evidenced by your posts,
including your last post.
>>>Just because you say elsewhere that
>>>there are sources other than Google
>>>hardly alters that fact.
>>Gee, really? I would think that the
>>phrase "there are other sources" is
>>pretty self-explanatory, meaning
>>something like: "there are other
>>sources."
>It certainly is, and it still doesn't alter the
>fact that, according to you a number of
>times, Google is all you need.
Quite simply if Google isn't enough for you, look elsewhere. Some
suggestions have already been posted.
>>>You probably think that the logic that
>>>follows is sound: "All dogs have four
>>>legs, My cat has four legs. Therefore
>>>my cat is a dog."
>>Why would you even be presumptuous
>>enough to believe that I would find that
>>particular logic sound?
>Because your previous posts lead me to
>that conclusion.
Inadequate reading comprehension presents a whole new set of problems
for you.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>
>>Ever heard of an opinion?
>
>Ever heard of mischaracterization?
>
>>>Get back to me when you've got a
>>>plausible answer "Davey-boy."
>
>>*sigh* Do you think it needs to signed
>>into law that someone is an expert
>>before they can be referred to as such?
>
>Again, ever heard of mischaracterization?
Oh, you are too modest.
>>No, the video is the data, and the
>>computers, mathematics and such are
>>the tools that process that data.
>
>You're arguing semantics.
Quite a lot of text has been generated over semantics in this thread. Why change
now?
> The recorded video itself is the first "tool"
>used to provide any useful data that can be gleaned from it and
>processed
No, the camera is the tool. The video is the data.
>
>>No, you've _asserted_ again and again
>>that the knowledge and tools are out
>>there to process the race data to produce
>>a good estimate of the drafting
>>assistance, but you've provided not a
>>shred of evidence for this.
>
>Semantics again. An _explanation_ was offered again and again, over and
>over. You've offered no shred of counter evidence to show that it can't
>be done and/or is out of the realm of possibilities.
So, if I tell you that you can teleport from New York to London, what counter
evidence would you come up with? You're the one _asserting_ that it can be done.
It's up to you to provide evidence of that. So far all you have done is repeat
ad nauseum that it can be done, which you seem to regard as an _explanation_.
>>It seems to take multiple postings for
>>messages to get through.
>
>That's what I've been saying all along about the answering and
>re-answering to your questioning and re-questioning in this thread.
>
>>For example, suppose that someone
>>asks how to travel from New York to
>>London in the shortest possible time. Do
>>you think that anyone would bother
>>pointing out that it is _not_ possible to
>>step into a teleport machine and travel
>>there instantaneously unless someone
>>else had first claimed that this _is_
>>possible?
>
>Teleportation technology hasn't been developed yet, to my knowledge.
>When it is, someone may make that recommendation.
Determining time gained from drafting in pools races from video hasn't been
developed yet, to my knowledge.
>>But no one else has done so. You are
>>the one and only person claiming that a
>>video of the race can be analysed to
>>produce a good estimate of the time
>>Lenton saved by drafting behind Phelps.
>
>Doesn't mean that others necessarily haven't considered the possibility
>and just decided not to post about it.
If you've never heard of determining time gained from drafting in pool races
from video, then you aren't going to mention it. Can you provide a single source
of material where this subject has been discussed, or even mentioned, other than
this thread?
Steve Curtis
>>>No, the video is the data, and the
>>>computers, mathematics and such are
>>>the tools that process that data.
>>You're arguing semantics.
>Quite a lot of text has been generated
>over semantics in this thread. Why
>change now?
Yeah, who's fault is that?
>>The recorded video itself is the first
>>"tool" used to provide any useful data
>>that can be gleaned from it and
>>processed
>No, the camera is the tool. The video is
>the data.
Semantics again. The "data" is but one other "tool" along with cameras,
recording mediums (i.e. tapes, hard drives, etc.). They're all "tools"
used in concert for the development of a reasonable analytic process. Do
your homework.
>So, if I tell you that you can teleport from
>New York to London, what counter
>evidence would you come up with?
That there have been no media reports of successful teleportation to
date.
>Determining time gained from drafting in
>pools races from video hasn't been
>developed yet, to my knowledge.
Then expand your knowledge through exploration. That's how discoveries
come about.
>Can you provide a single source of
>material where this subject has been
>discussed, or even mentioned, other
>than this thread?
I think I did, in the beginning, with a reference along with a mention
that additional information was to be found if you so desired. Again, do
your homework, I'm not going to do it for you, unless, as mentioned
before, you're looking to hire a personal research consultant, in which
case, I might consider.
David W
>
>>Quite a lot of text has been generated
>>over semantics in this thread. Why
>>change now?
>
>Yeah, who's
"whose"
> fault is that?
Yours. Too many basic mistakes.
>>>The recorded video itself is the first
>>>"tool" used to provide any useful data
>>>that can be gleaned from it and
>>>processed
>
>>No, the camera is the tool. The video is
>>the data.
>
>Semantics again. The "data" is but one other "tool" along with cameras,
The data is not a tool.
>recording mediums (i.e. tapes, hard drives, etc.). They're all "tools"
>used in concert for the development of a reasonable analytic process. Do
>your homework.
>
>>So, if I tell you that you can teleport from
>>New York to London, what counter
>>evidence would you come up with?
>
>That there have been no media reports of successful teleportation to
>date.
You've read, heard or viewed every media report to verify that?
>>Determining time gained from drafting in
>>pools races from video hasn't been
>>developed yet, to my knowledge.
>
>Then expand your knowledge through exploration. That's how discoveries
>come about.
So we are still left with only assertions, and an explanation won't be
forthcoming.
>>Can you provide a single source of
>>material where this subject has been
>>discussed, or even mentioned, other
>>than this thread?
>
>I think I did, in the beginning, with a reference
Nothing in that document claimed that drafting in a pool race can be analysed
from a video.
> along with a mention
>that additional information was to be found if you so desired.
So, you have found it then?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>You're arguing semantics.
>>>Quite a lot of text has been generated
>>>over semantics in this thread. Why
>>>change now?
>>Yeah, who's "whose" fault is that?
>Yours. Too many basic mistakes.
"Mistakes" only to you. Pragmatic realism to anyone else with common
sense. No one else has weighed in to support your baseless,
presumptuous, pedantic, patronizing, meritless inanity.
>The data is not a tool.
Look up "data," "tool," "semantics," and maybe you'll get the point.
>>>So, if I tell you that you can teleport
>>>from New York to London, what
>>>counter evidence would you come up
>>>with?
>>That there have been no media reports
>>of successful teleportation to date.
>You've read, heard or viewed every
>media report to verify that?
A monumental achievement like that would be hard to hide from the world.
Media attention would surely spread fast and be widely known.
>>>Determining time gained from drafting
>>>in pools races from video hasn't been
>>>developed yet, to my knowledge.
>>Then expand your knowledge through
>>exploration. That's how discoveries
>>come about.
>So we are still left with only assertions,
>and an explanation won't be forthcoming.
Explained possibilities and suggestions have already been forthcoming,
and who are the "we" you're referring to?
>>>Can you provide a single source of
>>>material where this subject has been
>>>discussed, or even mentioned, other
>>>than this thread?
>>I think I did, in the beginning, with a
>>reference
>Nothing in that document claimed that
>drafting in a pool race can be analysed
>from a video.
