Talk:Men's 100 metres world record progression

Chart

 * 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)
 * A quick explanation of the error bars in the chart's legend is necessary. 194.80.106.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE WORST CHART EVER. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ! Take a look at the Mile progression for a better type of chart.68.48.204.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

false graph
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
 * 1) early records rely on inaccurate mechanical stopwatches.
 * 2) 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 &bull; talk 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish the graph had a line 72.224.114.74

There is a good plot, with a fitted line, and a good discussion of how it was derived and the problems with deriving it at http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/bolt-is-freaky.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp. Although the fitted line does not correctly predict Bolt's amazing records, it provides a context by which to evaluate 100-m progress, Bolt, and possible future records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.244.108 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Difference between manual and electronic timing...
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)

Gatlin's record
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)


 * 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)


 * Agreed, from the press release it seems the time will stand until the process is finalised. --Deon Steyn 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disqualified times
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Sounds good. Nice work. Mipchunk 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Johnson's 9.79 should be included in the record progression as it was never ratified as a world record. His 9.83 should be, as should Montgomery's 9.78 and Galtin's 9.77 as they were all ratified records (whatever the outcome of the latter). And, I know this is confusing as it isn't chronological, but the "proper" record progression should be: Smith 9.93; Johnson 9.83; Lewis 9.93; Lewis 9.93; Lewis 9.92 as those were the records in the order they were recognized by the IAAF, the IAAF saying, after nullifing Johnson's 9.83 in 1989 that Lewis was deemed to have tied Smith's record in finishing second to Johnson at Rome in '87 and in beating Johnson in Zurich in '88, then to be the current record holder (in 1989) at 9.92. Though I am pretty sure this became official on January 1, 1990. Canada Jack 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

flags
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)
 * Of course, I changed them. It's OK now. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Jim Thorpe
Removed from the Discrepancies section: Because: Looks like stealth vandalism to me. jnestorius(talk) 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim Thorpe was rumored to have run the 100 m dash in 10.9 at the 1912 Olympics, but this has never been verified.
 * 1) 10.9 is slower than the 1912 record of 10.6
 * 2) The Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's decathlon page says he ran 11.2 and placed 3rd in the 100m.

Fifths versus Tenths
I've changed 10.6 to 10$$\tfrac{3}{5}$$ and 10.4 to 10$$\tfrac{2}{5}$$ in the table; in the same way as the change from tenths to hundredths in 1975-6, there was a change some time in the late 20s from fifths to tenths. Page 175 of the "Running Through the Ages" book I've cited also says Paddock was denied a claimed record of 9.5s for 100yd in 1926 as the ratifiers refused to allow tenths of a second. (They were probably right, but that's another story...) The progress graph should also be updated to used wider bands for those early records. jnestorius(talk) 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it was poorly measured doesn't change the fact that 10.6 = 10$$\tfrac{3}{5}$$ - measuring discrepancies should be noted elsewhere on the page rather than having a mixture of fractions and decimals. QmunkE 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, 10.6 is not equal to 10$$\tfrac{3}{5}$$: As absolute mathematical quantities they are the same, but as measurements they differ. They are both approximations, with the same measured value but different measurement error. The graphic illustrating the article interprets 10.6 as (10.55~10.65); whereas 10$$\tfrac{3}{5}$$ would be (10.5~10.7).
 * I am prepared to sacrifice consistency of formatting in the interests of being accurate. If we wanted maximum consistency, all the measurements would be to two decimal places: 10.60, 10.40, 10.30, ... 9.77, 9.74.  This would obviously be false consistency.
 * It misleading to show the record improving from 10.6 in 1920 to 10.4 in 1921: it looks like an impressively big jump when in fact it is the minimum possible increment. In contrast, expressing this as 10$$\tfrac{3}{5}$$ to 10$$\tfrac{2}{5}$$ makes this more obvious. Alternatively, to make this still more explicit we could separate the "hand timing" section into "hand timing: fifths" and "hand timing: tenths". jnestorius(talk) 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, leave the fractions, it is a very important aspect of the times that is often forgotten. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So why were the fractions changed back to decimals by QmunkE? Were there others that agreed with his line of reasoning? David D. (Talk) 08:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the above editor's point about rendering times as fractions. It seems that others want a "consistent" look here, but the problem is that the history of track and field is NOT consistent when it came to times. I had the identical problem on the mile progression page where someone saw fit to put everything into decimals, including 3/4 which they rendered as .8.


 * I think it is crucial to note that old timing methods were not nearly as accurate as what we have now, and to render something as a decimal implies a level of accuracy not achieved. It's the same reason why we don't now, with times to 1/100 th of a second, go back and add an extra zero to old times to make the numbers "consistent" - because the previous times were only accurate to 1/10th, not to 1/100th as doing so would imply. Canada Jack 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And... come to think of it, adding "hand-timing" labels adds a complexity to the page. Because sometimes, especially at the Olympics, races were either automatically timed or semi-automatic. The latter being the time was started electronically by the firing of the starting pistol, but stopped by a hand-timer.

