CL~VE MFSD

"ll: PROM:

!0:216-531-0038

AL & RBI BOB

SEP 20'95 11:44 No.011 P.01

I RBVIBWBD ALL OF TUB RBSUL~S OP ~HI BU1PALO CKAMPIOK8HIP8, AS KOTBD IB ~HB NATIORAL HA8TIR8 BIWS.

IBCLOS&D All !aa S~ATIStiCS.

AARUMTMA TMA'I' ~00+ WOIIf.n RQUAt, A WORr.n r.r.ARR P'RRFO'RMAJfCI; 800.._ RATIOMAL; 700+ IIGlO~L; AftO 500-699 LOCAL, THBM ONLY 31t OF THB WINKRR8 TU-MID 1• WORLD CLASS PIRfORMAMcas. THE BUtX or THB WINXKRS ( •3t) OlfLY 'l'UIUIID Ilf IJATIOML CLASS TIMBS.

BOTH THE MALK AIIV }'gflA.L.~ 55 Y¥AR ULU UJ V UHUif SCU~¥1> 'lHJ1 Bl<H'f COMPOSI'l'lf SCORES. THifRBAri'KR, ·IJ!RKRif WAS A S'I'RADY PROQRRSSIOK DOWRWAJtD I If BACH SUUBQUBlft' AGB GROUP.

I~ WAYA WISBBS TO KS&P TO THI TBIORT THAT 900+ IS WORLD CLASS THBN RI'I'HJER ~HR !'ABLRS SHOULD ltr MoDlfliD, Olt fHI lfUMBBR '.l'O BB COftHlU~KKU WORLD CLAHS SHOULD Bl LOWBRBD TO 8)0 OR IVIR 800.

IP PLACIIIG BICOMB8 'niB HAJoa DBTERMIIIAln' OF ''WORLD CLASS", THBN ARYOKB RBI\CBIIIC !'HB PI!IAL r OR 'l'lJB !'0.. BlGUT, ODOULD UAVB 'rill\'.1' DBSIGBATIOK. ~AKING TBI AG POJJt8 or !HI LAS! PLAC~ PlBlSK~as Ift ALL OP ~HB PIKALS, O!ILY SIX SCORID OVBR 900 POIB7S. I JUST OOT TOO TIRED TO RIVIBW ALL OF TH1 BB8ULT8 lOR THI LAST PLACB FtKALISTS, BU!' A CURSORY RBVIIIll WOULD BBBM !'0 I!IDICATB 'l'IIA'l' '!Ill BULK OP YltSH SOORID 700 POIITS OR LISS.

I AM AllAR I !IIA'l' A I'B'W OU'f'B'I'AJfJHWG A'I"IIJ,R'I'RR CAN "WARP" IJ'RR 'I' ART. RA, DUT I WOULD ARGUB ~Uia'l' A FiliAL IS!' Ilf TIIB 'WORLD OIL\MPIOifSHtPS SltOULD 'RR COIIRTDRRRn WORT.n r.J.ASS (RIC':!IPT POR PIRPOINA!ICIS OX 'llll LI'VIL or SUB BOifBBT 8U8 ) •

THB BO~OM Ll.. Bll"G rBAT YOU ARD TBB WAVA AG Co.KHITTBS SHOULD RAT, "AnnnRVR", ~ FAMILY AKD .RIIBDS WK2M YOU WBXT R8Y~EW rRI 'l'ABL88, AltD BB PRBPARBD '1'0 8P.BD WBBKI ON AllY UVIBIOif OF THB ,.ABI.IS.

I CAB'T TRIBK OP A MOaJ ~KtiSS JOB~ OTRIR fRAN BBIKG TQ• PARBNT OJ' A TBIUIAGIUt. TAKB MY AIIALYSl8 POR WHAT IT IS WORt'H - 00 ~U'l' BecoME I.BOMRIACS BlfCAU8B 01' ~HII BPtl'!tB.

