U.S. Masters Rankings 1988-2001 are online for the first time
|
In 1989, National Masters News tackled “Mission: Impossible.” It published the first of 14 annual booklets devoted to listing the best marks of every athlete mentioned in its results — across all age groups and events. Jerry Wojcik, senior editor of National Masters News, was coordinator of this Herculean effort. Over the years, he was aided by dozens of compilers. They’d comb the pages of NMN and produce long columns of type, listing every runner, jumper and thrower mentioned the previous year. The seasonal lists were collated into 8 1/2 x 10 3/4-inch booklets and distributed in March, usually around the time of indoor nationals. They sold for a pittance: $5.95 at first and $8 at most. The information was priceless. But until today, most booklets resided in dusty attics. No more. Thanks to Randell Sturgeon, publisher of NMN, all but two of these books are online at our masters museum: mastershistory.org.
For larger images of these front covers, go to our gallery.
Two years are missing: 1990 and 1991. If you happen to have these books and are willing to lend them to the committee for scanning and posting, please write me.
Jerry was mindful of imperfections when he introduced the first rankings book:
The 1988 U.S. Masters Track & Field Rankings Book is the result of countless hours of work donated by volunteer compilers. Besides giving their time, they have also incurred expenses for typists, materials, telephone calls, and other costs. Several of them did not start until late 1988 or early 1989, which meant they were faced with having to dig through a stack of National Masters News issues in a month or so rather than having the luxury of dealing with one issue at a time.
So, I would like to dedicate this publication to the compilers: Larry Patz of New Hampshire; Charles Mercurio of California; Phil Brusca of Missouri, who was aided by Matt Gagliardi, Julie Schwartz, and Buffy Morgan, students at Ladue High School; Glen E. Peterson of South Dakota; and William Benson, Kathy Pierce, and Barbara Stewart, all of New York.
I should note that all of these compilers are participants in masters track & field. I would also like to thank my daughter-in-law, Wiesia Wojcik, who “volunteered” her efforts in exchange for baby-sitting time.
We will be the first to admit that the rankings are not perfect, but this has been an undertaking from which we have learned things which will make future rankings more accurate.
The problems of exclusion, misspelled names, wrong divisions, and erroneous or unreported marks should diminish in 1989 because most of the compilers are in place, and we will be able to use each others’ expertise, your input, and NMN’s resources to solve problems before the 1989 rankings are published.
Certain problems, however, are beyond our abilities to solve, specifically discrepancies in the marks of shot put, hammer, and weight throwers. As lonq as throwers continue to use two or even three different implements (for instance, the 8-lb., 8kg, and 5kg in the 60-69 divisions) rather than the specified WAVA implements, rankings will never be accurate.In the past, athletes from Canada and Mexico have been included in the U.S. rankings, but their inclusion has always raised understandable objections from U.S. residents. For 1988, identified, non-U.S. athletes have been lined out of the rankings.
I want to apologize for the variety of typr and spacing in some of the rankings, with the reminder, however, that the lists were done on whatever typewriter, word processor, or computer printer was available to the compilers.
Finally, I would like to thank Teri Ingram, Steve Lewallyn, and A1 Sheahen of the National Masters News; Haig Bohigian, TAC Masters Indoor Records Coordinator; and Peter Mundle, TAC Masters Outdoor Records Coordinator, for their suggestions and contributions. Lastly, I thank my wife, Bea, for her patience and forebearance during the many hours I buried myself in the study to bring this task to a close.
Jerry Wojcik
TAC Masters Outdoor Rankings Coordinator
For all their statistical failings, these books are a gold mine of facts, photos and inspiration. That M75 doddler a few heats ahead of you might have been one of the best sprinters in the nation in 1992. That high jumper struggling to clear 5 feet was going 6-6 a couple decades ago.Â
14 Responses
This project is magnificent! Thank you.
I am very grateful for the years of hardwork put into producing the yearly rankings. At my very first national meet in Eugene in 1994 my hubby surprised me and bought a rankings book. There was my name in print. I was 29th in the 100. I just cried. It had been a year since my third cancer surgery. Some of us do masters T&F for our health and we appreciate the wonderful people who keep the sport going. For me, this is really a life saver. My deepest thanks.
-Karen Vaughn
I’m getting the missing books (1990 and 1991) from a generous blog reader in Texas. So stay tuned for the complete set!
Having this data is wonderful! It’s like going back in time, except you don’t have deal with the inherent dangers of taking part in a physics experiment.
I have ditched my training log because I can use the current and archived rankings to keep track of my progress -umh, I mean regression- in the battle against Father Time.
This represents so much effort and love for our sport. Thanks to all!