Further, the fact that a time is to the 10th doesn't necessarily mean it was hand-timed - races often were only done to the tenth - even electronically - as the need for 100ths in sprint events wasn't until, I think, 1976. Canada Jack 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page again, I see a basic problem - the assumption is that if the time is to the tenth, it is a "manual" time. This is true in most cases, but as I note above, some of those times to the tenth were likely electronically timed. Someone as I also noted went about to make these changes on other pages but likely doesn't realize it is as cut-and-dried as he thinks it is. I suggest we simply this by noting that from 1976 times were ratified to the hundredth of a second rather than employing original research to determine which times were or were not "manual." Canada Jack 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where a race prior to 1976 had electronic timing, the reported time generally is a manual time rather than a rounded-off electronic time; e.g. Armin Hary's 10.0 WR in 1960 was e-timed at 10.25, which would have been rounded to 10.2 (if not 10.3). E-timing was mostly a disregarded side-effect of photo-finish equipment.  No doubt too, the accuracy of e-timing has improved over the years.
 * I think this page should ideally include:
 * all IAAF-recognized WRs; clearly marked as such and distinguished from non-IAAF-ratified times
 * ancillary race info: hand/semi/auto timed; cinder/tartan track; wind speed; altitude; what competition
 * mention any changes to the IAAF record-setting criteria: as well as the fifths/tenths/hundredths and manual/auto changes, there may have been others: was the 2m/s wind limit established in 1912? starting blocks? false starts? etc
 * pre-IAAF (1912) reputably-reported WRs
 * all unratified times equal or better than the contemporary IAAF-WR, ideally explaining why it failed to be ratified; this could include races run outside the auspices of the IAAF, Paddocks's 110yds, drug DQs like Ben Johnson's 9.79, and WA times like Obadele Thopson's 9.69
 * progressive best e-times pre-1976, on a similar basis to pre-1912 WRs
 * the e-time corresponding to any hand-time listed (where it has one)
 * Assuming anyone endorses my suggestion, ensuing issues are:
 * data for 4,5,6: This site is the most comprehensive-looking list I could find, but it has no references.  It could be possible to pick off the races on the list one by one; the list could never claim to be comprehensive, but still interesting
 * data for 7: David Wallechinsky's book has the Olympics times, but I dunno how easy it would be for other races.
 * data for 2: some easier than others
 * data for 3: seems like research in the IAAF archives
 * how to present all the disparate information in a clear format; is a single sortable table feasible, or would segregated lists be better?
 * Maybe this is too ambitious, but one can dream. jnestorius(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this, but weren't a lot of those photo-timers in fact semi-electronic, meaning a manual start but with the photo-finish time recorded? My underlining point is that to separate into "manual" and "electronic" timing is misleading and not accurate.

AS for the previous times to 1976, we must recall that Jim Hines' world record was ratified, when he set it, as 9.9 seconds. In THAT case, his record was electronically determined, but owing to the rules in effect in 1968 and 1969, his time was recognized as 9.9. Of course, his record was not surpassed until 1983 and since his was the record - and had been electronically times to the hundredth, his record became seen as 9.95. But how many of those other times ratified at 10.0 were in fact electronically recorded?

We also have to recognize the difference between RATIFIED times and actual times run. Going into what was ACTUALLY run - as you note with Hary - ignores what the IAAF deemed to be the official time. And for better or worse, hand-timed feats took precedence for a long time, despite the presumed accuracy of the electronic measures.

But I think you have some great suggestions here, though I'm not sure we should attempt a reconstruction of electronic "records" as that would be original research. Canada Jack 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bob Sparks of the Association of Track and Field Statisticians (ATFS) has some info on historic timing regulations here; there's UK-specific info here. (Mr Sparks' site does not seem to have been updated since 2002, at which time he was receiving leukaemia treatment.)  ATFS should also be a citable source for some of the other extra data; I don't have a copy of their annual.  I agree that a random selection of "the fastest autotimes a few Wikipedians unearthed" is unacceptable, but if ATFS had a list it would be citable. jnestorius(talk) 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Bob Sparks is no longer with us which explains why there have been no further updates. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas! I feared as much. jnestorius(talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great link. I have changed the headings to reflect the introduction of fully automatic timing from 1976, and supplied a link to Sparks' page. And I eliminated the reference to "manual" timing above, simply indicating the year span of the records, 1912-1976. I still think we should re-introduce fractionals, but I believe we should find a source which distinguishes between times to the fifth (rendered as a fraction) and times to the tenth (rendered to the tenth). And though Sparks' page is good for when the 1/100th rule came into effect, it would be great if someone could find a source which has the rules going back to 1912, the founding of the IAAF. If that is forthcoming, I suggest a note under the "1912-1976" title saying something like "timing rules evolved over the years as timing accuracy improved (see below)" and then at the bottom of the page we should have a chronology of timing changes. So, something like... "1912-1945 records ratified to fifth of a second..." (for example, I'm making that up...)

As for the suggestion that fastest autotimes if ATFS has a list, I think that is beyond the scope of the page even if such a list exists. Those times, after all, were not records as we understand records. And since records were so spotty and rare until the 1960s, such a list would be, in my view, essentially meaningless and trivial. Canada Jack 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you've convinced me; though it would still be good to give an auto time, if any, for those hand times we do list. jnestorius(talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's entirely appropriate. I ran into a similar issue on the world record progression for the mile run page, and noted the "actual" times run and the ratified times. In that case, the "actual" times were noted in the progression, and the different ratified times were noted below. Probably would be best to do the reverse here otherwise the progression will look messy. In the case of the mile, it wasn't until 1981 that times to the 1/100th of a second became mandatory, and there were several instances of records which were ratified to the tenth of a second previously but where the electronic time was also known. And, some times run to the tenth were ratified to the nearest fifth of a second due to the rounding rules then in effect. For example, most famously John Landy broke Bannister's mile record with a run of 3:57.9, which was ratified at 3:58.0 due to the rounding rules then in effect. Canada Jack (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Reference
"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)


