How many of the 18 WRs at Albuquerque should get an asterisk?
USATF reports more records galore at New Mexico indoor nationals. Can anyone top the meet of Bill Collins? He set an M60 American record Friday in the 400, a world record Saturday in the 60 and a world record today in the 200 — 24.32 seconds, which crushed the listed indoor WR of 24.85 by his friend Charles Allie at Boston last year. So many incredible marks, so little time. But a question for the record: How much did the mile-high altitude contribute to the WR spree? Could Bill have beaten the 60 WR by a hundredth of a second at sea level? Could the throwers have heaved the weight so far at Boston? Also take my shameless poll on the Athlete of the Meet. Of course, this is comparing apples and aardvarks, but what the heck. Let’s see who was most impressive in thin air.
In his M60 debut at nationals, Bill Collins set three American records, two of them WRs. This shot and others are posted on usatf.org.
Here’s the Sunday summary for posterity:
ALBUQUERQUE – The female throwers were the stars of the day with multiple records in the weight and super weight throws as the USA Masters Indoor Championships wrapped the final day of competition in Albuquerque, N.M.
The three-day meet featured athletes ranging in age from 30-96 in a display of speed, strength, and endurance for all ages. Track events ranged from 60m to 3,000m, while field events included the full range of indoor jumps and throws. A total of 63 American and 16 World Records were set, and two World Records were equaled.
Kay Glynn upped her W55 record in the vault.
The 2010 overall USATF masters athlete of the year, Oneithea Lewis of Oakland Gardens, N.Y., had an outstanding day in the throwing ring. She started the day with a throw of 16.68m/54-08 in the weight throw, which surpassed the listed World and American Records in the W50 division by more than a meter. She followed up with another record setting performance in the super weight, where she recorded a toss of 11.72m/38-05 which broke a sixteen year-old American Record.
In the weight throw, Mary Roman, Florence Meiler and Audrey Lary all threw further than the listed American Record. Roman of Norwalk, Conn., also set a World Record with her toss of 10.88m/35-08. to win the competition. Meiler of Shelburne, Vt., was the runner-up in 9.47m/31-01.00 followed by Lary of Frederick, Md., in 9.44m/30-11. Betty Jarvis of Aberdeen, N.C. also established World and American Records in the W95 weight throw with a winning toss of 5.10/16-08.
In the super weight throw, the following women set American Records: Myrle Mensey (Saint Louis, Mo.) W60 10.74m/35-03, Susy Hess-Wojcik (Eugene, Ore.) W65 6.10m/20-00, Audrey Lary W75 7.25m/23-09, Mary Roman W75 6.54m/21-05 and Betty Jarvis W95 2.99/9-09.
Audrey Lary carried her success over to the triple jump runway where she also set an American Record in the W75 triple jump where she hopped, skipped and jumped 7.35m/24-01.50 to win the national title.
Bill Collins of Houston, Texas continued to prove that age is not a barrier as he ran 24.32 in the M60 200m setting both American and World Records. Antwon Dussett of Peoria, Ill., clocked the fastest time of the day of 21.67 to win the M35 title and break the American Record.
Joy Upshaw jumped to a quick lead from the blocks and never looked back as she clocked a quick 26.24 in the W50 200m to set a new American and World Records. Renee Henderson of Merchantville, N.J., tied her American and World Record time of 25.47 in the W45 200m. Barbara Jordan of South Burlington, Vt. won the W75 in 36.80. Her time smashed the American Record by almost two and a half seconds and set the World Record. Audrey Lary set her third American Record of the day with her runner-up performance of 38.58.
Milan Jamrich of Houston, Texas opened the day by breaking the listed American Record in the M60 high jump by clearing 1.67m/5-05.75, also earning him the national championship crown.
Albuquerque local Lisa Valle rounded out her sweep of all three events she was entered in with her win in the W40 800m in a time of 2:25.83. Steve Gallegos of Golden, Colo. ran to a huge lead in the M55 to win with an eleven second margin. He claimed the national title in the M55 race in 2:07.08, and his time was only three hundredths of a second shy of the listed American Record. The only record from the 800’s came in women’s 85-89 division, where 88 year-old Mary Kirsling of McIntosh, N.M. ran 8:11.20 to set an American Record and win the national crown.
The last event on the track, the 4x400m relay, delivered many impressive Records. The team of Julie Hayden (Ashburn, Va.), Cheryl Bellaire (St. Davids, Penn.), Kathy Haubrich (Shakopee, Minn.) and Tweety Wolf (Watertown, Minn.) set the American and World Record in the W50 relay in 4:36.11. The Houston Elite Track and Field “A” comprised of Robert Cozens, Robert Lida, Gary Sims and Mack Stewart crushed the World Record in 4:50.36, more than 45 seconds faster than the previously listed World Record.