Yes, it is nice to see our names in print! I am sure that I am not the only one in this boat…I never knew that somebody was doing rankings until like 2003 so for many, many years I did not know that I should be submitting my marks. As I look through the lists of years ago, I see that nearly all of my pr’s, that were achieved in sanctioned local meets are not listed. In many cases, I would have cracked the top 5 in my age group had they been posted. But I guess it was up to me and I didn’t know about official places to send my times.
Dear Anon,
The U.S. Masters Rankings published by National Masters News in the 1980s and 1990s were hostage to meet directors and others who sent in meet results. If the person in charge of the meet you were in didn’t send results to NMN, they didn’t get in the paper. If they weren’t in the paper, they didn’t get into the rankings.
NMN didn’t have the resources to chase down results from every meet in America in which masters competed. Nor should NMN have been expected to. NMN was well-known to masters athletes. They should have pushed their meet directors to submit results.
In any case, NMN’s compilers did an incredible job producing these annual books given the limits of technology. In my biz, the motto is “Go with what you got.”
NMN got a lot.
Plus, most results were published somewhere after the meet like the local paper or club newsletter and could have easily been sent in. If they were missing after a couple months from NMN, then it was up to the athletes to do their homework!
It’s way too late for shoulds and coulds guys. Once I discovered that you could order books with rankings like ten years ago, I ordered several years worth and then was puzzled to not see my name or times with my PR’s. I ran in USA track and field sanctioned open meets but did not venture outside my local area for the most part except a couple times in the 90’s to go to Nationals. It wasn’t until I got internet service around 2003 that I discovered the online rankings and that you could actually submit your own times and distances. So yes, I was living in the dark ages, unlike you all back in the 90’s and didn’t know my meet director was supposed to take care of NMN or I was….or even that someobody was putting together rankings every year! I take responsibility for that, it’s cool. My point is…I know I am not the only one. A buddy of mine who sprints in M40 and runs around 11.40 knows about it and doesn’t send it in because “that’s not why I do it”. To each his own. (but does that mean he didn’t run these times or runs faster than most his age?) That’s what I am saying…the rankings only reflect how many people know about it, who wants to do something about it and how honest they want to be because nobody even checks that the marks are legit. I know one country (to the North) will not print an entry until the person who ranks that event verifies with each and every meet director the mark, the wind, etc to make sure or they don’t print it. We don’t do that either. We print 100 times for example, without a wind entry. So one person with a 40mph tailwind could get ranked higher than another with a “slower” but legal time. That’s not TFN “the bible of the sport” or any other country does things.
I would like to thank USATF and National Masters News for making the free access to past rankings!
This is truly amazing information.
To “Let’s stir the pot” … unfortunately the wind marks are not always submitted to the staff that is responsible for the rankings, and not always sent to National Masters News . . . hence it is very difficult to know what the wind marks were (are) all the time . . . Also since some areas in the US have limited Masters meets
(some areas only have one Masters meet), it would be difficult to not include someone if every Masters meet that they compete in has a high wind reading. Many of the meets that I attended during 2009 had very strong tailwinds and very strong headwinds, very few of the meets were windless. Hence, I ask the question: Is the main idea to enjoy the competition, and enjoy staying healthy?
-Jeff Davison
You nailed it right on the head. We are doing this to be healthy and have fun. Having said that, Track and Field News, as well as mastersathletics.net, (the World Rankings) and virtually every European country that does rankings as well as Canada DO mention the wind reading in sprints, hurdles and jumps. We stopped doing it on the USA masters site a few years ago for some reason but if you look at many of the top times, the wind reading is readily available at the meet they ran in, Like Oshkosh this year but is still omitted as a wind aided time.
Prior to changing the rankings a few years ago, known wind-aided times were lumped together at the bottom of the rankings, but still mentioned. So everyone got their time placed. But my point simply is…it isn’t fair to place a 3.0 mps wind aided time of 11.20 for example, ranked above someone who ran 11.25 with a 0.1 wind, but that is what we do. We didn’t used to do it this way and it’s not an accurate assessment of performance. Don’t ask me…ask Track and Field News, “the bible of the sport”. They actually have a table devised that shows in a 100, a wind-aided time can take off up to a half second from what you would have run with no wind.
I’d really like to know who it is that I get in touch with to correct the High Jump rankings for the W50 2009. That’s a pretty big error and I’d sure like to have credit for my win in Lahti.
Martha Mendenhall
Wayne Bennett of Texas graciously sent me the missing books — 1990 and 1991. They are now online as well!
http://www.mastershistory.org/history/rankings.html
nice blog i really appreciate it
Leave a Reply