Statistics [I promise, it has to do with pole vaulting]

[birdi_gurlie]

So...I have to do a project for my statistics class. Has to STATISTICALLY prove something.
Anyone have any pole vault questions that can be statistically proven? Or anything about track in general? Ideas?

[KirkB]

How about statistically proving that fiberglass poles provide a "statistically significant" advantage over steel and bamboo poles?

To prove this, you could chart (plot on a graph) the Men's WR (or Olympic Gold Medals) over the past 100 years, and show the steep height incline in the curve in the 1960s, as fiberglass rapidly became popular.

You could show when steel took over from bamboo, and how the curve didn't change much then (~1950), compared to in the 1960s.

The reason I suggest this is that there's lots of data on the internet to plot your curve and compute your proof of "statistical significance".

Hint: There's other factors that you'll need to consider. You may need to eliminate the advantage of synthetic runway surfaces, lighter spikes, and possibly training methods, diet, or height/weight/speed/strength of the athlete. For example, synthetic runways were invented approximately the same time as fiberglass poles, so how do you know (with statistically-proven confidence) that all of the new PV WRs since the 1960s weren't because of the faster runway?

You might also consider plotting the increase in PV WR compared to other events ... like 100m or HJ, to show that those had a much more gradual incline over time. This might be how you filter out the synthetic surface, diet, and spike issues from the equation, since you can assume that the WR 100m improvements must be largely due to these other factors (factors unrelated to the material used in manufacturing a pole. Or harvesting - in the case of bamboo!)

Just an idea.

Kirk

[birdi_gurlie]

That actually might be a good idea...lemme talk with my teacher. [Hehe...he's my vault coach too! ]
Thanks!
Only thing I could think of was helmets...but seeing as that would be hard to find information about [there really HAVEN'T been as many deaths and such as people say...plus, most head trauma injuries haven't been publicized. There wouldn't be many ways [for a HS student] to find out.
But I also have to see what my group says, seeing as we have to decide between multiple people.

Also, how might you eliminate the technology of the new technique? What about the height/weight/speed/strength of an athlete? :S the 100m would be a good idea for the others, but especially not technique.

[powerplant42]

What about an average height winning big meets instead of the WR?

[birdi_gurlie]

Well, the issue is FINDING the big meets...and what qualifies as a big meet. Though, mainly the big meets from the past, not today, though that's still an issue. Big meets in the US? What about the world? Etc...

[powerplant42]

How about any meet with a certain amount of prize money for the winner, plus the obvious ones like the World Championships and the Olympics?

I'm sure becca could hook u up with the right people/stuff if you want to see results from every meet like that in the past few decades.

[birdi_gurlie]

Hmmm...idk.
That may work.

Becca, can you help, if necessary?

[KirkB]

PP, if you're talking about the winning heights of big meets ... NCAA ... AAU ... USATF ... European Championships ... re my suggestion of the "statistical significance" of the "Fiberglass Era" then I think it would be further "proof" that suddenly all these big meets had a SIGNIFICANT increase in the winning height ... therefore it MUST have been due to fiberglass.

Is that what you mean, or are you suggesting something completely different than my suggestion?

Keep in mind that all of the big meets also improved their tracks ... from cinder to synthetic ... in the 1960s, so you still have the issue of figuring out WHY PV winning heights increased so rapidly.

Of course, we know it's because you can grip higher on a flex pole, but the point is to PROVE that it wasn't because of the improved track conditions, or because of better athletes. It's PARTLY due to better athletes, but to what extent?

That's the statistical challenge for BirdyGirly to figure out!

Kirk

[birdi_gurlie]

I'll try! [My group may not agree, idk...or be knowledgeable enough about track to know what I'm talking about!]

[powerplant42]

Yeah, my idea was just spinning off of yours...

I like what you said about other events... Maybe try the other jumping events instead of sprints for comparison.

[birdi_gurlie]

That's good.

Again, any ideas on how to take out the variability of how the new technique [Petrov model and such] has changed the world of pole vault? Or would that be included in the new pole technology, because the new technology allows for us to vault in a different manner because of the new poles?

[KirkB]

Yes, the latter.

You don't want to make it too complicated. You want to focus on a single problem to solve (prove).

If you did this for HJ, then you might want to prove that the Fosbury Flop / Brill Bend technique was statistically proven to be an improvement over straddle techniques. There's probably a steep incline in that curve around 1968-78. (Dick Fosbury won the Gold in 1968, in case you weren't around way back then like some of us. )

But since you're a pole vaulter and not a high jumper, you should just stick to one variable - the material used in the pole.

Besides, how would you ever classify each vaulter by model? Even if we all wanted to help you, we could never PRECISELY classify every vaulter in history as belonging in the Petrov camp or the "other" camp.

And even if you decided that Bubka was the prime Petrov example, and you tried to statistically explain WHY he set so many WRs because of his technique, how would you statistically PROVE that? How do you know he wasn't just faster and stronger than all the other vaulters? We've been debating that one for years on PVP. You see the problem?

Kirk