For more information on the 2011 USA Masters Indoor Championships in Albuquerque, including the complete results, visit www.usatf.org
Kathy Martin (No. 4) was focused at start of a distance race.
54 Responses
If you were there you would still be coming down from the HIGH of watching what these athletes did! No question people were ready to go and it was a beautiful thing! Altitude schmaltitude!!!! Oh, I cant wait to hear from the scientists!!! haha You know who you are!
DNA of Bill Colins should be sequenced. I would ike to have the mutations he has 🙂
Nice jump Milan!
Is anyone else confused by the statement in the above USATF press release about Audrey Lary setting an American record in W75 200 meters with her “runnerup” performance to Barbara Jordan?
Barbara set the World and American Records in the race; Audrey came in second in the same race so how did she set an American record too?
Maybe both women BROKE the current American Record with their times, but it doesn’t seem accurate to say that both SET new American Records. The record belongs to Barbara.
The USATF used the same type of language to describe their performances in Saturday’s W75 60 meters. Barbara won, but somehow both she and Audrey (who came in second) set records.
Albuquerque thin air may have helped the sprinters, jumpers, and throwers set numerous records, but the athletes had to be ready to perform at a very high level. I doubt that any of them were sitting around at home thinking – oh well – I do not need to train the thiner air will do it all. I congratulate all of them on very high quality performances. If thin air is an advantage they were all ready to seize the moment and go for it.
In the middle distance events – it was “a whole ‘nother story. Even those who ran well (relatively speaking) had to deal with the chest crushing lack of oxygen. My times were pathetic – not only because of the altitude but also because of lack of quality training – so it was in good part me – and not just altitude. I collected two PW . Over and done – move on – outdoor season is just around the corner and WMA and Nat Masters Outdoors are both a sea level.
The track was wonderful, the officials excellent, and the hospitality fantastic. As much as I would love to run again on that track – I will do so only when they set it up at sea level.
Peter Taylor was his usual excellent self – and I hope he can get some rest and recover from what must have been a very arduous three days.
And BTW – I do not see any asterisks after the results for the open USATF meet held there the prior weekend so that is just a silly comment.
Thanks New Mexico USATF – great meet.
As for me – not every again will I compete at a track meet or any competition for that matter at altitude unless I can strap a canister of oxygen to my back.
Looks like the 400m with timed sections was properly displayed. Fastest section won. First person to cross the line should be delared the winner.
Personally I felt this was the best indoor event I’ve ever attended. You could see the entire track from the stands, the warm up area was exceptional with plenty of places to run & stretch.
You can’t beat the location with nearby hotels within walking distance. There were some timing equpment issues,but the meet was very well run with friendly staff.
Some distance runners didn’t like the altitude, however some others I spoke to had PRs, so they were obviously prepared. We’ll see how IN is next year, but I’d go back to ABQ every time.
Just for the record, thin air does not effect any of the throwing events in any considerable way. As a matter of fact, in the discus and javelin it has been found that at sea level, in a colder atmosphere or more dense air, creates better lift on the discus and javelin. Research at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics reported in the “American Journal of Physics” that a discus travels about 5 inches farther on a cold winter day at 32 degrees than on a hot summer day at 104 degrees. Air is also denser at sea level than high altitudes. A discus travels 7.5 inches farther in Rome, Italy, 120 feet above sea level, than in Mexico City, 7,300 feet above sea level. Bud Held also wrote in a previous post in Masterstrack.com on November 2, 2005, ” It turns out that altitude helps some events and hinders others. The lower gravitational effect has relatively little direct effect, but the resulting thinner air has a significant effect. The noticeable benefits are to the sprinting events up through 200 meters, the long jump, the triple jump and the pole vault. The hammer gets a slight, but measurable benefit. The shot benefit is barely measurable and the high jump benefit is not practically measurable. Altitude is a detriment to the javelin, discus and distance running, The loss of aerodynamic lift is much greater than the gravitational gain for both javelin and discus. The loss of oxygen is a significant hindrance for all distance running events over 400 meters. A number of studies have been made relating sprinting times to both wind and altitude. A relatively recent one is available on the Internet at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0007/0007042.pdf with formulae, charts and a bibliography.” Seems like only the sprinters up to 200 meters, long and triple jumpers and pole vaulters found a measurable edge…Tisk , Tisk…I say strip them of their medals and records and banish them for life!!! LOL…Well, if you do that, then do you put an asterick to the discus thrower that sets a record who happened to throw at sea-level, at a cooler temperature and may have had a favorable throwers wind as well?? Those are three factors in one competition that could significantly make the discus go a lot further…I say live and let live!
