Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:53, 14 January 2020

Template:Vital article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Olympics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Running High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge tag all running related articles with {{WikiProject Running}} adding assessment and importance parameters when missing find references for articles listed on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Running/Unreferenced BLPs adopt an article and promote it to GA Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Athletics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

ATHLETICS

1. Athletics is very active and energetic.
2. People train for years to get soo far.
3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.216.125 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As Disambiguation

It is clear that this page has one, distinct topic into which all (or most) of the successive pages fit. By WP guidelines, this page should use the "(disambiguation)" in the title. Because Athletics (overview) is the topic page, Athletics should forward to it. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be clear to you. But I've fixed a lot of links to this disambiguation page where the intended meaning is for track and field, and not for Athletics (overview). --Tesscass (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Track and field fall under the general topic of "Athletics." That is crystal clear.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Earthlyreason posted this on the discussion page of Sportsperson:

As 'athlete' has a single major meaning, which this page aspires to describe, that should be the page name, with a separate disambiguation page for the other minor related terms, such as the band. 'Athlete' is much more common than the ugly and rare 'sportsperson' including in the UK (I speak as a Brit who defends British English against marginalisation.) As a start to improving this page, I've removed the inaccurate reference to AmE, and - in a first for this page - included a reference to back it up. Here it is in full (note that order of meanings implies importance):

Collins English Dictionary'"" (Millennium Ed) - a British publication

athlete (1) a person trained to compete in sports or exercises involving physical strength, speed or endurance. (2) a person who has a natural aptitude for physical activities. (3) Chiefly Brit. a competitor in track and field events.

In following Boolean function: If "Athlete" is a general term used in Great Britain for a sports competitor and not solely the "track & field" competitor; and the Gaelic Athletic Association regards football and coaching; then doesn't it make sense that Athletics should regard the general topic and not merely just the narrowed topic ?TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation says:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page.

According to this WP Disambiguation principle, this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, but should hold the article of general topic, Athletics (overview). My suggestion to merge (below) follows the guidelines, and will greatly reduce the ambiguity in which this topic swims. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wish "athletics" isn't used interchangeably with "track and field". My point is only that for a lot of the pages I've disambiguated, the editors used the word "athletics" to mean track and field competitions. To me, having fixed so many links to athletics means it is ambiguous. --Tesscass (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tesscass, and SillyFolkBoy and I (TommyKirchhoff) all believe "athletics" is indeed ambiguous. This is why we should follow WP guidelines to disambiguate the major topic from the sub-topics. Athletics (sport) is a sub-topic, and it is sheerly confusing to North Americans, and most anyone else whose English is not strong enough to differentiate between "athletic" and "athletics meant to mean track and field." Regardless of how many links mean to convey "athletics as track and field," they do not change the fact that Athletics (sport) is a sub-set of "Athletics" as a general term closely related to "athletic" and their root word, "Athlete." When I first landed on the Athletics (sport) page, I was baffled as to how "athletics" meant "the competitive sports of track & field & footracing, popular because they require little equipment." Although English-speaking Europeans might find the same confusion if they land on a general page about "athletics," the Collins Dictionary citation and Earthlyreason's post both connote acceptance of the root word "athlete" as a general term. The suggestions I make here are not radical; they follow the WP guidelines for disambiguation, which we all agree that "athletics" is ambiguous.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you agree it is ambiguous, then why are you suggesting that this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, but should hold the article of general topic, Athletics (overview)? I'm not convinced that the overview qualifies as a primary topic. The complaint you appear to lodge against Athletics (sport) could be addressed as well by editing that article (and the several others in related terms) as by moving articles about. As it stands now, I find Athletics (overview) to be the weaker and more confusing article. It appears to be describing the regimen of an athlete rather than what is more commonly understood by athletics. I see no reason at the present that Athletics should not remain a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems someone has now proposed Athletics (overview) for deletion. I think this topic needs involvement from several wiki projects at the same place. How do we do that? --Tesscass (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad: I am suggesting it should NOT be a dab because the WP guidelines say this page should be the article of general topic, NOT a disambiguation page; please read the dab guideline above again. Also, it sounds like you need to read both the Athletics (overview) and the Athletics (sport) pages again to better comprehend them for yourself. The overview page is unquestionably the general topic, regardless that it is a much newer page with fewer links, and is not as developed. Athletics (sport) is a specific set of athletic games and fits neatly under Athletics (overview), as does the Oakland Athletics which is a baseball team; I have lodged no such complaint about the article, and believe it needs to remain the way it is, but that it could have a better name. The NCAA is a giant organization which liberally uses "athletics" to mean the general topic; to ignore that the general topic exists in favor of promoting the sub-topic of Athletics (sport) is to ignore that the NCAA exists. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics also means athletics as a general topic.

Tesscass: JohnBlackburne egregiously suggested the deletion, but I think it's safe to say that idea has been debunked. SFB is the project manager; SFB posted on Blackburne's suggestion to delete that Athletics (overview) is notable enough. I don't think this needs to get a bunch of people involved; the people who are involved just need to get comfortable with the concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the British, and that there is no global English semantic difference between "athletic" and "athletics." Thus, this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. There should be a separate dab called Athletics (disambiguation).TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a moment and skim over the first few sections of the NCAA's Title IX: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/diversity+and+inclusion/gender+equity+and+title+ix/facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Athletics (overview)

I looked up the IP address of the first comment made by 90.212.216.125. It is from the Isle of Man. Nothing about it makes me think specifically of the games known as track & field, and footracing. From a global English perspective, a fundamental difference between athletic and athletics is very subtle, semantic, and seems to be isolated to Great Britain (and other isolated places). Athletics is used liberally to mean competitive sports in most areas of the world, and in North America and Asia (translations) prolifically. I believe the overbearing, global meaning of Athletics is competitive sports, not the specific "games of track & field." This page should contain the information from Athletics (overview) with a tophat link to the dab and to Athletics (sport), which might need a less ambiguous name. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Merging for the recommended way to propose a merge. Or you may be waiting a long time without anyone taking notice. --Tesscass (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do this move. It will make it much harder to correct incoming links, and it will impose one variety of English over another. I don't, personally, think that Britain is really an "isolated place". DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DuncanHill. The exact term "athletics" is ambiguous and the current slew of pages describing the various aspects of athletics are a complete mess. I suggest expending some effort to improve the Athletics (overview), as well as the other related articles. There may be possibility to revisit a move in the future, but at present I think a disambiguation page is the most appropriate. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I advocate that "Athletics" remain a disambiguation, with the two principle targets being "Athletics (sport)" and "Athletics (activity)" .

Following on from Tommy Kirchhoff's comments here... Do you have a citation that states that the American definition of track and field includes cross country? USA Track & Field seems to think they are separate sports. From what I can gather, US colleges treat them as distinct too – otherwise, why do they have separate "track" and "XC" teams?