I never said the document did claim that. The video suggestion was an
afterthought as a possibility to use in conjunction with the information
presented in the document, but not necessarily limited only to that
document, to aid in drafting effect analysis. Video used in conjunction
with what is already known about drafting, principles of hydrodynamic
physics, along with computer assisted vector analysis and other yet to
be explored techniques would certainly afford a good place to start.
>>along with a mention that additional
>>information was to be found if you so
>>desired.
>So, you have found it then?
Not looking for them as I'm not your research consultant. However, it
doesn't mean the info isn't there.
BTW, I watched the taped replay of the "Duel in the Pool" televised here
the last two days. Commentator Rowdy Gaines observed and mentioned
several times how some swimmers were "riding" the bow waves and hip
waves (i.e. drafting) to get an assist from lead swimmers in adjacent
lanes, including that of Lenton's swim next to Phelps. The "overwash" of
waves over the lane lines was very apparent in many of the races,
particularly the relays. So, the idea and practicality of drafting
during this meet was not ignored.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>"David W" wrote:
>
>
>>Yours. Too many basic mistakes.
>
>"Mistakes" only to you. Pragmatic realism to anyone else with common
>sense. No one else has weighed in to support your baseless,
>presumptuous, pedantic, patronizing, meritless inanity.
So you see no problem if everyone writes "who's" where "whose" is called for?
>>>That there have been no media reports
>>>of successful teleportation to date.
>
>>You've read, heard or viewed every
>>media report to verify that?
>
>A monumental achievement like that would be hard to hide from the world.
>Media attention would surely spread fast and be widely known.
Meanwhile the means to determine a good estimate of time saved drafting in pool
races from a video has apparently escaped the swimming world, or they aren't
talking about it. And all they need is a bit of Googling.
>>So we are still left with only assertions,
>>and an explanation won't be forthcoming.
>
>Explained possibilities and suggestions have already been forthcoming,
Nonsense. How can you have _explained_ something that you admit below you don't
even know exists?
>and who are the "we" you're referring to?
Anyone who's bored enough to read these posts.
>>Nothing in that document claimed that
>>drafting in a pool race can be analysed
>>from a video.
>
>I never said the document did claim that. The video suggestion was an
>afterthought as a possibility to use in conjunction with the information
>presented in the document, but not necessarily limited only to that
>document,
IOW, after all this time you admit that you made it up and have no idea if it
could really be done.
> to aid in drafting effect analysis. Video used in conjunction
>with what is already known about drafting, principles of hydrodynamic
>physics, along with computer assisted vector analysis and other yet to
>be explored techniques would certainly afford a good place to start.
That all sounds very nice in theory, but there's no indication that it could be
put into practice to quantify the time Lenton saved by drafting.
>>>along with a mention that additional
>>>information was to be found if you so
>>>desired.
>
>>So, you have found it then?
>
>Not looking for them as I'm not your research consultant. However, it
>doesn't mean the info isn't there.
And that doesn't mean that it _is_ there. You're full of hot air.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>Yours. Too many basic mistakes.
>>"Mistakes" only to you. Pragmatic
>>realism to anyone else with common
>>sense. No one else has weighed in to
>>support your baseless, presumptuous,
>>pedantic, patronizing, meritless inanity.
>So you see no problem if everyone
>writes "who's" where "whose" is called
>for?
So, having a point here, has somehow escaped you?
>>>>That there have been no media
>>>>reports of successful teleportation to
>>>>date.
>>>You've read, heard or viewed every
>>>media report to verify that?
>>A monumental achievement like that
>>would be hard to hide from the world.
>>Media attention would surely spread
>>fast and be widely known.
>Meanwhile the means to determine a
>good estimate of time saved drafting in
>pool races from a video has apparently
>escaped the swimming world, or they
>aren't talking about it. And all they need
>is a bit of Googling.
What leads you to believe that video analysis has apparently "escaped"
the "swimming world"? And, anyone can access "Google," or any source if
they so desire, right?
>>>So we are still left with only
>>>assertions, and an explanation won't
>>>be forthcoming.
>>Explained possibilities and suggestions
>>have already been forthcoming,
>Nonsense. How can you have
>_explained_ something that you admit
>below you don't even know exists?
Where's the admission?
>>and who are the "we" you're referring
>>to?
>Anyone who's bored enough to read
>these posts.
You really believe there's a "we" reading these posts? And, if there
are, I would hope they would realize the futility of your face saving
efforts.
>>>Nothing in that document claimed that
>>>drafting in a pool race can be analysed
>>>from a video.
>>I never said the document did claim
>>that. The video suggestion was an
>>afterthought as a possibility to use in
>>conjunction with the information
>>presented in the document, but not
>>necessarily limited only to that
>>document,
>IOW, after all this time you admit that
>you made it up and have no idea if it
>could really be done.
Again, where's the admission?
>>to aid in drafting effect analysis. Video
>>used in conjunction with what is already
>>known about drafting, principles of
>>hydrodynamic physics, along with
>>computer assisted vector analysis and
>>other yet to be explored techniques
>>would certainly afford a good place to
>>start.
>That all sounds very nice in theory, but
>there's no indication that it could be put
>into practice to quantify the time Lenton
>saved by drafting.
So, let me get this straight, you base the premise for your argument on
science fiction and fantasy (i.e. teleportation), and I base mine on
scientific fact and common knowledge, I ask, what's wrong with this
"picture"?
>>>>along with a mention that additional
>>>>information was to be found if you so
>>>>desired.
>>>So, you have found it then?
>>Not looking for them as I'm not your
>>research consultant. However, it
>>doesn't mean the info isn't there.
>And that doesn't mean that it _is_ there.
You've offered nothing to support that assertion.
>You're full of hot air.
You seem to be full of something a little more solidified and is always
excreted.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile the means to determine a
>>good estimate of time saved drafting in
>>pool races from a video has apparently
>>escaped the swimming world, or they
>>aren't talking about it. And all they need
>>is a bit of Googling.
>
>What leads you to believe that video analysis has apparently "escaped"
>the "swimming world"? And, anyone can access "Google," or any source if
>they so desire, right?
Right. And they'll get the answers they need from Google, right?
>>>Explained possibilities and suggestions
>>>have already been forthcoming,
>
>>Nonsense. How can you have
>>_explained_ something that you admit
>>below you don't even know exists?
>
>Where's the admission?
It's implied by the weak nonsene you wrote further down, e.g., "Video used in
conjunction with what is already known about drafting, principles of
hydrodynamic physics, along with computer assisted vector analysis and other yet
to be explored techniques would certainly afford a good place to start", and,
"it doesn't mean the info isn't there".
The most one could conclude from this rubbish is that, with a hell of a lot of
work, _maybe_ you could determine time saved drafting in pool races, and then
only if the info is there, which we don't know.
>>>and who are the "we" you're referring
>>>to?
>
>>Anyone who's bored enough to read
>>these posts.
>
>You really believe there's a "we" reading these posts?
I assume nothing about the weirdos who could be out there.
> And, if there
>are, I would hope they would realize the futility of your face saving
>efforts.
See the pathetic ramblings of yours quoted above for an example of futile
face-saving.
>
>>That all sounds very nice in theory, but
>>there's no indication that it could be put
>>into practice to quantify the time Lenton
>>saved by drafting.
>
>So, let me get this straight, you base the premise for your argument on
>science fiction and fantasy (i.e. teleportation), and I base mine on
>scientific fact and common knowledge, I ask, what's wrong with this
>"picture"?
Are you training to be a politician?
>>>Not looking for them as I'm not your
>>>research consultant. However, it
>>>doesn't mean the info isn't there.
>
>>And that doesn't mean that it _is_ there.
