Wind- und Anlaufregel: Endlich faire Wettkämpfe - oder unnötiger Ballast?

[tippi]

Eigentlich sollte man danach gehen, was die Mehrheit der Springer bevorzugt. Schließlich sind sie es, die entweder länger warten oder nochmal springen müssen, wenn der Wind wieder macht was er will. Man hat die neuen Regeln angeboten und ausprobiert, jetzt sollte es an den Aktiven liegen. Wenn es dem Zuschauer zu lange dauert wenn ein Springen mehrfach unterbrochen oder auch mal neu gestartet wird, dann kann er immer noch den Fernseher ausschalten oder, wenn er vor Ort ist, gehen. Niemand wird dazu gezwungen, sich ein Springen anzugucken.

Bisher ging es ohne die Wind- und Anlaufregel und es würde auch weiterhin so gehen. Und wenn die neuen Regeln sich tatsächlich durchsetzen, dann wird man nach einiger Zeit auch damit problemlos klarkommen.

Skispringen wird nie eine ganz faire Sportart sein können!!!! Irgendwer verliert immer.

 

[Anne]

Wenn es dem Zuschauer zu lange dauert wenn ein Springen mehrfach unterbrochen oder auch mal neu gestartet wird, dann kann er immer noch den Fernseher ausschalten oder, wenn er vor Ort ist, gehen. Niemand wird dazu gezwungen, sich ein Springen anzugucken.

Zwar im Grundsatz richtig, nur die Veranstalter leben nunmal von denen , die an die Schanze kommen, und die Verbände durch TV-Rechte. So ganz egal ist das auch wieder nicht.

Ich finde, wir sollten uns da an den Kombis ein Beispiel nehmen, da wird das ganze viel gelassener gesehen.

 

[Gott Enel]

da die neue regel (wind) nur versucht ein wenig auszugleichen, finde ich sie inzwischen gut, weil sie so nicht unfair wird und windverhältnisse nicht mehr so doll ins gewicht fallen.

Die Nutzung der Anlaufregel ist trotzdem noch TOTALER MIST, 1 bis max 2 mal sollte das maximum sein, sonst verliert man total den überblick!!!

 

[MK23 - skiimport]

Hello I apologise in advance because of huge post, but I'm sure some of you will find this interesting.

I did some research based on official results from Planica (those found on www.fis-ski.com), because I wanted to prove how jumpers who start with lower inrun gate actually have HUGE advantage over others

So, here are the conclusions:

PLANICA HS215

Meter Value 1.2 pts/m
Gate Factor 7.74 pts/m
Wind Factor 10.74 pts/m

- / headwind
+ / backwind

* points and distance meters difference between gates (taken from official results)

Gate 14 - Gate 15 = 3.7 pts = 3.08m

Gate 14 - Gate 17 = 11.8 pts = 9.83m

Gate 14 - Gate 20 = 22.5 pts = 18.75m

Gate 14 - Gate 21 = 26.7 pts = 22.25m

Gate 14 - Gate 22 = 29.6 pts = 24.66m

Gate 14 - Gate 24 = 36.7 pts = 30.56m


For the base jump, I took the 4th round from the individual competition (etc. the one with the lowest inrun gate).
Data should be read as follows :
- number of jump (4 rounds from individual competition (jumps 1-4) + 2 from team competition (jumps 5 and 6)
- actual distance jumped
- wind bonus or deduction (expressed in points)
- corrected distance, if we assume jump was made under ideal conditions, 0.00 m/s (assuming of course wind factor is correct - witch it isn't but i'll talk about it later).
- In final column (=), it is the distance that jumper should have jumped - assuming the gate factor is correct - taking into account he would be on exactly the same form as in 4th round (base round).