What is the purpose of the NCAA link? I understand that the meaning of athletics in the US is that found at athletics (overview), but it does not touch on the international ambiguity of the word, thus suggesting that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

The idea that athletic sports is not developed because of its titling does not follow; sport is also very underdeveloped but I assume most people are happy with that title. While the public consciousness maintains the fallacy that the prose of good, in-depth Misplaced Pages articles is the work of many hands adding little bits, I have never found that to be true. When an article reaches a good standard it is because a handful of people (perhaps even just one or two) have researched and laboured to achieve the result. Misplaced Pages (for all its internet glory) is a very niche thing. SFB 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@DuncanHill - The merge proposal does not "impose one variety of English over another," while the current naming system does. NCAA & North American use of "athletics" is in the broad sense. British use of "athletics" is for a much more narrow group of games. Again, WP guidelines support the merge proposal and connote that "we're doing it wrong." Why do you believe the way these pages are currently named is more efficient than the way WP suggests they should be? The guidelines exist to mitigate ambiguity, while the current page names only make these topics more ambiguous. I understand there are a lot of links, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the guidelines and instead make up our own naming system.

@Bkonrad - You describe these pages as "a mess." Therein implies your approval of some kind of remedy. These pages simply do not follow the guidelines for disambiguation. That is why they are a "mess."

@SFB - The link you provide above shows that USA Track & Field is the governing body for both track and for cross country. The purpose of the NCAA link is to exemplify how that huge organization uses "athletics" in the broad sense, as opposed to a more narrow one like the Oakland Athletics. Athletics (activity) is offensive to North Americans (me); we take athletics very seriously, and not merely as an "activity" like catching butterflies in a net. The WP disambiguation guideline states clearly that the general topic should take the name, and that the DAB should have (disambiguation) in the title. If the principle is to help folks navigate WP to find their information quickly, we are failing with these pages. When I first started looking around at Athletics (sport) and Athletic sports, I was completely confused. I created Athletics (overview) to quell my own confusion. Now we need to overhaul these pages to clean up the "mess." The links might make it a lot of work, but that should not stop us from doing this correctly. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. The term is ambiguous and disambiguation is required. The only question left is whether there is a primary topic. Athletics (overview) is entirely inadequate for that purpose at the present time. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And respectfully, I agree that it is ambiguous, which necessitates FOLLOWING THE WP GUIDELINES. The NCAA link demonstrates with absolute clarity that Athletics (overview) is the primary topic. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sample of usage does nothing of the sort. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "athletics" is used 22 times on that page. The NCAA governs multitudes of sports and games, not merely track and field. If you cannot comprehend the context and usage of "athletics" in that passage, perhaps you could get someone to read and explain it to you. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "athletics" is used hundreds of times in this link, and yet, I'm not sure you will comprehend its usage here either: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this specific passage from the NCAA manual will clarify "athletics" as the primary topic:

3.2.4.5 Application of Rules to All Recognized Varsity Sports.

To be recognized as a varsity sport, the following conditions must be met:

(b) The sport officially shall have been accorded varsity status by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics; (Revised: 3/8/06)

(c) The sport is administered by the department of intercollegiate athletics;

(d) The eligibility of student-athletes participating in the sport shall be reviewed and certified by a staff member designated by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics policy;

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Condescending snotty remarks don't help make your case. The term as used by that single source (the NCAA) does not necessarily reflect worldwide usage and it is silly to try to make such an argument based on a single source. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated worldwide usage. You choose not to see it, and ostensibly ignore the breadth of the world's largest athletic association, the NCAA. Seems worthy of ridicule to me. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all your verbose ramblings you have not clearly demonstrated that there is a primary topic for the ambiguous term. You have shown what is essentially a common dictionary definition usage of the term, not necessarily a distinct encyclopedic topic. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have done just that, and you're the only one who doesn't "understand." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the number of editors who don't agree with you (both here and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athletics (overview)), it looks like I'm not the only one. And it is not that I don't understand what you are saying, I simply do not agree that you have demonstrated that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Try this link: http://www.mgoblue.com/

Right under "tickets," it reads "give to athletics." What do you think that means ? And please notice "NCAA Rules" right next to that. I like to infer "rules" as a verb. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You're showing common dictionary uses of a term, not that there is a single encyclopedic topic that is the primary topic. Athletics (overview) is certainly not that topic (at least at present). older ≠ wiser 14:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised; but I have proved positive that "athletics" is used as a broad encyclopedic term that encompasses administration, politics, funding, training & coaching systems of collegiate, amateur and professional sports and games. It is in fact the primary topic, which is described in Athletics (overview)-- albeit spartanly because it is a new page-- and should take the name of this page according to the WP disambiguation guideline posted boldly above. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I'd say first improve the article and then we can talk about whether it is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline makes no mention of an article's "quality score" or "development quotient." This assurance would seem to be another rule "we're" making up on our own, much like the way "we" have decided to disambiguate "athletics," rather than following the WP guidelines for disambiguation. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. In order for Athletics (overview) to be the primary topic, there needs to be consensus among editors that the topic satisfies the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That consensus does not exist and I don't think it can exist while that article is so unsatisfactory in explaining the diverse meanings of the term. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think the point here is that, yes, the NCAA definition of athletics mirrors that of the American populace at large. That aspect was never in denial. The ambiguity of the word "athletics" emerges not from within America itself, but rather from virtually all English-speaking people outside of the country. The other third of the world's English-speaking people (who live outside of the US) pretty much all think of athletics (sport) when talking of "athletics", not athletics (overview) (I can provide examples if you wish). If one in three people is in disagreement, then I think that means there is significant ambiguity of the terms.

It is an indication of the widespread use of the term that the Athletics at the Summer Olympics is named so. All major international athletics championships refer to the track and field side of the division, not the general athletics side. While the American meaning carries significant valency in its domain, that power does not translate much beyond the borders – hence the need for a disambiguation at the main page. My reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case is that 2/3 is not enough to establish an obvious main topic.

As a side note, the other third is also supplemented by a not insignificant number of English-as-second-language-speakers who equate athletics in English with their own words relating to the IAAF meaning (be it Leichatletik/Athlétisme/Atletismo/Lekkoatletyka/Atletiek etc). There are many of them here. The disambiguation guidelines do not mention the place or worth of these speakers, but given that such people are not exempt from such discussions it would seem that they do (de facto) carry some weight as well (I'm not agreeing with this, but there has been no prior discussion of this aspect of English Misplaced Pages as far as I know). SFB 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SFB. I think the tools recommended in the PrimaryTopic link can be very useful. They suggest using http://stats.grok.se/ which shows Athletics (sport) receiving traffic > 17000 in June 2011, and Athletics (overview) receiving traffic of >5000 in June 2011 (pretty amazing for a brand new page). I think traffic on the (overview) page is only going up exponentially; let's wait and see. What may be more important is that WP suggests searching Google with depersonalization in the search string. Results found here might show significant tipping of the scales toward the North American connotation being more globally searched with those results having more click-throughs and higher quality scores. The point I am still trying to make is not of semantics, but usage. Brits use "athletics" in a more narrow sense. Yankees use it in a more broad sense. At last, I will be patient in this discussion so that the usage of the term can sink in and make sense of itself in regards to the WP guidelines for disambiguation. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a depersonalizer tool. Please search "athletics" for yourself.