>
>You've offered nothing to support that assertion.
Look up "assertion". The statement above follows logically from yours.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>Meanwhile the means to determine a
>>>good estimate of time saved drafting
>>>in pool races from a video has
>>>apparently escaped the swimming
>>>world, or they aren't talking about it.
>>>And all they need is a bit of Googling.
>>What leads you to believe that video
>>analysis has apparently "escaped" the
>>"swimming world"? And, anyone can
>>access "Google," or any source if they
>>so desire, right?
>Right. And they'll get the answers they
>need from Google, right?
Learn to read dumbass, I said over and over that "Google" is one place
to start. Other sources are equally available if one so desires.
>>>>Explained possibilities and
>>>>suggestions have already been
>>>>forthcoming,
>>>Nonsense. How can you have
>>>_explained_ something that you admit
>>>below you don't even know exists?
>>Where's the admission?
>It's implied by the weak nonsene you
>wrote further down, e.g., "Video used in
>conjunction with what is already known
>about drafting, principles of
>hydrodynamic physics, along with
>computer assisted vector analysis and
>other yet to be explored techniques
>would certainly afford a good place to
>start", and, "it doesn't mean the info isn't
>there".
Look up "implication," then look up "admission" and you'll realize the
futile irrelevancy of what only you perceive here to be a "brilliant"
refuting argument.
Again, I ask you, where's the admission?
>>You really believe there's a "we"
>>reading these posts?
>I assume nothing about the weirdos who
>could be out there.
Are you including yourself in that broad generalization?
>>And, if there are, I would hope they
>>would realize the futility of your face
>>saving efforts.
>See the pathetic ramblings of yours
>quoted above for an example of futile
>face-saving.
"Pathetic ramblings" only to you. Common sense, logic, and knowledge to
anyone else with adequate critical thinking skills which you lack as
demonstrated by your ignorance.
>>>That all sounds very nice in theory, but
>>>there's no indication that it could be
>>>put into practice to quantify the time
>>>Lenton saved by drafting.
>>So, let me get this straight, you base
>>the premise for your argument on
>>science fiction and fantasy (i.e.
>>teleportation), and I base mine on
>>scientific fact and common knowledge,
>>I ask, what's wrong with this "picture"?
>Are you training to be a politician?
What aspect of faulty reading comprehension skills would lead you to
that erroneous presumption?
>>>Not looking for them as I'm not your
>>>research consultant. However, it
>>>doesn't mean the info isn't there.
>>>And that doesn't mean that it _is_
>>>there.
>>You've offered nothing to support that
>>assertion.
>Look up "assertion". The statement
>above follows logically from yours.
Look up "logic" and you'll find you're arguing utter nonsense. That is,
you'll find that to be true only if you've correctly interpreted the
actual meaning of "logic." Otherwise, you'll continue to blow "smoke"
out of your ass in repeatedly futile attempts at face saving.
As for video analysis of a race event, I take it from your incredible
display of naivety that you've never heard of slow-motion, or
frame-by-frame dissection to determine factoring parameters. If that's
the case, then you've got a long ways to go in order to understand
practical scientific methods. Do your homework.
David W
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>>>"David W" wrote:
>
>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>
>
>>>What leads you to believe that video
>>>analysis has apparently "escaped" the
>>>"swimming world"? And, anyone can
>>>access "Google," or any source if they
>>>so desire, right?
>
>>Right. And they'll get the answers they
>>need from Google, right?
>
>Learn to read dumbass, I said over and over that "Google" is one place
>to start.
And is sufficient on its own, IYO.
> Other sources are equally available if one so desires.
Irrelevant.
>>>Where's the admission?
>
>>It's implied by the weak nonsene you
>>wrote further down, e.g., "Video used in
>>conjunction with what is already known
>>about drafting, principles of
>>hydrodynamic physics, along with
>>computer assisted vector analysis and
>>other yet to be explored techniques
>>would certainly afford a good place to
>>start", and, "it doesn't mean the info isn't
>>there".
>
>Look up "implication," then look up "admission" and you'll realize the
>futile irrelevancy of what only you perceive here to be a "brilliant"
>refuting argument.
>
>Again, I ask you, where's the admission?
Let's get right to the core of this. Is there, to your knowledge, sufficient
information available to the public to enable a person, with the aid of tools if
necessary, to use the video of the race to determine a good estimate of the time
Lenton saved drafting behind Phelps? I'm not asking if there _might_ be. I'm
asking if there _is_, to your knowledge. That requires a yes or a no.
>>>You really believe there's a "we"
>>>reading these posts?
>
>>I assume nothing about the weirdos who
>>could be out there.
>
>Are you including yourself in that broad generalization?
No. I'm as far from weird as anyone can be.
>>See the pathetic ramblings of yours
>>quoted above for an example of futile
>>face-saving.
>
>"Pathetic ramblings" only to you. Common sense, logic, and knowledge
No, none of those.
> to
>anyone else with adequate critical thinking skills which you lack as
>demonstrated by your ignorance.
>
>>>>Not looking for them as I'm not your
>>>>research consultant. However, it
>>>>doesn't mean the info isn't there.
>>>>And that doesn't mean that it _is_
>>>>there.
>
>>>You've offered nothing to support that
>>>assertion.
>
>>Look up "assertion". The statement
>>above follows logically from yours.
>
>Look up "logic" and you'll find you're arguing utter nonsense.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but your brain's logic wiring is in a
dreadful state. Better get it seen to. Just go over that exchange again,
beginning with "...along with a mention that additional information was to be
found if you so desired". If you can see what I mean then maybe there's hope for
you yet.
> That is,
>you'll find that to be true only if you've correctly interpreted the
>actual meaning of "logic." Otherwise, you'll continue to blow "smoke"
>out of your ass in repeatedly futile attempts at face saving.
>
>As for video analysis of a race event, I take it from your incredible
>display of naivety that you've never heard of slow-motion, or
>frame-by-frame dissection to determine factoring parameters.
Do "factoring parameters" include all the currents generated under water from
the swimming stroke and feet, and the effect of the lane rope, and every other
important piece of data?
> If that's
>the case, then you've got a long ways to go in order to understand
>practical scientific methods. Do your homework.
What homework is that? After all this time we are still yet to establish whether
"homework", research, or whatever you want to call it, would actually enable one
to achieve the desired result. Let's get over that hurdle first, shall we?
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>What leads you to believe that video
>>>>analysis has apparently "escaped"
>>>>the "swimming world"? And, anyone
>>>>can access "Google," or any source if
>>>>they so desire, right?
>>>Right. And they'll get the answers they
>>>need from Google, right?
>>Learn to read dumbass, I said over and
>>over that "Google" is one place to start.
>And is sufficient on its own, IYO.
It's a sufficient place to start, ITOOAWCS (in the opinion of anyone
with common sense).
>>Other sources are equally available if
>>one so desires.
>Irrelevant.
So, now you claim other sources are irrelevant if one chooses to also
explore them?
Learn to get the point of an argument presented, there was no claim of
exclusivity where "Google" is concerned. "Google" was suggested as one
possibility, but not limited as to be the only option. How many times,
and in how many ways does this concept have to be explained to you?
Get over the patronizing attitude, I wasn't born yesterday.
>>Look up "implication," then look up
>>"admission" and you'll realize the futile
>>irrelevancy of what only you perceive
>>here to be a "brilliant" refuting
>>argument.
>>Again, I ask you, where's the
>>admission?