t!34-

... ------·- -· ·-·--·--~ .. ··-·------

CL~VE '5TFSD !0:216-531-0038 SEP 20'95 11:45 ,,

AVJlA~E Pltl

tf~(: II&\ M~v I(H 1160 1!65 170. IHS 110 •U 190 I)~ '4ll W~~ ~~~ J~S 160 165 t70 US J80 185 !V~Iff !00 911 ~12 ~E2 97~ 96' •s) 917 ~~7 39~ $J9 ,,, •• , 869 .14 ~tR 9'1 P8) 920 914 IOi 112 ~06 J'~ !91 J L ~!I •u VU YJU n6 ~~~ .Y97 114 Ul llO 'Sf 862 UJ 9n 9%8 f! ~ tt6 8fT ft66 756 i 1Z l' 9 ZOO IH ~~• 95~ ''~ 95~ 059 995 ;69 ~19 9te J6A 'S~ ,~n A1~ '~' o'c ~~~ ~cr 9uJ ~•1 >JU 7}' ••z 400 .,, ~r.e Ul 1m H4 IJH ~n U! 9QO 8~ I ~!1 UO 531 8?1 IH "~ Ul 914 864 7tl 8~8 511 Hi 800 84t I!~~ ~~\ ''2 ~3~ 9~1 911 94) ,t! 85S 6!, 66, ''' A6~ A~4 tft1 Rtt A•J lOJ ~0~ 1•1 741 I)UO ~1V '000 ~~~ ~~~ ~lC Y1J ijl~ ~~9 ~97 121 ?t~ 611 S?~ 80S 8)1 638 atT ~~I 15~ 809 8'0 &04 6$3 5000 839 19~00 881 ~t6 ~11 ~96 907 87S ~06 ~lj tS~ 6)3 511 11~ 79, ~'' &A' ~)0 &~~ I'' 72' T94 6), IUOUU ¥J& I~".M iiH ~.i~ ~J6 9~11 'U2 91' f.S7 882 7'2 US tiS l~l IS1 !14 ~1f t'4 Itt !IJI] !!) II. ft. H2 ~0~ 90J ~!7 86~ AH ~H 1:~ AU ~H JU 9H ll2 IU HS IJJ filGH HIIIDXU S'!'UPL U1 ~~~ "5 965 ,0~ 82l 90S lOS ii>O 777 Ut B" 8'i6 76.1 H7 ltP.W.t: U4 !J,J, U1 ,,, 912 AU U., U.& !181\ .uo 801 7&~ 1£4 ~OJ US ·~u '~~ 'P'f KJJ 16) UW I!J TU IIOB 1liiP81~ .:0,'1. &;, ~H 860 95~ BH 862 ~80 ~40 7SI 690 US 79t 909 T65 1S. 4:t 765 661 PM.•. V40f.UI r. . .!. ~ Jn U9 U~ U& 1~4 91 ~ h1 )f IU -l) '1'41 ~ Jl '16~ U9 ~n UO 919 UJ 793 172 Dl SU U6 LCPIG JIJNP8SS t.: lf2 ~09 '!~ 1Ul6 89~ 9J7 901 8ij 9!9 '71 ,:1 •zJ 16~ IJO A\Q t\' Alt.,, ll& ~5) 6SJ lll Tll~L( JUIJI Jllf1T nu IIU~ U~ UJ Ul if(IC 911.\ ~42 Of' ,, 891 5J9 Ut t+t 724 Ill 9JS e47 U6 1J~ 8J.l IU II!Of riJ'J' 811 ~:8Ci.i3 6'1 7H U6 860 ~H UP. 760 ~21 A60 U4 A:t ~*'· ~:1. "1 HI AU sza i'J 64S 6U '~' l'lmJS 't)ll H!lllr~ 100 I~& Yll 19S ~lQ g•1 It' 1~0 '1' ,., SBS 7Q3 ~~~ 191 99~ 10%0 1~1 1'1 !~? 6@9 7S9 ~~riEl 8~5

lA~ '51 ~H Ur U3 HI ~H 864 80] tU 'SD i!l .~SO Hr. ?U U1 •1~ U' •n~ 1A~ '" nl JAV!Lir U6 S( tHlUJ W'/1 ~'!H ¥1& ~U UC Ul 'C' T7~ 7U U~ tOt tU U£ "7 U9 86J US UO Ut ati 101 5K ••L« it'

A~~. W'fi M&! lSD VSS W&O .65 r'O ¥1S lfO M8S M90 f~S 140 ''' JSO t55 t'O 1,5 ~C f?! Y&O t8S ~VEN~ In ~lit: •H hl ~2~1 ~J'i. Ht Ylb. Ul Vli U' I~) •c1 'IU Ul U~ 8U 111 i40. Uf ~~' ?OS 6&4 '21 AvSU<iBP IU

'!'l)fAf.S !l•Ut'-' I I Itt~• ' o. us '~Ot s :1 ~~

,. ,. It 8 ) i 2 ! A l It ' t 2 ttlll• II A \r,. I 'I .,;;,. I~ ., ) • ~ • :o u 10 • J t 11 ' t' s JG 11 •

'CO+ I I I i 6 I 4 ' t ' 2 ~ s f,ll~+ 1 ' • - 2 2 ~

~C!)+ 2 4 , '

~,~ ..

lO;J•

G" Tflf t~.0: PH::f. p:!fJBU£tr. tlPTEil JN EACF Of rnE 3&6 FIJIAU. IOfttO 1~ fU!i t;ATrOJtM. KlST1.l~ W~JS. ~VLT' Sr.OIJ.n HI~IEt TMAN ~00 POi.fJ [.tl5)1j

9 5 , 2 100+ IU 42.161 2 .. 4 ' '~~t u tl.\ll 2 1 5 2 't@+ to 7.S31 I 1 ! I ~f•n•

,, C.UI 4C~f 2 O.Sll ~O&• I 0 lU

TOTAL I Ot r~ANFIOJI )l'

---------------------

• CLEVE GTFSD ID:216-531-0038 SEP 20'95 11:45 No.011 P.02

PII

"'r: ''' •~G m m •u •'• rm 110 •u •9o wj~ m m ·~~ r~s '" m t7o IT5 reo 185 mwr ;~~ '111 911 m 9H "' m m m m m "'an m •u m 't1 m m 'u Ui au m ~~!J n1. JO'; ~H ,., m m m m m m mate 's• m m m m w 'oG m 866 mill~'' zoo m ~~• m m m m m ~69 m m m 'H m m m ou u' ~cr 9ut ~··i m 1a m 4oo m Me n• m m m m m fOO If! m m m 8?1 m m m 914 864 m a~' m m sec 8't 15~tl m ''2 m t6t 911 m m m m 661 "' m -~4 •• , m m ~~~~ m a•1 m t)ee m !000 --· ~~~ ~lC ~\~ Ul~ ~19 ~~1 IJi 7J~ 611 57~ I~' 8Jt 6!9 8f7 'PI A5~ 809 8'0 &04 6S~ 5000 ~J~ mot m ~" m m m m ~o~ m m m m m m m •u uo m m m ttc m um m ,~ ... v m m m m ,o, 91' m m m m m m IS' m m ,,. :n I!IJlli m u. m m tOJ m 86~ m m a:o m m au m m •~s m m fiiGH KUIDiH !'!'IEPL Ul m "5 "5 ,0~ 822 90S tts UO 177 U! 936 m m H1 11WI.I m a.1. ut '2• m ~u m •1' !IU un m "~ ''' ~or "' ·nt m '11'1 m m m m 'U 11GB 1l11Pm :•.'1. m w m m m "2 uo ~40 1s1 690 m 79t 90' T6~ m m m 66! '"'·' v.nm1 u. m u9 m tra tH m •~2 m m ·,4, u m m IH m m m '93 •'l m m u' LCII~ JtMPBSS t.; 172 ~09 9!~ 1926 899 !37 901 eiS 9!9 171 ,:1 •zJ .,~ R!O A't t\& ~It Itt 11• ,,) 6S) lll Tli~Lf JURI! ••01 m m m m m iMC 91tl P42 "' m m m m ut nt m m m m m w m sm r11r 817 ~i8Cii3 6' I 1H Uf 160 m U~ 7ID m &611 6U 1:11 tiU. tm 6H HI Ul m m 64$ Ut m IIJSI:US 'I~U IAII~j ¥00 1\1 ''' ItS ~Jq 9'1 It' 1'0 ''' J«t 58S 1~3 '~I f91 ''~ IOlf 1~1 ?'2 !I? 6~9 759 ~-rlr.R 895 IAV '51 ~S) •9r ,13 ~)I ~4J 864 8GJ 11& '~p Jll ~30 l,t. 77'- ,At •1• 776 tD~ ~A' ~)Y \ll JAVILII 7J6 Sll mr.m m m n• yu su nz m m m m tor m m w m m m uo m m m s~ •m lu