http://www.facesaerch.com/depersonalizer/

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The .com domain is the top-level domain for the US so it is not surprising that it reflects American usage. These are not the results that any English-speaker will find outside of that country. (Aside from the automatic google reference to the Oakland A's latest results) The Canadian google page offers a mixture of results, while every other English language variant reflects the other usage of athletics. The traffic for the new page is significant, but I'm unsure what exactly it represents – after two stable months of about 50 hits a day, there has been a direct correlation between increased traffic and the page's presence at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (one of the more active parts of Misplaced Pages). SFB 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tommy that this disambiguation page should be retained. Athletics as an all-embracing term to mean sports is used only in American English and is confusing to the rest of the world. This is an international encyclopaedia not an American encyclopaedia. Dahliarose (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the rest of the world understands "athletic" with perfect clarity, it seems to me this is a British encyclopedia. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympic & World Medals

I note that the 200 metres wiki entry contains a list of Olympic & World champions for both men and women. Would it not be better if this article included the same for consistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.10.144 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the Olympic Medals tables, consistent with the placement before the World Championship medals tables on the 200 metres page. The tables for the World Championship medals were already inserted.  Done --Fsjeter (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

These records are not under dispute! Mens long jump still stands! Tailwind? Dont publish speculation. Record stands as possibly the best in Olympic/world championship history. No woman has come within .15 in 30 yrs. Not cheating just better. BS to claim she cheated when she never failed Mlalepayne (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No facts involved. 10.49 seconds! Best athlete compared to competition in sports history Mlalepayne (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

article name to "100 m"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can somebody change the article name to '100 m'? Bobblewik  (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Canada Jack 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree, the name of the article should be "100 m" and not "100m". It can't be moved easily because previously 100 m was a redirection to other page, so an administrator must do the movement. --surueña 08:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I agree and we need to consider the same thing for 200m and 400m that are also incorrectly named. David D. 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support move also 200m and 400m (and there is no need to move the articles 4x100 m relay, 4x400 m relay). --surueña 07:54, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Support move to 100 m. James F. (talk) 00:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree The standard notation for SI units is that the abbreviation immediately follows the quantity, without a space: my weight and height should be recorded as 77kg and 1.78m, not 77 kg and 1.78 m Kevin McE 08:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement withdrawn: although what I have said here is what I have always beleived to be correct, I observe that WP:MOSNUM states the contrary. Kevin McE 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

i deleted a Chuck Norris joke in the notes about fastest men. Are these popping up on Misplaced Pages, too? It's like a cancer! The chavi 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

'100 metres' rather than '100 m'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I notice that some articles put the unit name in full e.g. Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres. Others use the symbol form. I am beginning to wonder if we should have a policy of using full unit names for article titles by default. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Bobblewik.—Theo (Talk) 15:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to such a change. David D. 16:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should it be just 'X metres' or 'X metres <BLAH>' where BLAH is run, race or something else? Bobblewik  (talk) 11:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

metres ??

Isn’t the correct spelling meters? Both in Title and in the text it's spelled metres some and sometimes meters Lappen 21:40:25, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

meter is the usual spelling in USA, metre in UK. Wiki policy is that the article should be internally and preserve the dialect of the creator of the article. The IAAF uses metres. The article currently has 3 occurrences of metre and otherwise sidesteps the issue by using the abbreviation m Kevin McE 08:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The SI unit is "metre." You Americans don't even use the unit "metre." Shaizakopf 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as Kevin McE said, the IAAF had set the spelling standard. Keep in mind too that most of the world will agree that metres is spelled metres, and since they use it on a day to day basis, why argue? Also, Shaizakopf, try not to use phrases such as "you Americans." You're assuming Lappen is American, and we all know what happens when you assume, right? Also, the United States does in fact use SI for many things, although it hasn't been officially adopted. ElijahD (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I SAY METERS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.186.126 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And I say tomato!...wait...that's not right...hmmmmm.... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

punch ball

Alan Wells may have used a punch ball back in the 1970s, but it's not something any modern athlete does.

False start to get an advantage? and disqualified?

The new rule is that after one false start, anyone responsible for a false start is disqualified immediately, though this rule has lead to some sprinters deliberately false starting to gain a psychological advantage especially if they're one of the slower starters in the field.

How does false starting and being disqualified give that person an advantage!? --Fxer 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Because after the first false start *everyone* in the field is in danger of disqualification, and will therefore be more cautious reacting to the gun.- 81.79.157.142

Yeah, also the runners have to re-set themselves and get ready for the race again. They have to get their racing mentality back and put their mindset to running as fast as they can. Jazza5 08:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the logical basis for this tactic, but can anyone actually find an instance where this tactic is employed (at the professional level)? Honestly I've never actually heard of it; but then again, the way I've always raced is that a false start is an automatic disqualification.Mipchunk 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wind

By the looks of it, the wind column in the mens top 100 metre is measured in metres/second. Can someone who is more knowlegable please put the units into the table heading to remove any confusion over units. --Clawed 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of disqualifications

Are disqualifications relevant to the fastest time to run 100m? Or is this merely a athletics regulatory bodies point of view?--Darrelljon 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are to include times which were disqualified, why not include wind-aided times as well? I think the rule of thumb here should be "legal" marks, marks which were set under legal conditions.

BTW, I have clarified some of the notes here regarding ratified records. Gatlin can't be credited with having set a world record until the governing body of the sport - the IAAF - ratifies the record. And one of the reasons for the ratification process is to avoid the sort of snafus which we saw over the misinterpretation of the time he ran by the people at the meet.

Canada Jack 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAAF website still credits Gaitlin with a share of the World Record and 2nd place in the form rankings. Is there an authority that can be cited for his efforts having already been deleted. If not, they should be restored, because it is not the place of an encyclopedia to anticipate events, ne matter how inevitable they appear. Kevin McE 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ben Johnson's 9.83 record wasn't revoked until Jan 1 1990, more than a year after his Olympic disqualification. Last I checked (yesterday), Gatlin is still credited with a share of the record. Canada Jack 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add as I think there may be a misunderstanding here, the thing I clarified in terms of Gatlin earlier was that he was NOT "briefly" the sole record holder at 9.76 s - because the IAAF never ratified that time. He was credited in the media with that "new" world record, but it was a pending record, pending the ratification process of the IAAF. They ratified the 9.77 s time. A time which, as Kevin notes, is still considered a joint world record until the IAAF decrees otherwise. I believe the IAAF issued a press release after Gatlin's admission of drug use that says they will await the appeal process he is undergoing where he wants early reinstatement. That implies that the record would only be revoked after the end of the appeal process.

Canada Jack 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there will be an appeals process. i think he has admitted his guilt and he has been given an eight year ban by the IAAF with the possability of serving only four years for good behaviour. What ever that means. I assume the record will be revoked at the next IAAF ratification meeting. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes more sense.

Canada Jack 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Gatlin's world record

Here is a reminder: As of June 8, 2007, Justin Gatlin still holds the 100m world record with 9.77 (+1.7 m/s), as ratified by the IAAF. If anybody sees the articles for 100 metres, World record progression 100 metres men, Justin Gatlin, or Asafa Powell stating anything otherwise, pleasing change it back so that Gatlin is once again stated to be the co-record holder. So far I have not heard any updated news about when Gatlin's record may be revoked or at least taken under consideration by the IAAF. Mipchunk 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Heats?