>Let's get right to the core of this. Is
>there, to your knowledge, sufficient
>information available to the public to
>enable a person, with the aid of tools if
>necessary, to use the video of the race
>to determine a good estimate of the time
>Lenton saved drafting behind Phelps?
>I'm not asking if there _might_ be. I'm
>asking if there _is_, to your knowledge.
>That requires a yes or a no.
Yes.
>>>>You really believe there's a "we"
>>>>reading these posts?
>>>I assume nothing about the weirdos
>>>who could be out there.
>>Are you including yourself in that broad
>>generalization?
>No. I'm as far from weird as anyone can
>be.
Your pedantic, patronizing posts in this thread dictate otherwise.
>>>See the pathetic ramblings of yours
>>>quoted above for an example of futile
>>>face-saving.
>>"Pathetic ramblings" only to you.
>>Common sense, logic, and knowledge
>No, none of those.
"None of those" only to you.
>>>Look up "assertion". The statement
>>>above follows logically from yours.
>>Look up "logic" and you'll find you're
>>arguing utter nonsense.
>I'm sorry to have to point this out, but
>your brain's logic wiring is in a dreadful
>state. Better get it seen to.
Oh, so now you're claiming the ability to accurately psychoanalyze based
on postings in a usenet thread? Nothing but unmitigated hypocritical
arrogant BS.
>Just go over that exchange again,
>beginning with "...along with a mention
>that additional information was to be
>found if you so desired". If you can see
>what I mean then maybe there's hope for
>you yet.
First get the exact quote correct which was "additional information was
to be found if_one_so desires," then tell me the part of that statement
that you don't understand? The statement seems pretty clear to me and
most likely to anyone else with average and above reading skills.
>>As for video analysis of a race event, I
>>take it from your incredible display of
>>naivety that you've never heard of
>>slow-motion, or frame-by-frame
>>dissection to determine factoring
>>parameters.
>Do "factoring parameters" include all the
>currents generated under water from the
>swimming stroke and feet, and the effect
>of the lane rope, and every other
>important piece of data?
One of several scientific methods for analysis has already been
explained to you ad nauseum.
>>If that's the case, then you've got a long
>>ways to go in order to understand
>>practical scientific methods. Do your
>>homework.
>What homework is that? After all this
>time we are still yet to establish whether
>"homework", research, or whatever you
>want to call it, would actually enable one
>to achieve the desired result. Let's get
>over that hurdle first, shall we?
You'll never know if one can achieve the "desired result" until you
and/or anyone else does the "homework" first.
Maybe this will help you get over the first "hurdle" and on your way
with the homework:
David W
> "David W" wrote:
> >"Steve Curtis" wrote:
> >>"David W" wrote:
> >>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
> >>>>"David W" wrote:
> >>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
> >>>>What leads you to believe that video
> >>>>analysis has apparently "escaped"
> >>>>the "swimming world"? And, anyone
> >>>>can access "Google," or any source if
> >>>>they so desire, right?
> >>>Right. And they'll get the answers they
> >>>need from Google, right?
> >>Learn to read dumbass, I said over and
> >>over that "Google" is one place to start.
> >And is sufficient on its own, IYO.
>
> It's a sufficient place to start, ITOOAWCS (in the opinion of anyone
> with common sense).
Funny. It was a lot more promising than that earlier. It was all I
needed.
> >>Other sources are equally available if
> >>one so desires.
> >Irrelevant.
>
> So, now you claim other sources are irrelevant if one chooses to also
> explore them?
Your words were irrelevant. Comprehension difficulties as well? You
have plenty of work ahead of you.
> Learn to get the point of an argument presented, there was no claim of
> exclusivity where "Google" is concerned. "Google" was suggested as one
> possibility, but not limited as to be the only option. How many times,
> and in how many ways does this concept have to be explained to you?
"If you need additional info, let "Google" be your friend."
"Again, no satisfaction? Think "Google." "
"Not happy? A third time reminder in this thread, "Google" can be your
source of enlightenment."
If I believe these then Google is all I need. Even if there are other
sources, I don't need them because Google is enough on its own. True
or not true?
> Get over the patronizing attitude, I wasn't born yesterday.
Look, you need a lot of help: Spelling, grammar, logic, comprehension,
denying previous statements. The truth hurts sometimes.
> >>Look up "implication," then look up
> >>"admission" and you'll realize the futile
> >>irrelevancy of what only you perceive
> >>here to be a "brilliant" refuting
> >>argument.
> >>Again, I ask you, where's the
> >>admission?
> >Let's get right to the core of this. Is
> >there, to your knowledge, sufficient
> >information available to the public to
> >enable a person, with the aid of tools if
> >necessary, to use the video of the race
> >to determine a good estimate of the time
> >Lenton saved drafting behind Phelps?
> >I'm not asking if there _might_ be. I'm
> >asking if there _is_, to your knowledge.
> >That requires a yes or a no.
>
> Yes.
BS.
> >Just go over that exchange again,
> >beginning with "...along with a mention
> >that additional information was to be
> >found if you so desired". If you can see
> >what I mean then maybe there's hope for
> >you yet.
>
> First get the exact quote correct which was "additional information was
> to be found if_one_so desires," then tell me the part of that statement
> that you don't understand? The statement seems pretty clear to me and
> most likely to anyone else with average and above reading skills.
The trouble is that it contradicts previous statements, which are
quoted above. Remember, you have a logic problem, so take my word for
it.
> >>As for video analysis of a race event, I
> >>take it from your incredible display of
> >>naivety that you've never heard of
> >>slow-motion, or frame-by-frame
> >>dissection to determine factoring
> >>parameters.
> >Do "factoring parameters" include all the
> >currents generated under water from the
> >swimming stroke and feet, and the effect
> >of the lane rope, and every other
> >important piece of data?
>
> One of several scientific methods for analysis has already been
> explained to you ad nauseum.
No scientific methods for determining drafting assistance from video
data have been explained in this thread.
> >>If that's the case, then you've got a long
> >>ways to go in order to understand
> >>practical scientific methods. Do your
> >>homework.
> >What homework is that? After all this
> >time we are still yet to establish whether
> >"homework", research, or whatever you
> >want to call it, would actually enable one
> >to achieve the desired result. Let's get
> >over that hurdle first, shall we?
>
> You'll never know if one can achieve the "desired result" until you
> and/or anyone else does the "homework" first.
>
> Maybe this will help you get over the first "hurdle" and on your way
> with the homework:
>
> http://www.adn.com/life/story/3544678p-3575664c.html
No good. Can't tell how much time Lenton gained from that. Try again.
Steve Curtis
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
>>>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote:
Again, learn to read dumbass, what part of: "It's a sufficient place to
start" don't you understand?
>>>>Other sources are equally available if
>>>>one so desires.
>>>Irrelevant.
>>So, now you claim other sources are
>>irrelevant if one chooses to also explore
>>them?
>Your words were irrelevant.
>Comprehension difficulties as well? You
>have plenty of work ahead of you.
Your use of the term "irrelevant" is itself irrelevant within the
context of the argument presented. Who has the "comprehension
difficulty" here?
>>Learn to get the point of an argument
>>presented, there was no claim of
>>exclusivity where "Google" is
>>concerned. "Google" was suggested as
>>one possibility, but not limited as to be
>>the only option. How many times, and
>>in how many ways does this concept
>>have to be explained to you?
>"If you need additional info, let "Google"
>be your friend." "Again, no satisfaction?
>Think "Google." " "Not happy? A third
>time reminder in this thread, "Google"
>can be your source of enlightenment."