So it goes like this :

Ammann

4) Gate 14 / 236.5m / -10.3w / 227.92m

1) Gate 22 / 215.5m / +5.4w / 220.00m = 252.58m

2) Gate 21 / 216.5m / +6.7w / 222.08m = 250.17m

3) Gate 15 / 227.0m / -12.2w / 216.84m = 231.00m


Explanation - in fourth round, Ammann jumped 236.5m from gate 14. He got headwind and the deduction of 10.3 pts, so (again, assuming wind factor is correct), he would jump 227.92m with absolutely no wind (0.00 m/s). Now, if he had exactly the same jump in 1st round - taking into account also wind factor of course - he would go 252.58 meters!!!
While actually he did 220.0 meters (corrected distance). Of course, it is difficult to expect that he would have 2 exactly the same jumps in terms of quality, but the pattern remains the same : in 2nd round, he would go 250.17 meters (28 meters more than corrected distance), and even in the 3rd round when the gate is only slightly higher there is a huge difference (14 meters) - which very likely indicates that wind factor formulas are also very wrong.

I took same calculations for Schlierenzauer, Malysz, Jacobsen and Kranjec - and it turns up that ALL of them had by far the best jump in that 4th round, when they had lowest inrun gate!

Schlierenzauer

4) Gate 14 / 230.5m / -14.1w / 218.75m

1) Gate 22 / 209.5m / +6.7w / 215.08m = 243.41m

2) Gate 21 / 205.0m / +9.7w / 213.08m = 241.00m

3) Gate 15 / 222.5m / -13.1w / 211.59m = 221.83m

5) Gate 22 / 226.5m / -0.3w / 226.25m = 243.41m

6) Gate 24 / 231.0m / +6.2w / 236.16m = 249.31m

According to this, Schlierenzauer was nowhere near his top form in first 2 jumps on Friday (28 meters less than distance he should have jumped, if he was on same form as on Saturday 4th round). And then, all of sudden, he lost his form again during team competition (17 and 13 meters less than standard set by his 4th round jump).
Also, if he kept his form from Saturday, today he should have jumped world record twice!


Malysz

4) Gate 14 / 211.5m / -10.1w / 203.09m

1) Gate 22 / 217.5m / +3.5w / 221.70m = 227.75m

2) Gate 21 / 215.0m / +6.2w / 220.16m = 225.34m

3) Gate 15 / 211.0m / -6.6w / 205.50m = 206.17m

5) Gate 22 / 218.5m / -5.2w / 214.17m = 227.26m

6) Gate 24 / 213.5m / +9.1w / 221.08m = 233.65m


It is a general thought that Malysz was very poor by his standards in 3rd and 4th round on Saturday. But, according to these numbers, his 3rd and 4th jump were actually best ones from the whole weekend! (taking into account only competition rounds)


Jacobsen

4) Gate 14 / 227.5m / -8.5w / 220.42m

1) Gate 22 / 217.0m / +4.4w / 220.66m = 245.08m

2) Gate 21 / 194.5m / +6.4w / 199.83m = 242.67m

3) Gate 17 / 230.5m / -12.7w / 219.92m = 230.25m

5) Gate 20 / 202.0m / +4.4w / 205.66m = 239.17m

6) Gate 20 / 217.5m / +2.7w / 219.75m = 239.17m

As you can see, even Jacobsen had by far the best jump in 4th round. In fact, if we are to believe gate and wind factors, his 4th round jump was 20% better than his 2nd jump!


Kranjec

4) Gate 14 / 222.5m / -14.0w / 211.84m

1) Gate 24 / 223.5m / -2.7w / 221.25m = 242.40m

2) Gate 21 / 203.5m / +2.4w / 205.50m = 234.09m

3) Gate 15 / 212.5m / -8.9w / 205.09m = 214.92m

5) Gate 22 / 219.5m / -3.7w / 216.42m = 236.50m

6) Gate 24 / 206.5m / +7.1w / 212.41m = 242.40m

If Kranjec kept his form from Saturday, today he would go over the world record! But in fact, in his last jump he only did 212.41m (corrected distance) - 30 meters less than expected.

Further, if difference between gate 14 and gate 22 is really 29.6 pts (24.66m on ski-flying hills), we would had so many jumps over 240m last few days!!!!!