I see the M50 hurdles was just as I plained it to go so we have some new M50 hurdlers,Im still upset that I could not make it,but due to death in the famiely,I could not have been there congrades to all the masters that was there.keith McQuitter M50 HURDLES
see you all in the out door season
Okay, I don’t mean to cry foul here, but there are some times that are as much as .7 (not .07)below the world record–in the 60m event. There were reported timing errors throughout Saturday morning in the short sprints. Several Northwest athletes have yet to see their “official” times—they were given their seed times as their “official” heat times. I truly hope these timing errors did not produce inaccurate times and that this was just one incredible meet in which to participate.
Hi Milt, that link does not work…
Ken you mentioned comparing apples to aardvarks, but that comparision is why we have age-graded tables. Using Jess Brewer’s online calculator http://free-ideas.org/track/mtf/AGT.php I have found two performances that broke 101% age grading, both 60m world records by Bill Collins and Liz Palmer. I only did spot checking so others should check performances in their area of interest to see what other outstanding age grades appear.
I have competed in Boston, Albuquerque and Bloomington, IN and in my opinion, the Bloomington track is a better venue for all running events from 400M – 3000M because the turns are more gently banked. The track in Albuquerque is great for the 60M and 200M because of high banked turns and the altitude.
Also, this weekend was a perfect example of why the 200M is no longer contested at the IAAF World Indoor Championships. The IAAF figured out a long time ago that the 200M ways always won by athletes running in lanes 5 & 6.
Here’s a YouTube video of Stacey Nieder’s amazing series to setting a new AR in the W40 HJ. Her consistency is awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZK9hk0P35U
…200M WAS always won by…
Also, the 43.86 400M and the 2:56.16 4X400 from the ’68 OG, stood as WR’s for almost 20 & 24 years respectively, so there is STRONG EVIDENCE that altitude can have a positive effect up to 400M.
Why is it that the track community (elite and masters) obsesses on disqualifying wind-aided records but looks the other way with altitude-aided marks? The research shows that an altitude 8-flat 60m is aided by .04sec at 1500m. I analyzed the men’s 60m performances at the elite nationals a week ago and found that 9 of 15 competitors beat their qualifying marks and their average improvement was .06. Two improved by .13. There were records set this past weekend that are unlikely to be broken at sea level for 20+ years. With due respect to those who set records in Albuq., is it fair to future masters’ sprinters and jumpers to have to chase records that were artificially enhanced by the altitude effect? [As an aside, I personally improved .13 on my 60m time (7.93 vs. 8.06) and I’m sure most of that was due to the altitude.]
Let the future records chasers go run at altitude!
I was out of breath pole vaulting. 😉
Scott, it’s correct that there were timing errors but they were in the preliminary rounds of the 60 meters. Once the timing officials saw what was happening they got to work on fixing the problem. The meet was delayed by an hour, maybe more while the timing system was checked against repeated firings of the starters gun. The ladies waited around for a long time before we finally got going on the finals in the 60 meters, but everyone understood what was at stake. The display clock didn’t work during our races but the timing system did. I had a friend who hand-timed a video of my 60m race several times and came up with a sub-eight second result each time which would tie with my FAT time.
Let’s be real, some of the times are very suspect.
If not I guess I’ll be able to run faster than I can
now in 5 years. Not bloody likely!
Liz, I have seen you run in person and your 100m time from last summer equates to your 60m time. The really disparate times were in the M70, a tie at 7.52 (true, in the heats). But these times have been posted as official. These times are almost .7 faster than the gentlemen have run previously, and almost .9 seconds faster than their finals—plus .3 faster than the M65 world records set just after.
P.S. Nice article in this months NMN by the way
@Scott…I looked at the 2 times in question and you’re right. They are obviously incorrect. Did anyone videotape the heats? Hand timing of the video could verify the error. Perhaps Ken can put out the request?
Using Jess Brewer’s on-line calculator my 9.13 in the W70-74 60m equates to an open time of 6.457 or 107.17%. If the timing system had been working or if there had been a scoreboard, I would have know right away that it was a world record. As it was I had to wait for the results to be posted.
Let’s not leave M55 sprinter Tom Smith out of the honors. He completed the rare sprint tripple gold as did Collins but not in record fashion.