>If I believe these then Google is all I
>need. Even if there are other sources, I
>don't need them because Google is
>enough on its own. True or not true?
Where in any of those phrases is a claim of exclusivity for "Google"?
>>Get over the patronizing attitude, I
>>wasn't born yesterday.
>Look, you need a lot of help: Spelling,
>grammar, logic, comprehension, denying
>previous statements. The truth hurts
>sometimes.
You've offered nothing but pure BS to support that claim. I defy you to
point out any errors in spelling, grammar etc. from me. I'd stake my
knowledge regarding the use of the English language against yours any
day.
>>>>Look up "implication," then look up >>>>"admission" and you'll
realize the
>>>>futile irrelevancy of what only you
>>>>perceive here to be a "brilliant"
>>>>refuting argument.
>>>>Again, I ask you, where's the
>>>>admission?
>>>Let's get right to the core of this. Is
>>>there, to your knowledge, sufficient
>>>information available to the public to
>>>enable a person, with the aid of tools
>>>if necessary, to use the video of the
>>>race to determine a good estimate of
>>>the time Lenton saved drafting behind
>>>Phelps?
>>>I'm not asking if there _might_ be. I'm
>>>asking if there _is_, to your
>>>knowledge. That requires a yes or a
>>>no.
>>Yes.
>BS.
What part of "yes" don't you understand? Two reference links have
already been offered to you. You want more? Then, use "Google" and/or
any other search engines of your choice.
>>>Just go over that exchange again,
>>>beginning with "...along with a mention
>>>that additional information was to be
>>>found if you so desired". If you can
>>>see what I mean then maybe there's
>>>hope for you yet.
>>First get the exact quote correct which
>>was "additional information was to be
>>found if_one_so desires," then tell me
>>the part of that statement that you don't
>>understand? The statement seems
>>pretty clear to me and most likely to
>>anyone else with average and above
>>reading skills.
>The trouble is that it contradicts previous
>statements, which are quoted above.
>Remember, you have a logic problem, so
>take my word for it.
You have no "word" since you've failed to establish viable credibility
by offering no verifiable and irrefutable substantiation throughout this
entire thread.
>>>>>No scientific methods for
>>>>>determining drafting assistance
>>>>>from video data have been
>>>>>explained in this thread.
>>>>If that's the case, then you've got a
>>>>long ways to go in order to
>>>>understand practical scientific
>>>>methods. Do your homework.
>>>What homework is that? After all this
>>>time we are still yet to establish
>>>whether "homework", research, or
>>>whatever you want to call it, would
>>>actually enable one to achieve the
>>>desired result. Let's get over that
>>>hurdle first, shall we?
>>You'll never know if one can achieve
>>the "desired result" until you and/or
>>anyone else does the "homework" first.
>>Maybe this will help you get over the
>>first "hurdle" and on your way with the
>>homework:
>>http://www.adn.com/life/story/3544678p-3575664c.html
>No good. Can't tell how much time
>Lenton gained from that. Try again.
Get Lenton's split time for one length dumbass, then learn to use
percentages, then look up the terms "reasonable" and "approximation" to
understand a common sense method of determination. Again, from the
beginning, "It's called drafting, and it is well understood." Nice try
at face saving, try again.
Silver0l
>> Maybe this will help you get over the first "hurdle" and on your way
>> with the homework:
>>
>> http://www.adn.com/life/story/3544678p-3575664c.html
>
> No good. Can't tell how much time Lenton gained from that. Try again.
>
This is always the same study which has been discussed here, and which can
be found at:
http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/329/
In my opinion, not much value in this study.
They tow a passive subject to lead, and then make various measures on an
active subject trying to draft the leader.
But in a real swimming situation, the leader is not passive: he is pulling
and kicking. And this makes a huge differencve: the leader has to push water
behind him, which means he has to create a stream in the opposite direction
of his move. This obviously is a strong disadvantage for the drafting
subject: reminder: a swimmer of mass M moving forward with velocity V must
push backward a mass m of water with medium velocity v, and MV + mv = 0.
By ignoring the opposite stream created by the leading swimmer in a real
swimming situation, this study could grossly exagerate the advantage of
drafting.
-- Olivier
David W
Yes, it's impossible to know all the complexities of the currents
produced by Phelps's arms, feet and body, the influence of the lane
rope, the reflections near the wall etc. on Lenton in the lane next
door. The idea that you can get a video of the race and figure it all
out even approximately is ridiculous.
Steve Curtis
>Yes, it's impossible to know all the
>complexities of the currents produced by
>Phelps's arms, feet and body, the
>influence of the lane rope, the reflections
>near the wall etc. on Lenton in the lane
>next door. The idea that you can get a
>video of the race and figure it all out
>even approximately is ridiculous.
Get your facts straight, first it was never claimed in this entire
thread that all "complexities" (i.e. intangibles) would be completely
known. That's the reason for introducing a margin of error in an
approximation as suggested previously. Second, it was never claimed that
video alone would yield a solution. As explained to you ad nauseum,
other "tools" (i.e. software programs, recorded times, known information
about drafting, etc.) in conjunction with the latest technology for
video analysis can be used to achieve reasonable results. We're not
talking about "gnat's ass" accuracy here, but rather a reasonable
estimated approximation. In races where times are recorded in
one-hundredths of a second, drafting effects for swimmers in close
proximity are anything but negligible.
David W
> "David W" wrote:
> >Yes, it's impossible to know all the
> >complexities of the currents produced by
> >Phelps's arms, feet and body, the
> >influence of the lane rope, the reflections
> >near the wall etc. on Lenton in the lane
> >next door. The idea that you can get a
> >video of the race and figure it all out
> >even approximately is ridiculous.
>
> Get your facts straight, first it was never claimed in this entire
> thread that all "complexities" (i.e. intangibles) would be completely
> known. That's the reason for introducing a margin of error in an
> approximation as suggested previously. Second, it was never claimed that
> video alone would yield a solution. As explained to you ad nauseum,
> other "tools" (i.e. software programs, recorded times, known information
> about drafting, etc.) in conjunction with the latest technology for
> video analysis can be used to achieve reasonable results.
Obviously, the "figuring out" would be done with whatever tools exist
to analyse the video. Sorry, I should have realized that you wouldn't
be able to "figure out" that from my post.
> We're not
> talking about "gnat's ass" accuracy here, but rather a reasonable
> estimated approximation.
And I'm saying it's BS that you can even produce a reasonable
estimation unless drafting studies of _pool races_ have already been
done, _and_ have been shown to produce reasonably predictable effects
regardless of the size, shape, swimming style and speed of the
swimmer, or have well-behaved correlations to those factors. You have
produced no evidence that the draft effect by the fastest swimmer in
human history at Lenton's positions in an adjacent lane in a pool
behind a lane rope is well understood.
> In races where times are recorded in
> one-hundredths of a second, drafting effects for swimmers in close
> proximity are anything but negligible.
Links?
Steve Curtis
>>In races where times are recorded in
>>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
>>effects for swimmers in close proximity
>>are anything but negligible.
>Links?
See above paragraph.
Counter links?
Learn to be less vague and ambiguous and your posts might be interpreted
as you intended.
Steve Curtis
The intended post is as follows:
"David W" wrote:
>Steve Curtis) wrote:
>>Get your facts straight, first it was
>>never claimed in this entire thread that
>>all "complexities" (i.e. intangibles)
>>would be completely known. That's the
>>reason for introducing a margin of error
>>in an approximation as suggested
>>previously. Second, it was never
>>claimed that video alone would yield a
>>solution. As explained to you ad
>>nauseum, other "tools" (i.e. software
>>programs, recorded times, known
>>information about drafting, etc.) in
>>conjunction with the latest technology
>>for video analysis can be used to
>>achieve reasonable results.