Does anyone think adding a section to do with heats would be appropriate? I think for this article to offer information and inform the public about the 100 meter sprint more efficiently, I think that the Olympic 100 Meter sprint heat system should be fully explained and put in the article. Thoughts? Jazza5 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the structure of the heats in the 100m depends highly on specific competition, how many total competitors there are, etc. To focus specifically on the Olympic Games would be too narrow. I think it is possibly worth mentioning, but I feel that the system of heats in track competitions is not directly related to the actual 100m dash itself. Also, for the record, the proper spellings are "efficiently" and "article". It's important to be picky about spelling on Misplaced Pages since there shouldn't be any typos on the articles. Mipchunk 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am usually very careful with my spellings. It was only a thought and as I was doing a project on Athletics I thought I could find the information on here (Which I usually could have) but I couldn't. Anyway cheers for the correction Mipchunk...Jazza5 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A

Can someone include a footnote which explains the "A" following the time of Marion Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article it states A refers to altitude above 1000m, just for reference as there is no legal limit currently in place. - Rambo's Revenge 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Marion Jones record...

Shouldn't she get one of those asterisks like after the men b/c of her performance enhancing drug thing? i'm not sure how to write that up, so it would be much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.167.160 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion Jones admitted taking drugs starting in 2000 (the year of the Olympic games). Thus her Olympic performances in 2000 were disqualified, but her world record time was set in 1999 and thus still stand. Mipchunk (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tyson Gay Olympic Trials 9.77 6/28/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuozzo (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

False starts paragraph

I have read and reread the last part of this about gaining an advantage through false starts and I still can't understand it. Could someone make it clearer? 83.221.80.189 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Year of performance as a secondary criterion

At present, the year a performance was completed in is used as the secondary criterion for ordering the performances in the tables of the top times. However, I suggest that the wind speed associated with a performance be used as the secondary criterion. It seems to me that using wind speed as such gives a more accurate reflection of the quality of the performance. That said, perhaps somebody could explain to me why the current system is used, as it may indeed be that it is the better one. Milthom (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. Overall, using wind speeds as a measure of performance is still a shaky judgment, as the wind speed measurement only takes into account maximum wind speed at any time throughout the race. Occasionally a strong wind is measured when, in reality, the wind aid was negligible because it immediately died down. I personally like ordering by date as the secondary criterion since it shows when the athlete first achieved his personal best. For example, suppose Usain Bolt, in the future, never improves his personal best, but continues to run 9.72 for five years straight (obviously a highly unlikely scenario). I would rather see when he first achieved this historic mark rather than when he happened to do it with slightly less wind, even if, statistically, it is probable that this performance may have been slightly better. Mipchunk (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's a good point, but the purpose of the table is to list the best performances in order, not to order by how historic the performance is. If one person ran the same time as another but had a lesser advantage from the wind, their performance would be the better one. It does not make sense to me to use one criterion to determine one method for ordering and to then use another criterion to try and simultaneously determine another method for ordering. Milthom (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But there are many other criteria that will affect the time an athlete might record: weather, altitude (even if below the threshold for noting it), competitiveness of the race, quality of the track, etc. It comes near to OR to choose one variable as the sorting principle. I would suggest either to order them by date or, to be even more neutral about a second criterion, alphabetically. I do think, though, that an asterisk, or something similar, leading to a footnote, to indicate multiple performances of the same time would be worthwhile. Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there are too many factors to consider to give an undeniable listing. If there were a reasonable algorithm to calculate how all such factors affect a performance, maybe it would be different. However, as the similar times must be listed in some order, it still seems more suitable to list them in order of wind speed, or whichever factor generally has the most impact upon judging how good the athlete's performance was. The current system uses an irrelevant criterion. Wind speed and other analogous factors are relevant criteria, and give more likely accurate--albeit not perfect--indication, which is the best that can be accomplished at this moment in time. Milthom (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The only criterion by which 100m runs are judged is time. We are not giving a second criterion to decide which was the better performance, that would be OR. All that is to be decided is the order in which to list equal performances. Date or alphabetical are the onlyNPOV justifications. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Milthom (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE: the IAAF does not rank performances by anything other than time. The wind is either legal or illegal. The site comparing wind and altitude that Mipchunk cites below is interesting, but has no official relevance, and I wouldn't consider the results to be encylopedic. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Milthom, if you're interested in seeing how altitude and wind speed play into affecting 100 m times, check out this website. While it obviously can't always work, it gives you a general idea of what the time discrepancies might be. Using this correction, it turns out that, using 0-altitude 0-wind as the standard, Asafa Powell and Maurice Greene both have 9.79, with Bolt in 9.80, and Tyson Gay in 9.82. Obviously there is probably a plus-minus 0.01 or so, but it shows how 100 m performances aren't actually shooting downwards that fast; people are just getting lucky with strong tailwind. Mipchunk (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks.Milthom (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

are you kidding ?

fix that 9.68 and 9.72 inaccuracy.

At one point in the article it says the world record is 9.68 set by Tyson Gay,

and the picture on the right top says it's 9.72...

There needs to be a reference to Tyson Gay's wind-aided 9.68 in the notes under top performances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.86.171 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominance of athletes of West African descent

Apparently "athletes of primarily West African ancestry hold 97 percent of top sprint times, including 494 of the top 500 100-meter times". Should this fact appear in the wiki? Whether the reasons are genetic or cultural, I reckon this should be mentioned, perhaps with a note that the reason for the correlation has not been established (though to my mind I consider the genetic argument to be incontrovertible, as the US athletes do not share the culture of Caribbean or West Africa). Thoughts, anyone? TrulyBlue (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was a pretty competant runner in high school and college. 400 m 48.5, 800m 1:53.6 on cinder track in March, 1500 m 3:51.73 at NAIA Nationals trials and jogged it in. In college Cross country at Taylor University I frequently was not able to see the second place finisher when I finished I would be so far ahead. For Track I trained on a 1/4 mile hill. Running on level ground did not give me enough training effect and it hurt my joints by the time I did run enough. So I needed some resistance. I reasoned that I needed a long hill and I found one known at Taylor University as The Devil's Backbone. When I reached the point where I could sprint to the top of the hill as if it were level ground then I knew I was ready for competition. The Kenyans train on Mount Kilimanjaro. Many other top world athletes record that they train on hills. Sebastian Coe is from the highlands of Scotland. Don't you guys see the connection? I have been to Jamaica. It is all hills. Yes folks of African descent do tend to do better in sprints. Jamaicans just have to go out their front door for the best training location in the world. A nice combination. It does not hurt to be 6'5" with a very long stride like Usain Bolt. I don't post here normally so you guys can reword this anyway you want. Walter Bliss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.209.25 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Coe is from the highlands of Scotland. He's not. He is English: born in London before moving to the Midlands of England then onto Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.254.79 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's important for this article, as this article is really talking about the 100 metres as an athletics event concept, so to speak. While such a topic is relevant in a sense, it would be equally inappropriate to discuss training workouts and stretching techniques geared toward this event, for example. For the record, the reason for West African dominance is, without a doubt, genetic. West Africans, in general, have a more developed bone structure and more fast-twitch muscle fibers. Mipchunk (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was to do with lean body weight ratio 86.135.53.32 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More detailed description of the race

I am curious about the speed as a function of the time and of the distance for this kind of races. The records talk only of the average speed, but I'd rather like the reaction time from the shot, how the athletes accelerate, and in general how the speed curve looks like as time and distance go on. Where is the peak speed, etc. Anybody has the data or can point to it please?? Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.187.154 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Top speed?