A~~. I'~ I&! ISO 155 r•o .65 171 •?S lfO M3S M~O ''S 140 14! JSO 155 1'0 ''5 I~C ttS JSO 'IS ~VFJ~ tn -••t. au 1~2 m •n. m m. Ill m nt m w m u1 m m m m. m •~' m U4 m AvBli.GBr m

!liiJII! ~60t ~~;;,.

'~Ot

~~~·

S :I I' 11 ., )

I I

I It 8 ' ~0

l!~lll £12 ~ 11 f I' s 10 II 9 441l2 S2

~ 2 2

~' Tllf m: PAL•:f. r:!IIIIEU U.TEfl Ill Eo\Cr Of rnE 38$ FIIALI. IOfBO I~ flli t'AffONAr. l'SfRif MilS. ~ILT 6 ICOIJ.n RI41Et THAI •00 POIIJS l.tlSJij

2 2 2 I

Tt11'AI.l Itt~• J O.TII tnn. m 1r.. 111

too• "s u.m Tlllit u n.m .. ,. Z9 1 .m '·fin• lT ,.U& 4C~+ o.m ~o~· o m

TOJlL t Or fSARPfOJI )1,

·-···· .. __________ _,. ~------------. ···--·.

.. -~~-~----

- 1ri52 ~ s~ ro ME:! fler~V'f. ~A IT'S oF

~~ 198S IAAF Computer Formulas -------

The 1985 IAAF scoring tables are generated by the following mathematical fonnulas.

Running Events: Points = a ( b - Performance Y'c Jumping and Throwing Events: Points = a ( Performance - b )l'c

WOMEN: 60m a=46.0849 b=l3s c=l.81 lOOm a=17.857 b=2ls c=l.81

~ a=4.99087 b= 2JI.-6s ~·f. c=l.81 a=.lll93 b=254s c=__u-r I, g.~ 0

60mhurdle a=20.0479 b=l7s c=l.835 lOOm hurdle a==9.23076 b=26.7s c•l.835 high jump a=l.84.S23 b=7Scm c=1.348 '\ long jump a=.l88807 b=210cm c=l.41 shot put a=56.0211 b=l.Sm c=l.OS discus a=l2.3311 b=Jm c=l.lO hammer a=l7.5458 b=6m c=l.OS javelin a=l5.9803 b=3.8m c=l.04

MEN: 60m a=58.015 b=ll.Ss c=L81 lOOm a=25.4347 b•l8s c=l.81 200m a•5.8425 b=38s c-1.81 300m a•2.58503 b=60.ls c=l.Sl 400m a=l.53775 b=82s c=1.81 lOOOm a=.08713 b=JO.S.Ss c=1.85 l.SOOm a=.03768 b=480s c=l.85 60mhurdle a=20.5173 b=l5.5s c=l.92 110m hurdle a=5.74352 b=28.5s c=l.92 high jump a=.8465 b=7.Scm c=l.42 pole vault a=.2797 b=lOOcm c=l.35 long jump a=.l4354 b=220cm c=l.40 shot put a=.Sl.39 b=l.5m c=l.OS discus a=12.91 b=4m c=l.lO hammer a=l3.0449 b=7m c=l.05 3'2 Co..v ~\ ~ L. javelin a=l0.14 b=7m c=l.08 Av-e- I ~: ol~p'

- ·---·- -·-- ---------~ K Q.._.._t.. .:D Pp ~ '\ t:. B

0 I !? I - 3 0 2._ - ~ {:;1(:,

52

00 """-~~ ~._...... -\-a..\c \e_ ~ l ~ --..:0-..:....----- ..... ~.~.;.. ~-~-•. ~'-- ... ' •. -- - ·, .. ; .,. .. --: -

'

~ e_.___\' ~ fu. t-'<._ c.c::n..-.f..-~ '"~ '-"'- .

-·~-- . .,_~_ ·- ·-

(A~ f~\A\'-L~ ~\A-A- ~~cL

ho SLv-... ~~~~ c.c~'b~

~~\-4 ~ ~~s \ ~v

~""·~ ~ ~tU.V

{~A. c.-\~'-.. CA ~ k dv. ~-A.A__lou.J ~ ~ ~ ~ . ..Q_ • ~ _

CG~p~ b~~ ~ ~~ .\-\ ._:r-_ s-~ L (uK.) .

~~ l'L- ex&'<" ~ ~a+ %vH.s (u,~) l'Q_o--<~J.... o~J.@ l · 4- 2.. .,_ W \.,-..SU·'~~O._'l. V\Jo U 1 ~ b~ %"1:- ~~"""- lt-o<'~"> ~'2·0/._ . ~ ~~,. ,', U.\3.-G- ~\vc:>~ s.t~OtA.d w~ l·tr-'2..~ ~ (.)!3..8:. '' 1\ II 1-4-s-......,._.

~u.l\,_~ ~\.-- • P~v 001..~-

GTFSD-PURCHASING ID: 215-531-0038 JUN 09'93 20:13 No.007 P.01

Jun93

To: Jim Blair

From: Rex Harvey

Jim,

First of all, thank you very much for looking at the proposed Age Grading update. Few

have lookod at it in the depth that you have Tho WA VA Age Grading and Multi-Event sub­

Comnuttees probably Ahould have beon using you for input all alona as I know that you are one of

the more technically knowledgeable r---ople in our sport but we didn't know how busy you wcro. I'm sending you some baekground so that you can bl.lllCr understand the 1993 proposal.

Lot me say right off that I agree with you in your dismay that some World Records aro

only at the 90% perfonnancc level or so. Here is some earlier wo on the subject that I did and,

a1 you can see, I, like you, defend World Records as adamantly a anyone could- I wanted each

WR to be at or near 100%. As you can soo from Figure 19 of the September 1992 study, J, at

first, tried to push every WR holder up to, or near, thu J 00% line by usmg a logical, consistent

method of Factormg. Please especially note my comments to Chuck Phillips on page 3 ofthc November 1992

study. Note again in Appendix N that I was trying to keep the World Records as high as possible

in performance percentages. As you can see, my own two early proposals were not usod at all in the final proposed

J 993 update. Looking back, they simply wcro too simple minded, and whilo they were mostly

good, they had their weak points, the biggest being that the factors changed directions abruptly at

various agcs(between straight-line clements). That is simply not logical. That we gel steadily

wor&o 1n an increasing marUlor jj logical, and that is w~ was used, event by event for 132 events

to make the 1993 proposal . Jt was a very long haul and 11m sure that there are some mistakes. but

on a whole the final proposal is much more fair to everyone than any of the individual methods

propo od including the two that I had put forward. Let me talk about a couple of the o"amples that you mentioned in your letter to Bill Taylor

and AI Sheahen will talk about the other two. That way you will have at least two different

