If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Like DJ I was pretty stunned by the time (the world record then was only 3:16). Checking out the web site (via google, hey buy that ipo!) they listed their school records and they do have the record as 3:22.8 but in 1929.
Like DJ I was pretty stunned by the time (the world record then was only 3:16). Checking out the web site (via google, hey buy that ipo!) they listed their school records and they do have the record as 3:22.8 but in 1929.
How did you go with that? $85 to $470 today![/quote:2vkmfx6d]
I continually find that if something happened that can't be found in the internet it's like the tree that fell with no one around to hear it.
The concept of research has changed dramatically, and while I don't understand all the tools that today's college students have, they don't understand many of mine, either.
Microfilm? Newspapers--on paper? Archives? Telephone directories. Not part of the modern lexicon.
Considering that about 90% of the material in print has not been scanned those who rely solely on the internet are missing out on a lot.
They'd once had a great distance runner, who broke the Ohio mile record as a sophomore with 4:15.3 in 1966. But back then if you ran the 2-mile it was all you were allowed to run, and so their stud had never run it. But paging through the state XC meet program once, I saw his name listed as winning the championship in 9:43.7...and I figured that deserved to be listed as the school record for 3200 meters.
I found that many, MANY, so-called records are just that. Many track and field coaches throughout the decades have done a poor job at not only recording CORRECTLY the particular performance of an athlete.......... Track and field "records" are littered with inaccuracies, let alone actual lies.
Kurt
In my early teens the 11.8 100m that I lost in the lean morphed into a much better record when the spirit duplicator printed the .8 as a .3 the following year. It was still there when I finished high school despite my protestations every year that "I was there, it wasn't 11.3".
It seems clear that the LJ is the t&f event that is most resistant to "innovation" or technical progress. There have been no dramatic stylistic innovations in it at all (obviously nothing remotely comparable to the flop in the HJ), and of course no technical innovations (nothing like the fiberglass pole in PV, etc.). It is remarkable that Jesse Owens would still be a good, national-class long jumper today, nearly 70 years later.
The oldest T&F recond at my high school is also the LJ.
Roger Moore 21' 11.5" in 1961
Second oldest: 3200m Frank Turner 9:28.1 1978
I was there 84-88 and we sure as heck didn't measure in meters, so I guess this is a 2M time.
I was there 84-88 and we sure as heck didn't measure in meters, so I guess this is a 2M time.
This made me wonder, did high schools at one time briefly adopt metric measurements?
My high school had a guy who was the first to vault 14' in Texas back in '63. It was at the state championship but his mark was 14' 1 1/2" or better known as 4.30m. He was my coach in HS and when I asked him why he went for that instead of 14' he said that it was the next bar in the progression.
I was there 84-88 and we sure as heck didn't measure in meters, so I guess this is a 2M time.
This made me wonder, did high schools at one time briefly adopt metric measurements?
My high school had a guy who was the first to vault 14' in Texas back in '63. It was at the state championship but his mark was 14' 1 1/2" or better known as 4.30m. He was my coach in HS and when I asked him why he went for that instead of 14' he said that it was the next bar in the progression.[/quote:3upslnhn]
I think there are two much more likely possibilities than a metric measure back in 1963.
1) The progression was going 6 or 3 inches at a time with the aim of bettering the existing meet record by 1/4 or 1/2 inch, hence the odd setting at 14-1 1/2.
2) The pegs only went up in full inch intervals, but bar sag or the placement of the bottom of the uprights relative to the top of the box either raised or lowered the bar from the desired height and what might have been set at 14-3 was actually known to be 14-1 1/2. They would have been subtracting 1 1/2 inches from each bar setting. Or whatever the known difference was.
Again, those just seem to be the likely possibilities. I'd bet an awful lot against it being a metric setting.
re the above mention of progression upwards of the bar other than to a height you would expect, we ran into this at the Indiana State meet in 2008. 2 guys were left ,and they both had cleared a height I believe 3 inches below the meet record. They asked to have the bar raised 4 inches, so they could shoot at a distinct NEW meet record, but since there were 2 guys left, not just one, they were mandated by the rules to stick to the normal 3 inch progression. They missed 3 times so no matter.
re the above, I may have the exact mathematics wrong, but the point is... when there is more than 1 competitor left, there is no flexibility in the next height attempted.... you follow the prior progression.
I do know they measured after the jump then so maybe that was it. He may have been going for 14'2" or 14'3" but the post jump measurement was 14'1 1/2".
I don't know if there was another vaulter still in the competition at the record height so he could've been forced to the height above 14'. I vaguely remember him setting a meet record en route of around 13'9". A 6" progression would put it at 14'3" for the next bar.
Comment