Julie was honored last summer, too.
Besides the
Sonja Friend-Uhl sub-5
mile AR, two other American records were set last weekend — in the M60 hep at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and W35 weight throw at Providence Career and Technical Academy in Rhode Island. At the master hep nationals,
Rodney Atherton of Florida scored 5519 points to beat the listed AR of 5393 by
Doug Osland three years ago. His marks were 8.78 in the 60, 5.11 (16-9 1/4) in the long jump, 11.53 (37-10) in the shot, 1.57 (5-1 3/4) in the high jump, 10.02 in the 60 hurdles, 3.40 (11-1 3/4) in the vault and 4:00.65 (1000 meters). At the New England USATF Masters indoor meet,
Julie Williams-Tinkham threw 15.51 (50-10 3/4) to beat the listed weight throw AR of 15.35 (50-4) by
Marilyn Coleman in 2014 at Budapest worlds. “She also competed in the shot put and super weight throw. In 2017, Williams-Tinkham was named the August Athlete of the Month after breaking the American Record in the 35-39 age division for the super weight throw,”
said New England USATF. Here are the
men’s hep results and
women’s hep results. Here are the
New England results. Rob Jerome took his usual
incredible photos at Kenosha.
20 Responses
Ken et al –
This was not Julie Williams-Tinkham’s only pending American Record she has achieved this 2017-2018 Indoor season. On January 12th, at the 7th
Annual East Coast Indoor Invitational meet, she threw the Super Weight (35 lbs for W35-39) a distance of 10.02m, crushing the listed AR of 8.71m
by Marilyn Coleman from back in 2014. I’m not sure if this will be ratified or not, since she was one of only 2 women entered in the event. However, at
the 2018 USATF East Region Indoor Championships, she did throw the Super Weight a distance of 9.73m, and this event had 6 women entered. Either way,
she has had a terrific Indoor season thus far, and has a couple of meets yet to go.
The Twilight Throwers are justifiably proud of our new American Record holder. By the way, the AR throw was witnessed by Julie’s 5 year old daughter, who was last seen running around Providence, RI with her Mom’s 3 gold medals draped proudly around
her neck!
Very interesting comment, Bob, about a terrific young thrower. I’m certainly glad that her daughter was so proud of her mother.
Regarding the possible loss of her 10.02-meter mark because there were only two women entered, I believe the rule of “three or more” is inappropriate for masters T&F. I can’t imagine that Julie obtained any benefit from being one of just two throwers.
In contrast, a different kind of rule, the one about wind speed, is appropriate for sprinters, hurdlers, and horizontal jumpers, as an excessive wind improves their performance.
I believe that just as there is a “masters exception” that allows men and women to run together and set records there should be a “masters exception” to allow even a single competitor to establish a mark in a legitimate meet.
What if at the upcoming nationals in Landover we have a 77-year-old woman entered in the 60-meter hurdles who is assigned lane 4 in a field of three women? She feels fairly confident about setting a record, but just before she goes into the blocks she finds that one of the two other women hurt herself warming up and will not compete.
Will the woman in question go faster because she’s in a field of two? I doubt it. Then why should her record be thrown out?
Ken, I would point out that Emil Pawlik had scores of (5657) in 1999 and (5697) in 2000 in the M60 heptathlon and both exceed Doug Oslands and Rodney Athertons scores. Waiting on a reply from Jeff Brower as to why Emil Pawliks 2000 score is not the listed AR.
Peter –
You make a great point about the fact that there was really no benefit derived from there being
only 2 throwers competing in the event. The argument could be made that with only 2 entrants
in the field it is more of a hindrance than a help since the time between throws attempts is cut
down so drastically. It then becomes more like “throws aerobics” since there is precious little time to recover before your next attempt!
Also, this was the first meet I have attended where the officials enforced the new 30 second rule –
the competitor having only 30 seconds to initiate and complete the throw once your name is called
to the circle. This would only add to the rushed feeling that one would experience in a shortened field.
I can only surmise that the original reason for a 3 competitor minimum for record purposes would be
to discourage “drummed-up” backyard competitions. However, what’s the difference if someone gets
pulled from another event just to round out the field so that the competition qualifies for the record attempt? I agree that it just might be time to review the rule which requires a minimum number of competitors for record purposes.
Well, Bob (no. 2 and no. 4), I guess great minds think alike, as I was imagining the same thing. Having to hurry through a field event because there are very few competitors is going to be either (a) a hindrance or (b) neutral. There’s no way it can be helpful to one’s performance.
This all refers to USATF Rule 262.3, which reads in part: “At least three competitors……..shall be bona fide and have participated in the event in which the record purportedly was established.”
This is fine for open competition, where it’s very important to avoid the appearance of a “made-up event,” but it’s not good for masters.
Broadly speaking, one of the ways that a group can attain legitimacy is to “do what the big boys and girls (open and Olympians) do,” but we don’t always want to copy those athletes. For the straight hurdles, for example, our men run 80, 100, or 110 meters, while the “big boys” all run 110.
