In dtermining a school record, does only the first person to achieve the mark get to be called the "record holder"?

SLS

Active member
To me it seems only fair that all who achieve the same mark are co-recordholders. Others are disagreeing with me. Am I of-base or are they?
 

madman

Well-known member
I am not aware that there are any standards for determining school records. Let's face it some schools keep school records based on time for XC...
 

tmk

Member
Our school record in the shuttle hurdles is a tie. Both efforts have been listed next to each other in our record books for almost 50 years now, so that kind of set the precedent for any other ties that may come along.
 

bgtri11

Member
Yes, I think anyone who ties a record should be listed as the record holder. That is the way we've been doing it for years. Don't have too many overall school records like that, but a decent amount of class (Freshman, sophomore, etc.) records with multiple athletes with the same mark/time.
 

CedarBuck92

Active member
To me the only reason you don't list co-record holders is if there is some extremely good reason not to (IE kid sets the 110h record with a 100mph wind at his back) or if a rule change causes future attempts at the record to be completely different (IE all athletes now using girls weight shotput.)(in this case I think you have to establish a new record category)
 

CoventryTrackXCguy

Well-known member
Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
As an unofficial statistician myself who has studied actual statisticians in the sport, I can tell you without any hesitation that any athlete or team equaling an established record is recognized as a CO-recordholder. No questions about that.

Regarding Coventry's situation, which comes up frequently, the way to handle that is exactly as statisticians handled old records when the transition was made in the mid-70s for events shorter than 300m. Simply RETIRE old manually timed marks to a list in favor of new ones where the wind reading is at or below a legal reading of 2.0 mps. Because there is no way to honestly compare manual-timed short sprint performances without any wind gauge marks of the past to statistically recognized wind-legal, automatic timing marks of the present, old marks are retired. You won't find a SINGLE manually-timed performance at 300m or less on an statisticians' all-time list of performers, regardless of wind or not.

There is NOTHING controversial about comparing 10.89 FAT (assuming it was wind-legal) to a 10.8 MT without any wind gauge. RETIRE THAT MARK :)
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
As an additional note: In the 1970s, the former IAAF officially RETIRED any and all metric records below the 800m, regardless of distance, which were made without automatic timing and new ones were established. At some time by the early 80s, that was extended to all distances (except the marathon). They chose to make NO comparisons, which I think was a very wise decision. They also retired all yards distances, except for the mile.
 

Altor

Well-known member
Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
I'd put both of them on the list in this case too.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
Hand time vs FAT 10.8h is going to be 10.90 to 11.06 If it was me, I'd put one as H and one as FAT

I'm sort of a jerk about some records. I had a Pole vaulter that wanted to put the bar just 1/4" or 1/2" above our record. I made him go to the next 1" since that is a height that I've seen a bar raised to in normal competition, and because the kid who had the record did not have that choice. He made that bar and then had to go 3" above it competing against another competitor. I also gave him the choice of putting it at the same height as the record and being listed as co-record holder if he made it. He chose going 1" above and missed.

I believe we have co-record holders if there is a tie. We also have different records for the old 300h and the new 300 intermediate hurdles. Old record is faster than the new and would probably still beat the new.
 
Last edited:

mathking

Well-known member
I completely agree with other posters. For ties, all record holders should be listed. The older hand timed marks are just different. For a couple years we had a girls school record of 12.0 HT and a 12.22 FAT listed as co-records, as we figured there was no way we could know which was the faster time. Fortunately that record, along with most of the others, have been replaced with FAT times. The boys and girls 3200 records are both HT, but 7 and 6 seconds better than the FAT marks so we are comfortable with those. The only other HT is the boys 300 hurdles. Fortunately in that case the record holder also has a FAT time better than anyone else's. But because the HT is most of a second faster than the FAT, we kept the HT as the record. (We have them both listed as his performance on the top five list.)
 

Newton's Third

Active member
I agree with everything I have read. I also was big on listing both and indicating hand-timed (HT) or "yards" - "converted from yards".

Whatever you, staff, and administration agree upon works because records are not official and do not follow any distinct guidelines. In our sports of CC and track the coach calls the shots. The next coach may come along and drop how you did it and go another direction so it is good to keep as much information available as possible listed.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Coach Howard keeps a top 10 list. You can get added to the list, but you never come off. Some of the kids don't even blink an eye when he says someone is 21st on the top 10 list.