What is the top speed during the race? --Tubesship (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the top speed, but the average speed is about 37 km/h for the world record of Usain Bolt.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason for my question was to compare 100 meter versus 200 meter. It is clear that the average speed on 200 meter is higher and this is also mentioned in the article, but what about the top speed as the 100 meter world record keeper is always called the fastest man on earth. Therefore I want to know if this titling is justified or if it should belong to the 200 meter world record keeper. --Tubesship (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Higher top speeds are achieved in the 100 metres, but higher average speeds in the 200 metres. Mipchunk (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. We know the average speed, but why don't we mention the top speed? It is at least as important as the average speed, don't you think so? --Tubesship (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Top speed is not always known - most of the statements I've seen about how fast these guys go are anecdotal, since they don't scientifically measure their speed (they analyze the video recordings frame by frame, usually). Average speed is easy to measure, since they measure precisely how long the race lasts, and obviously we know the total distance. Mipchunk (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the 10m splits at http://speedendurance.com/2008/08/22/usain-bolt-100m-10-meter-splits-and-speed-endurance/, the top speed would be around 43.9 km/h (calculate: 10m / 0.82 s times 3.6 (km/h per m/s)).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Speeds Ever

I attempted to add a section (which was deleted), which seems obvious. The top 10 times ever run (legally). It seems a discredit to Powell, Bolt and Tyson Gay in particular, that because the time was not a record that day, it is not recognized. The top times ever run is a significant fact, and can not be found on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.135.130 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that this section is unnecessary because it will inevitably list the times of the top athletes on the existing list, the all-time list. Consider this - within another year, most likely all the top times ever run will belong to either Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt. Is that even useful? We already know they own the top records. All we'll have is a list of some of their other times. I think other prominent editors of this article will agree. There are already external links provided that point to website with more extensive track statistics than on this article. Remember that the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles is not to compile endless amounts of statistics, lists, and other random information. The existing lists (the top-ten lists) some of the relevant information (the best 100 m runners ever), and anything more is probably overdoing it. If anybody else concurs with me, I will go ahead and remove the aforementioned section. Mipchunk (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. This is valuable information for a reader. Historically, in this event, the top 10 times would include 15 or so athletes, the fact that Bolt and Powell may dominate this category is a testiment to their capacity. But it is information that is very difficult to find, and of real interest in the category. Why would you exclude it...it is a mistake to hold too tight to the term "unnecessary"...everything is "unnecessary", however it is of interest, and relevance, and the top 10 'runners' of all time, leaves out people's most common question, who have run the 100m in the fastest times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterfield99 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The information contained in such a list is not useless, certainly. However, as I must again reiterate, Misplaced Pages is NOT the place to compile endless statistics. Without this restraint, one could end up posting the entire all-time list from times of 10.00 and below. Yes, that shows us how many times and how many people have run sub-10 100 metres, and yes, that might be interesting, but Misplaced Pages should NOT be the place for such information to be found. As indicated in the external links, it is the job of websites dedicated to the subject matter to be displaying such in-depth details. And, as to the question of "Who has run the 100m the fastest?", I think that the athletes all-time list is much more informative than the performances all-time list, as the former shows a comparison between different athletes, whereas the latter merely shows the consistency of one or two athletes. Mipchunk (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you the authority on determining the relevance of such statistics. The 100 metre dash is a unique event, as it defines the 'fastest person on the planet', and to only have one time for Usain Bolt, Maurice Greene, and Asafa Powell is misleading. The information is relevant. Maybe it should be 10 and not 20, point taken, but to remove the list entirely is inappropriate. This event is unique and should be treated as such, in Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterfield99 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you consider such stats relevant for men but not for women? Why do you consider it relevant for 100 m and not, for example, for 800 m? The 100 m defines nothing other than the fastest man or woman on that track on that day over that distance, and any statement otherwise is hype. The reason that only one time by Bolt needs to be mentioned,is because it only takes one run under 9.87 s to get into the top ten men: if anyone wants to know about his other achievements they can look at his article. Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The 100m is not the same as other events. Never has been, only one event carries the moniker "world's fastest human". Again, only giving Powell and Bolt recognition for one time, diminishes their accomplishments (as you can see the top 10 only has 4 athletes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterfield99 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you cannot find any reason intrinsic to the event, only a media slogan, to differentiate it from every other athletics event. If somebody generally wanted to know the fastest runner, they would have to set up a timing over a short distance with full speed already acheived. This event finds the fastest runner at running 100 m; the marathon finds the athlete who is fastest at running 26 and a bit miles. Nothing we report or do not report diminishes any athlete's performance: I cannot imagine that if Bolt runs 9.77 next week he will be saying to himself "if only Misplaced Pages would acknowledge this...". If you are primarily concerned about justice for athletes, why are you not making sure that we are telling the world that Kenenisa Bekele has run 4 of the top 10 10,000m times? Or that only Florence G-J and Marion Jones have times in the top ten for women over 100m? Kevin McE (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chesterfield99, I think that you are a bit too worried about whether this article will properly "demonstrate" the accomplishments of top athletes. I apologize if I may have sounded overly critical earlier, but I still hold that an all-time performance list is not necessary for a short encyclopedia article on the 100 metre dash, especially an article that already has an all-time athlete list. Certainly, such a list is interesting, but such information belongs in the external links, as has been already done. If somebody really wanted to know which 100 m athletes had the greatest achievements, they might also want to know who has run the most times under 10 seconds (Maurice Greene), or who has won the most international sprint titles over 100 m (Carl Lewis). Would you suggest putting all this information in here too? This article is about the 100 m as an athletics event, not a history of 100 m athletes and their achievements. These achievements are detailed elsewhere, in both the external links and in the articles of the individual athletes, as Kevin McE noted. Mipchunk (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While I understand both your points, you are failing to acknowledge that the men's 100 metres has historically, and continues to have unique distinction. The news media around the world has always covered this event, and the term world's fastest human, if used for the Marathon, let alone the 400m for instance, would sound silly. Particularly, with the accomplishments of Bolt and Powell, the list exemplifies that (a) these athletes are dominant in the field and (b) that finally the doping issues as is evidenced in the notes section, while not eradicated from the top 10 'runners' of all time, is virtually eliminate from the top 10 'runs'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.33.83 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ratification

Doesn't Bolt's new WR need to be ratified by the IAAF? Anyone know how long this process takes, or when it's likely to happen? Shouldn't the article reflect that a WR is provisional until ratified? TrulyBlue (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just found this piece that suggests that the last one took two months to ratify. I wonder if it's faster for the Olympics? TrulyBlue (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous Photo

Please replace Usains photo, it looks too... ridiculous. --Tubesship (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Is there a reason why all the dates are hyper linked? I mean, how often are you browsing Misplaced Pages and you see that Usain Bolt ran 100 m in 9.76 seconds on May 3 2008 and you think "hmmmm, I wonder what more I can learn about May 3? But not May 3 2008, just May 3 any year."