 * 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)

theoretical fastest speed
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)


 * 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)

Times by drug users
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)


 * 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)

Manual vs Electronic, Paddock's "record"
Before we get into an edit war, there is a reason the "manual" and "electronic" titles were omitted. That is because some of the "manual" times were in fact fully electronic times. This has been a consistent problem on some of these pages where, it would seem, the presumption from some is that any time to the tenth of a second is "manual," and to the 100th is electronic. While the latter may be so, the former is not. Canada Jack (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And Charlie Paddock's 10.2 was never considered a world record as he ran a different distance than the 100 metres. Accordingly, it should not be in the record progression. Canada Jack (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * the link I gave you and which I plan to use after expansion clearly refers to hand timing, while also offering for a few of them 1/100ths (see the bottom of the 9.9 set) - which I assume were electronicly timed, but ratified 7 rounded to some 1/10th value. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the simple deletion of the 0.24s and the 1921 time does not contribute to the article itself. If this is to be featured, those facts need to be covered somehow in the article, be they in the notes section or in the text. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing: is there any reason to doubt this site? http://www.athletix.org/Statistics/wr100men.htm Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, yes. Because it contradicts what you are trying to insert. Canada Jack (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the linked progression, you will see under "hand-timed" four times which are in fact electronically timed. It is for that very reason we changed the title months ago from "manual" (which, by the way is not what the source called it anyway) to "1912-1976." It would seem you would choose to rename this, inaccurately, "manual." Why, prey tell? It's not "original research" to simply note the years instead of the incorrect titles from the source. Is it also "original research" to insert ":" instead of the character the source uses?

More to the point, if you want to be strict about citation, when I simply had a descriptive title, then how do you justify inserting the Paddock mark which is not included in the progression? As for the ".24" rule, that, clearly, is wrong. It may have been a rule at one point, but, again, look at the athletix site, where it is quite apparent they are not applying this "official rule" to the electronic times there. How do you get 9.9 from Hines' 9.95 in 1968, for example, if that was the rule?

A lot of these sites have great information but have the wrong context. So, let's discuss any of these changes, get consensus, and move accordingly. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nergaal, I;ve seen you've reinserted your changes. Please return the page to its original form, we can then discuss your changes, and, once consensus is reached, move accordingly. Canada Jack (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL!
 * 1) so the ref is unreliable because it contradicts what am I saying? good point!
 * 2) paddock IS in the ref and he is clearly shown under what conditions
 * 3) I already explained my point about hadn timing! It is a HAND TIMING ERA because times measured by hand WERE accepted! After that, ONLY electronic times were accepted. When IAAF will switch to the 1/1000ths, the today's records will be called thousandths era even though some are known to the thousands.
 * 4) what is with the ":" OR?
 * 5) If you paid any attention I have rephrased the 0.24 part. It is still not the best phrasing possible (and I will improve it) but it offers the reader a good idea why 9.95 was better than 9.9 and why after obtaining 6 times 9.9 times in a few years, it took decades to actually get back there.  Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and one more thing: consensuses take forever! If the table shows ALL the best times obtained, separately labeling the unofficial/unrecognized/retracted times with some color code for example, then the text will be clear! White for still recognised, red for retracted, yellow for never recognized and so on. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, well, I've looked carefully at the progression given on the Athletix site, and as far as I can tell, it is correct. As such, Charlie Paddock's time of 10.2 over 110 yd was never ratified by the IAAF and therefore is not a world record. Also, notably, Carl Lewis's pair of 9.93 performances were never ratified as the world record (because of Ben Johnson), though I would guess it would be a serious point of contention as to whether to include his times in this list, as his performances would have equaled the world record were it not for Ben Johnson's time preventing the USATF from forwarding the performance for ratification.


 * The so-called 0.24 correction factor is completely unreliable. It is an arbitrary number created by track and field enthusiasts to help compare manual times to automatic times. Depending on the venue, timers could be very good (fast), or relatively bad (slow). At the Olympics, the timers employed were some of the best in the world, and errors in their hand-timing could have been under 0.10 potentially. Indeed, before 1976, only manual times were forwarded for world record ratification. In the case of Jim Hines' 9.9h and 9.95, the 9.95 was the true time recorded by the automatic timing, while the 9.9 came from a team of hand timers who were also present at that race. As you can see, the 0.24 correction factor is never used in any official manner, and clearly the timers used at these Olympics are probably far better than the average timers. I would say that "Hand-timing (1912-1976)" is a suitable label for the first part of the progression.


 * Some last thoughts. Firstly, unofficial times should NOT be listed whatsoever, as this completely defeats the purpose of world records, which are set under very carefully controlled conditions to ensure that nothing fishy was going on. Perhaps Paddock didn't run 10.2 over 110 yd - how can we tell? Was there a trio of IAAF-certified timers? Who knows? Who was overseeing the meet (was it IAAF-sanctioned?) ? I don't know where to find such information from such a long time ago. Secondly, there probably will never be a time when 100 m times are recorded to the 1000th of a second, as the resolution for this precision is overshadowed by variations in the length of the track. Improving the 100 m world record by 0.001 s would not be meaningful as we cannot ensure that the individual actually ran over 100 m faster, since manufacturing methods allow for the length of a track to be slightly off by as much as a centimetre. Finally, I don't like how the revoked world records are in red, as this color stands out much more than the allowed records, seemingly indicating that the reader's attention be drawn to these performances more than the other ones. Perhaps they should be placed in a separate list, or perhaps just removed all together, with their mention only in the notes? Mipchunk (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the exact 0.24 value but my point was to give an estimate, and if necessary even a high estimate to this value. If you look carefully, in the athletix link you will see a 10:03 or :14 time that is ratified as 9.9. So, whatever the exact value, it should be noted in the article that this difference was in some cases significant (i.e.: some say 0.24, while officially there has been this case of .14). As for Paddock, I disagree. This is a world record progression. Weather it was ratified or not by IAAF they should be noted. First, the IAAF was established on 1912 only, while people ran in competitions several decades before that.