Our girls CC record has changed 3 times in the lase 25 years, but all 3 were at the state meet at Scioto Downs, so it's fairly legit. The Boys is iffy as it was set at Footlocker nationals well after the season, but we allow it anyway.
 

ENA2

Member
IMO, a tie is fine, but a 22.10 (Fully Automatic timed) 200 Meters is a lot faster than a 22.1 (hand-timed) 200 meters. In fact, a 22.32 FAT is faster than a 22.1 hand-timed race.
FWIW, most hand held times are usually .4 seconds or so "slower" than what they show up as. For example our school record in the 100 Meters is 10.86 FAT. That was at the State Meet in 1980. That same guy ran 10.5 once, 10.6 three times and 10.7 often (sometimes on cinders). However, the hand times were probably timed by a well-meaning parent or assistant coach who was looking for smoke from a pistol 100 meters away which can be seen after pulling the trigger, therefore they hit the watch when they heard the sound (bang) form the gun which is at least .2 late and then hitting "stop" on the watch as the runner leans at the line for about another .1 from being accurate.
If the reaction of the timer is perfect, then it will be at least 3 tenths of a second slower than a hand-time. The standard is to round up to the nearest 10th and add .24. and that's for an accomplished timer (official). I often have my young assistant coaches hand-time events for our kids at a meet that has FAT and they are hardly ever closer than .4.

A few years ago, we had a guy clock a 10.88 (hand-timed) 100 meters and said "I missed the record by 2/100ths of a second".
I had to tell him it was not close as his time is rounded up to 10.9, and worth not better than 11.14 and probably slower. He did qualify to State that year with a best of 11.41 for a FAT time.

We also have a top 10+ list for each event and our FAT 26.33 FAT for the girls 200 meters is ahead of the 26.1h and 26.2h. Why?
Because the 26.33 FAT is .2-.3 faster
 
Last edited:

runner-ohio

New member
Here in Coventry, we had a situation where our previous school record holder in the 100m dash had a 10.8, with the record dating back to the 80's. The time was not measured to the hunderedths place, so 10.8 is not the same thing as 10.80. (sig figs) Then in 2016, Dustin Burkhart recorded a 10.89, at the regional meet, to qualify to state. Record keeping in this instance is controversial, as how do you compare 10.89 with 10.8?
In my experience 10.89 is significantly faster than a 10.8. The 10.8 is probably more like an 11.1 electronic. The conversion is .24 but in reality it is usually more than that.
 

SLS

Active member
Thanks for all of your input. Even if I don't win my disagreement, I've learned a few things on this thread.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
The official rule-of-thumb IF one chooses to list manual times with automatic timing, which is asinine in itself and a futile effort, is the following:

0-300m: Add 0.24 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
400m: Add 0.14 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
Distances over 400m: NO conversion is made. There used to be the 0.14 second "conversion", but not any more. An 800m time of 2:00.0 MT would be equivalent to any FAT time of 2:00.00-2:00.09. Therefore, an FAT of 2:00.09 would be equivalent to a 2:00.0 MT.

The problem with conversion, ESPECIALLY at the HS/JrHS level of things, is that the vast....VAST majority of people that have ever been involved in timing were not trained timers. The conversion factors developed by statisticians some 50-60 years ago were for trained timers, not for the local yahoos like you and I. For this very reason, the SWOTCCCA organization decided to consign manual timed marks for 400m and below to the retired marks lists. I would STRONGLY recommend that all schools do this!!! It is not fair to compare. It does a disservice to both.
 

Altor

Well-known member
I would STRONGLY recommend that all schools do this!!! It is not fair to compare. It does a disservice to both.
My alma mater is a small school and does not have a history of producing hurdlers. The school record for the 120 yard hurdles is 16.0. I don't remember the year, but you get the idea...it's an old record. I ran a 16.4 in the 110 meter hurdles in 1996. In 25 years, I would wager nobody at that school has come within a second of my time, much less the record.

You say it's not fair to compare, but how is it fair to retire this record? This mark is clearly superior to any mark in at least the last 30 years. It would be a disservice to him to remove him from the list simply because the technology was not there 50+ years ago.