We may as well hyper link the wind speeds. In fact, just last week I wanted to learn all I could about the number positive 1.8... Wouldn't it make more sense to link to the results of meet? Constan69 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlinking dates means that they appear in the user's preferred format. Your preferences define the order in which Month and Day appear, see this for info on autoformatting. Availability of info for particular dates is a side-effect. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What is a "normal" time for 100m?

For say, a typical 20 or 30 year old male and woman of average build, what is a ballpark figure for what their 100m time would be? It would be helpful for reference. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the hardest part about answering this question is the "average build" part. Some populations are more fit than others, and some are, on average, overweight (U.S. population). I'm going to guess that an in-shape (not overweight or with any physical maladies) male between 20-30 years of age can run the 100 metres in under 14.50 seconds, and any athletic male between 20-30 years of age should be able to run the 100 metres in under 13.50 seconds. Also for reference, to be decently competitive (not near the top) in secondary school you have to be able to run under 12.00 seconds, and to be decently competitive in college you have to be able to run under 11.00 seconds.

Since I'm not a woman it's hard for me to tell what is good for an average 20-30 year old woman, especially since I think women's bone structures deteriorate faster and are overall less developed. However, judging by how fast girls run in college, I would say you should add on any where between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds to my aforementioned estimates. Mipchunk (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Lewis citation

IP editors, who clearly do not have an appreciation of WP:ASSUME, are determined to post the following:

"In 2003 revelations of failed drug tests by sprinting legend Carl Lewis before the 1988 Seoul Olympics also put the validity of his achievements into question."

I would suggest that:

• its relevance to the Records section is tenuous, and unexplained,
• that it uses unverifiable POV language ("legend")
• it is couched in WP:Weasel terms, ("put the validity of his achievements into question"), although this is perhaps because there has been no legal case upheld against him, and no ban or removal of his record imposed by IAAF.
• that it is unnecessary, as one example, of the more notorious (whoever mentioned greater relevance?) case of Ben Johnson is already given.
• If more than one example is necessary, then why would Lewis be more appropriate than the situations of Gaitlin (more recent, sanctions taken) or Jones (sancions taken, addresses the women's event)?

Does anyone wish to argue for the retention of the sentence? Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The "IP Editor's" reply:

The repeated deletion of a statement, posted by another contributor, under the pretext that it violates one's interpretation of the rules and supporting such argument on the citation of words and/or expressions removed from the main context, could be considered intellectual arrogance and hence very displeasing for the respective contributor.

A very similar version of the quoted statement can also be found under the Carl Lewis article (probably far more scrutinised than the 100m article), for quite a long time now. By the way, it was not posted by me.

would say that qualifying as a "legend" one of the most successful athletes ever (number of wins, medals, public recognition, etc.), is not POV language, please refer to "legend" entry in the dictionary for further details. Anyway if the qualifier is not a crowd pleaser, then by all means, go ahead and replace it with a more suitable one instead of simply deleting the whole sentence.

It puts the validity of his (Carl Lewis) achievements into question for the reasons you mentioned, but please also remember that it is a now a known verifiable fact that Carl Lewis and other American athletes at the mentioned time tested positive for banned substances. As these facts only recently came to light, and due to the arguable policy of the IAAF, there were no sanctions applied. That does not mean that Carl Lewis did not actually take substances forbidden by the IAAF on the eve of a major competition (Seoul 88) in which, as referred by the article, Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal for the exact same reasons. Why should the latter case be more relevant? Considering the known facts today, one can say that the Ben Johnson statement is misleading or at least, incomplete and representing unequal treatment, if not accompanied by the Carl Lewis "disclaimer".

The doping case in the 100m competition in the Seoul 88 games is probably one of the most prominent cases ever in a time in which such high profile cases were not yet so common (or at least known), it is therefore seminal and as mentioned earlier, any fair perspective on the Ben Jonhson's case would today have to be acompanied by the Carl Lewis doping background during the same period. As mentioned although Justin Gatlin and Marion Jones cases are more recent, they are unfortunately not so rare nowadays which makes them less outstanding.

117.20.163.3 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

References

1. "'Who cares I failed drug test?'". Guardian. Retrieved 2008-09-06.

Domination of black athletes

I would suggest that the passage about the domination of black athletes in the event is more suited to the article on sprint races in general: the phenomenon is not particular to the 100m, and that article already has a section on biological factors, that might be considered linked. Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me but it should be pointed out that this refers mostly to the sprints from 50 metres up to 200 metres (i.e. not 400). Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking through my arse a bit here. It's just the women's performances that aren't dominated by black athletes. However, it's a disgrace that they haven't erased Koch's records yet. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No the women's performances are dominated by black athletes too, as far as I know.

Maximum speed

I feel the wording of this article was some attempt to create the illusion that the 200m is a 'faster' event than the 100m which is why the maximum speed of 100m is worth mentioning. AVERAGE speeds ar higher in the 200m because it's a longer race, but, MAXIMUM speed is higher in the 100 - hence the title 'fastest man/women in the world'

The fastest 10m splits always occur in the 100m, maximum speed is reached at roughly 60m in elite sprinters, this would occur on the bend during 200m yeilding a slower speed. Also the nature of the 200m means that it is ran at a slightly sub-maximal pace.

I'm currently studying a masters in sports science and am apalled by the futile attempts at propaganda on the 100m and 200m pages to make the 200m appear a 'faster' event. Ippikin (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippikin (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a masters student you should both know the importance of citing good sources, and have access to such. It is perfectly accurate to describe the 200m as having a higher average speed: rather than assuming that accurate data is some sort of conspiracy, provide the accurate data for maximum speed to provide comparson of the two events in that regard. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But why bother mentioning it has a higher average speed? What is the point of the comment? David D. (Talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it boils down to who "officially" owns the subjective title of "world's fastest man". These claims are inherently useless, Haile Gebrselassie has as good a claim to the title as Usain Bolt does. Plain nonsense. I think saying that it has a higher average speed is worthy of a mention though. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "fastest" is top speed alone (see my comment on the 200m talk page) If you're going to play the average game then the 40 yard times that the NFL use are the fastest. Or at least use the first 100 of the 200m for a direct comparison (of course that is a disadvantage to the 200m runner due to the curve, so also pretty useless). You can't factor in the second 100 of the 200m race as it has the flying start. Worse, it's not even a flying start, they are almost at top speed. No serious athletics statistician would use average speed to compare the races. David D. (Talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

