My point is valid. There is always somewhere hotter and just because they try and play through it doesn’t mean that is a good idea or one that should be copied?
Here’s some reading for you:
True. But keeping wicket for 8 hours in the middle of ramazan while fasting is no picnic.
In England, as ticker noted, it does not usually get very hot; so when it does it affects them more than it would people acclimated to high temps. If you live in a hot clime, 85 degs is nothing. But in London that would be once in a century phenomenon.
When you have not had hot weather in a while, and then it does get hot, it takes 10-14 days to acclimate and be able to resume your exercise (running for example) with the same intensity.
85 is not once in a century. You’d expect to hit that several times in an average summer. 90 is rarer, you might not hit that two years in a row, but it does happen.
Bear in mind our humidity levels are often high as well.
No I don’t have it backwards. My point is that, as you say, there are too many variables when trying measuring temperatures in direct sunlight, and yet that is just what they have been doing.
By local variables I meant variable from place to place across a wide region. At Wimbledon we’re talking one single local, indeed tiny and restricted, area that affects both players equally. No place else needs to be considered. The temperature that affects the players is the sun temperature and is easy to measure accurately.
Whether the temperature elsewhere is in the shade or in a heat zone is utterly irrelevant. We’re measuring the playing court. That’s easy to do. And is the one and only correct temperature to use.
True. We’ve have an unusually cool June over here. Although these temperatures aren’t that uncommon it was quite a sharp rise in a short space of time.
As DeptfordX says, the humidity is high. I’ve been in far higher temperatures in the South West of The USA, but it was a dry heat and less uncomfortable.
Of course, as TheMightyAtlas says, we are bunch of namby pamby crybabies. This time last week I was moaning because it was too bloody cold…
I wonder if London is affected by the same issues that effect Seattle and other big cities in the Northwestern U.S.: a general lack of air conditioning (little point to having it if you only need it three weeks a year) and an abundance of older housing stock that isn’t weather proofed and often hasn’t been updated.
Grass might have evaporative cooling on a low humidity day, but England with low humidity ? The grass also has to be quite dry to play tennis on it. Otherwise the grass is easily torn out/off and it all turns to mud in no time.
Yep (and I suspect we have more older buildings than anywhere in the US). Offices often have air con, though in the old buildings it’s usually not very good, and it’s extremely rare in homes, even new ones. It’s simply not worth the expense and space. We just open our windows, use fans and moan.
I was there in 1995, when the papers shouted that the temperature was the highest since 1687 or some similar year. Nobody seemed prepared. It was worse in Edinburgh at the Fringe Festival. One performance was literally in an attic. The resulting sweat could have irrigated California. In restaurants you had to ask for ice in a drink and that resulted in - one cube.
By U.S. standards the U.K. remains in the 19th century.
Well, not really. The UK, at least the south, has historically been incredibly temperate. The summers of 1995 and (I think 1992) and the winter of 2012-2013 were huge outliers. When I was a kid, there was quite literally no need for air conditioning. There was never a day when our house was too warm to be comfortable (too cold without the heating on, sure.) And I say that as someone who is sensitive to 1-2 degree adjustments to the air conditioning here in Florida.
We don’t suffer the ‘dog days’ of your home state, nor the heat of Nevada in summer or the snow from The Great Lakes.
But we’re British. We invented The Weather and have been bellyaching about it long before you Colonial tea stealing upstarts existed as a nation.
19th century indeed. I’m really rather miffed at that comment.