viewpoints lt became obvious very soon in our detailed study of events, that all WR1s arc not created

equal and, 1fwe stuck to our simple logical rules, that some WR's would simply not be nearly a

good as others That really is not a hard point to accept if you think about it and especially wh n

you aro aware of the greatly roduced (as compared to men) numbers of older men and a11 women

that we see competing. Please review again the basic rules that wore followed. They are list.od in 11Basis'1

paragraph (page 2) ofthe actual 1993 proposal. If you disagree with these assumptions, then any

of what has been done will not be acceptable to you. If you do agree, then follow on with this.

First of all the W60 Jnvclin WR should bo 32.24 by Paksyte in Turku. It is only a

techmeality that is holding up the Tur~ But you point is still valid. Why is the Age

Standard 41.99 when the WR is only 1. have pull~ some infonnation out of the 1993

propo al and attached it to this letter with additional explanation. Tbe chart contains all of the data

used, but the graph Is the place to really sue what is happening. First, note that tho 1989 Age

Standards are now out of date because they have been exceeded at least 5 times in the ages 50 to

56. That is obvious, but you may wonder why the 93 cmve was placed above even Scbonauer's

W!!4 record (which is, by far, the be t perfonnanee in the 50 to 75 ago groups). After studying

~TFSD-P I CHRSING ID: 216 -531-0038 JUt~ 09 '93 20:14 No.OO? P.02

many events in excruciating detail a pattern emerges. That pattern is that it takes a person a few years to "team" a. new implement or hurdle height when they change. The Javelin change at W50 i1 eapocially aagndicant because it is a full 50% reduction in weight I know that it doesn't fly as well but that is a lesser effect I suppose some people start practicing with the lighter implements before they change age groups, but most do not. Time and time agam you will see people getting better and better tn the first year~ of a new lntplcment. This occurs even thought we know that they are getting physically weaker as they age lfyou will look at Schonauer's progression, you will see that particular phenomena occurring. At nges 51, 52, and 54 she threw 42, 44, and 45. Even if she doesn't improve th1s year, she will still come very close to the 1993 proposal line as you can see in the graph.

One of the instructions that we received was that the Age Grading Tables should not have to be updatod every year or two, but should have a longer life. We could certainly create standards that would last for many yean, but that is not fair to today's athletes. However, If the 93 curve had been placed so that it ran through tho WS4 WR then Schonaucr probably would have gone well over 100% this year and the Tables would be out of date agatn. What this curve placement wa1, waa a very educated guess at what we expect to happen very soon Not what "should11

happen, but what there is solid evidence pointing to You can see that the upper und of the curve could not bc lowered very much at all \\1thout

Oelbrieh cxcooding )00% at both 77 and 78 and, presumably, this and future years What you s~ from age 55 to 75 is a long series of "weak'' records . I don't know especially

why, but the cvidcneo is obvious. Maybe the 400 gram Javelm doesn't "suit" the female body until about ago 65 where the performances stay almost level all the way out to age 78 . You may say, "Why not let the curve dip down and follow the obvious trend in order that those WR's in those age group can receive higher perfonnance percentages?". But that would violate our basic underlying rule that one gets increasingly worse ash~ gets older. Thu opposite statement is that ho never stays the same or gets bt:tter at anythmg a he ages. This, of course, 1s in general and individuals can 11break" this nale by any number of methods; rnol'c time spent, more work done, better technique. better health, better weather, better facilities and equipment, etc.

This is a subtle teclmical point but you can see from the chart column labeled "LOSS" that the 1993 proposal just barely meets our basic rule. Bel ween age 50 and 51 the Age Standard decreases .866% as calculated by 100 • (49.90-49.47) /49.90. As our role requires, you can sec a smooth and continuous jncrease in this falloff all the way to age 100 and the drop-off increase becomes very small at the upper ages. 1 guess what 1 am trying to say IS that the 1993 proposal curve could not come closer to the existing WR's in the 55-75 age group because it already is falling off nearly as slowly as possiblo and still mcct the rules .

