You might look forward to those days, but if you don’t think those hand times are fair maybe we should discount the fact that many were done on dangerous cinder tracks, if it was all weather it was a step above black top. While we are at it we should discount some for the crap shoes we had to run in! The vast vast majority of those hand times are in yards anyway. Records are records and if you’re going to do that you need to go back and credit times for negative winds? A “wind aided” time isn’t acceptable, what about someone who runs in headwinds?! None of these times are exact, along with the wind readings all across the country, that you can bet on. Someday someone will be saying the same things about the timing systems they have today.
"Dangerous" cinder tracks? Rarely were cinder tracks dangerous. I ran on them myself way back in the day, as have a number of Yappi contributors. However, with regard specifically to the district records set in any of the four (4) Cincinnati-area district meets, NONE of the records remaining were ever set on cinders. All have been on synthetic tracks, and I can tell you that in NO WAY does World Athletics or any other governing or statistical bodies like the ATFS (Association of T&F Statisticians) distinguish between records on different types of synthetic tracks. Neither do I. Likewise the introduction of today's advanced shoe technologies like the carbon-fiber sole plates now common. Same applies to the wavelight technologies now in place at many international meetings.
Regarding hand-timing, I was present at many of those district meets in the 80s thru 00's, and I have spent over 5000 hours documenting the progression of the Cincinnati-area district meets since their origination with the original SW Ohio district meet at Oxford in 1923. I know what tracks they were run on and what years the district meets converted from both cinders to synthetics tracks and what timing methodologies were used. It wasn't until 2005 that automatic timing came to be in those meets, and even a few times early on the FAT failed and they resorted to hand-timing. At the international and USATF levels, hand-timed records were THROWN OUT and RETIRED after the 1975 season. At SWOTCCCA, the decision was made some 14-15 years ago that they would not do that with the Cincinnati districts, but instead kept hand-timed records in parallel when appropriate and the current FAT record did not supercede the hand-timed records when applying standard statisticians' adjustments of adding +0.24 seconds for the 100m/200m/100mH/110mH/200m and +0.14 seconds for the 400m to the hand-timed marks. I.E., a 100m run in 10.6 MT would convert to 10.84 seconds and be kept as the records in parallel until a new record of 10.83 FAT or better was established. That methodology continues until this day. You can check out SWOTCCCA records yourself at
www.swotccca.com .
With regard to wind-legal marks, those restrictions apply to the 100m/200m/100mH/110mH/200m and the long & triple jumps. The ONLY standard applied is that the recored mark cannot have a wind exceeding +2.0 meters per second average during the course of the race/attempt in parallel with the direction of the race/attempt. There have NEVER been any records kept for separate positive or negative winds by any governing body, not has it been done by SWOTCCCA. We would all agree that negative winds have always been present many times throughout the years at different district meets. However, when it comes to record-keeping, that is NEVER a factor in distinguishing records except for the +2.0 mps guide.
With regard to your statement that "none of these times are exact", I would tell you that today's timing equipment and its usage are FAR MORE exact than 99.9% of the old hand-timed marks as most hand-timing at the district and other HS meets have been done by less than qualified individuals over the years when compared to internationally-trained timers. However, as I stated above, SWOTCCCA chose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and kept hand-timed marks, when appropriate, until such time that the new FAT marks superceded those.
Finally, if you look at the district records information on SWOTCCCA, you'll see that five (5) events across the girls' districts still have notations next to the records that the current records set over a metric distance are statistically superceded by records set over yards distances. Those records are in the following events:
D2 Girls - 3200m
D3 Girls - 1600m, 4x100m, 800m, 4x400m
On the boys' side, only two events remain that keep such a notation that the current metric distance doesn't supercede a past mark set over yards, those being:
D2 - 4x100m, 800m
So, you can see that SWOTCCCA has been very respectful in not throwing out older marks except when they are clearly superceded by current statistically-accepted methodologies. My own historical lists are the same. I carry many hand-timed marks on historical lists, but for events from 100m-400m, they are NOT acceptable for record purposes. Only for historical listings to place them on a relative context. I'm also extremely careful in not taking marks on MileSplit or AthleticNET for granted. I go directly to the timing company's information for confirmation of whether the mark was truly FAT or not. I also document all wind readings where appropriate. On my historical listings, any FAT marks of the past where wind readings were not provided in documentation, which was frequent until 2000 in Ohio, I've consulted with Jack Shepard at T&F News on whether he has documentation for the wind readings, which many times he has had and communicated to me that information. In those cases where no wind readings were present, I've included those FAT marks on listings when T&F News recognized them as legal in their end-of-year national listings. I've also included many historical long and triple jumps, especially with Jesse Owens, when those marks were reported as legal according to governing bodies of that era. So, neither am I throwing the baby out. When OHSAA changed from 2 to 3 classes with the 1971 season, they were set to throw out ALL records and start afresh. However, there was a hue-and-cry from a lot of coaches and others that got them to change their minds. I've documented what happened then on another Yappi thread. We'll see what happens next year.
Finally, with regard to the impact of technology and techniques within the sport, those have certainly had major impacts on record-keeping over the decades, the most notable being the addition of foam landing mats in the 1960s and the introduction of the fiberglass pole in the late 1950s. I can rattle off many other changes such as going from 42" hurdles in before 1935 to the current 39" hurdles, the introduction of asphalt/concrete throwing pads in the late 40s'-early 50s, and a whole host of technique changes in different events. Record-keeping, however, has NEVER taken those into account. Only historical statisticians like to delve into rabbit-holes like that.
So, I hope I've been able to clarify things a bit with regard to the district records kept by SWOTCCCA and other things regarding the subject.