40 yards is not an established event: I'll assume that was not a serious suggestion. A breakdown of 10m splits for, for example, Bolt's Beijing record runs would be a great asset to the article, and if comparable info were provided for the 200m world record run, it could support the claim that the 100m hits higher maximum speeds. That max speed in the 100m seems to make logical sense, but the criterion here for inclusion is verifiability, not innate notions of what is probably so. Kevin McE (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a well known fact not an innate notion. Averages tell you nothing useful about the race. Sure they can be calculated and added without references but who uses them? Who thinks they are notable? David D. (Talk) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well known facts can surely be verified. I note that in another talk page such data is discussed, even though the imprecise derivation of the data from TV footage is mentioned, if it is considered admissible for a reliable academic source,then it is admissible here. Kevin McE (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring the data to this talk page since it seems more sensible to discuss this in one place. All the data is published in reliable sources. Of course that does not mean the data is high quality but the margin of error is known. By the way, the data is not from TV footage but from IAAF high speed camera's. That does not mean no margin of error but it does mean the data is useful. David D. (Talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please include this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/9/9f/Weltrekordentwicklung100mM%C3%A4nner.JPG TIA. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Update picture to Usain Bolt

At this point, an article on the 100m race without Bolt's picture at the forefront is not an article. 9.58, my goodness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.108.183 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IAAF Biomechanics Project

Gentlemen, I believe we have our source for when 100 m sprinters reach their top speeds. And what race could be better than the yesterday's one! Keep a look out here as we'll be able to garner some helpful information for the technical aspects of other events too.

Personally, I think that less emphasis on this "100 vs 200" idea, and more emphasis on the 100 m race mechanics, would be better for the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Table about all-time

The table that is showing the best performance in the 100 mt run is wrong. I mean, there is a lot of times that are not showing. For example, Tim Mongomery had the world record from 2002 and 2005 with 9.78 and doesn't show, the same stuff happend with Tyson Gay and others. If the idea is to show the best time ever, that is not a good table. But if the idea is to show the best individual performance, we have to improve the table, because is now a good table either.

Top thirteen all-time athletes — men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.196.67.170 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Slave Trade Theory

How does everyone feel about removing the Slave Trade paragraph under the "Record Performances" section? I checked the info, and apparently this is a theory held by a Jamaican urologist. Since it's a theory and not a proven fact, it doesn't seem wholly appropriate to include in this entry. Also, it's at best icky and at worst racist.TruthGal (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that it isn't true though? Would you be willing to completely deny the truth if the truth were "icky"? I don't think TruthGal is an appropriate name for you. Thegryseone (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Thegryseone, we don't know that it isn't true that the real reason Africans have dominated this particular track and field event for some time is because Africans are actually speedy aliens from the planet Jupiter.

Using your logic, since we don't know that it isn't true, we should add a section called African 100 Metres Runners Are Jovians Theory to this Misplaced Pages Entry.

We also don't know that it isn't true that the real reason for the dominance of Africans in this event of late is due to all of the other non-African runners intentionally throwing their races as a result of being paid off by the Mafia.

Using your logic, since we don't know that it isn't true, we should add a section called Non-African 100 Metre Runners Secretly Accepting Bribe Money to Throw Races Theory to this Misplaced Pages Entry.

And on and on and on.

The so-called "Slave Trade Theory" is not being presented as the truth in this entry; it is being presented as the conjecture of a urologist. An encylopedia should include facts, not conjecture.

As to your facile attempt to insult me personally, I refer you to Misplaced Pages's . TruthGal (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? All sorts of Misplaced Pages articles contain "conjecture." Are you planning on taking out all of the conjecture from every single Misplaced Pages article while you're at it? The reason people put things like that in articles is to show readers the different viewpoints that are out there. You can find numerous articles that show various viewpoints. Also, there was no need for you to take out that entire paragraph from the article. The first part up until the "conjecture" should stay in and I'm going to put it back in. I truly think you're one of those people who is afraid of anything "icky", whether it's true or not, and that's your real reason for taking that paragraph out. Just because something is icky wicky, doesn't mean we should automatically deny the possibility of it being true. The Holocaust was absolutely horrible, but most reasonable people in this world believe that it happened. I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just an observation, but how you want to interpret the things I write is your business, not mine. By the way, it isn't Africans, it's West Africans. Thegryseone (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and as to your outlandish examples, I believe they should be included in the article, provided that there are sufficient numbers of people out there, especially prominent people, who believe that they are true. I think its wonderful to show readers all the viewpoints there are on something, so long as there are actually people who hold said viewpoints. It's assumed that the viewpoints people hold will have to make sense, but you never know with human beings. Thegryseone (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Deleted passage that ends with "the hypothesis does not currently have any empirical basis" for that very reason. Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia, not a blog that encourages the publication of "viewpoints." It would be helpful for you to read Misplaced Pages's governing philosophy before contributing further.

2. Sorry, but I am uninterested in your conjecture as to what kind of person I am. Again, I refer you to Misplaced Pages's Talk Page Etiquette Guidelines. TruthGal (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take much "conjecture." It's pretty clear. Obviously you are interested in what I think about you otherwise you wouldn't even bother responding to my "conjectures." When you think about it, that's really pretty sad that you would care what an anonymous person on the Internet who you will most likely never see in real life thinks about you. That's something that you need to deal with. Thegryseone (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am uninterested in your conjecture as to what kind of person I am. Again, I refer you to Misplaced Pages's Talk Page Etiquette Guidelines.TruthGal (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Record by race?

I'm not comfortable with the recently added French sprinter Christophe Lemaitre was the first Caucasian to break the 10-second barrier: another editor deleted it as unnecessary, but this was reverted within an hour, with an edit note derisory of the opinion that it is unnecessary info. Will it be followed in time by "first East Asian/Mongoloid", "first Polynesian" "first Causasian but more brown than white South Asian type tone"?

No reputable body reports records according to race, and what degree of admixture is considered sufficiently racially pure to qualify for such a "title". Inappropriate and entirely unnecessary. Kevin McE (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is disingenuous not to acknowledge that every last one of the top 25 men is black. A fast white guy is enough of a novelty to be worth mentioning, regardless of whether or not this reality makes certain editors "uncomfortable."

Totally agree with the last comment. We are already mentioning Frankie Fredericks as the first non-West African, Patrick Johnson as the first non-African, Su Bingtian as the first Asian, Adam Gemili as the first athlete with either North African or Middle Eastern heritage and Ramil Guliyev. Non-mentioning Lemaitre as the first Caucasian is simply discrimination against white people and conveys the message that no white man would have ever run under 10s (as wiki is already pointing it out for other different races). Btw, the wikipedia site of Christophe Lemaitre indeed mention the fact, he was the first white person to run 100 mts under 10 s.SFBB (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture annotations and gender

Is there any just reason why the picture of female sprinters at the top reads 'female sprinters', while the picture of male sprinters toward the bottom merely reads 'runners'? Misplaced Pages contributors should take greater care to avoid associating particular professions with particular genders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.178.248 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics

I was hoping some recording of the paralympic record holders would be inlcuded in a discussion of the 100 meter races. It would fit nicely alongside the columns for men's and women's records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.65 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=O/age=N/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=100/detail.htmx
  • In 100 metres on 2011-05-23 01:58:52, 404 Not Found
  • In 100 metres on 2011-05-31 21:23:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this REALLY the history?