>Obviously, the "figuring out" would be
>done with whatever tools exist to analyse
>the video. Sorry, I should have realized
>that you wouldn't be able to "figure out"
>that from my post.
Learn to be less vague and ambiguous and your posts might be interpreted
as you intended.
>>We're not talking about "gnat's ass"
>>accuracy here, but rather a reasonable
>>estimated approximation.
>And I'm saying it's BS that you can even
>produce a reasonable estimation unless
>drafting studies of _pool races_ have
>already been done, _and_ have been
>shown to produce reasonably predictable
>effects regardless of the size, shape,
>swimming style and speed of the
>swimmer, or have well-behaved
>correlations to those factors. You have
>produced no evidence that the draft
>effect by the fastest swimmer in human
>history at Lenton's positions in an
>adjacent lane in a pool behind a lane
>rope is well understood.
And what you're saying here is pure unsubstantiated crap. Again, get
your "facts" straight. Reference links have already been provided to
show some drafting research along with a reasonable approach for
estimating. It's up to you or anyone else interested in the
Phelps/Lenton race specifically to apply the known principles in order
to determine a reasonable approximation for that case.
You've never heard of a scientific method of approach for analysis? Are
you living in a cave without 21st century reality (with the exception of
course, that you have internet access)?
>>In races where times are recorded in
>>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
>>effects for swimmers in close proximity
>>are anything but negligible.
>Links?
See above paragraph.
Counter links?
David W
So, I was suggesting that you figure it out by simply viewing the
video and doing it in your head? Keep working on your comprehension.
> >>We're not talking about "gnat's ass"
> >>accuracy here, but rather a reasonable
> >>estimated approximation.
> >And I'm saying it's BS that you can even
> >produce a reasonable estimation unless
> >drafting studies of _pool races_ have
> >already been done, _and_ have been
> >shown to produce reasonably predictable
> >effects regardless of the size, shape,
> >swimming style and speed of the
> >swimmer, or have well-behaved
> >correlations to those factors. You have
> >produced no evidence that the draft
> >effect by the fastest swimmer in human
> >history at Lenton's positions in an
> >adjacent lane in a pool behind a lane
> >rope is well understood.
>
> And what you're saying here is pure unsubstantiated crap.
Uh, it's not me that has to do the substantiation.
> Again, get
> your "facts" straight. Reference links have already been provided to
> show some drafting research along with a reasonable approach for
> estimating.
Rubbish. What is the effect of the lane rope? What is the effect of
the turbulence of a six-beat kick versus that of a slower kick? You
are assuming that drafting in one situation can be applied to another.
How do you know it can be without actually measuring the draft in a
pool race to verify it?
> It's up to you or anyone else interested in the
> Phelps/Lenton race specifically to apply the known principles in order
> to determine a reasonable approximation for that case.
>
> You've never heard of a scientific method of approach for analysis?
> Are
> you living in a cave without 21st century reality (with the exception of
> course, that you have internet access)?
Generalized BS.
> >>In races where times are recorded in
> >>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
> >>effects for swimmers in close proximity
> >>are anything but negligible.
> >Links?
>
> See above paragraph.
>
> Counter links?
So you assume something to be true unless someone can prove it's
false? That's not the way science normally works. The ball is in your
court.
Steve Curtis
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>Steve Curtis) wrote:
No, you suggested a strawman argument attributed to me that video
analysis alone would suffice. Keep working on reality.
>>>>We're not talking about "gnat's ass"
>>>>accuracy here, but rather a
>>>>reasonable estimated approximation.
>>>And I'm saying it's BS that you can
>>>even produce a reasonable estimation
>>>unless drafting studies of _pool races_
>>>have already been done, _and_ have
>>>been shown to produce reasonably
>>>predictable effects regardless of the
>>>size, shape, swimming style and
>>>speed of the swimmer, or have
>>>well-behaved correlations to those
>>>factors. You have produced no
>>>evidence that the draft effect by the
>>>fastest swimmer in human history at
>>>Lenton's positions in an adjacent lane
>>>in a pool behind a lane rope is well
>>>understood.
>>And what you're saying here is pure
>>unsubstantiated crap.
>Uh, it's not me that has to do the
>substantiation.
Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because I said so" style of
argumentation doesn't cut it without anything to back it up and only
serves to be a futile attempt at face-saving.
>>Again, get your "facts" straight.
>>Reference links have already been
>>provided to show some drafting
>>research along with a reasonable
>>approach for estimating.
>Rubbish. What is the effect of the lane
>rope? What is the effect of the
>turbulence of a six-beat kick versus that
>of a slower kick? You are assuming that
>drafting in one situation can be applied
>to another. How do you know it can be
>without actually measuring the draft in a
>pool race to verify it?
I'm not assuming anything. The links for some of the applicable
information were already presented to you. Measurements were researched
and recorded. If you want to include intangible factors such as lane
line wave suppression characteristics, and/or kicking styles, then throw
in a "fudge" factor like reducing percentages by a half. Like I said all
along, the possibility exists for a reasonable approximation, not
"gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how do you know what type of kicking
style either Phelps or Lenton used?
>>It's up to you or anyone else interested
>>in the Phelps/Lenton race specifically to
>>apply the known principles in order to
>>determine a reasonable approximation
>>for that case.
>>You've never heard of a scientific
>>method of approach for analysis? Are
>>you living in a cave without 21st century
>>reality (with the exception of course,
>>that you have internet access)?
>Generalized BS.
Only to you, common sense and practicality to anyone with a modicum of
intelligence.
>>>>In races where times are recorded in
>>>>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
>>>>effects for swimmers in close
>>>>proximity are anything but negligible.
>>>Links?
>>See above paragraph.
>>Counter links?
>So you assume something to be true
>unless someone can prove it's false?
I assume something to be true when backed up with credible
substantiation and even more so when no credible counter substantiation
is offered to prove the contrary.
>That's not the way science normally
>works. The ball is in your court.
Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was already served to you previously
in the form of links. It's been your turn for some time now to return
the "ball" with any supportive credible substantiation.
David W
Analysis requires tools, so they are a given, at least to anyone except you.
You are the one who has claimed that a reasonable approximation of the draft
benefit to Lenton is possible with existing knowledge and tools, but you have
produced nothing except one study that you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
pool racing, and assertions about video analysis. After all these posts your
substance score on the subject at hand still sits at zero.
> >>Again, get your "facts" straight.
> >>Reference links have already been
> >>provided to show some drafting
> >>research along with a reasonable
> >>approach for estimating.
> >Rubbish. What is the effect of the lane
> >rope? What is the effect of the
> >turbulence of a six-beat kick versus that
> >of a slower kick? You are assuming that
> >drafting in one situation can be applied
> >to another. How do you know it can be
> >without actually measuring the draft in a
> >pool race to verify it?
>
> I'm not assuming anything. The links for some of the applicable
> information were already presented to you. Measurements were researched
> and recorded. If you want to include intangible factors such as lane
> line wave suppression characteristics, and/or kicking styles, then throw
> in a "fudge" factor like reducing percentages by a half.
So your solution is simply to throw in arbitrary factors that have no scientific
basis.
> Like I said all
> along, the possibility exists for a reasonable approximation,
Another assertion. Produce evidence.