About the color: this is a strong red but a much lighter one can be used. Also, for the fully ratified records blue can be used; and white and yellow for those that were not ratified for various reasons but not discarded. For example the high altitude results were disbanded from ratification but two such were ratified while other people rand not so fast at the sea level. These can be white. Again, this is a progression not a ratification article. That may be created separately.

Ah, and one more thing that I've noticed: there is no mention of records being set at the level of 1/5 seconds in the first few years of ratification. Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My initial point here is that these not insubstantial changes should not be imposed on the page without a discussion. So, this should be returned to the previous state before changes come into place.
 * Any my initial point here is that this is never going to become a featured list without making substantial changes to the format. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Manual" vs "electronic" timing is misleading, which is why I changed them to the years in question. The explanation of the switch in 1976 also illuminates why there are all those post-1968 records yet from 1976 the record was from 1968. The problem with calling the former list "manual" timing is that some of the records were in fact electronically recorded and ratified. In the past, there were races recorded electronically, but the hand-timed marks were the "official" marks. Later, post-hoc, others have reconstructed lists based on the "real" times run. But that's not what is going on here, at least with the Hines mark of 1968. That was a fully electronic time, there was no hand-timed "official" time, they rounded down, as per the rules then in effect, to 9.9 from 9.95. As for the point that the "manual timing" title simply means that that method of timing was accepted, I hasten to add it in fact implies that all the times listed under were manually timed. So to have it as the years in question 1912-1976; 1976 - present to remove the ambiguity, and wrote a short section about the switch to fully automatic timing.
 * I said manual and electronic era (i.e. the first accepted both, while the last only electronic)
 * Nergaal speculates that the IAAF will eventually ratify times to 1/1000th of a second. But this will only require a note saying as much. Which is why I opt for the simplicity of demarcating the eras by time era. We had a previous argument here about rendering times in fifths, as that is what was originally done. (see above discussion) It is hard to find sources which describe the sequence from 1/4 to 1/5 to 1/10 - to 1/100 is readily apparent.
 * I see no point in splitting the page by years. If there is no clear difference between the two eras, then the tables should be mergedNergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you paid any attention I have rephrased the 0.24 part. The point is completely irrelevant, Nergaal, it's not a matter of how eloquently you make the point. And Mipchunk describes why.


 * Mipchunk has some good comments here, but you are wrong on a few points. The two records by Lewis were not ratified by the IAAF at the time, and were never world records in their own right, but when the IAAF stripped Johnson of his 9.83 late in 1989, it stated that it considered those two 9.93s as having been world records. I've made the point that the actual sequence of records should be Smith 9.93, Johnson 9.83 (Johnson 9.79 unr), Lewis 9.93, Lewis 9.93, Lewis 9.92. As those were the records chronologically as ratified (save the 9.79). I cited this via an article in Track and Field News.


 * As for Hines' 9.9 time at the Olympics, are you sure this was the case for the 1968 Olympics? Because all times recorded at that games which have subsequently been rendered to the 1/100th are rounded down or up to the nearest tenths. Surely this wasn't the case of some amazing hand-timing matching the rounded down/up electronic times? Wonder if you have a source for this, that the ratified times here were hand-timed and not electronically timed.


 * As for Paddock, I disagree. This is a world record progression. Weather it was ratified or not by IAAF they should be noted. As the page states at the top The first world record in the 100 m for men (athletics) was recognised by the International Amateur Athletics Federation, now known as the International Association of Athletics Federations, in 1912. To include Paddock's record defeats the purpose, as Mipchump states, of the page, and is at odds with the opening line as Paddock's time was never ratified or even considered to be the world record. This is completely indefensible. Canada Jack (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * read the book (i.e. the reference that is provided) Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Nergaal, completely ignoring me and Mipchunk, has gone ahead and made a lot of substantial changes, again without discussing. I request, again, you revert the page to how it looked before, then gain consensus before these changes are instituted. Canada Jack (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A correction factor between hand timing and automatic timing is estimated to be around 0.24 seconds, meaning that on average, hand-timed events should receive 0.24 s penalty when compared to the automatic ones.[4]


 * This is simply not true, Nergaal. And it is completely irrelevant as it says nothing to the records. Especially since we have electronic/manual times well within that span.
 * The 0.24 thing should actually describe a standard deviation not a penalty. I.e. + or - 0.[add whatever you find in a reliable ref] Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim Hines' October 1968 Olympic gold medal run was the fastest recorded fully electronic 100 metre race to that time, at 9.95,[5] considered faster than the manually timed 9.9.


 * And this is completely confused as well. "9.9" as ratified by the IAAF was the race Hines' 9.95 record came from! And who "considered this faster" than the 9.9?


 * Again, before you continue with inserting more nonsense and, to put it bluntly, garbage, get some consensus here. This is not a question of eloquence, it is a question of nonsense. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i can't wait to see how long it is going to take you to make this a featured list.


