Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • richardh
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    The next WR progression book will be available from the IAAF very shortly. It's updated to 31/12/2002 and contains various amendments as well as (hopefully) all records set in the intervening 4 years since the last book

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >>thanks...I'll let him know how he
    >should
    >pronounce his name, it was him who
    >taught me !

    I can imagine that, too. I've
    >tried to teach a few English speakers how to
    >pronounce my name... After about five tries, I
    >always end up saying 'close enough' ;-)

    lol...I have the same problem teaching English to the Americans I work with!

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >thanks...I'll let him know how he should
    >pronounce his name, it was him who taught me !

    I can imagine that, too. I've tried to teach a few English speakers how to pronounce my name... After about five tries, I always end up saying 'close enough' ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Per Andersen
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    <Has a "Roller" ever cleared 7ft?
    On the other hand if by "Roller" you mean somebody who used the Western Roll technique then Vance Johnson jumped 7ft and I believe Stan Albright did about 7'1" indoors sometimes in the mid 70s. Not sure about the date but 7'1" sticks in my mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    thanks...I'll let him know how he should pronounce his name, it was him who taught me !

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >If you want some other trivia, Wzsola, often
    >pronounced at the time as " wuz ola", is
    >actually " show la"...

    No, it is not.
    The initial W is pronounced as well, but sounds like an F. The actual pronounciation is closer to 'fshow-wah' - good luck trying to pronounce it yourselves :-P

    Leave a comment:


  • 197hjsteve
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    has a "roller" ever cleared 7 feet ? If you mean "non Flopper", then the answer is....

    Sure, dozens of them between 1956 and 1968, and then plenty more since then. Too many to count.

    Leave a comment:


  • Twister
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    I am not much of a student on track history. Has a "roller" ever cleared 7ft?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    If you want some other trivia, Wzsola, often pronounced at the time as " wuz ola", is actually " show la"...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >Thanks for catching Wazola's mark. It should be
    >2.35. As far as the spelling of the name, I was
    >going with what was listed in the book.

    As long as we're on the subject of high jump WR holders and being nit-picky about spelling . . .

    I believe that a Chinese man broke the WR in the 60s but never got credit for it since the People's Republic wasn't an IAAF member at the time. T&FN still lists him as "Chih-chin Ni", but the modern transliteration is "Ni Zhiqin". I studied Chinese for four years in high school, and my recently-retired HS teacher recently confirmed the spelling. Remember that in China the family name comes first.

    I know it's being terribly detail-oriented, but isn't that what T&FN is known for?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >I'd like to recommend to all stat nuts out there
    >that they purchase a copy of the IAAF book,
    >Progression of World Best Performances and
    >Official World Records.

    I would love to! But I can't find any for sale. The 1991 version would be great, but I thought there was also a late-90s version. I've queried the IAAF as to the next expected publication, but of course they're no real help . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    Was Thranhardt's 2.42 indoors, off of
    >tartan ? I believe the rules had been
    >liberalized by then to accept indoor marks in
    >field events if their is no wood involved ? Am
    >a right about this ?

    I can't believe it wasn't on tartan, I never saw any wood indoor tracks in Europe.

    I've been meaning to start a thread about why the men's HJ is in a decline (although I vaguely remember a T&F News article a year or two ago saying it wasn't). The easiest answer is testing. However, I know the Germans were clean as Carlos asked me if I thought steriods were necessary in about 1981. He said they didn't think they were. Also I'm pretty sure Sjoberg was clean. Obviously our friends in the GDR were up to no good. Any opinions? Seems like most competitions can be won in the low 2.30's now and there are very few 2.35+ performances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    >Thanks for catching Wazola's mark.

    You really are a stubborn one, aren't you? It is WSZOLA, there was a freaking typo in the book. As it happens, the A key is right next to S, hence things like that do happen.
    If you don't believe me, try a Google search for both Wszola and Wazola and compare the number of hits you get.

    Leave a comment:


  • 197hjsteve
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    Thanks LTS, but that makes it even worse! How in the world could the IAAF then have been "allowed to gyp him out of that centimeter, if the bar was truly measured at more than 2.23 ! First he gets roned down to the English hieght of 7' 3 3'4", then that English heigth itself get rounded down to 2.22 ! Talk about stupidity !

    And thanks for corroborating my memory of the 7' 2 1/2".

    And being a further HJ wonk... I'll check this one too unless simeone does it first...

    Was Thranhardt's 2.42 indoors, off of tartan ? I believe the rules had been liberalized by then to accept indoor marks in field events if their is no wood involved ? Am a right about this ?

    And if so, and if this more liberal approach (pun intended) had been true in early 1961, then Brumel's 2.25 indoors in Leningrad off of dirt would have been eliminated and his subsequent 2.23 and 2.24 would not have been in the progression.

    So I will check the Thranhardt deal tonight... unless someone beats me to it.
    Also want to know about the indoor WR deal... maybe I am wrong about all this because if so how about Bubka's 6.15.... or was that on wood ? Must have been.

    Leave a comment:


  • LongTimeSubscriber
    replied
    Re: WR High Jump Progression from 7' to present

    Thanks for catching Wazola's mark. It should be 2.35. As far as the spelling of the name, I was going with what was listed in the book. It could be that that was the way it was spelled on the world record application. T&FN also spelled it without the 'a'. Thomas did set a WR enroute to 2.22 of 2.195. A footnote seems to indicate that the mark was actually measured at 7 3 7/8 = 2.2322m but then reduced to 7 3 3/4 = 2.2290 under then AAU rules. The IAAF then reduced this to 2.22. I checked the recap of the meet in T&FN but there was no mention, at least in its July issue, of this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X