Talk:Men's 100 metres world record progression

message: *The chart is great! Please add one for the women's 100m Jimaginator 11:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
*The graph on this page is on top of the chart in Firefox. Phoenix2 13:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart

message: The fitted curve to the results is certainly wrong and the forcast record for future years is wrong, If you could supply me with the raw data in spreadsheet form I will prouce something better (nothing can be certain)
Two points to notice 
# early records rely on inaccurate mechanical stopwatches.
# Logarithmic fitting is never correct for human cababilities: since logarithms are unbounded whereas human capability is certainly bounded.
author please reply direct to davidseed at ntlworld dot com
Indeed, we really shouldn't have a regression line on the graph, it is completely meaningless. There is no stated theory that the world record is decreasing at a logarithmic rate, nor is Wikipedia the place for original reasearch. ed g2s • talk 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  false graph 

message: Dear anonymous editor,
Before electronic timing was introduced, the results of the 100 metres were measured to the nearest tenth of one second.  That's why the record goes from "9.9" with manual timing, to 9.95 with electronic. --Robert Merkel 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between manual and electronic timing... 

message: According to a USADA press release on his case,  (PDF): "The period of ineligibility will begin on August 15, 2006 with credit given since the time Gatlin began serving a provisional suspension on July 25, 2006. Unless otherwise reduced, the period of ineligibility will run through July 24, 2014. Additionally, Gatlin forfeits his competitive results on and subsequent to April 22, 2006, the date the sample was collected."
According to the last sentence wouldn't he also forfeit his record equalling time recorded in May 2006? Deon Steyn 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've heard, yes, he will most likely forfeit his record. However, while the USADA may be carrying out the drug testing, it is up to the IAAF to disqualify the record, since it was already ratified. Mipchunk 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, from the press release it seems the time will stand until the process is finalised. --Deon Steyn 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gatlin's record 

message: I have added the disqualified times to the table, but gave them a slightly different background and used the strikeout font and added references. Granted, they were removed from the record books as official times, but these times were run and it is important to see how many times record were removed due to drug use (Johnson, Montgomery and soon Gatlin) and when these events happened and what the times were... the strikeout font makes it pretty clear that they were removed, but we can still see them now. What do you guys think? --Deon Steyn 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine. Being picky, I wouldn't actually put Ben Johnson's 9.79 run as a disqualified world record, as it was never ratified as a world record by the IAAF. Understandably, people generally think that, if you run a time faster than anybody else, you become the "world record holder", but in the realm of athletics, no world record is a record unless the IAAF says so.Mipchunk 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it. Didn't realise that about Johnson's 9.79. We should definitely add a reference to that. --Deon Steyn 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Nice work. Mipchunk 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disqualified times 

message: Is there any chance that the flags of countries as they were at the time the records were set could be displayed? Canada didn't have that flag in 1930, nor South Africa that flag in the 1960s, etc. 01:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I changed them. It's OK now. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: USA flag had less stars before 1950, but that could not be seen on such a small flag. I'm not going to change that. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  flags 

message: Removed from the Discrepancies section:
* Jim Thorpe was rumored to have run the 100 m dash in 10.9 at the 1912 Olympics, but this has never been verified.
Because:
#10.9 is slower than the 1912 record of 10.6
#The Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's decathlon page says he ran 11.2 and placed 3rd in the 100m.
Looks like  stealth vandalism to me. jnestorius(talk) 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Thorpe 

message: "Record rescinded after positive test during 1988 Olympics" - First off, that's just a statement, not a reference. Second off, tested positive for what? Drugs? Alcohol? Steroids? Jedibob5 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those footnotes, in this case, are not necessarily references. They are just notes. But you're right, it is unclear - positive for steroids. Mipchunk 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuzzy Reference 

message: what is the fastest a human being could possibly run, and if someone used performance enhancing drugs how much faster could they run?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.55.157 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one really knows. Certainly nobody will be running sub-9. But this discussion is not really related to the article at hand. Mipchunk (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  theoretical fastest speed 