If you have many age groups, different standards for the different groups, etc. you need different rules. Speaking of “bona fide”, how many times has a third person been added to a masters track race with the sole intention of meeting the 3+ requirement? If the added athlete drops out (intentionally) after 20 meters, is the term “bona fide” even appropriate? I think not.
‘At least three competitors’ is as far as I know a USATF rule, not a WMA one.
Response to my friend Bob Cedrone (#4). It is going to be interesting to see how the 30 second limit works with the hammer. I didn’t see problems indoors with the weight, as long as the thrower was alert. With the larger cage for the hammer, more walking distance, and a little more set-up time prior to throwing, we will see how 30 seconds works outdoors, particularly if the official makes the second call quickly as the tape reader is leaving the cage with the tape still in the way.
And what about if two consecutive throwers in the order are sharing an implement?
For example, with the indoor Super Weight, I’ll bet very few active competitors, besides John Seto, have a set of Super Weights…at meets with this event, everybody shares one or two implements. So- thrower #1 throws, and let’s say it is a sector foul or a cage foul or no mark. Meanwhile, thrower #2 is called- but- he or she has to wait for the implement to be retrieved from the sector before they can even step into the ring!
Suppose thrower #1 in an outdoor hammer event was Bob Cedrone, with a long toss of 48 meters or so….it will take awhile for the volunteers in the sector to bring that implement in for thrower #2 to be ready to throw.
Bob & PVA – officials must now give the competitor a verbal AND visual signal to the competitor that all is ready for the trial to begin and the period for that trial shall commence from that moment. (If the competitor doesn’t have his/her implement, because it has not been returned from the previous thrower, officials will not start the clock) You then have 30 seconds to start the trial. If the time lapses once the competitor has started a trial, that trial should be allowed.
Please let’s give our officials some credit. I’ve never seen an official who started the clock before an athlete had his/her implement, but I suppose it could happen. If it does the athlete should file a protest to the meet referee. It would surely be upheld.
As far as flow, officials should be telling the next thrower in the order to move into the cage (but not the circle) while the measurement is being taken. That way the athlete is poised to enter the circle as soon as his/her name is called. I’ve seen this done at quite a few meets and is what I have been telling athletes to do for some time when I’ve been a flight coordinator (even without the 30 second rule it moves the competition along). It is how we will be instructing the throws officials to conduct the competition at the upcoming indoor meet in Landover.
peter van aken –
The Head Official at the Providence meet was Keith Johnston, an excellent and well-respected official who runs a great circle. He was a collegiate Hammer and Weight thrower so he is extremely familiar with the idiosyncracies of the events. Keith called the thrower to the circle but did not start the stopwatch until the thrower was ready to step into the ring. Very professional and athlete-friendly.
I give respect and appreciation to all of the officials, and I realize that this new rule will be used with the good sense and competence that the officials have shown already, especially regarding my flawed and exaggerated example, involving two consecutive competitors sharing implements. Mea Culpa.
It was brought to our attention today that there is provision in the IAAF version of the rule for discretion for the size of the walk. For instance, for javelin throwers who are crossing the track for a full run-up. This is apparently not part of the USATF rule but I’m sure refs always have discretion.
The relevant passage is in IAAF 180.17:
“The Judges and the Referee in particular must be fully
aware of the current competition environment when deciding when to start the clock or to “time out” and call a failure.
Particular circumstances which should be taken into account are the
availability of the runway for an athlete’s trial in High Jump and Javelin Throw (when Track Events are being held simultaneously in the same competition area) and the distance for athletes to walk to and through the cage to reach the circle to take their trial in Discus Throw and Hammer Throw”
Jerry, I like to go into the cage on the side, out of the way, while the measurement is going on. But I have had some officials get royally pissed if I went in front of the cage door before the second call. I’m an official also, and I play things smart. I give the good officials credit. Thank goodness we have them. Then there are those who I wonder how they were able to get out of the house in the morning without getting lost, and they last looked at a rule book when it was on stone tablets. Those are the ones who I worry about.
If we can noticeably speed up the progress of throwing competitions, perhaps we will have more success in lobbying to have six attempts rather than the four attempts offered in entirely too many meets, primarily Senior Olympic meets?
The IAAF passage referenced in #14 above was pushed out to all USATF Certified Officials yesterday in the Officials Newsletter for February. Hopefully they paid attention.
Thomas [# 15] brought up a valid point. There are some very good officials but also some could stand additional training. I see it a lot at Senior Games where qualified officials are in short supply so they take anyone who is willing to help.
To move the field events along in a timely manner requires a complete team to mark, measure, record and retrieve the implements and that typically means five to six people per throw. This also applies to the jumps. Usually no problem at the Nationals but smaller meets seem to struggle to get enough officials and crew.
Michael (#18) … the lack of officials is why I often identify myself as an official at meets and volunteer to assist in throwing flights after I am finished with my throws. Very rarely get turned down.
Thomas (#19) I do the same.
Leave a Reply