So, in effect, two people, Schonauer, at the lower end of the curve, and Gclbrich, at the upper end of the curve nre setting the pnce for tweryone else of all other ages of this gender and with this implement. TI1ey both excel more than once, !lO their throws do not sccn1 to be flukes . Everyone else simply does not measure up, and especially the 60 year old's that you chose as an example Should either or both ofthcso womert be thrown out of the analysis? Arc they truly female, of the age that they say, not taking strength enhancmg drugs, were the throws made w1th legal implements and were they measured correctly. We assumed yes and chose not to throw their pcrfonnances out, but not without debating the point. Others, as you can soc from tho proposal were thrown out for various reasons . If you or anyone else has insights that should be brought out, please do so and we will make changes if everyone agrees thnt it would make better Age Grading

So you can see that the 1993 update is truly based on actual perfonnances in spite oftJ1e W60 JaveJln performance percentage which, on the surface, appuars to be too low.

Now I think you can staat to get an nppreC1at10n of the magnitude of the work done by these Committees in this update and the lOO's and 1000's ofealls, FAX's and letters that went back

GTF SD-PURCHA SING ID:215-531-0038 JUN 09'93 20:15 No.OO? P.03

and forth in tho interaction. Remember all this was done, and re-done, and re-done many times on 132 different events!

I am certainly glad that you are bringing up the npparent anomalies that you have. It's just that I don't think that the Women's Javelin is wrong and I hopo you agroo after the above explanation. I havo rc-lookcd at the Womtm' High Jump and either J can't find the proper notes, or can\ remember the reasons, but it sooms to be too tough on all Women from about ago 40 up. A slight rework would seem in order. Thank you for pointmg it out. In fact, tho Committees have received some other informed feedback and the throwing I!VI!nts proposals have already boon changed for the better. Here are those changes for your perusal .

You are absolutely correct in saying that Veteratl athlclcs have not reached their maximum, just as Open athletes have not reached their maximum. Neither ever will, records will continue to be broken. But J think you will agroo that they will be broken faster In those relatively "new" events (as most Veteran•s competition IS) as more and more people try their hand at the events and every once in a while a truly exceptional person shows up like a Payton Jordan, or Jack Greenwood, or Derek Turnbull. We have to walk the fine line of keeping the Age Standards at, or in front of the athletes without getting too far ahead of them. 1993 update is a good attempt at that. The alternative is to stay with the 19~9 Age Grading which has many, many known weaknesses. It was our first try, and we know a lot more now and also have a lot more data

Let me say that we arc not downgrading our Veteran athletes by putting some (or most) of their World Records at Jess than 100%. We arc putting them on a logical continuum in the position that they deserve when compared to their pcct·s, their juniors and their elders. Each age group cannot be isolated from tlte others without total chao~ . In the runntng, oach event cannot even be divorced from ono another. Thoro must be a logical progression as the distance increases as well as the age. Some records (many), if taken alone, would not make any sense when compared with their neighbors and the system would be bclittltld and soon discarded as wrong. The whole Veteran's program would lose credibility. Our strength is our rospect. Giving ''weak" records the same weight u "outstAnding" records would lose us respect.

In tho system that you are recommending, arc you proposing to use the specialist World records for 1200 points or the Multi-event World Records (which we do not yot keep) . Remember, a 350 pound shot putter may do pretty well as n specialist, but would fa1l miserably as a Multi­Eventor when tt can1c time to Pole Vault and nm the 1500 meters .

I, or any other of the Sub-Committee members would be most glad to discuss yours or any other concept with you face to face, call to call, FAX to FAX , and letter to letter as we all have done too many ttmcs to be counted. I'm sorry that you have not stepped rorward sooner to be recognized as one interested in participating in the work of these particular Sub-Committees. There are many positions just begging for someone who has a fow hundred spare hours to fill them so JUSt let your des• res be known to the proper people.