 * I don't have time to contribute much just now, but a few points:
 * I agree that one editor cannot impose changes against the opposition of multiple other editors.
 * If the only reason for not using fifths is lack of sources, see "Running Through the Ages", pg 175 on Google books.
 * When I read it i remembered saying something of a transition at some point, from 1/5 to 1/10
 * See WP:COLOR for guidelines on using color-coding.
 * Is athletix.org a reliable source? We must assume not unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
 * Since the Paddock factoid crops up a lot, it should be mentioned, but I'm not sure whether asterisks, caveats, or relegation to footnotes is most appropriate. "Charlie Paddock's 10.2 was never considered a world record as he ran a different distance" is incorrect. Till the 1976 revolution, records were kept for yards races as well as metres races, and many records at US meets over 220 yds and 440 yds were accepted as records for the slightly shorter 200m and 400m where relevant (obviously, the reverse did not apply) Thus in 1935 Jesse Owens broke 6 records in 45 minutes with just 4 performances ("Running Through the Ages", pg 181). Possible reasons for the 1921 non-ratification:
 * It was a split time during a 200-yard race
 * I don't know if the IAAF ever ratified records for the 110yds; the source says "it was accepted as a record for 110 yards" but not by whom. Paddock set "records" at lots of made-up distances like 175 yards.
 * Maybe the dual-ratification policy was introduced later -- this would be the explanation that makes the performance most notable.
 * jnestorius(talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would venture to guess that Paddock's record was simply not ratified because it was not timed by IAAF-certified timers and/or the meeting was not organized according to IAAF specifications. Mipchunk (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More on Paddock: According to the above-mentioned book ("Running Through the Ages" - strange, I stumbled upon the same book when doing some research on the mile only two days ago...) Paddock was often timed in races with timers at various locations. In April 1921, he tied the 100 yard record and broke the 100 meter record in a single race with multiple timers at 100 y and 100 m. The same day, with timers at 200 m, 220 y, 300 y and 300m, he set records at 200 m, 300m and 300 y. In all cases, there were at least five timers at each mark. Even though the 200 m and 220 y marks were only a bit more than a meter apart and Paddock passed both marks "with one jump," the records would only count, it would seem, if the marks were timed individually. As for the mark in question on this page, the book says that again multiple timers were set, but only at 110 yards and 200 yards. "Although it was accepted as a record for 110 yards, it was not approved as a record for 100 meters even though the distance was 100.58 meters." I said above that the record was not approved as he "ran a different distance," (which, as was pointed out, was wrong as he did run 100 m, but I was imprecise here) meaning not that he didn't run at least 100 m, but that he wasn't timed for the precise distance of 100 metres, which is probably why the record wasn't ratified. I know that the 440y and 880y were often cited as breaking 400m and 800m as the distances are only slightly longer, but I'm not sure that that was always the case. I've seen record progressions with yard "records" included by with a note saying "not ratified" in the 400 m, likely because, as I said before they weren't timed over the precise distance. All this is my personal speculation, but what is not disputed here is a) the time was never ratified as the 100 meter world record and b) none of the lists I have seen list it within their record progression, choosing instead to put a note elsewhere mentioning the mark. Which is, I argue, what we should do here. There may be a good argument to think it should be included, alas the arbitrar in question, the IAAF, decided otherwise. To therefore not include the mark in the progression is what the consensus here seems to be, with only Nergaal thinking otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More on "electronic" vs "manual" records. It was above argued that Jim Hines 1968 Olympic time, when originally ratified, was via the hand-timed results, at 9.9. (His Olympic time is found on one of the linked pages though, strangely, it is not here. Odd to insert Paddock but omit Hines' Olympic result.) If one takes a look at the finish photos where Hines wins the race, one can indeed see the staircase at the finish line with multiple timers seemingly taking the "official result," which it should be noted, for a long time meant manually timed marks took precedence over electronically timed races. In the photo, we can see some of the official hand-timers, but we can also so the Omega electronic timer. But, what does the IOC say? On their page for the 1968 Olympics: The athletics, cycling, rowing, canoe, swimming and equestrian competitions were timed manually and electronically- for the first time, the electronic time was the official one.


