Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Track record 40 years later

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    - As a member of the Records Committee, it was indeed rejected unanimously after over an hour of presentation and discussion
    - The rule at the time - as now - did require measurement of the wind (though pre 1930's or so there was a provision for signed affidavits - but irrelevant in this case)
    - Blame the Men's TF Committee, not the entire organization for being 'stupid'
    - I didn't get to those meetings but the Men's TF Committee was the group that overturned it. It will be interesting to hear a report on how that was presented.

    Steve Vaitones

    >>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 ?!<

    Friends of mine who were at
    >the USATF Convention tell me that the Records Committee unanimously rejected
    >this application. But the final say on records is with the various sport
    >committes. The Men's Track and Field Committee voted to accept it and so it
    >stands approved. Absurd, of course. Shows just how stupid USATF can be. Now
    >we'll find out how stupid the IAAF can be, but I agree with everyone else who's
    >posted on this--it will be a non-starter with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    This a strange one. Over the last 5 years I've received a number of letters from Dr Shinnick, who was clearly very upset about not having his 27'4" approved. I quoted him the "T&F News" report on the Modesto meeting which also appears in an earlier post on this subject, but he continued to assert that his mark was ok. I kept being reminded of the legend of King Canute attempting to prevent the tide coming in by use of willpower.
    When Shinnick appeared at Modeto he had a PR of 25'5 1/2 - which he then beat by 1'10 1/2 - truly a Beamonesque improvement (when he jumped his 29'2 1/2" Beamon improved by....1'10 1/2 !!). Many observers of Beamon's jump reckoned that the 2.0 wind reading was very generous, while there was no reading for Shinnick. It may be that Shinnick's jump was wind legal, but we'll never know for certain. What is certain is that Don Potts reported that there was excessive wind in races just before and just after the 27'4", and that, together with no wind reading should perpetually relegate Shinnick's mark to being an interesting footnote to track and field history

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    Correct. The REAL issue here is not a 40-year old maybe/possibly/mighthavebeen record--it's the official process of decision-making that's led to this absurd situation. What happened and who made this decision?

    Leave a comment:


  • stevehj197
    replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    now let me get this straight.... USATF has a Records Committee that rejected it...; then the "higher up" (?!) T & F Committee approved it over their heads ??!! I know one thing... if I had been on that Records Committee I would have immediately resigned as they all should. What a laughingstock organization.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    >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 ?!<

    Friends of mine who were at the USATF Convention tell me that the Records Committee unanimously rejected this application. But the final say on records is with the various sport committes. The Men's Track and Field Committee voted to accept it and so it stands approved. Absurd, of course. Shows just how stupid USATF can be. Now we'll find out how stupid the IAAF can be, but I agree with everyone else who's posted on this--it will be a non-starter with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    Steve, I think it's a moot point. Per is right, the IAAF will never agree (and rightly so). Congrats on your award!

    Leave a comment:


  • stevehj197
    replied
    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 ?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Per Andersen
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevehj197
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • billthedog
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • stevehj197
    replied
    Re: Track record 40 years later

    still down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?!

    Leave a comment:


  • stevehj197
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X