As I said in post #3, you do what works for your institution. There are perfectly valid reasons to include manual times and records from before the switch to metric on the track.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
My alma mater is a small school and does not have a history of producing hurdlers. The school record for the 120 yard hurdles is 16.0. I don't remember the year, but you get the idea...it's an old record. I ran a 16.4 in the 110 meter hurdles in 1996. In 25 years, I would wager nobody at that school has come within a second of my time, much less the record.

You say it's not fair to compare, but how is it fair to retire this record? This mark is clearly superior to any mark in at least the last 30 years. It would be a disservice to him to remove him from the list simply because the technology was not there 50+ years ago.

As I said in post #3, you do what works for your institution. There are perfectly valid reasons to include manual times and records from before the switch to metric on the track.

I understand perfectly. Each institution does what it thinks best. I'm just relaying how it's handled professionally amongst statisticians. When I was coaching, I handled records compilation & retired those old marks, but kept them available for review on a separate sheet. The girl's shot put & 100m hurdles, as well as the boy's 300mh have undergone similar situations with changes in implement weight & hurdle heights in the 1980s.
 

Altor

Well-known member
I'm just relaying how it's handled professionally amongst statisticians.
But you weren't "just relaying". You made the recommendation that all schools follow this standard. It's a standard that works when you have thousands of people and data points to compare, and the FAT marks are semi-close to the old MT marks. That standard is not appropriate at a small school where some years they have trouble getting 5 boys and 5 girls on the team and it's only been in the last 10 years where they have been using FAT at meets before District.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
But you weren't "just relaying". You made the recommendation that all schools follow this standard. It's a standard that works when you have thousands of people and data points to compare, and the FAT marks are semi-close to the old MT marks. That standard is not appropriate at a small school where some years they have trouble getting 5 boys and 5 girls on the team and it's only been in the last 10 years where they have been using FAT at meets before District.
Point taken. I should've added the caveat "when possible".
 

runner-ohio

New member
Point taken. I should've added the caveat "when possible".
Javman is right in most cases. Your unique situation though is a common sense one. If the hand timed record is so significantly faster that in no possible scenario is it bested by an electronic time then the hand time stays in my opinion.
 

runner-ohio

New member
The official rule-of-thumb IF one chooses to list manual times with automatic timing, which is asinine in itself and a futile effort, is the following:

0-300m: Add 0.24 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
400m: Add 0.14 seconds to MT to convert to FAT
Distances over 400m: NO conversion is made. There used to be the 0.14 second "conversion", but not any more. An 800m time of 2:00.0 MT would be equivalent to any FAT time of 2:00.00-2:00.09. Therefore, an FAT of 2:00.09 would be equivalent to a 2:00.0 MT.

The problem with conversion, ESPECIALLY at the HS/JrHS level of things, is that the vast....VAST majority of people that have ever been involved in timing were not trained timers. The conversion factors developed by statisticians some 50-60 years ago were for trained timers, not for the local yahoos like you and I. For this very reason, the SWOTCCCA organization decided to consign manual timed marks for 400m and below to the retired marks lists. I would STRONGLY recommend that all schools do this!!! It is not fair to compare. It does a disservice to both.
Looking back at our history we have kids who clocked 10.4 hand-timed and in the very same season never had an electronic time faster than the 10.9s or 11.0s.
 

Newton's Third

Active member
What is everyone's thought of the period of "flash timing" where a tube was pointed at the starter's gun to capture the flash and considered FAT by most. We had a district meet that used flash and 100 times ranged from 10.63 to 10.82. At regional and some at state the same individuals times ranged from 10.93 to 11:46. I know weather, track surface, and other things can dsitort times but it seemed any school using "flash timing" was considerably faster than anywhere else.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
With regard to manual-timed record significantly "faster" that auto-timing, a reasonable compromise woukd be to list them in co-habitation identifying the difference between them to those who would view such records. When comparing auto-timed results, those with legal wind readings should take precedence over those that don't have wind gauge readings at all or those with over-the-allowable. If necessary, all 3 "records" should be listed if they exist where performances are so disparate.

I hope this helps.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
With regard to the old flash-triggered systems, yes, they are more accurate than manually-timed performances. However, they are not eligible as auto-timed ones.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
Javman is right in most cases. Your unique situation though is a common sense one. If the hand timed record is so significantly faster that in no possible scenario is it bested by an electronic time then the hand time stays in my opinion.
I would list both until the legal wind FAT meets the so-called "conversion" factor application.
 
.
Top