J•m truly sorry that you are in so much hasto and confusiO!\. I'm nfrnid that our Conunittees took the extra time up trying to do the best possibh.: JOb, and left very little time to the Council Members Rcn1ember, this is very technical work and you and only a very few others would understand it's mtricacies . J hope the above has boon enlightening to you. Don't hesitate to contact me or anyone els:e on the Comnuttees. My new home address is 160 Chatham Way, Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 44124 USA. My business address is Parker-Hannifin Corporation, 17325 Euclid Avenue. Cleveland, Ohio 44112 My home phone is 216 446 0559. My business phone is 216 531 3000 and my host FAX is 216 531 0038 1 have a dee[j·nterest in these matters and will do anything I can to forward our sport. ~ (j

Ro" Harvey : _1-

WA VA Multi-Event S b' .. committee Ch ir

GTF~D-Pl CHRSING ID:216-531-0038 JUN 09'93 20:16 No.007 P.04

HJ 93AS 89AS REC. LOSS 93% oc AF 01 D2 03 ~

30 2.09 2.04 0.0 f-BRILL

2.09 1.0000 0.0711 0.0008 0.0008 - - ...... . ·-·-35 1.95 1.93 1.88 6.290 96.3 2.09 1.0711 0.01)9 0.0016 0.0012

·-;·.~a3·- --··· .......... -~ 1.83 1.7 6.042 93.0 2.09 1.1430 0.0735 0.0028 0.0016

-1.72 .... ~ ....... _ .. _

45 1.72 1.55 5.902 90.2 2.09 1 .2165 0.0763 0.0044 0.0020 50 1.62 1.61 1.47 6.876 90.9 TYLER 2.09 1.2928 0.0807 0.0064 0.0024 - -· ... 65 1.52 1.51 1.37 6.963 90.0 2.09 1.3735 0.0871 0.0088 0.0028 eo 1.43 1.42 1.27 6.161 88.8 __ ! . .Q9 ·-, ·:4-eoe 0.0959 0.0116 0.0032 66 1.34 1.32 1.22 6.460 90.9 OAVIOSO~---. 2.09 1.5566 0.1076 0.0148 0.0036 .. 70 , .26 , .23 1.13 6.847 90.0 . ~ERMASTER 2.09 1.6640 0.1223 0.0184 0.0040 75 , . , 7 1.15 1 7.302 85.5 2.09 1.7863 0.1407 0.0224 0.0044 -- .. .... ~ .. 80 1.08 1.07 0.88 7.803 81 .1 2.09 J .9270 0.1831 0.0268 0.0048 85 1.00 1 8.329 0.0 2.o·9 2.0901 0.1899 0.0316 0.0052

~ -- .. ···-----90 0.92 0.93 8.865 0.0 2.09 2.2800 0.2216 0.0368 -· -- .... -6 95 0.84 9.359 0.0 2.09 2.5015 0.2583 - ·-100 0.76 0.0 2.09 2.7598

4/4/93

--····-·-··· -~~~--

I -I , ,J) t:::;l

I \J c ;;o· n :r D fJ) 1--1

z G)

WOMEN'S HIGH JUMP

2.10 ... 1 1--1

~ t:::;l

1.90 l • tV 0 ~

m I

1.70 • 0 Ul T VI

r ~

I 0 I

• C>

1.50 -!.. [j 0

i • VI

~ • 93AS 00

• 1.30 ~ 0 89AS • .. • .....

~ • REC. • 1.10

• 0 L__j

c 0.90 0 :z

• • 0 0.0

• 0.70

0.0 VI

0.50 tV 0

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ~

en

z 0

0 0

"' -u

4/4/93 0 Ul

. GTFSD-PURCHASING 10:216-531-0038 JUN 09'93 20:17 No.OO? P.06

WTAF.XLS

JT 93AS AF 01 AF 02 89AS REC. LOSS 93% NAME oc AF 50 49.90 0.0140 0.0036 44.08 44.90 0.866 90.0 OZOLONA 80.00 1.6032 61 49.47 0.0176 0.0038 41.86 1.077 84.6 SC+\O..!~VE( 80.00 1.6172 52 48.94 0.0212 0.0036 43.82 1.280 89.6 SCHONAUER 80.00 1.6348 53 48.31 0.0248 0.0036 39.32 1.476 81.4 80.00 1.6660 64 47.80 0.0284 0.0036 . -44.78 --,~·aa2 .. _94.0 SCHONAUER 80.00 1.6808 66 46.81 0.0320 0.0036 ·-~.:~~ 40.10 1.838 86.7 80.00 1.7092

39.72 2.004 _,. __

66 46.95 0.0356 0.0038 86.5 80.00 1. 7412 67 46.02 0.0392 0.0036 36.64 _.?,.!.1_1?_9_ -~.h~ 80.00 1.7768

··~·-·-68 44.05 0.0428 0.0036 34.64 2.303 78.6 80.00 1.8160 69 43.04 0.0464 0.0036 28.14 2.436 65.4 80.00 1.8588 60 41.99 0.0500 0.0036 35.36 32.24 2.667 76.8 _.J..!i K '( T E' 80.00 1.9052

'"~2~668 __ ..... :--

61 40.92 0.0536 ~-~ -~~~~~ 65.6 80.00 1.9652 - ..... , . . ....... -~2.769 78:0 62 39.82 0.0572 0.0036 31.40 80.00 2.0088

83 38.72 0.0608 0.0036 26.88 2.869 66.8 80.00 2.0660 ··- ---··..- "26.4o ~~ 37.62 0.0644 0.0036 2.939 70.2 80.00 2., 268 65 36.61 0.0680 0.0036 31.49 26.64 3.010 72.7 80.00 2.1912 ~:;... ....... ~ .. ' .. # -· .. W.-'•~N• -. 66 35.41 0.0716 0.0036 23.16 3.072 65.4 80.00 2.2592 67 34.32 0.0752 0.0036 25.80 3.126 75.2 80.00 2.3308 . 68 33.26 0.0788 ~(_)36 23.22 3.171 69.8 80.00 ~!-~~

0.0824 ... --·---.. -

69 32.20 0.0036 22.30 3.210 69.3 80.00 2.4848 70 31.16 0.0860 0.0036 28.02 24.97 3.24.!_ f- 80.1 80.00 2.5672 ?1 30.15 0.0896 0.0036 23.24 3.267 77.1 80.00 2;6532 72 29.17 0.0932 0.0036 24.82 3.286 85.1 80.00 2.7428 - - ··--- ..... _ ...... ~ ------:- -·84~3 --73 28.21 0.0968 0.0038 23.77 3.301 80.00 2.8360 74 27.28 0.1004 0.0036 .J3:]! 3.310 86.4 80.00 2.9328 76 26.37 0.1040 0.0036 24.95 22.70 3.315 86., 80.00 3.0332 76 26.60 0.1076 0.0037 22.54 3.316 88.4 80.00

·- - ·:-=-=-::-3.1372

24.6'5 o. 1 1, 3 -------77 0.0039 23.02 3.316 93.4 G;fL~~~~ 80.00 3.2448 -78 23.84 0.1162 0.0041 22.70 3.319 95.2 GELBRICH -~9.00 3.3561 --79 23.05 0.1193 0.0043 18.00 3.323 78.1 80.00 3.4713 80 22.28 0.1236 0.0045 22.26 17.86 3.328 80.2 80.00 3.5906 81 21.54 0.1281 0.0047 17.12 3.334 79.5 80.00 3.7142 82 20.82 0.1328 0.0049 , 5:9.§. 3.341 72.3 80.00 3.8423 --- -27:7 -I~ 20.13 0.1377 0.0051 5.58 3.348 80.00 3.9751 --· -·