> not
> "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how do you know what type of kicking
> style either Phelps or Lenton used?
Exactly. That's one of the many factors you can't account for, and at last you
are conceding that point.
> >>It's up to you or anyone else interested
> >>in the Phelps/Lenton race specifically to
> >>apply the known principles in order to
> >>determine a reasonable approximation
> >>for that case.
> >>You've never heard of a scientific
> >>method of approach for analysis? Are
> >>you living in a cave without 21st century
> >>reality (with the exception of course,
> >>that you have internet access)?
> >Generalized BS.
>
> Only to you, common sense and practicality to anyone with a modicum of
> intelligence.
And what would an intelligent person make of an empty, meaningless statement
like "apply the known principles"?
> >>>>In races where times are recorded in
> >>>>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
> >>>>effects for swimmers in close
> >>>>proximity are anything but negligible.
> >>>Links?
> >>See above paragraph.
> >>Counter links?
> >So you assume something to be true
> >unless someone can prove it's false?
>
> I assume something to be true when backed up with credible
> substantiation
Which you continue to fail to produce.
> and even more so when no credible counter substantiation
> is offered to prove the contrary.
None needed. Do you need to disprove that purple monkeys created the universe
with counter evidence before anyone produces an iota of supporting evidence?
That's still where we are at on Lenton and drafting.
> >That's not the way science normally
> >works. The ball is in your court.
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was already served to you previously
> in the form of links.
I'm afraid not. Those links did not reveal the assistance Lenton received from
drafting.
> It's been your turn for some time now to return
> the "ball" with any supportive credible substantiation.
Still waiting for the serve here.
Steve Curtis
>(Steve Curtis) wrote:
>>No, you suggested a strawman
>>argument attributed to me that video
>>analysis alone would suffice. Keep
>>working on reality.
>Analysis requires tools, so they are a
>given, at least to anyone except you.
Where in the entire thread was there a suggestion that "tools" for
analysis don't exist?
>>Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because
>>I said so" style of argumentation doesn't
>>cut it without anything to back it up and
>>only serves to be a futile attempt at
>>face-saving.
>You are the one who has claimed that a
>reasonable approximation of the draft
>benefit to Lenton is possible with existing
>knowledge and tools, but you have
>produced nothing except one study that
>you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
>pool racing, and assertions about video
>analysis. After all these posts your
>substance score on the subject at hand
>still sits at zero.
And your irrefutable reason for believing that a "reasonable"
approximation is unattainable is what, and why?
>>I'm not assuming anything. The links for
>>some of the applicable information
>>were already presented to you.
>>Measurements were researched and
>>recorded. If you want to include
>>intangible factors such as lane line
>>wave suppression characteristics,
>>and/or kicking styles, then throw in a
>>"fudge" factor like reducing percentages
>>by a half.
>So your solution is simply to throw in
>arbitrary factors that have no scientific
>basis.
I've said all along that a reasonable solution would be an approximation
at best, based on known research, race data, including video, and time
records. Learn to read, dumbass.
>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how
>>do you know what type of kicking style
>>either Phelps or Lenton used?
>Exactly. That's one of the many factors
>you can't account for, and at last you are
>conceding that point.
Not conceding anything, the race video reveals the kicking styles of
both swimmers.
>>Only to you, common sense and
>>practicality to anyone with a modicum
>>of intelligence.
>And what would an intelligent person
>make of an empty, meaningless
>statement like "apply the known
>principles"?
Unlike you, an intelligent person would not find that statement to be
empty and meaningless.
>>>I assume something to be true when
>>>backed up with credible substantiation
>>Which you continue to fail to produce,
>>and even more so when no credible
>>counter substantiation is offered to
>>prove the contrary.
>None needed. Do you need to disprove
>that purple monkeys created the
>universe with counter evidence before
>anyone produces an iota of supporting
>evidence? That's still where we are at on
>Lenton and drafting.
Are there any "tools" and/or documented research available for analysis
to prove that purple monkeys created the universe? It's your reading
comprehension skills that are called into question here.
>>>>>That's not the way science normally
>>>>>works. The ball is in your court.
>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was
>>>>already served to you previously in
>>>>the form of links.
>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>reveal the assistance Lenton received
>>>from drafting.
>>It's been your turn for some time now to
>>return the "ball" with any supportive
>>credible substantiation.
>Still waiting for the serve here.
The "serve" was already made early on in the thread after your "not well
understood" claim about drafting effects.
DavidW
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:
>
>>>Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because
>>>I said so" style of argumentation doesn't
>>>cut it without anything to back it up and
>>>only serves to be a futile attempt at
>>>face-saving.
>
>>You are the one who has claimed that a
>>reasonable approximation of the draft
>>benefit to Lenton is possible with existing
>>knowledge and tools, but you have
>>produced nothing except one study that
>>you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
>>pool racing, and assertions about video
>>analysis. After all these posts your
>>substance score on the subject at hand
>>still sits at zero.
>
>And your irrefutable reason for believing that a "reasonable"
>approximation is unattainable is what, and why?
It is not up to me to prove a negative. You are claiming that it's possible.
Prove it.
>>>I'm not assuming anything. The links for
>>>some of the applicable information
>>>were already presented to you.
>>>Measurements were researched and
>>>recorded. If you want to include
>>>intangible factors such as lane line
>>>wave suppression characteristics,
>>>and/or kicking styles, then throw in a
>>>"fudge" factor like reducing percentages
>>>by a half.
>
>>So your solution is simply to throw in
>>arbitrary factors that have no scientific
>>basis.
>
>I've said all along that a reasonable solution would be an approximation
>at best, based on known research, race data, including video, and time
>records. Learn to read, dumbass.
But you include arbitrary fudge factors without a shred of evidence as to how
accurately they would represent reality. If you calculate an approximation you
must also calculate a confidence level or margin of error, otherwise you could
be 1000% out and the whole thing becomes meaningless. You are desperately
grasping for a way to retrieve a lost cause.
>>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how
>>>do you know what type of kicking style
>>>either Phelps or Lenton used?
>
>>Exactly. That's one of the many factors
>>you can't account for, and at last you are
>>conceding that point.
>
>Not conceding anything, the race video reveals the kicking styles of
>both swimmers.
A video of swimmers kicking is one thing. Modeling the currents generated and
their contribution to draft is quite another.
>>>>I assume something to be true when
>>>>backed up with credible substantiation
>
>>>Which you continue to fail to produce,
>>>and even more so when no credible
>>>counter substantiation is offered to
>>>prove the contrary.
>
>>None needed. Do you need to disprove
>>that purple monkeys created the
>>universe with counter evidence before
>>anyone produces an iota of supporting
>>evidence? That's still where we are at on
>>Lenton and drafting.
>
>Are there any "tools" and/or documented research available for analysis
>to prove that purple monkeys created the universe? It's your reading
>comprehension skills that are called into question here.
So far, nor is there any evidence of tools or documented research available for
analysis of the draft assistance Lenton received from Phelps in their race.
Note: Your assertions are not evidence.
>>>>>>That's not the way science normally
>>>>>>works. The ball is in your court.
>
>>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was
>>>>>already served to you previously in
>>>>>the form of links.
>
>>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>>reveal the assistance Lenton received
>>>>from drafting.
>
>>>It's been your turn for some time now to
>>>return the "ball" with any supportive
>>>credible substantiation.
>
>>Still waiting for the serve here.
>
>The "serve" was already made early on in the thread after your "not well
>understood" claim about drafting effects.
Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the net. Try again.
Steve Curtis
>"Steve Curtis" wrote
>>"David W" wrote:
>>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:
In other words, you can't back up your so-called assertions regarding
the impossibility of determining drafting effects with any credible
evidence to support your "argument." You continue to blow smoke out of
your ass trying to save face. I've offered references and suggestions
for places to start. You've offered nothing but BS.
I never claimed that "gnat's ass" accuracy was attainable. Try and learn
what "approximation" means. As for "1000% out," prove it with
substantitive evidence. Your "it is so, because I said so" style of
argumentation that you so desperately cling to, still doesn't cut it.
>>>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides,
>>>>how do you know what type of
>>>>kicking style either Phelps or Lenton
>>>>used?
>>>Exactly. That's one of the many
>>>factors you can't account for, and at
>>>last you are conceding that point.
>>Not conceding anything, the race video
>>reveals the kicking styles of both
>>swimmers.
>A video of swimmers kicking is one
>thing. Modeling the currents generated
>and their contribution to draft is quite
>another.
That's where other "tools" come into play in addition to the video for
an approximate determination as explained to you ad nauseum.
<DavidW's rambling snipped>
>So far, nor is there any evidence of tools
>or documented research available for
>analysis of the draft assistance Lenton
>received from Phelps in their race. Note:
>Your assertions are not evidence.
Go back and re-read the posts suggesting certain, but not limited to,
"tools" and research available for a reasonable approximation of
drafting effects dumbass.
>>>>>>>That's not the way science
>>>>>>>normally works. The ball is in
>>>>>>>your court.
>>>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball"
>>>>>>was already served to you
>>>>>>previously in the form of links.
>>>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>>>reveal the assistance Lenton
>>>>>received from drafting.
>>>>It's been your turn for some time now
>>>>to return the "ball" with any
>>>>supportive credible substantiation.
>>>Still waiting for the serve here.
>>The "serve" was already made early on
>>in the thread after your "not well
>>understood" claim about drafting
>>effects.
>Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the
>net. Try again.
Sorry Bucko, but you were served an "ace" a long while ago after your
"not well understood" claim about drafting. There's enough "understood"
about it to reasonably approximate the effects for the Lenton/Phelps
race or any race for that matter with the appropriate tools.
DavidW
> "DavidW" wrote:
>> "Steve Curtis" wrote
>>> "David W" wrote:
>>>> (Steve Curtis) wrote:
>>
>> It is not up to me to prove a negative.
>> You are claiming that it's possible. Prove
>> it.
>
> In other words, you can't back up your so-called assertions regarding
> the impossibility of determining drafting effects with any credible
> evidence to support your "argument."
What sort of evidence would satisfy you? Perhaps a scientific paper that such
quantification of draft assistance in a pool is _not_ possible with current
technology? I don't have any evidence that a clothes peg cannot be turned into a
live caterpillar with current technology. Does that mean that I should not
discount the possibility?
> You continue to blow smoke out of
> your ass trying to save face. I've offered references and suggestions
> for places to start. You've offered nothing but BS.
You've presented not a scrap of evidence that it's possible.
>> But you include arbitrary fudge factors
>> without a shred of evidence as to how
>> accurately they would represent reality.
>> If you calculate an approximation you
>> must also calculate a confidence level or
>> margin of error, otherwise you could be
>> 1000% out and the whole thing becomes
>> meaningless. You are desperately
>> grasping for a way to retrieve a lost
>> cause.
>
> I never claimed that "gnat's ass" accuracy was attainable. Try and
> learn what "approximation" means. As for "1000% out," prove it with
> substantitive evidence.
You would need error information to prove that figure, or any other. That's
exactly my point. Who lets these dumbos get on Usenet?
> Your "it is so, because I said so" style of
> argumentation that you so desperately cling to, still doesn't cut it.
>> A video of swimmers kicking is one
>> thing. Modeling the currents generated
>> and their contribution to draft is quite
>> another.
>
> That's where other "tools" come into play in addition to the video for
> an approximate determination as explained to you ad nauseum.
Your "it is so because I said so" style of argumentation that you so desperately
cling to still doesn't cut it. What tools? Produce some actual evidence.
>> So far, nor is there any evidence of tools
>> or documented research available for
>> analysis of the draft assistance Lenton
>> received from Phelps in their race. Note:
>> Your assertions are not evidence.
>
> Go back and re-read the posts suggesting certain, but not limited to,
> "tools" and research available for a reasonable approximation of
> drafting effects dumbass.
Again, your assertions are not evidence. You've made the claims about these
"tools". Now back them up.
>>> The "serve" was already made early on
>>> in the thread after your "not well
>>> understood" claim about drafting
>>> effects.
>
>> Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the
>> net. Try again.
>
> Sorry Bucko, but you were served an "ace" a long while ago after your
> "not well understood" claim about drafting. There's enough
> "understood" about it to reasonably approximate the effects for the
> Lenton/Phelps race or any race for that matter with the appropriate
> tools.
Not on the basis of anything you've come up with in 42 posts so far in this
thread.
BTW, that's a double fault.
Steve Curtis
>Steve Curtis wrote:
>>"DavidW" wrote:
>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote
>>>>"David W" wrote:
>>>>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:
>>>It is not up to me to prove a negative.
>>>You are claiming that it's possible.
>>>Prove it.
>>In other words, you can't back up your
>>so-called assertions regarding the
>>impossibility of determining drafting
>>effects with any credible evidence to
>>support your "argument."
>What sort of evidence would satisfy you?
>Perhaps a scientific paper that such
>quantification of draft assistance in a
>pool is _not_ possible with current
>technology? I don't have any evidence
>that a clothes peg cannot be turned into
>a live caterpillar with current technology.
>Does that mean that I should not
>discount the possibility?
So you completely dismiss the possibility of developing a scientific
method for analysis? You really have your head up your ass if you
believe that.
>>You continue to blow smoke out of your
>>ass trying to save face. I've offered
>>references and suggestions for places
>>to start. You've offered nothing but BS.
>You've presented not a scrap of evidence
>that it's possible.
Again, your reading skills have been called into question. Suggested
references have already been posted as places to start for an analysis.
Learn to read dumbass.
>>>But you include arbitrary fudge factors
>>>without a shred of evidence as to how
>>>accurately they would represent
>>>reality. If you calculate an
>>>approximation you must also calculate
>>>a confidence level or margin of error,
>>>otherwise you could be 1000% out and
>>>the whole thing becomes
>>>meaningless. You are desperately
>>>grasping for a way to retrieve a lost
>>>cause.
>>I never claimed that "gnat's ass"
>>accuracy was attainable. Try and learn
>>what "approximation" means. As for
>>"1000% out," prove it with substantitive
>>evidence.
>You would need error information to
>prove that figure, or any other. That's
>exactly my point. Who lets these dumbos
>get on Usenet?
Still waiting for your proof of "1000% out." As for your "dumbo"
comment, this coming from one who makes the following comment from
another thread in this NG:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source
>Your "it is so because I said so" style of
>argumentation that you so desperately
>cling to still doesn't cut it. What tools?
>Produce some actual evidence.
Re-read the references that were offered earlier in the thread moron and
educate yourself about the development of a scientific method for
analysis.
>>There's enough "understood" about it to
>>reasonably approximate the effects for
>>the Lenton/Phelps race or any race for
>>that matter with the appropriate tools.
>Not on the basis of anything you've come
>up with in 42 posts so far in this thread.
Still waiting for your proof that drafting effects "are not well
understood."