Talk:200 metres

2008 world record

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)

It was 19.30. 19.31 was the preliminary time, which got adjusted. Gieron (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

it was 19.30, what a run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.74.149 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle Lanes

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)

The reference says that middle AND outer lanes are preferred. I have changed it in the article. Gieron (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disqualifications

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

Missin italian flag for Pietro Mennea

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)

That's the flag Italy used at the 1980 Olympics. See Italy at the 1980 Summer Olympics. -CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe DeLoach and wind

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)

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.

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)

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) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is more discussion on this at my talk page. Given your somewhat childish edits on Gary White (athlete) Ippikin, I'm inclined to think that your status as a masters student could be as fictional as Gary's swerve to avoid a stray dog. If you wish to contribute constructively then please do so. If you wish to continue making silly edits then I will not hesitate in suggesting a block. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 19:30, 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)

I think it's highly possible that it is true, but it is the kind of thing where the opposite is not implausible. I don't have access to the paper but if you could use it to give a general example of velocity (e.g. "Sprinters usually reach a higher velocity in the 100 metres than the 200 metres, for example Michael Johnson...") that would be good. More research would be a bonus but a quick comparison of 100 m having max speed while 200 metres has higher average speed gives an informative overview of the differences in how these runs are approached. This would distinguish it from the differences between, say, 60 and 100 metres (where the tactical approach is pretty much identical). Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The paper is specifically about the distinction between the 100 and 200 from a tactical perspective (sorry about the link, I had not realised it was not generally available.). The take home is not about average speed but that the 200m runner runs the first 100 at about 95% to be able to maintain form in the last 100. I'll get some quotes from the paper so you can see the context. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's funny because that 95% figure was pretty much what I was thinking when I wrote my comment! This information could help clarify tactics and physiology. I.e. 200 m runners don't go out all guns blazing but try to "spread" their energy out over the sprint, with the last 50 metres being a period of much physical drain. While in the 100 metres there should be no "flagging" until at least after 80 to 90 metres, if at all. This is worthy of a mention but citations are still needed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 00:56, 20 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)

Excellent stuff. Those races are good high profile examples too. Good luck with the paraphrasing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:21, 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)

The point was that while the common oerception is that the 100m is the fastest race, and Olympic and world records show that the 200m takes less time than 2 x 100ms, the distance over which people acheive the highest average speed can be demonstrated to be somewhere in between. You don't explain why you deleted the requirement for factual citation of the max speed claim. Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to cite obvious facts, especially in the lead. I have already provided several sources for that fact. If you feel the need for it to be cited use those sources. As to the average speed, the 200m is not the sum of 2x100m, that is far too simplistic. For the second hundred in the 200m race there no acceleration phase. For the first hundred in the 200m race it is run on a curve. The point you are trying to make is not relevant with regard to a serious comparison of the two races and makes the article look amateurish, IMO. Since when has highest average speed ever been the bench mark for fastest when comparing two different race distances? Is this from another sport, perhaps cycling? I've never seen it used in athletics except in the context of 10m splits. David D. (Talk) 06:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

{{WP:V]]: yes, it is necessary to cite facts when you are challenged to do so: there is no prose outside the lead section, so that qualification is redundant.

Where have you "already provided several sources for that fact"? They need to be in this article.

I don't disagree that running the 200m is not the same as running the 100m twice, but the curve is not really the issue here: the issue is the pay-off between time in acceleration and the maximum speed that can be sustained over the distance of a race (or the post-acceleration phase of a race). It is a fact that 100m runners are often called the fastest in the world: it is also a fact that this claim is not upheld by simple comparison of finishing times in the events. For the average reader, fastest=highest speed, and speed=distance divided by time. So it is not surprising if, in the absence of the evidence of split times, people find that claim unsustainable.

The solution is easy: provide verifiable evidence of split times, and then we can say something like "Although the average speed for elite 200m races is higher than that in the 100m (and both are slower than in the rarely run 150m), higher maximum speeds are reached in the shorter race": all facts are covered, the reasons (endurance, track curve, etc) can be gone into later in the article, and there will be no strange accusations of bias. Kevin McE (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you been reading this thread? I posted the data above. David D. (Talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my last post? It needs to be in the article.

I don't understand your point? You're the one wanting to micro cite, you put the fact tag on. What is stopping you adding the cites you think are most appropriate? David D. (Talk) 22:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The obligation to provide verifiable source lies with the person posting the material. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't post it. I just removed the fact tag since there is no need to overcite. My position it is fine without a cite since it is common knowledge. If you feel the need to add the cite then go ahead. I have even directed you to he material above. Also i still don't understand the greater point of adding the 150m race information. Are you planning to develop this further, if so, doesn't it border on original research? Again, where have you seen the comparison of averages times to compare the 100, 150 and 200 races by athletics statisticians? David D. (Talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In comparing "fastest", it might be useful to go back in history and do the "simple, but inaccurate" comparison of division/multiplication. How long was the 100 m world record multiplied by 2 faster than the 200 m world record? Or, equivalently, how long was the 200 m world record divided by 2 faster than the 100 m world record? And I mean adding up all the periods during which one was faster than the other, after doing the math. At present, it it obvious that we cannot include the 400 m world record in this. But maybe, at some point in the future people can sprint "all out" for 400 m? I do not know. Go back to the beginning of time when both the 100 m and 200 m were regularly competed. And then break it up in time periods. Add up all the days a 200 m record divided by 2 beat the 100 m world record. And add up all the days the 100 m world record multiplied by 2 beat the 200 m world record. As of today (2009-08-21), Usain Bolt's records favour the 100 m. 9.58 * 2 = 19.16. A TINY little bit faster than his 19.19 on the 200 m. There also were times when the 200 m world record was "faster". Pietro Mennea's 19.72 was way faster (19.72 / 2 = 9.86) than the 100 m world record at that time. Either way, we have to keep in mind that, on a 200 m run, the second 100 m is performed with a flying start. No reaction times or "getting up to speed" involved... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight Track

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)

Wind

How about (a link to) an explanation of the wind field? Daggerbox (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Best times as well as best athletes?

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)

I agree - people who come to this page want to see the fastest of all time, not for various athletes. Delaywaves ^talk 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Go on. It's just a question of work. 200 metres top list:[1] Maybe your "feeling" belongs to all athletic disciplines.Montell 74 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

200 Meter Times

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316150553/http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/12/converting_times_from_english_to.aspx to http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/12/converting_times_from_english_to.aspx

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).

• 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) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160920170651/https://smsprio2016-a.akamaihd.net/_odf-documents/A/T/ATM002202_Results_2016_08_17_256e5870_e476_4b5a_a7e2_0117f57978ce.pdf to https://smsprio2016-a.akamaihd.net/_odf-documents/A/T/ATM002202_Results_2016_08_17_256e5870_e476_4b5a_a7e2_0117f57978ce.pdf

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).

• 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) 05:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Record Holder Discrepancies

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)

That's correct. The reigning World/Olympic Champion would be the athlete who won gold at the most recent World Championships/Olympics. This is different from the record holders, who have the best performances all time. GoPats (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)