message: I don't think that we should be treating the times that were disqualified by drug use any differently than the others.  Of course the official organizations have to take the times of drug-users out of their records to discourage drug use.  But we, on the other hand, are an encyclopedia; we should not be in the business of judging what drugs will get people off of lists.  If a 100 metres is verifiability run by a human man in record-breaking time, it should be on this list even if some committee considers them a cheater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.155.53 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this approach is there is a sanctioning body which assesses and ratifies world records, and the page explicitly identifies the records as having being ratified by that body. Wikipedia dictates we rely on reliable sources, more specifically "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." On this page, that source would be the IAAF. Canada Jack (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times by drug users 

message: What is with haste do delete things from the article? Why can't information be left hidden in the text, for future expansions/decisions/reorganizations? What is wrong with hiding something that certainly needs to be presented somehow (be it even in a separate page that expands on the omited material here)? Nergaal (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a table in this list or in a separate list with the top ~10 or so performers of all times. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a list is found on the 100 metres article. Mipchunk (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A statistics course would help for this discussion. The point is that NOT each time is off by EXACTLY 0.14 or 0.24 . But on average, each hand-measured time falls on a Gaussian distribution away from the electronically measured times. For the sake of simplicity: if you give a person to time a runner for a x distance that runs in exactly 5.00 each time, on average, the hand timers will measure a 5.xy time. If you draw a distribution of all these measures, you will probably get all the times either within a standard distribution of 0.14 over the 5.00 (something like 2/3 of the people would measure times up to 5.14) or a confidence interval of 90% (or possibly 95%) within the 5.00 and 5.14+xomething interval. That does not mean that everybody will measure 5.14, but that on average, or withing a certain confidence interval, the times can be estimated to be off by 0.14. Unfortunately,  with a study to show this. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: Nergaal: Why did you change the name of the article without discussion? The mess you created before still hasn't been completely cleaned up yet - for example, a bunch of records to the tenth of a second "referenced" to a New York Times article which has them all to the hundredth, and a link to the marks made from the 1/100th era to an IAAF list of all-time top performances which, notably, only notes one world record.
The page, properly, is a record progression, which somehow should be reflected in the title. Since there is a space at the top for, presumably, someone to fill in the pre-IAAF records, your unilateral insistence on the title makes little defensible sense. 
How about reverting your changes, then discussing the need for a change, and if the need for a change is agreed upon, then change? Canada Jack (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again: for a month now nothing has happened. Nobody bothered doing anything. You said only IAAF era should be included so the "ratified" part needs to be in the title. Nergaal (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah...I thought I could move the article back to the original name, which was a redirect, but it didn't work. Requesting a move now. Mipchunk (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again...

message: To the admins - this article should be moved back to its original name "World record progression 100 metres men", as the article was moved without discussion earlier. Mipchunk (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the request to move it back. WP:POINT may be relevant reading here; I'm not sure. jnestorius(talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I moved this article back to its old home. Such a move requires serious discussion.  It has an impact on all the similarly named pages for other events; for consistency they should all have a similar name. Personally I see no problem with what we have right now. There are two other reasons I can think of for not moving this article to Ratified men's 100 metres world records (athletics). 1) I can forsee long arguments about whether athletics is a genuine disambiguation term or whether it just provides more confusion, i.e. should it be track and field, track or athletics or some other permutation.  2) this page does discuss unratified records too. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous discussion argued that world records are "by definition" ratified. Regardless weather it is true or not, unless a pre-IAAF era is added, and other unratified records are added, then this page should clearly be labeled with ratified. Some DAB is necessary since there are other 100m men events. Nergaal (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be handled by adding a precise explanation in the article's lead section.  There is no need to tinker with its title. jnestorius(talk) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the ratified in the title is too restrictive, Nergaal, you even agree with that. If there is material you wish to add then find a consensus but don't change the name to make a point. I can see that a DAB might be needed but that discussion needs to occur at a different level as such a change would be required for several pages. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no such things as pre-IAAF records. Records were not kept before the IAAF was established, and therefore records could not have existed. Mipchunk (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say too restrictive I was thinking of the records that have been stripped from the books (OK, formerly were ratified, but not now) and the ones such as Carl Lewis's that end up having an asterisk. David D. (Talk) 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Bolt's record, as mipchunk has pointed out, has now been ratified. The IAAF site doesn't have it up, but news reports Oct 3 say the 100 200 and 4x100 records from Beijing have been ratified. Canada Jack (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: The IAAF record progression now exists on their website for this and all other events, so I took the liberty of adding the citations and excising the ones already there for ones the IAAF confirms. However, there were several marks in the 1/tenth progression which were not included in the progression, so I removed the colour to indicate "not ratified," and for some strange reason, Powell's 9.74 in 2007 does not appear on their list though it clearly should. I've left the colour to indicate "ratified," and if someone could find the official ratification press release from the IAAF we might use that for an official cite.
And, since the IAAF notes the electronic times and wind guages, if available, I've included them here. The column for "auto" times is kept for the electronic age, as some records have timing to the thousandth. Canada Jack (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Official IAAF record progression

