Track record 40 years later

[Natasha]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/sto ... ry/Sports/

"Forty years later, Phillip K. Shinnick has his record."
Good article

[MJD]

Re: Track record 40 years later

"...although meet officials, athletes, journalists and others who were present denied that the leap was assisted in any way..."

Good for him but is just their word acceptable? It seems hard to believe. How do they know there wasn't a brief gust right when he jumped?

[Guest]

Re: Track record 40 years later

That's an incredible happy end...
A real lesson of patience.
May be a good subject for a movie?

[Guest]

Re: Track record 40 years later

Can't see the IAAF ratifying it, especially in the present political climate.

[stevehj197]

Re: Track record 40 years later

>Can't see the IAAF ratifying it, especially in the present political climate.

I strongly disagree with the decision but I support it. But then I also support the not guilty verdict on OJ. The system speaks....

[Guest]

Re: Track record 40 years later

>>Can't see the IAAF ratifying it, especially in the present political
>climate.

I strongly disagree with the decision but I support it. But then I
>also support the not guilty verdict on OJ. The system speaks....


Steve, I understand your OJ reference (I agree even though I think he did it) but not the first. I strongly disagree too but definately don't support it, I think it's plain silly.

[stevehj197]

Re: Track record 40 years later

It's worse than silly, it is RIDICULOUS. USATF shows their wonderful wisdom once again. But by "support it", I mean, it's done, so that's it... just like OJ. That's why we have Records Committees and that's why we have juries. Equally ridiculous results in these 2 cases.

[Guest]

Re: Track record 40 years later

>It's worse than silly, it is RIDICULOUS. USATF shows their wonderful wisdom
>once again. But by "support it", I mean, it's done, so that's it... just
>like OJ. That's why we have Records Committees and that's why we have juries.
>Equally ridiculous results in these 2 cases.

I actually typed in "ridiculous" but on looking at my post couldn't decide whether I'd spelt it correctly or not, so replaced it with "silly"! (brain is in a fuzz because I've been doing a budget all day...apart from when I check in here!)
How's your work computer Steve?!

[stevehj197]

Re: Track record 40 years later

still down.

[billthedog]

Re: Track record 40 years later

Corder Nelson in TFN, June '63: "[Shinnick] started with a foul jump of 26-10 1/2". But even that did not impress the official in charge of the wind guage (sic), for he took no reading on Shinnick's record jump. . . . No wind velocity had been taken. People blamed the official, but he had been told to record only for Ralph Boston. If the truth were known, it is almost certain the wind was above the allowable 4.47 mph. Races before and after his jump . . . had aiding wind of 5.112 and 5.76 mph. The flags were standing straight out about 20 seconds after his jump, indicating a wind of about 6 mph. And both of Ralph Boston's great comeback jumps (27- 1/4" and 27-2 3/4") were aided by winds of 6.12 and 8.55 mph."

[stevehj197]

Re: Track record 40 years later

>Corder Nelson in TFN, June '63: "[Shinnick] started with a foul jump of 26-10
>1/2". But even that did not impress the official in charge of the wind guage
>(sic), for he took no reading on Shinnick's record jump. . . . No wind
>velocity had been taken. People blamed the official, but he had been told to
>record only for Ralph Boston. If the truth were known, it is almost certain
>the wind was above the allowable 4.47 mph. Races before and after his jump . .
>. had aiding wind of 5.112 and 5.76 mph. The flags were standing straight out
>about 20 seconds after his jump, indicating a wind of about 6 mph. And both of
>Ralph Boston's great comeback jumps (27- 1/4" and 27-2 3/4") were aided by
>winds of 6.12 and 8.55 mph."

Unless this was all shown to be completely untrue in the presentation to the USATF committee, it shows again the idiocy of USATF... just a feel-good decision after 40 years, that tarnishes the legitimacy of all records. Sad.

[Powell]

Re: Track record 40 years later

He doesn't 'have the record' yet. Maybe the USATF recognized it retrospectively as a US record (the article doesn't explicitly say whether they did), but it's the IAAF that recognizes world records. I very much doubt they will buy this 'eye witness testimony' crap.

Anyway, if the guy believed he had a case, why the hell did he wait for 40 years to present it ??? To me there is no explanation other than that he was waiting until everyone has forgotten the facts.

[Guest]

Re: Track record 40 years later

Right. I feel for the guy and he did get screwed. But really, there's no "case" here to be made that couldn't have been made more convincingly 40 years ago. This dodo won't fly.

[Per Andersen]

Re: Track record 40 years later

I can't believe that Shinnick really wants to be awarded the record this way knowing there was no wind gage. He knows the rules. Anyway there is no way the IAAF is going to buy into this nonsense.

[stevehj197]

Re: Track record 40 years later

"With malice toward none, with charity for all"... I still cannot fathom how this has been approved as an "official" US record. Does anyone know just what was presented to the Records Committe, and then in turn their rationale for approval ? And/or are we getting ahead of ourselves here, or has it actually been fully approved ?!