Wind readings at 1968 OG (long jump)

[JRM]

I am trying to find (published) references that discuss the method in which wind readings were recorded at the 1968 Olympics. The oft-told story is that readings below 2 m/s were recorded properly, but those above this mark were all recorded as 2 m/s.

If anyone can provide literature citations for this (T&FN issues included), I would appreciate it.

[dj]

I don't know if much has been "published" except on this site:

Topic: The Mexico City Wind Gauge [mTJ] (thread started Feb 13, 2008)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29623

Topic: Mexico City '68 Wind Readings: wLJ (thread started Feb 18, 2008)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29669

[dj]

Who has told your "oft-told" story?

I've not heard what you've heard, but I'm not surprised by it.

[gh]

Since there were wind-aided marks through the Mexico competition, the story as you heard it is not correct.

What is true is that there were a stunning (read, impossible) number of 2.0 readings, leading to the supposition that at least somebody in the chain of reporting didn't understand the rules ("the wind can't be any more than 2.0") and simply entered everything above that as 2.0.

[dbirds]

Wind or alititude, the 29'2.5 shouldnt have counted as WR

[26mi235]

There was a long thread that detailed the wind readings when official A was doing wind and when official B was not off on the hurdles heats and doing them instead. Had comments from people there etc.

As I remember, not only were there a lot of 2.0s, there were also 1.0s 3.0s etc, almost all on As watch. B had the appropriate distribution. JRM, go find the thread; I found it very interesting [board highlight for me] and think you will also.

[gh]

I believe that was a dj post and he later recanted it for some reason. The actual existence/work schedule of various wind-gauge operators has never been a fact in evidence.

[dj]

There was a long thread that detailed the wind readings when official A was doing wind and when official B was not off on the hurdles heats and doing them instead. Had comments from people there etc.

As I remember, not only were there a lot of 2.0s, there were also 1.0s 3.0s etc, almost all on As watch. B had the appropriate distribution. JRM, go find the thread; I found it very interesting [board highlight for me] and think you will also.

There were two threads discussing Mexico City wind readings, both linked in the second post on this thread.

[cullman]

Maybe somebody can ask Lynn Davies if they see him in London. He was working in Canada in some capacity or another before the 1976 Montreal Games and was telling a story where he couldn't wait to go after Bob Beamon's WR jump because the wind was howling. Unfortunately there was a big delay with Beamon jumping up and down and doing his Swan Lake thing...and the wind died down before they resumed the competition.

cman

[Per Andersen]

Maybe somebody can ask Lynn Davies if they see him in London. He was working in Canada in some capacity or another before the 1976 Montreal Games and was telling a story where he couldn't wait to go after Bob Beamon's WR jump because the wind was howling. Unfortunately there was a big delay with Beamon jumping up and down and doing his Swan Lake thing...and the wind died down before they resumed the competition.

cman

This is the same Lynn Davies who according to his coach Ron Pickering was shattered after Beamon's jump.
Davies also told Boston that he could not go on after that. We'd look silly. When Davies's turn came he jumped about 21 feet and he never made the final. He also told Beamon he had ruined the event.

[cullman]

Hey, it was many decades (and beers) ago. Davies' story makes more sense if the situation took place before Beamon's jump. I remember him saying that Igor Ter-O had also landed a big jump in the warm up. Can somebody ask these guys if they see them in London?

[tandfman]

Another factor was that just after Beamon's jump, it started to rain.

[Per Andersen]

Another factor was that just after Beamon's jump, it started to rain.

And rain was exactly what Lynn Davies had hoped for.

[DoubleRBar]

Someone may have already mentioned this about the Mexico City long jump. After the first three rounds, Lynn Davies and Andrzej Stalmach (Poland) were tied at 7.94. The officials mistakenly did not give Davies three more jumps. Davies was offered the three jumps, but at the end of the competition and Davies refused.

Stamach ended up in eighth place. I watched the competition and couldn't believe that Charlie Mays fouled three times (George Brown in 1952) and I remember one of his jumps looked very long (maybe 28 feet or 8.60). I couldn't tell how much he fouled, but the jump was long.

[the spotter]

Someone may have already mentioned this about the Mexico City long jump. After the first three rounds, Lynn Davies and Andrzej Stalmach (Poland) were tied at 7.94. The officials mistakenly did not give Davies three more jumps.

From the results that I see, after 3 rounds Stalmach was in 8th place and Davies in 9th, based on their 2nd best jumps (Stalmach 7.88 v. Davies 6.43). Some people call looking at 2nd best marks as tie-breaking, but the present IAAF rule book is clear that looking at 2nd best marks, and 3rd, etc., is to be performed before the declaration of a tie.

But ... you are probably correct that the rules at the time should have given Davies 3 additional jumps, as I believe that the inclusion of the 2nd best mark, etc., was not part of the process of determining the "Top 8 athletes" at that time, similar to the mHT situation in the Atlanta Olympics. The rules have since changed. Thus, the moniker: "The Lance Deal Rule".

[gh]

he is definitely correct, and the officials did offer him 3 more jumps at the end.