 * Therefore, the manual times were not the official times, therefore Hines 1968 Olympic time and (tied) world record was the electronic time, not the manual time, and therefore to call the records from 1912 to 1976 "Hand-timed" is incorrect, as at least one of those records to the tenth of a second was a fully electronic time. The crucial point here to note is not that the IAAF went from "manual" timing to "electronic" timing in 1976, the crucial point is that in 400m and under races only electronic times were accepted from 1976. Electronic times, in other words, were not only acceptable previous to 1976, electronic times were ratified as world records, though rounded to the nearest tenth of a second. Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but 9.95 should be rounded up to 10.0, so there's still something missing from the story somewhere. The "official" time may simply mean for recording the results of the meeting, with the manual time still "official" for record purposes. Earlier auto-times may have been "unofficial" in the same way that thousandth-second times are today. Otherwise, why bother having manual timers at all -- were they just a backup in case the electronics malfunctioned?  The Official Report for the 1968 games gives times in tenths pdf. jnestorius(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As per the consensus here on Paddock's "record," I have removed the time from the progression. Perhaps someone can insert a footnote on the time. Canada Jack (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there have been other unratified marks, I'm not sure it's wise to single out this one. jnestorius(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For a very simple reason. None of the sources list this mark as part of the progression. And, there is a single mark here that was not ratified, and that was Johnson's 9.79. Might be a good argument to remove that one as well. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't express myself clearly. I agree with removing Paddock 1921 from the progression.  I am not sure it should be singled out for footnoting, when other unratified/unofficial records also exist, such as those listed [uncitably!] on athletix.org.  It might be better to leave it out altogether for now.  If we get cites for several of the unofficial ones, we could add a separate unofficial table, including Paddock 1921, with the caveat that it is [possibly] an incomplete list. The only possible "definitive" list of unratified records would be if the ATFS has one. jnestorius(talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of omitting the last seven words of the following: Jim Hines' October 1968 Olympic gold medal run was the fastest recorded fully electronic 100 metre race to that time, at 9.95, considered faster than the manually timed 9.9. The statement makes no sense, as Hines' 9.9 ratified record run at the 1968 Olympics was the same performance later recognized by the IAAF as 9.95. I will also reinsert the 9.9 time which has been, strangely, omitted. Further, it was not a question of the time being "considered faster" than any other manually timed race, it was a question of fully automatic timing being the new requirement for records 400m and under. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put the Hines mark 9.9 back in (as found on the athletix site) and omitted the incorrect note about his 9.95 mark "retroactively" becoming the world record, viz: ''Hines ran a 9.95 record later that year which was retroactively defined as the WR in ??? when IAAF decided to take into account only electronically timed events.'' Why remove it? Besides the fact that this record was discussed elsewhere on the page, "9.95" wasn't the record he ran in 1968, it was 9.9, which later was rendered to the hundredth. And, further, his time at the Olympics was ratified as a world record at the time, not "retroactively." What changed in 1976 was it was recognized as 9.95 instead of 9.9, and all those other 9.9 marks were removed. (Some of those other times, it should be noted, were electronically timed, but Hines' was the fastest mark).

Some further attention is required to what seems to be a sincere, but clumsy effort to "improve" this page, that being the references linked to the New York Times for a lot of the 1912-76 marks. It would seem that this was done (instead of linking to some of the other sites which may not be "reliable") to proper reference the times, problem is that ALL the times according to the New York Times are to the hundredth of a second! So, Percy Williams didn't run 10.3 in 1930, he ran 10.30. This is clearly wrong, so the references should be omitted. And if you don't understand why that is wrong, Nergaal, then I suggest you refrain from more unilateral changes if you truly want to make this page a featured page.

As for the titles (ie "hand-timed" etc.) I will wait until there is sufficient consensus to change this. Since the International Olympic Committee's word on whether Hines was hand-timed or not should be taken into greater account than athelix's, I hope that we can revert to the date format as before. Two more points to make: Not sure about your command of English, Nergaal, but the way the title is "Hand-timed, 1912-76" does imply that all marks under are "hand-timed." The simplist solution is to simply have the dates. As for the two tables, this is, I argue, necessitated by the move to recognizing only electronic records, as multiple world records were set after 1968 yet were removed from record consideration. The note under "1976-present" explains why. To make this one table would greatly confuse people as to why a pile of records set after 1968 are there.

Finally, the colour here looks very silly, IMHO. But if this is to stay, there are several corrections to be made: The IAAF considered Lewis' 9.93 to have been world records after the fact, and this is sourced. So the colour should match. And Johnson's 9.79, of course, was never a world record. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but 9.95 should be rounded up to 10.0, so there's still something missing from the story somewhere. The "official" time may simply mean for recording the results of the meeting, with the manual time still "official" for record purposes. Earlier auto-times may have been "unofficial" in the same way that thousandth-second times are today. Otherwise, why bother having manual timers at all -- were they just a backup in case the electronics malfunctioned? The Official Report for the 1968 games gives times in tenths.


 * Thanks for that link! It was what I was looking for, and it confirms what I have been saying. Two points to remember: 1) The "Official" times were rendered to the tenth of a second, not to the hundredth; 2) The rounding rules were different in 1968 - .1 to .5 was rounded down, .6 to .0 rounded up, I believe. Or it may have been down. I know by the mid-70s, times were rounded up, so 1:44.11 in the 800 would be ratified as 1:44.2.


 * You might want to check out the times as later expanded to the 1/100th of a second. You will find that all the marks are either rounded up or down to the nearest tenth. (I believe .10 would be rounded to .0 in some cases). Now, if hand-timing was "official," we'd not see this level of accuracy. All times within .05 or so of the electronic times. But, this is not simply a matter of me speculating, I have the IOC itself stating that though both manual and electronic timing was done in 1968, this was the first time that electronic timing was "official." And if the times appear in that book, then they are "official," period. And if we check the records, we will find that the "official" times listed in the book match the times to the tenth as found on various progression lists, such as the 200m, 400m, 800m, relays etc. Perhaps manual was there as a back-up in case the largely untested electronic systems (at this level) failed. And perhaps, simply, because that was how it had been done at the Olympics for 70 years. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

question
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)
 * 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)


 * Such a list is found on the 100 metres article. Mipchunk (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about "haste to delete." If anything, there was a "haste to add without discussion" here. The only deletion which there is potential for future inclusion is the note about Paddock, but that information is already here on this page, easily retrievable. Much of the material you say "certainly needs to be presented" is material of dubious and debatable relevance.