I think it is probably a good thing to have meet in differant places that give slight edge (however percieved)to the differant groups within our sport, Never met a friendlier group than the NM locals and the low key attitude at meet was the best. Altitude was trippy and wierd.
Ran on a “B” team Baylor 4×400 there back in the old days…..went 3:08…never ran the 400 again in college!! Altitude changed my thinking from that day on!! LOL…
Calvin Smith’s 9.93, Pietro Mennea’s 19.72 and Lee Evan’s 43.86 were all run at altitude, and asterisk or not, they were all recognized as official world records. Why should masters times run at altitude be any different?
Anyone that wants to attempt to beat the times from last weekend has every right to find a venue at altitude and GIDDY UP! Albuquerque & UNM regulary host all-comer meets on the very track that we all just ran at and the Air Force Academy hosts indoor meets that are masters friendly.
JStone–Just because elite records at altitude have been recognized as official world records doesn’t change the fact that the performances were artificially enhanced. I notice that T&FNews lists altitude records with an “(A)” and a separate low-altitude record. We could do the same. And your response doesn’t explain why wind-aided performances aren’t considered legal. Following some people’s logic, an outdoor 100m record time with a 25mph tailwind should be approved. Hey, everyone has the right to find a meet with hurricane winds so they too can break a record! Come on. We disqualify records because a distance is two-inches short but we look the other way when athletes use altitude to improve their time by tenths of a second. At the least, we should recognize altitude records with (A) and also list the low-altitude mark.
See my NMN False Start column of July 1999, “‘Wind-aided’ My Foot.”
http://ortmanmarchand.com/fs2.html
to stephen…the times at altitude are not artificially enhanced…i would argue that they might be ” naturally enhanced “…and speaking as a long jumper / hurdler…there have been many times when i and my co competitors endured strong winds in our face, and in the hurdles particularly, it makes for a much more difficult run. i wonder at what measure do we recognize “altitude ” as for me, i’m searching for a meet somewhere in the andes with both altitude and high winds …!
OK, I accept “naturally enhanced.” But the key term here is “enhanced”. The current 2.0mps for “wind-aded” is an arbitrary number. It seems to me that the official track bodies should select an arbitrary altitude–say 1000m–and declare any mark made at an altitude above that as altitude-aided (A).
Here’s my concern: I would hate to see athletes with resources going from Colorado Springs, to Flagstaff, to Albuquerque, to Mexico City, to Cuzco–to find meets where they could set sprint, hurdle, and jump records.
Stephen, it takes a lot more than altitude to set a record.
This is weird. It was a great meet full of great performances. Certainly everyone is amping it up big time with Worlds being held here in a few months. I know a couple of my friends who broke world records trained harder and were in the best shape they’d been in in years…and enough under the record times and over previous distances that there was no way it was all about the altitude. Kind of raining on people’s parade here. Let’s see how our record breakers do at Worlds!!!! I think more records are going down!!!!
Leigh has a good point (#34).
Lahti Worlds was sort of cold and rainy; Sacramento is probably going to be very hot and sunny. That difference will probably affect performances as well.
We can’t asterisk every performance because of environmental differences.
I agree with Leigh too! Most of us are in the best shape of our life and focused like never before. Having the World Games in the U.S. is a major goal that has many people preparing for this season like never before.
I think we should follow the regulations for elite records. However, if we decide that records at a higher altitude should not be recognized, we should not have National or World Championships at those locations. I am always suspicious of records set at mini competitions and therefore I plan my peak performance to coincide with the National Championship. I am not interested in attending a National Championship where you cannot set legitimate records.
Third person to agree with Leigh! The weekend prior to the national meet I ran a 55m race in Fresno. My time was 7.63 seconds and Fresno is at sea level. In Albuquerque it took me .23 seconds to run 5 meters further. That appears to be a realistic comparison. I’m not denying that altitude can be a beneficial factor; but I think the affect on this meet is being exaggerated. There are a lot of people who are training hard and the World Championships are in their sights.
Oops, sorry! Fresno has an altitude of approx. 300 feet, not sea level. But still not “Albuquerque altitude.”
All I’m arguing for is consistency. We disqualify outdoor 100, 200, LJ, and TJ records for excess wind. And other than nationals and worlds, records require submission of applications that must have the starter, chief photo judge, wind-guage operator, and referee sign off. And the distance has to have been certified by a surveyor! Given the extensive research demonstrating the positive effect of altitude on sprint times, isn’t ignoring altitude inconsistent with the rigor we try to maintain re: our records?
