Earth to WMA: What universe is your record books operating in?
Masters Mole 3321 writes: “The world masters records have finally been updated. Last March 6, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, our own Joy Upshaw absolutely blasted the 200 meters, showing her classic form and power to hit the line in 26.24 FAT, demolishing the world indoor W50 record of 26.52 (Phil Raschker). A few minutes earlier, in W75, Barbara Jordan had lowered the world indoor mark of 37.19 by scampering home in 36.80. Within the next hour, Bill Collins broke the world indoor mark for M60 by running 24.32. Less than a month after the conclusion of the Albuquerque meet, Bill’s name was in place as the M60 record holder.” But not Joy or Barbara’s.
So Joy is the American record holder in the indoor deuce, but isn't the world record holder depite a superior time. What am I missing?
My source continues:
Neither Joy nor Barbara ever had the pleasure of seeing their name in the record listing for 200. With the latest update of the world records and with Bloomington fast approaching, we can conclude, once and for all, that the world records of Joy and Barbara have been denied, as the marks of 26.52 (Raschker) and 37.19 (Mazzenga) remain in place. Is the explanation that the FAT did not work for Jordan and Upshaw but was miraculously restored for Collins?”
Would be interesting to know what the rationale was, especially in light of the fact that after considerable delay in posting the marks of Joy and Barbara as “pending American” they were indeed so posted and, at the annual meeting, became official American records. But still they are not shown as world records, almost one year after the fact.
To quote a famous Aussie philosopher: Stop the insanity! Since Sandy Pashkin is both WMA and USATF masters record chairs, she should be able to fix this. Her email address is spashkin@q.com. Suggest she resolve this immediately, if not sooner.
20 Responses
Very interesting post, Ken. The world marks had not been updated in a long time, and I just assumed that when they were finally updated again that the names of Joy (W50) and Barbara (W75) would be on it as holding the world indoor records in the 200.
At Berea last summer I took the liberty of introducing Barbara Jordan as the world indoor record holder in the 200. After all, if Bill Collins had gotten his Albuquerque 200 mark accepted, surely the acceptance of Barbara’s mark was only a matter of time.
Now we are about to go to Bloomington, and I see that I was wrong. Barbara’s record was never accepted, and neither was Joy’s, even though they got accepted as American records (as your mole indicates above).
I guess when Joy comes to the line for the 200 at Bloomington two weeks from Sunday I am supposed to announce her as the American indoor record holder but not the world record holder, even though her American record is faster.
Not to put too much pressure on Joy, but what if she runs 26.45 at Bloomington? That would break the WORLD record of 26.52 by Phil Raschker but not the AMERICAN record of 26.24 by Joy. Hard to explain. Oh, well.
Win some, Lose some?
Helly Visser’s W75 WR for one mile, run in June, 2011, has now been posted on the WMA list. BUT Ed Whitlock’s M80 marathon of 3:15:54, run in October at the Toronto Waterfront, is still not listed, though it is shown on CMA lists. FYI, the record Ed broke was his own, the 3:25 from Rotterdam now shown on the WMA list. Ed is the records coordinator for road running for CMA, and his documentation, review of forms etc. is immaculate. Who is doubtin his performance? The Toronto course is out-and-back, finish line within allowable limits from start. In fact, Ed was one of the advisors when this race was created, and he ensured that it would meet requirements for WRs, because he planned to set a “few” – as he did!!
I would like to be included in this discussion of lost records. I broke my own World Record of 9.21 sec in the W70 – 60m with a time of 9.13 sec in Albuquerque. Why was I not included in “record pending?”
Now I have both the World Record of 9.21 and the 2011 #1 ranking in the 60m with 9.13. Go figure.
Yes, Kathy, it’s a bit hard to figure. In March 2010 you ran 9.21 in the 60 in Boston for a world mark. One year later, you had the chance to run in Albuquerque at altitude and on what seems to have been a faster surface.
Your time in Albuquerque was 9.13, or 0.08 sec faster than at Boston. Perfectly reasonable and within expectations. If anything, I am surprised you did not run 9.09 or 9.10.
Sure, there were some timing problems in Albuquerque, but the relevant issue is: “Were there any problems with Kathy Bergen’s time specifically?” If no problem was found, then it was a record.
