Talk:Men's high jump world record progression

Metric and Imperial measures

I didn't see this before, but there is simply no justification to show the High Jump records pre-1960 with imperial measures simply because the marks were mostly set in the US. The governing body, the IAAF, recognizes only the metric record progression, as per the source. And, certainly, these good faith efforts to show the mark don't supersede the governing body's take on what units to show. Showing the imperial equivalents are certainly acceptable given that many Americans in particular are not as familiar with metric, but to have the marks listed as imperial first is OR Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Giving imperial first is consistent with the usual approach in biographies etc., which is to give imperial first if the original measurement was in imperial. ({{T&Fcalc2}}, used for converting imperial marks, does this automatically; though I have to say I'm not a big fan of any T&F conversion templates.)

Mind you, I do agree it's better to list metric first for all marks here (given that the IAAF WR lists use metric, and that the list is easier to follow if the format is consistent). Ideally, there'd be a Notes column for clarifying the original measurement, but with limited room that would make the table look ugly unless the timeline is axed. Sideways713 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The marks were ratified in metric, so the primary mark is that. I can see no justification for having the imperial mark as the primary mark given the sources. I have no issue with showing the imperial, just with it being the primary mark. Almost NONE of the other progression pages even list the imperial marks, let alone make them the primary mark, even when they were also initially measured by feet and inches. What makes the men's high jump special? Further, I think the relevant note to be made in regards to imperial measure is not that some of these marks were measured in imperial initially, it is that the rules dictate that the imperial mark would be rounded DOWN to the nearest metric mark to the full CM equivalent. I recall once where confusion over this almost lost an American a chance at breaking the American record - Dwight Stones record of 2.34 (7-8) was being challenged by Jimmy Howard, and the officials raised the bar to 7-8 1/4. Fortunately for Howard, Stones himself was there and told the officials that would only tie his record as the rounding rule meant the official record would be 2.34. So it was instead raised to 7-8 1/2 which is the first imperial measure over 2.35 - and Howard cleared the bar and broke the record. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the imperial marks should be primary; it was Trackinfo's edit that made them primary. Imperial records were not in all cases rounded down; some were rounded up (the WRs of Dumas and Steers), though you are right that rounding them down was standard. Some, like Horine's WR, have appeared in various (official IAAF) WR progressions rounded both up (2.01 m) and down (2.00 m).

With regard to American records, back in the day they were ratified in imperial without being converted to metric; though since they're not the subject of this article, that's neither here or there. Sideways713 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In making my edits, every mark that was originally taken in Imperial was credited as the primary. That was the official measurement and what was accepted by the U.S. governing body at the time. IAAF converted the mark to metric for the world record. I carefully made the distinction from the current conventional method (since 1980, when the last U.S. rulebook converted primary measurement) where measurements are taken in metric (even for record attempts in the U.S.) and are converted to Imperial for general U.S. (metric illiterate) readership. This was not blindly done, some meets, particularly most (but not all) Olympic Trials were conducted in the U.S. in metric distances. Trackinfo (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant how the marks were originally measured. Sure, the US governing body accepted imperial as official, but they aren't the ratifying body we are concerned with - the IAAF is. The only relevance for the purpose of the page is what the mark was ratified as, as per the sources. The new IAAF progression lists - which, I gotta say, is an incredible document - underlines this point.

For example, here is the description of dual records set at the US Olympic trials in July 1936 (measured in Imperial but ratified in metric):

2.07 Cornelius Johnson (USA) New York 12.07.1936

2.07 David Albritton (USA) New York 12.07.1936

US Olympic Trials, Randall’s Island, 15.30 and 15.40 Hr: 1. Johnson and Albritton 2,07 (both at the second attempt, 6’9 3/4" = 2.0766m), 3. Delos Thurber 1.98, 4. Ted Leonis, Walter Marty, Vernon Nelson, Al Threadgill, Melvin Walker, George Spitz and Edward Burke all 1.93, Johnson: Western Roll, Albritton: Straddle style, beginning with a Western Roll take off, with a very late transition to the ‘Belly Roll’ of the Straddle. Canada Jack (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Techniques also listed

As record progression directly correlates with new techniques, those should also be listed alongside heights. Pernati (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be OR given that the IAAF doesn't specify techniques used on their progression lists. The lede mentions the differing techniques anyway. Canada Jack (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If there are other sources which specify techniques than it wouldn't be OR. 213.149.61.126 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The 2015 expanded progression lists from the IAAF DO list the techniques used. Might be worth adding an extra column then a guide to what each technique entailed. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it also be useful to add information on the landing material? The early records involved a sand-pit landing area. Only when huge soft landing mats were introduced could athletes safely adopt a technique involving landing on the back of the head. User:Ian Hampson78.150.23.225 (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Beeson and Osborn records

I corrected the 2.01 and 2.03 marks set by Beeson and Osborn respectively, as per the IAAF lists. The marks that were on the page were 2.022 and 2.038. From the expanded IAAF record progression lists 2015, there is a breakdown of the ratification of those marks and the confusion surrounding them. In Beeson's case, the mark listed on the IAAF lists, originally at 2.01, was wrong from 1936 to 1970, and it seems that error has been repeated. He actually jumped 6' 8 1/4" (2.0384) but the judges ruled the takeoff point was slightly too high and adjusted the mark to 6' 7 5/16" - 2.0146 (not 6" 7 5/8" - 2.022 - as appeared on this page).

As for Osborn, the list says 2.03. 6' 8 1/4" - 2.0384 being the actual jump recorded on the IAAF list.

Might be an idea to get rid of the automatic conversion in these several cases as it doesn't reflect what was actually jumped and what was actually ratified. (Come to think, this might be a recurring issue...)

Canada Jack (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a quick check of the IAAF list shows that the auto conversion is almost always incorrect in terms of the Imperial equivalent as the rounding rules kept changing. Might be an idea to base those conversion marks on the IAAF progression list as, noted above, usually the imperial measure was the one submitted for ratification then adjusted for the metric near-equivalent. Canada Jack (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why the record has not improved since 1993

It is striking that, unlike almost all other track and field records in major Olympic events, the high jump record has not been beaten since 1993 (assuming the article is to be believed). That's 28 years ago.

It would certainly be worth mentioning any possible reasons for this, if citations can be found.2601:200:C000:1A0:892A:2B96:D333:DDA8 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps unusual in the past history of the high jump event itself when records would last only maybe a few years. But MANY other Olympic events have records which have stood longer - like the women's high jump record which has stood since 1987, and the men's and women's long jump, since 1991 and 1988, respectively. Indeed, for most of the jumping and throwing events (save the pole vault and new events for women), this is a middling record in terms of how long it's stood.

Given that, if you want to propose a section on why so many field events have stood for 25-30-35 years, that would be more properly placed on the athletics world records page. Canada Jack (talk)

A new world record on the page? Yes!

Just to let people know who may be surprised to see a new high jump world record listed... from 1988... The very detailed IAAF/World Athletics world record progression book listed a record in the high jump I never knew was ratified - Carlo Thranhardt's indoors 2.42! According to the report this was the first ever indoor mark ratified as a World (i.e.. outdoor) record... but it was rescinded in 1991 due to questions about the run-up boards and the extra spring they afforded the jumper.

It's here, page 160. http://iaaf-ebooks.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/Progression-of-IAAF-World-Records-2015/projet/IAAF-WRPB-2015.pdf Canada Jack (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)