So, to conclude, gate(and also wind) factor formulas are nowhere near to actual truth, since it is impossible that EVERYONE would jump BY FAR their best jump in the 4th round.
Lowering the inrun gate makes competitions much more unfair, especially when they lower it by several meters.

Any comments?

 

[Bertro]

Nice statistics, but you should take into consideration, that the wind-factor isn't correct. A jumper can jump a lot better with headwind than with backwind, the addition/deduction of points doesn't fit with the actual advantage of headwind.
The 5 comparison points were considered equally, but it shouldn't be the case, just an example:

(first point at the take-off, and fifth i.e. at 200meters )

+backwind
-headwind in m/s

jumper 1 jumper 2
1. -2 +0,5
2. -1,5 0,0
3. -0,5 -0,5
4. +0,0 -1
5. +1,0 -2

= -3 =-3
The condiitions of jumper 1 are completely different (worse) than the conditions of jumper 2, but they are calculated equally. That's not a fair system.

 

[MK23 - skiimport]

Bertro I agree with you completely, but why are they using wind factor when it is simply not correct? For example, in Planica they use also only 5 measurment points - and that means that between 0-60 meters or 180-240 meters we have absolutely no information about wind? Today poor Rutkowski didn't have any chance during his second jump, but the official results say that he had better conditions than Muotka??? Even though they waited for long time for wind to calm down, before they released Muotka, and after that competition continued smoothly.

But still, even the smallest change in windmittel also creates changes to your final result (0.01 m/s = 0.1 pts). Who's to say that Malysz didn't lost his medal only because his wind was miscalculated?? 0.4 points difference is difference of only 0.04 m/s!

Something is very wrong either way, and I believe it is both gate and wind factors. I mean, again, we would have so many world records this weekend if wind or gate factors are anywhere near to truth for Planica!

Also : if wind and gate factors are even near to truth, this is the relation between 4th round jumps of Ammann and Schlierenzauer and their other jumps (again, taking into consederation that they jumped with 0.0 m/s)

Ammann

1) 12.90%
2) 11.23%
3) 6.13%

So, Ammann's 4th round jump was 12.90% better than his 1st jump, 11.23% better than his 2nd jump, and 6.13% better than his 3rd round jump.


Schlierenzauer

1) 11.64%
2) 11.59%
3) 5.62%
5) 7.05%
6) 5.28%

For Schlierenzauer, as well as other jumpers, the relations are almost the same. And this is simply impossible. Malysz himself admitted that his 4th round jump from Saturday was simply too bad, but according to official results - it is his best from all weekend!

Theory and praxis are two different things.

 

[mlf]

thanks, mk23, for the numbers.
i can't see any reason for FIS to go through with the wind factor. winners would have been the same without the new rules and sunday's contest showed that there's not only a problem with working out the last little problems, but that the whole system is not applicable to such a complex matter.

für mich ist das fazit nach wie vor: eine berechnung, die ein komplexes system von springer/individueller stärken u. schwächen/verschiedene schanzen/wind auf ein paar punkte runterzubrechen versucht, kann nicht funktionieren. das kann dir jeder mathematiker erzählen. und eine regel die fairness herstellen soll, kann nicht in so einem ausmaß mit annäherungen und verallgemeinerungen arbeiten. man verlagert dabei die unfairness nur auf eine andere ebene. und beim skifliegen verschlimmert die regel sogar noch alles.

hier gehts eher um eine art gefühlte fairness. gewissensberuhigung gewissermaßen.

 

[Albatros]

denke es war in planica wieder show-effekt, denn warum soll man nicht merken, um wieviel besser (in diesem fall ammann) als der 30. ist.

 

[Albatros]

http://sport.orf.at/100322-1109/index.html

 

[Anne]

Fazit für mich: Idee gut, Umsetzung von einigermaßen Okay bis mangelhaft -> nicht abschaffen aber nachbessern, denn die Grundidee ist gut.

