Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shinnick's 1963 world record

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Shinnick's 1963 world record

    Has anyone heard if USATF has retroactively granted his 1963 world record jump yet (Modesto Relays, 27'4")? The case for this was made this last week in Greensboro at the USATF meeting.

  • #2
    Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

    >Has anyone heard if USATF has retroactively granted his 1963 world record jump
    >yet (Modesto Relays, 27'4")? The case for this was made this last week in
    >Greensboro at the USATF meeting.

    I've read about this, and as much as it sounds like a nice thing to do, and despite the fact that various people are now ( 40 years later) saying there was " no wind", there are 2 undisputed facts:

    1. There was no wind guage reading made on his jump
    2. The rules state that there must be a valid wind guage reading of 2.o mps or less.

    Case closed.

    And although all these people attest that there was no wind, I believe... w/o checking for sure... that Boston had a 27 2 3/4" wind aided jump the same night... which has to cast considerable doubt on all those protestations that there was no wind on Shinnick's jump.

    Thie whole thing is just plain silly.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

      You know ... you may well be right, Steve. Maybe it is "case closed". But if so, it is curious, then, that: 1) USATF agreed to hear the case, without dismissing it prima facie on the basis of the rules. Why would they even have a review/appeal process? 2) A man with the integrity of Ralph Boston himself appeared last week before the USATF committee to testify in support of recognizing Shinnick's mark. He doesn't strike me as one who is disingenuous, or likely to lie. But, as I note above, you're likely correct that it is a "case closed". And another instance of how fundamentalism isn't confined to religion alone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

        >You know ... you may well be right, Steve. Maybe it is "case closed". But
        >if so, it is curious, then, that: 1) USATF agreed to hear the case, without
        >dismissing it prima facie on the basis of the rules. Why would they even have
        >a review/appeal process? 2) A man with the integrity of Ralph Boston himself
        >appeared last week before the USATF committee to testify in support of
        >recognizing Shinnick's mark. He doesn't strike me as one who is disingenuous,
        >or likely to lie. But, as I note above, you're likely correct that it is a
        >"case closed". And another instance of how fundamentalism isn't confined to
        >religion alone.

        Doug, believe me I am NOT trying to be a spoilsport here ! But after 40 years ??!! This is no more than a feel-good scenario. All these people are experts on remembering what the wind was like 40 years ago ?? And remember, Boston himself had a wind aided jump in the same competition. And USATF probably agreed to hear the case because it's part of the process, nothing more than that.

        No, we will never know if the jump was wind aided or not. The officials screwed up, 40 years ago. Life is unfair sometimes. Maybe Shinnick got a bad deal.

        But pretend it is 40 years ago... hbow fair would it be to the existing record holder IN ANY EVENT if they just waive the requirement for a wind reading, because people on the sidelines say " the wind was not excessive".

        Boston & Co. are just being nice nothing more.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

          Apparently he has been protesting for years, but just now his protest was heard. The story is that they only had one wind gauge at the meet, and only brought it over to the LJ pit when Boston was jumping. the rrest of the time they kept it on the straight. The 100 that was run at approximately the same time was legal, but it can't be verified if it was exactly the same time. Wind readings from the meet were very varied. Some legal some excessive. It was not approved by USATF, but will be passed on to the mens record comittee, for further review.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

            >Apparently he has been protesting for years, but just now his protest was
            >heard. The story is that they only had one wind gauge at the meet, and only
            >brought it over to the LJ pit when Boston was jumping. the rrest of the time
            >they kept it on the straight. The 100 that was run at approximately the same
            >time was legal, but it can't be verified if it was exactly the same time. Wind
            >readings from the meet were very varied. Some legal some excessive. It was not
            >approved by USATF, but will be passed on to the mens record comittee, for
            >further review.

            As Ross Perot said once, "This Dog Won't Hunt."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

              hjsteve has it right. I remember reading about this years ago. It's a terrible story and clearly the officials screwed up big time...but, that's the beginning and end of it. What possible way can there be now to come up with "true" wind information? It won't happen--his jump can never be proven to have been legal.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                I agree with Steve - the idea of ratifying the record is ridiculous. The reason why it wasn't ratified in the first place is just as valid now as it was 40 years ago. IMHO the guy is just hoping for a decision based on sympathy, not on analysis of facts.
                BTW, there was also a German jumper who jumped further than the WR around 1960, but as the wind reading wasn't taken, the judges tried to hide the fact by giving a fictitious reading of something in excess of 2 mps. I can't remember the exact details of the case - it's described in IAAF's WR progression book.
                Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                  >I agree with Steve - the idea of ratifying the record is ridiculous. The reason
                  >why it wasn't ratified in the first place is just as valid now as it was 40
                  >years ago. IMHO the guy is just hoping for a decision based on sympathy, not on
                  >analysis of facts.
                  BTW, there was also a German jumper who jumped further than
                  >the WR around 1960, but as the wind reading wasn't taken, the judges tried to
                  >hide the fact by giving a fictitious reading of something in excess of 2 mps. I
                  >can't remember the exact details of the case - it's described in IAAF's WR
                  >progression book.

                  Think it was Manfred Steinbach... my memory tells me he beat Owen's record by a centimeter. Don't remember the rest of the stuff you mentioned, about a phony reading... interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                    My original question has generated some heat, I can see, as well as some interesting historical "facts". For my part, it was just a simple question about what USATF and its mens records review committee has decided. Also for my part, I assume that the USATF and its officers and committees were responsible and competent to decide whether or not any case deserves review. And I think they can be responsible and competent in reviewing any purported "facts" of the case. That's why we have a review process ... right? It doesn't appear to me that USATF, or the appellant, or any of those who support the presentation of the case can fairly be accused of being silly, or ridiculous, or have impugnable motives.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                      >My original question has generated some heat, I can see, as well as some
                      >interesting historical "facts". For my part, it was just a simple question
                      >about what USATF and its mens records review committee has decided. Also for
                      >my part, I assume that the USATF and its officers and committees were
                      >responsible and competent to decide whether or not any case deserves review.
                      >And I think they can be responsible and competent in reviewing any purported
                      >"facts" of the case. That's why we have a review process ... right? It
                      >doesn't appear to me that USATF, or the appellant, or any of those who support
                      >the presentation of the case can fairly be accused of being silly, or
                      >ridiculous, or have impugnable motives.
                      Doug, th elast thing I intended was to "generate heat." Sorry if I started anything like that. But I think USWATF agreed to "hear" the case as it would look inflexible, etc. not to. What's the harm in listening ? I have no problem with that.

                      But as to the rest of it.... it has been said by me, and agreed to by others, in previous e mails so I will not repeat any of it.

                      Peace and love to all everywhere.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                        Steve -
                        Thanks for your note. Agreed.
                        All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
                        Doug

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                          Made the NYT:

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/sport ... &position=

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Shinnick's 1963 world record

                            Shinnick has the memory of an elephant and this story (seems) to have more lives than a cat. What's the point???

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X