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
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Was that 19.30 or 19.31? The commentators said 19.31, but the stadium display showed 19.31? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianeiloart ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article say middle lanes are favourites because of the lesser centrifugal force? From what is stated, the external lanes should be even better. Which is the element that, added to centrifugal force, leads to middle lanes being the favourites ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentu ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
MARTINA Churandy and SPEARMON Wallace have been disqualified
http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/AT/C73A/ATM002101.shtml#ATM002101
I've already fixed it
On the Olympic medalists section, the olypmic flag appears instead of the italian flag. Can anyone correct this? Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=200/detail.html DeLoach ran 19.75 with +1.7 wind, while wikipedia has +1,8. Which is correct? Wikijens ( talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippikin ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dubious data, as had to be timed off high speed film with no clear markings at 10m intervals, but for what its worth, max velocity for Michael Johnson in his 19.32 was 11.581 m/s (direct quoted from the paper). In 100m races the fastest 10 m splits are often 0.84 s which equates to about 11.9 m/s and obviously Bolt would have had an even faster top speed as I think his fastest 10 m split was 0.81 s. Does anyone really doubt that the top speed in the 100m is more than the 200m? I'm sure there are better sources out there. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to some data. Specifically, in the 1996 200m olympic final Michael Johnson peaked at 11.581 m/s where as in the 1988 100m final Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis both peaked at 12.04 m/s. Both sets of data are published. I will paraphrase the paper i linked to above when i get time. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just excised the following sentence that was in the first paragraph. "The record speed for the rarely run 150 m (14.35 s, set by Usain Bolt in Manchester in May 2009) reflects a higher average speed than either of the more commonly raced distances." I don't understand the point of this observation. First average speed gives you no nuance about the race, second there was no curve on this race. I could see the point if this was a straight way 200, to demonstrate that the curve slows down the runners. Even then it should not be in the lead but in a subsection of the article. David D. (Talk) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There used to be separate records for the 200 on a straight track, it's mentioned on the record progression page but not in this article. Couple of refs: independent.co.uk & UK All-time lists. The Olympic 200 was originally on a straight track. Hakluyt bean ( talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How about (a link to) an explanation of the wind field? Daggerbox ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that (in addition to the fastest athletes in 200m history,) the fastest recorded times in 200m history would also be useful? Suresh ( talk) 12:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the men's pages from 1900-1960 are missing their best times I am going to try to fix that would any one like to help
A Dingus 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 200 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 200 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In section one of the article, the text identifies Elaine, Noah and, Andre Degrasse as record holders, yet the description under the picture at right only identifies Bolt and Flo-Jo. Is there a discrepancy? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Possibly disregard. "Reigning Champion" refers to the present single period, not the record holder? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
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
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Was that 19.30 or 19.31? The commentators said 19.31, but the stadium display showed 19.31? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianeiloart ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article say middle lanes are favourites because of the lesser centrifugal force? From what is stated, the external lanes should be even better. Which is the element that, added to centrifugal force, leads to middle lanes being the favourites ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentu ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
MARTINA Churandy and SPEARMON Wallace have been disqualified
http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/AT/C73A/ATM002101.shtml#ATM002101
I've already fixed it
On the Olympic medalists section, the olypmic flag appears instead of the italian flag. Can anyone correct this? Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=200/detail.html DeLoach ran 19.75 with +1.7 wind, while wikipedia has +1,8. Which is correct? Wikijens ( talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippikin ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dubious data, as had to be timed off high speed film with no clear markings at 10m intervals, but for what its worth, max velocity for Michael Johnson in his 19.32 was 11.581 m/s (direct quoted from the paper). In 100m races the fastest 10 m splits are often 0.84 s which equates to about 11.9 m/s and obviously Bolt would have had an even faster top speed as I think his fastest 10 m split was 0.81 s. Does anyone really doubt that the top speed in the 100m is more than the 200m? I'm sure there are better sources out there. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to some data. Specifically, in the 1996 200m olympic final Michael Johnson peaked at 11.581 m/s where as in the 1988 100m final Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis both peaked at 12.04 m/s. Both sets of data are published. I will paraphrase the paper i linked to above when i get time. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just excised the following sentence that was in the first paragraph. "The record speed for the rarely run 150 m (14.35 s, set by Usain Bolt in Manchester in May 2009) reflects a higher average speed than either of the more commonly raced distances." I don't understand the point of this observation. First average speed gives you no nuance about the race, second there was no curve on this race. I could see the point if this was a straight way 200, to demonstrate that the curve slows down the runners. Even then it should not be in the lead but in a subsection of the article. David D. (Talk) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There used to be separate records for the 200 on a straight track, it's mentioned on the record progression page but not in this article. Couple of refs: independent.co.uk & UK All-time lists. The Olympic 200 was originally on a straight track. Hakluyt bean ( talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How about (a link to) an explanation of the wind field? Daggerbox ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that (in addition to the fastest athletes in 200m history,) the fastest recorded times in 200m history would also be useful? Suresh ( talk) 12:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the men's pages from 1900-1960 are missing their best times I am going to try to fix that would any one like to help
A Dingus 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 200 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 200 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In section one of the article, the text identifies Elaine, Noah and, Andre Degrasse as record holders, yet the description under the picture at right only identifies Bolt and Flo-Jo. Is there a discrepancy? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Possibly disregard. "Reigning Champion" refers to the present single period, not the record holder? SquashEngineer ( talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)