The note about ".24" being a conversion factor, for example, is hopelessly confused. Even if the time is accurate (I've heard of .14 being the real mean difference) what it seems to say is that a hand-timer using a watch to 1/10th of a second will be off from the true electronic time by that amount. But think about that: how can a watch timing to the tenth be off to the hundredth of a second? What is probably meant here is that hand-timers have that amount of error and, as such, when hand-timed records were acceptable, electronic times should be shaved by something like .14 to better approximate what the hand-timers got. Once electronic time become the only acceptable method, these concerns about a "conversion" became irrelevant. This is, I speculate, probably why auto times were rounded down instead of up so as to make a more meaningful comparison to the tenth. So Hines in 1968 ran 9.95 which seems "slower" than the 9.9s run by others, but if timed by hand, those times were probably "really" in the 10.0-10.1 range auto. But instead of "correcting" the hand-times, they shaved the auto times, and made them to the tenth. Clearly, this was an ad hoc approach to "marrying" auto and hand times and was not sustainable as the two methods are not really comparable. So the hand-timing was eventually ditched. Canada Jack (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Well, duh, Nergaal. You seem to be missing the point. No here is pretending there is no mean range of time differential between hand and auto-times. But what you don't seem to grasp is that this is in reference to hand-timed events to the hundredth of a second. If that is what the case was in the past, then the note would have more relevance. But unless you know otherwise, the hand-times we are talking about are to the tenth of a second. The other aspect here is that this is chiefly something to explain the rounding rules down instead of up when measured in hundredths for electronic timing. As jnestorius noted, there is something "wrong" as Hines' 9.95 should have been rounded up, not down. But the reason for this, as I speculate, for Hines' time and other times from 1968 rounded down from, say, 10.11 to 10.0 was to better match the electronic time to the hand-timed races. There was another consideration as nestoriuos also noted - the widely varying skill levels of timers. The top-notch timers would be routinely within .10 of the electronic times, while less experienced ones would be outside of that. Should we therefore apply a looser rule to the more experienced timers at which many of these records were set? For that reason, I feel, as do others, that the "rule of thumb" you quote is not really useful for the typical high-level meets we are talking about. For the inexperienced or less experienced timers at smaller meets, the rule is better applicable and what the reference seems to really be talking about. In other words, it is not really relevant here. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...
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)


 * 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)

Actually, something did happen, Nergaal. We cleaned up the mess you made here. The mess you made without bothering to engage anyone in discussion with until after you made the changes. We actually included a few of your suggestions, more was cleaned up. The issue of "electronic" verses "hand-timed" was clarified, I believe, when I established that Jim Hines Olympic run was first ratified as 9.9 and that time was recorded electronically, a fact confirmed by the IOC. What remains to be cleaned up are the silly links you made to the records, silly because the sources don't a) match the times of the records listed here or b) don't specify the world records save for Bolt's Olympic record. The problem there is the IAAF at the present time only lists current records, it doesn't (as far as I know), list record progressions. I have a partial solution and that is to list a reliable source I've used before, Track and Field News, which as recently as July had a record progression for the 100 m.

What's silly about the non-IAAF section being there (and I don't recall saying there should be no pre -IAAF section being there, I in fact did a lot of work constructing similar sections for the mile) is that it was plonked down with nothing in it.

You've now, at last look, changed the title of this page without a single word of discussion three times. And, I'm sorry, but I don't see how "Ratified men's 100 metres world records (athletics)" is an improvement of what existed before. For one, it's redundant. Only world records are ratified. If it's not ratified, it's not a world record.(!)

Again, I request you revert your changes. They are far from slight. Then engage in discussion. If consensus is reached, then changes can be made. But not before. Canada Jack (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

If there was any doubt that Nergaal was bordering on being a troll, it was removed when he stuck a citation for my declaration that if it's not ratified, it's not a world record. This is pretty basic stuff, Nergaal. As found on the IAAF "history" page:

The International Amateur Athletic Federation was founded in 1912 by 17 national athletic federations who saw the need for a governing authority, for an athletic programme, for standardised technical equipment and world records.

From that point, any claim to a "world record" was subject to a ratification process via the IAAF. Since there are no records listed on the page pre-1912, all the records here are only records because they were ratified. There have been numerous claims to "world records" since, as discussed with Paddock's time, with Johnson's 9.79, with the "9.766" confusion a few years ago. Which is why we, after discussion, removed Ben Johnson's 9.79 and moved other claims to footnotes. As they were never world records. They were claimed to be one, but this was subject, as all claimants, to a ratification procedure. They failed. And, technically, Bolt's 9.68 is not the world record, as it has not been ratified. Indeed, since you unilaterally changed the name of the article, technically, the Bolt time should be removed until it has been ratified.(!) I'm not suggesting we do that as there is at this time little doubt that it will be ratified.

We thought we had made our point last time - changes and suggestions are welcome, indeed we have made changes in part from what you have suggested. But discuss them first. However in your self-styled attempt to, presumably, gain yourself a barnstar or whatever, you have ignored the consensus on some items which existed before you employed your bulldozer approach to this page. And in your snide remarks, you have failed to acknowledge one of the difficulties with this page, in that it is not a simple matter to get a reliable source for many of these marks as the governing body doesn't seem to supply one. Your links, designed to get the page a "good" or "featured" ranking, fail to do anything but give superficial authority to what's here. One good thing was that I did find in a recent issue of one "reliable source" a sequence of records starting with Hines' 9.95. (Incidentally, they also have an unofficial progression of electronic times back to 1964, and lists of unofficial low-altitude records as well) There's a bit more detective work needed here, iow, and it will take a long time to get the proper citations to many of the older marks found here. Cheers, Canada Jack (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
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)


 * 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)

Move request
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

As if the title needed to be changed because of some "discussion" over ratified/world records. Give us a break, Nergaal. This wasn't an issue until I pointed out the redundancy in your supposedly "improved" new title. AS if there is some distinction which needs to be made between "unratified" and "ratified" world records. What's ridiculous about this is that, clearly, you never even considered this until I pointed it out, as if you had, you'd have removed Bolt's 9.69 "record" as it is not yet ratified.(!) The error he seems to be making is in assuming that Paddock's time and Johnson's 9.79 were once considered to be "world records." They weren't as they could only be considered records once ratified. So the distinction is completely meaningless. Bolt's 9.69 is a pending world record, but is not a "world record" just as a pregnant woman is an "expectant" mother but not a mother until she gives birth.