Not to try and upset the apple cart, but the analogy Liz uses is very flawed. At the end of a 60m race it should take you her an approximately 13 sec 100m sprinter closer to .6 secs to cover 5 meters, Usain Bolt at his best takes .44sec to run 5 meters, your logic just adds to the controvery already stated. Your numbers from your own performance actually scream for an altitude enhancement.
Thanks for that endorsement, Allan. Very generous of you.
Mr. Robbins, a simple suggestion would be to follow the rules that are in place, and the current IAAF & USATF rules recognize record performances at altitude.
To expand on Karl Hawke’s point, if adjustments were made for all environmental factors, then track surface (tartan vs mondo), track hardness (soft vs firm), curve radius, rain, excessive heat, excessive cold, humidity & barometric pressure (heavy air vs thin air), shoe weight & spike length and uniform wind resistance (singlets & shorts vs bodysuits & tights) might all have to be considered.
Finally, the IAAF usually takes action when open WR’s are consistently set under conditions that provide an unfair advantage. As most of us know, the 200M is no longer contested at the IAAF Indoor World Championships because the outside lanes on most banked tracks provide an unfair advantage.
I’m always amazed at how rude and mean-spirited some of us can be to our running peers. Someone sets a record, the correct response in a public forum visited by that person(s) is “congratulations.” To do otherwise – to publicly question the validity of a record they worked so hard to achieve – says a lot more about the person doing the questioning than it does about the record. I’ll buy any of our new record holders a beer, anytime anywhere. As for their detractors: hey guys, get over yourselves … And hope the rest of us have short memories the next time you feel like celebrating a major personal accomplishment.
JStone: First, I’m arguing that IAAF and USATF (elite, masters, etc.) should just do what T&FNews does–note separate records. Second, I’m unaware of research dealing with the environmental factors you mention. However, we DO have solid evidence relating to wind and altitude. Models exist that allow us to plug in distance, a time, and an altitude (or wind reading) to achieve a reliable conversion.
I’ve never held a record and never will.
But I echo Peter Magill’s comments. Anyone who broke a record deserves nothing but a “CONGRATS!” for their accomplishment.
Every single record can be help be explained by racing in ideal conditions (duh, otherwise, they wouldn’t have attained the record) whether it be a fast track, altitude, great competition, ideal weather, etc.
Get over yourselves folks and use it as motivation to go out and get a record of your own, whether that be a personal record or one of the “world” variety.
I can’t say it better than Pete (No. 44).
I train on South Mountain in Arizona — I do not know the altitude but did have a vulture circling me the other day as I lay on the desert floor. I think it thought I was dead! Life is fleeting -Have Fun and Play Hard! Sully
I’m a believer in following the rules as they exist, so I agree with the others that we should annotate equivalent to National and World records.
As for the suggestion that the altitude might wipe out record improvements for the future, we do have a little bit of history to look at. The Outdoor Nationals were held in Provo (elevation ~4550 ft.) in 1993. I remember I had a great long jump there . . . that I equaled two years later in Buffalo (elevation 600 ft). Since then only two Phil Raschker American records survive. In 1995, we held the Indoor Nationals in Reno (elevation ~4,500 ft) and eleven American records (and one Milan Tiff World record) have survived since then. Albuquerque is another 800 ft higher, but statistically, that’s not an overwhelming ripple in the course of records. Records are targets, meant to be broken.
Comment #44 nails it. “ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM.”
Yeh right, it was the altitude that helped 88 year-old Mary Kirsling of McIntosh, N.M. run 8:11.20 to set an American Record and win the national crown. Congrats Mary!! Don’t even listen to these altitude conspiracy party poopers. They probably also believe in global warming and Roswell, NM, UFOs.
Congrats to all of you who broke a record at Nationals in NM. Breaking a record is never easy (if not, we will all be breaking records) and those who did, deserve our respectful appreciation and praises.
There is a simple formula that actually works.
Take someone’s 60m time and multiply by 1.53 or
take their 100 time and divide by 1.53. If you use this formula a 10.00 100 equals a 6.53 60(world class man). A 11.00 100 equals a 7.18 60(world class woman, world class masters man). A 12.50 100 equals a 8.16 60(world class masters woman) I think during the outdoor season we will see that the numbers don’t add up. And no, altitude doesn’t make THAT much difference at 60 meters(too short). I still think there was a failure in the timing system and no one wants to own up to it.
Thanks Oscar, coming from you, that is quite a compliment.
Thank you.
Leave a Reply