Jump to content

Talk:Women's pole vault world record progression

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 29 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "List" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Sports}}, {{WikiProject Athletics}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

The data for the records set during 2003 can't be right, as records with earlier dates are put after later records. Someone who knows which dates that are the right ones? Gunnar Larsson 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a couple of the dates that were erroneously listed as 2003 when they happened in 2004, researching press releases and such... ...however there is still a discontinuity in the list that I find conflicting information on, regarding the Russian records set in February and March of 2004. Some lists of records omit these while others list them -- including the discontinuity with Dragila's 2004 jump (one page also had the 2003 error, however press releases found via Google showed that this was false). Either Dragila's vault was not actually a record, or the two Russian records were disqualified for some reason. 134.50.7.201 07:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the record progession, using files I had from Track and Field News. There were a few errors, such as Dragilla's record set at the 1999 World Championships was set in August, not in October.

The confusion early in 2004 arose because the IAAF started to ratify some marks set indoors as outdoor records, as long as the conditions were equilivant. Accordingly, Yelena Isinbayeva's Feb 15 2004 indoor record of 4.83 set as Donets'k Ukraine was also considered the outdoor record. That record was broken by Svetlana Feofanova Feb 22 2004 with a 4.85 leap, also set indoors. Finally, Isinbayeva leaped 4.86 indoors at the World Indoor Championships Mar 6 2004, and this was also considered the outdoor record.

Then, Stacy Dragila leaped 4.83 at Ostrava June 8 2004 to apparently set a new world record (the previous outdoor best being 4.82 by Isinbayeva July 2003), that is until the IAAF ruled that they considered those above-mentioned marks to have been "outdoor" records. So, though Dragila had leaped highest outside to that point, she didn't hold the record, Isinbayeva did.

The issue was quickly settled when Isinbayeva leaped 4.87 in Gateshead June 27 2004.

I hope that clears up a rather murky and confusing sequence of events... (Johnny Canuck 18:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]


One added point (I used to be "Johnny Canuck"): "Outdoor" records are somewhat misleading in that they aren't specifically designated "outdoor" records by the IAAF, just as records. That is why some records set indoors also qualify as world records as those records aren't defined as being "outdoor" per se.

Canada Jack 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record clean-up

[edit]

With the benefit of the recently published by the IAAF of progression lists of all events, I have cleaned up the page to include the progression list of world records. It differs somewhat from other progression lists I've seen (especially in regards to regarding some indoor marks as "world records"), however since the IAAF is the ultimate sanctioning body for the sport, the list here should be seen as definitive. I've added the IAAF reference as per the indoor marks question, and I made a special note regarding Feofanova's 4.85 in 2004 - the IAAF list has Isbyaneva as setting it, but Feofanova in fact did it, a fact confirmed by the IAAF itself on their website.

The other major discrepancy is in terms of some of the early records in the mid-90s. But, again, this is straight from the IAAF itself and should be regarded as definitive unless there is information (such as a particular mark being ratified and then subsequently rescinded) otherwise, the list should stand as is.

I also took out the chart showing the progression as it is now incorrect, but if one is to be re-inserted we should take care to put it above or below the table, otherwise the information in the table gets squeezed and it becomes a mess for those with narrower screens. Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]