"The 100 m emerged from the metrication of the 100 yards".

It's at the end of the lead. No source given. My perspective is that European nations would have been running 100 metre races all along. They would have never used yards. When the Olympics started, everything was metric. I suspect the 100 metres simply took over from the 100 yards as a more popular distance globally. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak from specific historical knowledge but the entire sport of athletics came from England when Imperial measurements ruled. I wouldn't want to imply that the jingoistic United States had an influence on the change, just because they converted to metric athletically in the 1980's, but the following sentence of the article does address the English origin of the sport and by that nature; the distance. When the sport went beyond England, well before the first modern Olympics, then it went metric. Trackinfo (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chute

Relatively few people do use the technical terms because relatively few know about the technical details of the subject--they just go out and run on a track, so certainly it is my motive to educate people into the correct terminology. Reacting and researching, Chute (racecourse) the same term is appropriately used in horse racing, there are parallels in other track terms like steeplechase, so this is a logical derivative. Oh, I also inserted the word sometimes, because not all tracks need a chute, some have straightaways longer than 100 metres and many are exactly 100 metres. Trackinfo (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get much more technical than this and this, and the IAAF don't use the word chute in either. Kevin McE (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tyson Gay

Why is Tyson Gay's 9.69 s not listed on the fastest times list. It's right at the 2.0 m/s wind limit, but is technically not over it. Is the "Luke Marsh" name a piece of vandalism? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It was vandalism.Montell 74 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant

Setting a US record might be irrelevant if it happened in the France or so, but the US national record has traditionally been either the world record or the runner-up. The US were traditionally the best 100m spinters before the Jamaicans came along. The fact that Tyson Gay has retained the US record and it is the worlds second fastest time means i think it IS relevant. Pass a Method talk 22:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It just comes across as pure national bias. I have never heard of a time being considered the world record runner up. You tried to be bold: it was reverted. You should not have editwarred by re-adding it, you should have come here to argue that it should be added. Kevin McE (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tyson Gay's time was notable for several reasons; firstly it made him the second-fastest man alive, secondly it made the fastest losing-time in history; thirdly it set a national record in the most decorated sprinting country in the world.

To deal with your national bias concerns i have changed the wording to "Tyson Gay set the second fastest pb ever." Pass a Method talk 02:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrived claims, not records (apart, obviously, from the last one) that will be a matter of pride only to those interested in Tyson Gay. Those claims are not explained in the caption, and so even this contrived justification will not be evident to readers. Returning article to previous stable version until consensus can be found for any change. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 image is more relevant because it depicts the current record. Furthermore the current caption does not have the national bias concerns you mentioned. Pass a Method talk 13:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked to respect wp:BRD and wp:editwar: you are now in contravention of the 3RR rule. Kevin McE (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

===Anyone there?=== Pass a Method has now been blocked for 3RR elsewhere. While I am perfectly happy to see discussion of the merits of adding something about Gay in the caption of a photo (I'll argue against, but that doesn' mean I don't think it should be discussed), or using the Berlin photo rather than the Beijing one (I'd be happy enough with that), it shouldn't remain on the article without consensus. An oddity of 3RR means that I can't restore the article to how it was before PaM's intervention, so could someone else return the page to the previously stable version (this) pending discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC) And while I was typing that... thanks Zozo Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I reverted per the AN/E discussion. FWIW, I have no experience in sports articles, so this should have no bearing on the discussion. I do however note that there are unmistakable nationalistic undertones to PaM's argument which don't help his position at all. Yazan (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve Mullings

Just glancing at the top performers and had noticed Steve Mullings so checked out his page and he was found to be using illegal substances in 2011 which is when his time was set so he should not actually be on the list, I am not sure how to do this so am just making others aware so that they hopefully can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielMurdoch (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

His 9.80 is still listed by IAAF. He was found to have been using illegal substances at the Jamaican national championships in Kingston at the end of June 2011: that does not alter the validity (although some may consider that it casts a shadow on the honesty) of his results in Eugene at the beginning of that month. Kevin McE (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Bizrrely, an edit war has started over whether Jamaican sprinters are of West African descent, with TGB13 insisting on listing Jamaicans separately, and claiming a source is needed if we are to do otherwise. That paragraph already has a source that says "Before the Athens Games, 494 of the top 500 times for the 100m were held by sprinters who were of West African descent. That's an incredible statistic. The 494 included African-North Americans, Caribbean blacks and British blacks"; all of Jamaica's top sprinters, clearly, are included in this. The reason not to single out Jamaican sprinters as not of West African descent is the same reason we don't single out American, Trinidadian, Canadian, British or Nigerian sprinters as not of West African descent; namely, they all are of West African descent, and we have a source that says so.
Nothing has changed in this respect since the Athens Olympics, as sources like this and this make clear; all top Jamaican sprinters are still of West African descent. Hopefully, there's no need to edit war about this. Sideways713 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only reverted twice, I didn't intend to start an edit war. I am insisting it the same as the other users who have also reverted it are insisting. There wasn't a reference next to the statement, which led to my confusion, so thank you for highlighting that. I am drawing on the information in the Jamaica#Demographics section where it states 'many being able to trace their origins to West Africa, as well as Europe and Asia.' Therefore, some sprinters won't be of purely West African descent, because Jamaican residents aren't purely of West African descent. If not, I am mistaken and I apologise.

Also, an ethnicity 'is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.' So surely Jamaicans deserve a mention of there own in this section, whether that be in this sentence or a separate one. The Jamaicans have a particular culture which is dominated by running , would this warrant a separate mention of the Jamaican culture?

Again, apologies for starting an edit war, it wasn't my intention. TGB13 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Taylor, Orville W. (2015-03-01). "It's Culture, Not Genes: Explaining Why Jamaican Sprinters Are the Fastest Humans on Earth". Caribbean Quarterly. 61 (1): 23–41. doi:10.1080/00086495.2015.11672546. ISSN 0008-6495.
2. Irving, Rachael; et al. (2013). "Demographic Characteristics of World Class Jamaican Sprinters". The Scientific World Journal. 2013. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
3. Sands, Robert R.; Sands, Linda R. (2012). The Anthropology of Sport and Human Movement: A Biocultural Perspective. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739129401.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 100 metres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldenleague.net/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/95/59/20090303014358_httppostedfile_CompetitionRules2009_printed_8986.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823185525/http://berlin.iaaf.org/documents/pdf/3658/AT-100-M-f--1--.RS1.pdf to http://berlin.iaaf.org/documents/pdf/3658/AT-100-M-f--1--.RS1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/BiomechanicsAthletics/WindAssistance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715093737/http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/07/3989045/floridas-whitney-sets-world-junior.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/07/3989045/floridas-whitney-sets-world-junior.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Olympics articles
• High-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• C-Class Running articles
• High-importance Running articles
• WikiProject Running articles
• C-Class Athletics articles
• High-importance Athletics articles
• WikiProject Athletics articles
• WikiProject Disambiguation pages