6.98 is listed as the 60M American record for M35, but Affly Pettis (6.82) and Etroy Nelson(6.89) both ran faster times at the 2011 Indoor National Championships. Something tells me that we will never be sure whether or not all of the sprint times from Albuquerque were legitimate.
As we all know, altitude usually enhances sprint & jump marks, but the number of record performances from that meet seems suspect. To paraphrase Robert Thomas’ post from last year, “come on people it’s almost as if some of you had jet packs strapped to your backs!”
Larger question is: Where is the accountability? We can vote a president out of office but not a masters records chair. Go figure.
Another question: As I recall the WMA Records committee has had the same chair and records manager for quite a long time. Also records coordinator for USATF Masters, as I understand. How did she attain that position? Applied? Volunteered? It was explained to me once that no-one else was willing to volunteer for the position. If this is so, perhaps we now have other persons willing to take on the responsibility, maybe with the proviso that they would have lots of support and assistance from the other members on the records committee. Six names are listed, but I am not aware of any of them being actively involved in any of the decisions of this “committee”.
Kathy – you are a great sprinter! Go for it in your upcoming indoor meet.
To Kathy: Why weren’t ANY of the 60m records set in 2011’s indoor championship meet included? They are still listed as “under review” on the USATF website. http://www.usatf.org/events/2011/USAMastersIndoorTFChampionships/results/hometowns.asp
I know, I know, we got an “explanation” and an apology from our chair. The apology was no doubt sincere but the explanation was horribly inadequate. When will the results be posted –if not with times, then at least with places??
Sandy, where are you? Please weigh in. I’ll have to ask her next time I see her. Maybe I can get Vin to bring it up…probably not. Maybe Shivaun Black, OTCM president can find out what the REAL deal is. Seems rather simple to me, especially when compared to taking out a complex ovarian mass. 🙂
I think there is a common denominator here…….like the elephant in the room that no one sees or wishes to name.
It has been this way for years.
I’m another person who apparently got shortchanged at the 2011 Albequerque meet. I set M90 WRs in the pentathlon and the 60M hurdles that have not been recognized by WMA. However, in my case it was my own records that I bettered, so I don’t feel the pain quite as much.
Sorry about that, Ralph. Yes, I see that you improved your record in the 60 hurdles from 15.84 (Boston 2010) to 15.39 (Albuquerque 2011), and you raised your pentathlon record from 3689 (Boston) to 3952 (Albuquerque).
Your Boston world records will stay, while one can assume that your Albuquerque records will be lost forever. After all, I doubt that your Albuquerque records will be revisited at this point, almost 12 months after they were set.
I think it is pretty clear that the timing did not work properly in Albuquerque. We might not be able to fixed that. Question is should any of the sprint times from Albuquerque be recognized as records?
That raises an interesting point, Milan. After a quick review I found 10 performances in the Albuquerque 2011 sprints that were recognized as records. In some cases the performance was recognized as an American record but not a world record even though it bettered the world mark.
Is your point that a select committee should revisit this issue and perhaps remove some of the new records? These are the 10 I found that achieved recognition:
M35 200 Antwon Dussett 21.67 (American)
M60 200 Bill Collins 24.32 (world and American)
W50 200 Joy Upshaw 26.24 (American, not accepted as world even though superior)
W75 200 Barbara Jordan 36.80 (American, not accepted as world even though superior)
M60 400 Bill Collins 55.68 (American)
M50 400 Mike Sullivan 52.44 (world and American)
M90 400 John Means 1:46.94 (American)
W35 400 Latrica Dendy 56.46 (American)
W70 400 Jeanne Daprano 1:20.57 (American)
W50 4 x 400 USA squad 4:36.11
Among the sprint/hurdle records I know of from Albuquerque that were not accepted at all were every mark in the 60 dash and the 60 hurdle mark by Ralph Maxwell (above).
Would be nice to have a report from an expert panel as to why 10 sprint marks were accepted, others (probably more than 10) were not accepted, and some were accepted as an American standard but not a world record even though superior to the world standard. That would make for interesting reading.