message: It would be nice to have a fastest times overall section (maybe this article is the wrong spot) or at least a link to the fastest times ever. For example, Tyson Gay ran 9.71 which is quite notable. Should a section be added?  A link?
Timneu22 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I saw the other page and added a link to it in "see also". Timneu22 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest times overall 

message: Newbie here, don't know how to revert, but someone has recently added Gay's 9.71 second place finish in the World's to the list. This is not a progression of the WR. It's been 9.69 since the Olympics, so only runs faster than that should follow. Bolt's new record of 9.58 counts, but Gay's 9.71 should not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.208.202 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyson Gay's 9.71 - August 16, 2009 

message: Just wanted to say that I've added citations to those facts which were unsupported by any links etc. Hopefully everything on this page is covered. Since the stupendous Bolt world record the other day, there's been a lot of interest directed here, lots of traffic and a TON of edits. Many were good - like having more sensible background colours to highlight the anomalies, and the tags to get every claim here cited. The column for times to the thousandths was removed, but I put it back in as the IAAF itself has those times listed in the record progression.
The IAAF links have cleared up some of the disputes which raged above. The IAAF only required electronic records from 1977 - before, manual AND electronic timing was accepted. I added wind and auto time columns and those figures where available, as per the IAAF practice.
And while records may have been rendered as fractions at one point, the IAAF simply renders them as decimals, so that debate has been rendered moot, IMHO.
The only point of dispute are the two non-ratified marks from the 30s - they appear on some unofficial record progressions, but not on the IAAF progression. I added a link to one of this lists to the two marks, but there may be an argument to simply omit them. Unless someone finds some reference which indicates the IAAF in fact ratified the marks. 
The 9.74 Powell ran in 2007 is not on the list, which must be an oversight on their part as I've checked for and found a press release from 2007 which states that specific time was ratified as a world record, and in case it was for some reason unratified it also rests on the current all-time list, headed by Bolt's 9.58. IOW, that mark is the sole world record on the page which the IAAF does not list on their progression list, but its inclusion is warranted as the mark was ratified. Canada Jack (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page clean-up complete (hopefully)

message: Ok very simple question why isn't Tyson Gay listed since he is the fastest American sprinter on record?Mcelite (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the World Record progression.  While Tyson Gay did hold the fastest 100 metres time ever recorded for a period of time, the time was wind aided and was not eligible for the record.  The official world record has never been assigned to Tyson Gay, he's still (now tied for) second best, when number one is all that counts.  On the 100 metres article, his name is properly placed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's much clearer.Mcelite (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyson Gay 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Men's 100 metres world record progression. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912045348/http://www2.iaaf.org/GPF02/News/getnews.asp?Code=5733&imgh=searchnews to http://www2.iaaf.org/GPF02/News/getnews.asp?Code=5733&imgh=searchnews
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/06/10/33/61033_PDF_English.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is some confusion here on the wind guage for Lewis' 1991 WR - seems the sources say 1.0 or 1.2... A quick look at tapes of the event seem to confirm the 1.2 reading. check out  Canada Jack (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis 1991 - 1.0 or 1.2 m/s wind?