84 19.45 0.1428 0.0063 3.366 0.0 80.00 4.1128 85 18.80 0.1481 0.0066 19.92 13.74 3.363 73.1 80.00 4.2556 ._, ......... _ -•n-"'•'""'-"' -··- ··--86 18.17 0.1538 0.0067 3.370 0.0 80.00 4.4037 87 17.156 0.1593 0.0059 4.4Q. -l:l.?..? _£5.1 80.00 4.5573 ·--88 16.96 0.1852 0.0061 3.384 0.0 80.00 4.7166 - -·-89 16.39 0.1713 0.0063 3.390 o.o 80.00 4.8818 90 15.83 0.1776 0.0065 17.40 3.396 0.0 80.00 5.0531 --· 91 16.29 0.1841 0.0087 3.400 o.o 80.00 6.2307 92 14.77 0.1908 0.0089 1-·--- 3.404 0.0 80.00 5.4148 ·- --.. -· .... -· ----93 14.27 0.1977 0.0071 3.407 o.o 80.00 5.6056 94 13.79 0.2048 0.0073 3.409 0.0 80.00 6.8033 96 13.32 0.2121 0.0075 3.410 o.o 80.00 6.0081 r96 - 12.88

-------... . .. . ..... --· 0.2196 0.0078 3.410 o.o 80.00 6.2202 - -----·-.. 97 12.42 0.2274 0.0081 3.411 0.0 80.00 6.4398

3/30/93

54.00

49.00

44.00

39.00

34.00

29.00

24.00

19.00

14.00

9.00

4.00

,.---.,.-,-·--·---;--,--. ~--, ~ ~-~-- --~

i i _L__~;~--+-~~--

1 f I I · I

i '

...L:-.~~.1.--i-+-..;..--,---;.._-;-....;..-;-i . i ! .

~ ! ! !

JT2.XLC

WOMEN'S ~AVEUN THROW

. . -··- ~ -·-·· ----------···...:..- --------~ '

~ -· --~-L---:-~~- ~.l..-~-..:.... _ ___1_~--;--~-t- L--~- -:-~.--t-T--l

: _ _ . _.L..............&..__L.._L_L_.L_ _ ___.i,_ _ _l_ .____--L .. l. i i .~-i-~-'

.

: i

.. ---. !

-· ! ; i T"T~T"--'·-r-·--;·-

00 t.O

3/30/93

• 93AS

--o--- 89AS

REC .

Gl -1 , I .f)

t::l I

-u c: :;u n I :0 (/)

1-f

:z G)

1-1

t::l

tV ....... 0'1 I

Ul VI ....... I

0 0 VI 00

c.. c: :z

0 1,!)

1,!)

VI

tV 0

....... 00

:z 0

0 0

"""' -u

0

"'

100M 93AS 89AS m:c. LOSS 93%!NAME 20 10.13 ' 25 10.42 i 2.846 30 10.72 2.940 11##11

35 11.05 3.040 ####

40 11.40 f 3.157 ##It# 45 11.78 ' 3.305 #11#11 ; 50 12.19 13.14 3.500 92.7 OBERA

55 12.65 3.761 #11## 60 13.17 4.111 ###I 65 13.77 4.581 ##II# 70 14.49 5 .210 ###II

75 15.36 16.87 6.054 91.1 CLARK 80 16.47 7.193 11##11

85 17.91 8.755 1111##

90 19.87 10.951 1111##

95 22.69 14. HiS! 100 27.04 19.201 '

oc lAF OELTA1 DELTA2 10.761 1.0623 -0.02940 -0.0001 10.76 ' 1.0329 -0.02950 i -0.0001 10.76 1JXl34 -0.02960 -0.0002 10.76 0.9738 -0.02980 -0.0004 10.76 0.9440 -{).03020 -0.0007 10.76 0.9138 ..().03090 -0.0011 10.76 0.8829 -0.03200 ..0.0016 10.76 0.8509 -0.03360 -0.0022 10.76 0.8173 -0.03580 -0.0029 10.76 0.7815 -0.03870 -0.0037 10.76' 0.7428! -0.04240 .0.0046 10.76 0. 7004. -0.04700 .0.0056 10.76 0.6534 -0.05260 .0.0067 10.76 0.6008 -0.05930 -0.0079 10.76 0.5415 .0.06720 -0.00921 10.76 0.4743 -0.07640 l 10.76 0.3979 I

oaTA3 0.0000

-0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0003 -0.0004 -0.0005 -0.0006 -0.0007 -0.0008 -{).0009 .0.0010 ·0.0011 -o.0012 .0.0013

G)

-1 , (f) '

o . I

-u C: , ;;u n :::r: :n (f)

1---i

:z G)

w c: :z

0 0..0

0..0 (.N

tv 0

:z 0

0 0 -..J

-u 0 00

200M 93AS 89AS REC. LOSS 93%INAME 30 21.57 l 3.273 ###Jf I 35 22.27 l 3 .• 06 #I#K 40 23.03 I 24.84 3.57~ 92.7 RASCHKER 45 23.85 26.24 3.787' 90.9 HINES 50 24.76 27.54 4.072 89.9 OBERA 55 25.76 28.48 4.452 90.5 OBERA 60 26.91 4.960 #1#1 65 28.25 5.640 111#1 70 29.84 6.553 11#1 75 31.80 35.93 7.792 88.5 CtARK 80 34.27 9.504 Ill# II 85 37.53 11.939i #### 90 42.01 15.571! #### 95 48.55 21 .411j 1111111 I

100 58.95 1111#11#

oc AF DELTA1 DELTA2 OELTA3 21.64 1.00341 -0.03180 -0.00021 -0.0002 21.64 0.9716 -0.03200 -0.0004 -0.0003 21.64 0.9396 -0.032401 -0.0007 -0.0004 21.64 0.9072 -0.03310! -0.0011 -0.0005 21.64 0.8741 -0.03420 -0.0016 -o.0006 21.64 0.8399 -0.03580 -0.0022 -0.0007 21.64 0.8041 -0.03800 -0.0029 -0.0008 21.64 0.7661 i -0.04090 -0.0037 ; -o.0009 21.64 0. 7252 -0.04460 -0.0046 -o.0010 21.64 0.6806 -0.04920 j -0.0056 -0.0011 21.64 0.5314 -0.05480 -0.0067 -0.0012 21.64 0.5766 .().06150 -0.0079 -0.0013 21.64 0.5151 ...0.06940 -0.0092 21.64 0.4457 -0.07860 21.64 0.3671

G)

---i ""T'I w• CJ . I • -u

C , ;u (I :r: D (/)

~

z G)

IV ........ en I

U1 0.1 ........ I

0 0 0.1 00

L.,

c: z 0 U)

U)

0.1

IV 0

........ U)

z 0

. . . ,:,TF D Pl., CHR ING ID:216-531-0038 JUN 09 ' 93 20 :20 No.007 P.lO

NATIONAL MASTERS NEWS T OfftCial world • nd U.S. publle.tion for Muttrs track & field , ton a distance runnlnga"d reee waUd11 .

Jun<'! 9, 1993 5:20 p.m. Pl>T.

To f Harvey

Rtnu

Follo 1ng 1& a 2 .. p ge letter I plan t.o hx to Jint tomorrow ('t'hurs),

Pl.,•u td m 1t you thtn'k it'~"~ okey • and if you hA any sogs&st:lnn•,

Th nks •

• s. Beeau•e I ju11t r~, abeted 1r 1 1 re~e.dy ul'lt lOth ( tha 410ac\ 1n ) 1n Ne Z lano, 1 went ahP4d an~ faxed 1t to h1m to~ay. Hcpt you approve.

/'(l- I

v

Ph~tl (818) '785·139.8 FAX1 (818) 712·1 135

.. A NATIONAL MASTERS NEWS] The official world and U.S. publication for Masters track & field, long distance running and race walking.

June 10, 1993

Dear Jim:

Bill sent me a copy of your fax expressing some concerns with the proposed new WAVA age-graded tables.

Rex told me he would write you re the method of calculating the field-event tables, including some minor revisions suggested by yourself, Rodney Charnock, and others.

I have .a few comments on the running events, to wit:

