I'd like to recommend to all stat nuts out there that they purchase a copy of the IAAF book, Progression of World Best Performances and Official World Records. Marks are listed for every official event and and events in which world records are no longer recognized. Records at yards and meters are also listed. Anyway from that book:
2.15 Dumas Los Angeles 06/29/56
2.16 Stepanov Leningrad 07/13/57
2.17 Thomas Philadelphia 04/30/60
2.17 Thomas Cambridge MA 05/21/60
2.18 Thomas Bakersfield 06/24/60
2.22 Thomas Stanford 07/01/60
2.23 Brumel Moscow 06/18/61
2.24 Brumel Moscow 07/16/61
2.25 Brumel Sofia 08/31/61
2.26 Brumel Stanford 07/22/62
2.27 Brumel Moscow 09/29/62
2.28 Brumel Moscow 07/21/63
2.29 Matzdorf Berkeley 07/03/71
2.30 Stones Munich 07/11/73
2.31 Stones Philadelphia 06/05/76
2.32 Stones Philadelphia 08/04/76
2.33 Yashchenko Richmond 07/03/77
2.34 Yashchenko Tbilisi 06/16/78
2.34 Wazola Eberstadt 05/25/80
2.35 Mogenburg Rehlingen 05/26/80
2.36 Wessig Moscow 08/01/80
2.37 Jianhua Beijing 06/11/83
2.38 Jianhua Shanhai 09/22/83
2.39 Jianhua Eberstadt 06/10/84
2.40 Povarnitsyn Donyetsk 08/11/85
2.41 Paklin Kobe 09/04/85
2.42 Sjoberg Stockhom 06/30/87
2.42 Thranhardt Berlin 02/26/88
2.43 Sotomayor Salamanca 09/08/88
2.44 Sotomayor San Juan PR 07/29/89
2.45 Sotomayor Salamanca 07/27/93
Only offical, recognized records have been listed.
Powell, you are too quick for me, i saw the same mistake and was going to offer the corrrection.
Also.... I believe I am right on this but would need to pull out an old issue to be 100% sure, but when Thomas jumped 2.22 at the '60 FOT, I believe he also jumped 7 ' 2 1/2" on his previous attempt, which equals 2.1971, which at a minimum would have been a clear metrically approved 2.19, but it was not ever looked at due to the 2.22.
And while I am at it, Thomas got really rooked that day even worse, as he actually jumped a measured 7' 3 3/4", which equals 2.22885, but the officials were too stupid to measure it with a metric tape ( which I bet they would have read as 2.23 ) or were too stupid to not set the bar a microscopic smidgen higher in the first place, Thomas was robbed of well over a quarter of an inch, and probably a whole centimeter !
Typical provincial US measurement thinking. I always wondered how and why the bar was set at 7' 3 3/4" in the first place.
And if the rules even back then said that all official WR's had to be approved in meters and centimeters, why did all this happen ?
I'll check the previous jump 7' 2 1/2" issue when I get home tonight unless someone else beats me to it and posts theri findings.
Thanks for catching Wazola's mark. It should be 2.35. As far as the spelling of the name, I was going with what was listed in the book. It could be that that was the way it was spelled on the world record application. T&FN also spelled it without the 'a'. Thomas did set a WR enroute to 2.22 of 2.195. A footnote seems to indicate that the mark was actually measured at 7 3 7/8 = 2.2322m but then reduced to 7 3 3/4 = 2.2290 under then AAU rules. The IAAF then reduced this to 2.22. I checked the recap of the meet in T&FN but there was no mention, at least in its July issue, of this.
Thanks LTS, but that makes it even worse! How in the world could the IAAF then have been "allowed to gyp him out of that centimeter, if the bar was truly measured at more than 2.23 ! First he gets roned down to the English hieght of 7' 3 3'4", then that English heigth itself get rounded down to 2.22 ! Talk about stupidity !
And thanks for corroborating my memory of the 7' 2 1/2".
And being a further HJ wonk... I'll check this one too unless simeone does it first...
Was Thranhardt's 2.42 indoors, off of tartan ? I believe the rules had been liberalized by then to accept indoor marks in field events if their is no wood involved ? Am a right about this ?
And if so, and if this more liberal approach (pun intended) had been true in early 1961, then Brumel's 2.25 indoors in Leningrad off of dirt would have been eliminated and his subsequent 2.23 and 2.24 would not have been in the progression.
So I will check the Thranhardt deal tonight... unless someone beats me to it.
Also want to know about the indoor WR deal... maybe I am wrong about all this because if so how about Bubka's 6.15.... or was that on wood ? Must have been.
You really are a stubborn one, aren't you? It is WSZOLA, there was a freaking typo in the book. As it happens, the A key is right next to S, hence things like that do happen.
If you don't believe me, try a Google search for both Wszola and Wazola and compare the number of hits you get.
Was Thranhardt's 2.42 indoors, off of
>tartan ? I believe the rules had been
>liberalized by then to accept indoor marks in
>field events if their is no wood involved ? Am
>a right about this ?
I can't believe it wasn't on tartan, I never saw any wood indoor tracks in Europe.
I've been meaning to start a thread about why the men's HJ is in a decline (although I vaguely remember a T&F News article a year or two ago saying it wasn't). The easiest answer is testing. However, I know the Germans were clean as Carlos asked me if I thought steriods were necessary in about 1981. He said they didn't think they were. Also I'm pretty sure Sjoberg was clean. Obviously our friends in the GDR were up to no good. Any opinions? Seems like most competitions can be won in the low 2.30's now and there are very few 2.35+ performances.
>I'd like to recommend to all stat nuts out there
>that they purchase a copy of the IAAF book,
>Progression of World Best Performances and
>Official World Records.
I would love to! But I can't find any for sale. The 1991 version would be great, but I thought there was also a late-90s version. I've queried the IAAF as to the next expected publication, but of course they're no real help . . .
>Thanks for catching Wazola's mark. It should be
>2.35. As far as the spelling of the name, I was
>going with what was listed in the book.
As long as we're on the subject of high jump WR holders and being nit-picky about spelling . . .
I believe that a Chinese man broke the WR in the 60s but never got credit for it since the People's Republic wasn't an IAAF member at the time. T&FN still lists him as "Chih-chin Ni", but the modern transliteration is "Ni Zhiqin". I studied Chinese for four years in high school, and my recently-retired HS teacher recently confirmed the spelling. Remember that in China the family name comes first.
I know it's being terribly detail-oriented, but isn't that what T&FN is known for?
<Has a "Roller" ever cleared 7ft?
On the other hand if by "Roller" you mean somebody who used the Western Roll technique then Vance Johnson jumped 7ft and I believe Stan Albright did about 7'1" indoors sometimes in the mid 70s. Not sure about the date but 7'1" sticks in my mind.
The next WR progression book will be available from the IAAF very shortly. It's updated to 31/12/2002 and contains various amendments as well as (hopefully) all records set in the intervening 4 years since the last book