Originally Posted by li0scc0
Here is what is interesting.
#1 - actually I could argue that the old method of measuring is more accurate. Measuring serve speed as it crosses the net is more what the returner is actually facing. If Roddick hits a serve 140mph and it is 128mph as it crosses the net...the serve returner is NOT seeing a 140mph serve, he is seeing a 128mph serve (or thereabouts). Obviously it is more 'exciting' saying Roddick is serving 140mph...because he is....but what is the returning really facing? How fast is the ball going? Certainly a complex issue, measuring at the net is close to the midpoint between the server and the returner, and is a reasonable means of measurement.
#2 the old guns were highly accurate. If we want to say the measurement point is inaccurate, then fine. But to say the guns were inaccurate means they might be +/- 5 mph off, which they were not. The guns themselves were accurate.
WOW. THIS is what YOU find interesting? LOL.
1.Ridiculous. Why measure at the "midpoint". Do you understand how the velocity changes? There is no compelling reason to measure at the net. One could make a much stronger case for measuring at the highest point or at the receiver's position (or as close as possible), HOWEVER, no speed measurement actually reflects the experience of the receiver EXCEPT as a relative benchmark for comparing between serves. By the way, the receiver DOES not "see"(depending on what you actually mean by that...I doubt you know...considering the illogic in this post). The receiver WILL return a ball about 70-80mph. However, that again, is virtually meaningless given the constant rate of change (velocity) of the ball, EXCEPT as a common comparison benchmark
2.WOW. Bizarre. The standard convention for recording serve speeds is to try to record the maximum speed. That is what the majority wish to discover, and assume is being recorded. The guns ARE innacurate at doing that. One must look at the purpose of the system or device as a whole. If one wished to legalisticallly and irrationally argue the point, all devices are "accurate" when reduced to the level of pure physics. However, as a complex device, engineered for a purpose, the device is innacurate.
It's hard to believe somebody is actually trying to publicly argue such silly points. Talk about not wanting to admit they were wrong....