1) Both Rex's and my committees decided to calculate the men's standards first, using pretty reliable data compiled over the past 25 years of actual performances. As you can see on the report (page 6), there are ~xactly 50 men's performances (29 running, 19 field-event, and 4 racewalking) that received a performance level of 99%-100%. Moreover, virtually all open men's world records are ranked at 100%, Thus, we used actual data, not some pre-conceived projections, to establish the men's standards.

2) Naturally, some Een's WRs fall Below the 99% level, because they are soft records. We judge them so because they fall below the curve we established, which was based on the 100% performances. To use the exact records for every age group and every event would naturally distort the whole taBles; we had to use a smooth, logical curve, based on the premise that an athlete's performance would always be lesser with advancing age.

3) After we arrived at satisfactory men's standards, we mathematically calculated the men's factors (the open standard divided by the age-group standard = the age-group factor) •

4) We then had a month-long debate as to whether to assign the women's running events the same factors as the men's, or to give the women a "break," and ease their factors, as we had done in 1989.

A/or!Y' Grf!"l' I a .... Lc'IIE'cov<:, One school, headed by Mike Tymn,and Pete Mundle, felt there is no evidence anywhere to indicate that women age faster than men, and so the women should receive the same factors as the men. The second school felt that would make the women's percentages (and multi-event scores) too low in comparison to the men; and they recommended giving the women about a 10% to 15% advantage. They could cite no empirical or medical evidence to support this~ since some women HAVE achieved outstanding performances (Priscilla Welch, Evy Palm, Maricica Puica, Britta Tibbling, etc.) But they argued that most veteran women athletes did not compete in their youth, and it would take another 20 years for the women to truly reach their potential in the upper age groups. As a practical matter, they

P.O. Box 2372, Van Nuys, CA 91404 Phone: (818) 785-1895 FAX: (818) 782-1135

.. ·~

-2 -

favored giving the women a 10-15% advantage for reasons of fairness, practicality and good puolic relations.

The second view eventually prevailed. Tymn is still unconvinced and feels the women's factors are too easy, out the rest of us were persuaded by the second school's arguments. Thus, as you'll note, the factors for the women are about "10%-15%" easier than the men's.

(Mathematically, we took the men's factor of, e.g., .8550, and subtracted from 1.0000 to get .1450. We multiplied 1450 by 10% to get 1595, then deducted that from 10000 to get the women's factor of .8405. We then massaged that figure into our uniform formula to arrive at the women's factors for each event. You can check any comparable running or walking event at any age and find this calculation generally applying.)

5) Then, t·o get.:: the women-!:s standards, we.:.established Woments_open sta~dards and simply divided it by each age-group factor to get the standard.for each age group.

6) We established the women's open standards generally based on the current women's WR, but specifically based on a formula of 11% more than the men's WR. That seemed logical and followed established wisdom. It also made almost all the current women's WRs about 99% or 100%, and kept the curve smooth.

7) As noted in the report, we arbitrarily threw out FloJos 100 and 200WRs, which were only 6% above the men's 100/200 WRs, and would have made the women's standards impossible to meet, However, even so, the women's 100 and 200 OC standards are less than the above-mentioned 11% more than the men's OC standard. Presumably, the women are able to perform better in the sprints in relation to the men than they are in the 1500, 5K, etc. At least, that's what we determined from the current data.

8) The W60 100 and 200 standards, which you cite as being too tough, are based on all of the above. Mainly, they're !~tough" because the 60-year-old men have run very fast times. The current women's W60 WR of 13.9 is 17.8% above the men's M60 WR of 11.8. Clearly, this 13.9 is a soft record and logically will be broken soon. The committees felt it was imperative to not be fooled by these soft records, and to establish a uniform, consistent, smooth curve for both men and women, using the 50 aforementioned 99%-100% men's performances as our basic focal points.

I hope this is useful information and will enable you to support the ~·o~use~ J lit tables as far as the running events go. Please fax me if you

have any questions or comments.

Best regards,

~en cc: Harvey, Taylor