 

[The eagle]

bonuspunkte für rückenwind und minuspunkte für aufwind is ok.

anlaufverkürzung/verlängerung während einem durchgang is auch ok, wenn es sinnvoll eingesetzt wird - nämlich als letztes mittel

planloses gefummel an der länge nach jedem zweiten springer geht absolut gar net!!!!

 

[MK23 - skiimport]

FIS delegate Jelko Gros said in a interview that Saturday competiton was perfect example of how good these new rules are :häh:

Also, apparently, wind is measured in following way :

Wind is only measured at the exact moment when jumper leaves take-off table!!! Those 5 measurement points are only displaying data from the exact time jumper was on take-off point, they do not represent data from time jumper was passing near them. So, 5th measurement point only represents data that is 4 seconds old on ski-jumping hills, or 7 seconds old on ski-flying hills! So, if a wind conditions change during the flight, or if there is sudden burst of wind affecting the jumper - this is not included in calculations!

Also, those measurement distances are as far as 10 meters from the jumper, so it is questionable how accurate their readings are.

FIS Comittee for jumping has a meeting on April 9, so we will find out final decision then.
Although, it is already pretty obvious what will they decide. :

EDIT : Mr. Gros also said that by FIS calculations wind and gate factors should actually be 20-30% bigger, but they always reduce them to make them 'more acceptable' to general public.

 

[MK23 - skiimport]

www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/makihyppy/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/makihyppy/2010/04/1097778

If I understood it correctly, FIS committee for ski-jumping on its annual meeting in Zürich this weekend gave green light for official introducing of new rules from next season, which will be used in all competitions. Final decision is to be made during FIS Congress in Turkey (30th May-3rd June), but this is considered to be pure formallity.

:
:down:

 

[danii85]

www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/makihyppy/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/makihyppy/2010/04/1097778

If I understood it correctly, FIS committee for ski-jumping on its annual meeting in Zürich this weekend gave green light for official introducing of new rules from next season, which will be used in all competitions. Final decision is to be made during FIS Congress in Turkey (30th May-3rd June), but this is considered to be pure formallity.

:
:down:

stimmt..fuer die kombination gilt das gleiche. zu 99,9% gibts die neue regel in springen und kombination ab sommer. :hmpf:

 

[MK23 - skiimport]

*edit*

 

[DieandereFranzi]

wenn es beim FIS-kongress nun bestätigt wird, ist es also offiziell:

Wind- und Anlaufregel wird eingeführt
http://www.skijumping.de/news,id273,wind_anlaufregel_wird_eingefuehrt.html

gefällt mir nicht......

 

[Lila]

wenn es beim FIS-kongress nun bestätigt wird, ist es also offiziell:

Wind- und Anlaufregel wird eingeführt
http://www.skijumping.de/news,id273,wind_anlaufregel_wird_eingefuehrt.html

gefällt mir nicht......

Prinzipiell finde ich die Regeln gar nicht so schlecht, allerdings sind sie in manchen Bereichen sicher noch verbesserungswürdig.
Ich fände es allerdings auch besser sie dieses Jahr noch nicht endgültig einzuführen - auch wenn das Hin und Her in der letzten Saison auch nicht so klasse war.
Mich würde mal interessieren, was die Springer selbst jetzt nach der Saison so dazu sagen.

 

[Sharon]

so, also ich finde des schon blöd mit der regel. vor allem alleine schon wegen der rumschieberei an den gates!

 

[Arwen]

das die regeln endgültig eingeführt werden, war abzusehen und ist auch in ordnung.

was ich jedoch nicht verstehen kann ist, dass sie ohne jede modifizierung übernommen werden :neinnein:
aber vielleicht kommen diese veränderungen erst, wenn man mehrere saisons als basis hat.

 

[danii85]

Mich würde mal interessieren, was die Springer selbst jetzt nach der Saison so dazu sagen.

Dazu kann ich nur sagen: Lest Matti Hautamäkis blog. Er sagt dazu das was er denkt und damit hat er absolut Recht.
http://www.mattihautamaki.fi/en/Blog.html