Pete, you surely agree with me that some consistency would be nice…
My sympathies especially to Barbara Jordan. Her 200m indoor AR set in 2011 has yet to be ratified as the WR as it should have been. Now Christa Bortignon has run a faster time of 35.56 at the indoor meet run in February on the same facility in Kamloops that was the site of the 2009 indoor championships. IF this is recognized – and I do know that all the paperwork has been submitted, photo finish and all – then Barbara will have been “robbed” of the satisfaction of seeing her performance listed as a WR. Well – maybe she’ll run faster in Indiana and beat Christa’s time for another go at getting ratified. Good luck to both of them and, of course, to Joy Upshaw. Hope she can improve her time, too.
Barbara “was robbed” – of her WR – by slopping timing and/or record keeping. And it is frustrating and disrespectful to those who train hard to attempt to break existing WR and AR.
One of the unspoken problems with this record mess is that for older competitors – do it again the next year is often not possible. At some point one’s times, throws, jumps, etc – become less and less. It is a simple fact of aging. Will Barbara be able to run faster in 2013 than she ran in 2011? Not likely. She will be 2 years older and lemme tell you folks – there is a sharp downward slope in performance in the 75+ age group.
I remember a great performance by a women in the 80-84 age group in the 10k at a WMA summer meet a few years ago. The lap counting was a mess – her record was denied and one of the meet officials was heard saying “She is a fine athlete, she can do it again. For this women – it did not happen again – ever.
Barbara ran her fantastic time at altitude in Albuquerque – it is an advantage to sprint at altitude. When will she have the same opportunity to try again at altitude and at the same age? Never.
A contest between Christa and Barbara would not doubt bring out the best in both of them, unfortunately that will not happen in Bloomington as Barbara will not be there.
@Milan (no. 15):
Milan, not only would consistency be nice, it is extremely desirable. I believe that records set at nationals are records, that there should not even be an application process. If meet management can’t provide the conditions for setting a record at nationals, then why are you having national championships?
We seem to have gotten away from this, however, in our last three indoors (Landover, Boston, Albuquerque). Albuquerque is the most intriguing, as we can see there were three classifications used:
A. The mark is a record (whether world or American).
B. The mark qualifies as an American record but not as a world record, even though it surpasses the world standard (Barbara Jordan, Joy Upshaw).
C. The mark does not qualify as any sort of record (all the apparent records in the 60 dash, both of Ralph Maxwell’s records, Mary Kirsling’s W85 American record in the 800, any others I have not discovered) even though it is superior to the listed record.
One way to look at this, Milan, is that this is a very sophisticated taxonomy. Somehow we were able to assign what looked at the time to be new records into three different categories. In order for me to fully accept this classification system I would like to know what the decision rules were for assigning new “records” to these three classes.
I wonder whether this three-part classification system will be used for Bloomington and, next year, in Landover.
“You can do it again…” can’t agree more with Mary than this. 2 yrs is a looong time to keep up, not to mention injuries or health problems that interrupt any good intentions.
75 plus is not only on the birth certificate, though I hoped it would be.
But what’s the saying:
Age is a matter of mind, if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.
We don’t mind, we just can’t get better.
Mary and Christel – I’m not sure how my comment on Barbara being robbed of her chance on the WR lists led to your comments on the probably changes in TWO years. I was referring to the 2012 indoor event – this month, I think.
I appreciate that you don’t want to miss a chance to refer to the increasing importance of the record-keeping people getting it Right Right now because of the decreased likelihood of us being able to repeat, much less improve, a mark in the year to come, never mind two or three years down the road. As a 74-year-old who’s been competing on road and track since 1975, I know all about declining performances.
My real concern here, however, as I think Mary was getting at, too, is the ongoing snarling, missing, ignoring whatever of WR performances. FYI, I understand being “robbed” of having a performance listed. A WR time that I ran in June of 2003 was not yet posted when another woman ran faster the following May. Of course we all know that most of our records will be exceeded, but it’s nice to have a WR performance recognized at least within two months which, in Canada, should be the limit.
Here a WR performance is forwarded by the coach or provincial records person to our CMA board. It is reviewed at the next Board meeting – held at least once a month. Once it’s ratified as a Canadian record, it should go immediately, through our NCCWMA region rep on the WMA committee for their next “meeting”. A question here – does this committee ever “meet”? Conference calls can work! If they don’t, then how are the decisions made at this level? I’m not being naive here. I understand where one of the barriers is right now. Surely we can come together and demand an improvement to the current situation.
That said, I think I will stop commenting on this situation – work to be done here in my local road running community.
Leave a Reply