Besides, to be very technical, Lewis' 9.93 runs weren't "ratified" per se, they were post facto recognized as being part of the world record progression when Johnson's 9.83 was rescinded. But it is a distinction that it seems no one on the planet feels a need to make, except for Nergaal. Which is why we have discussions before well-meaning but far-reaching changes are implemented. IOW, to properly implement the title Nergaal proposed, we'd have to excise three marks from the record progression which were or about to be world records. If Nergaal is truly concerned about DAB here, we can discuss making a change like add "run" or "dash" in the title. Canada Jack (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Low Altitiude Progression
Why is this section in the article? In the "Times by drug users" section of the talk page, the following argument is used:
 * "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."

Surely the same argument applies. Also, why would this low altitude list only include times between 1968 and 1987? I know there is a brief explanation that tries to address this, but it is confusingly worded and technically kind of silly. Are we to believe that somehow low altitude effects changed after 1987? If not (as is obviously the case), there is no reason to limit the date range! Since Bolt set the 9.72 record in New York, Powell equaled the 9.77 record in Gateshead, and Burell set the 9.90 in New York, it seems very likely that the projection comparing tail winds to altitude is simply not accurate, and that altitude doesn't make much difference in practice.

Failing all of that, if the chart remains in its current form, Ben Jonson times should be included in red the same way they are in the main progression. If nothing else, consistency is important! 76.10.173.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC).


 * Well, I put the section in as there is a debate in track and field circles whether altitude records should be discarded just as wind-assisted marks are. Few suggest that drug-assisted marks should be included. (Besides, only a single mark excised due to drug use is not shown on the progression.) And it would seem that you are referring to an old title of the page, when it mentioned records ratified by the IAAF. It no longer is as explicit.


 * As for the progression only going from 1968 to 1987, there is a simple reason for that: It was only during that time that the world record was set by marks at high altitude. To include low altitude records before and since would simply mean reproducing the record progression already on the page. Before and since, all the records have been set at low altitude. Not sure what your point is about wind. Marks with assisting winds over 2.0 m/s are not eligible for record consideration. The point of the reference is that the assistance due to altitude over 2000 m is something like twice the assistance due to maximum legal wind. Yet these marks still are acceptable for ratification. The point here is not to make a case one way or another: the point is that there is a debate, that "low-altitude" progressions have been compiled, and that we should probably include those progressions. (I admit that I wasn't sure if it should be included, so I guess now starts the debate.)


 * Since Bolt set the 9.72 record in New York, Powell equaled the 9.77 record in Gateshead, and Burell set the 9.90 in New York, it seems very likely that the projection comparing tail winds to altitude is simply not accurate, and that altitude doesn't make much difference in practice. You seem to miss the point. The contention that altitude assists sprint and jump records is completely uncontroversial. Which is why even the IAAF notes marks set at altitude with an "A," even if it doesn't make a separate list for low-altitude records. The issue is whether the IAAF should ratify those records. I speculate that the reason they do so is political. Many venues would be effectively off the track circuit and the IAAF seeks to promote the sport. At Mexico City, where would the excitement be if the IAAF said none of the sprint/jump marks set there were admissible for record consideration? Which is probably why they let them stand. Besides, in the example I provided, it is clear the assistance associated with the maximum allowable wind pales in comparison to the assistance associated with marks set above 2000m, yet the former can't be ratified and the latter can. (Mexico City is somewhere around 2500 m altitude). The 1968 high-altitude world records stood a long time - 100 m for 15 years; 200 m for 11 years; 400 m for 20 years; long jump for 23 years. Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I also am unsure as to whether a low-altitude record progression should be included. This is not because I don't realize that altitude-assisted records are probably not as "fast" as their low-altitude counterparts, but because there are no such things as "low-altitude records". Even if the altitude-assisted records did not exist, we wouldn't be sure that all those low-altitude performances would have been ratified by the IAAF instead. The only low-altitude record progression I would accept (and which is valid) is simply the current world record progression with all the altitude records removed - i.e., performances that were actually ratified by the IAAF. Mipchunk (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That was my hesitation here. It's clearly an unofficial sequence of marks, included because the controversy exists in track circles. For example, Carl Lewis for years refused to compete at altitude to avoid the "taint" of altitude-assisted records. But the list, in my defence, is not original research, as reputable track authorities, such as Track and Field News, routinely make the distinction, and compile their own lists of low-altitude "records." But so far, it's two against one, so if there is no or little agreement to having this list, I won't object to it being removed. Canada Jack (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From a contemporary perspective, it really seems like a subtle effect, though your point about long standing Mexico City records is interesting. I mean, as a casual fan I still hear about wind assisted exceptional times at least every couple of years, but altitude doesn't seem to have had much effect on the record progression since 1987. Maybe this is a misconception created by the different ways the data is represented..


 * I've been thinking of some polished wording for the section, because part of what attracted my attention was a bit of ambiguity in my mind about what the list was actually presenting.. I'm not sure I've improved it any, but here is a suggestion:
 * "Some observers have noted that altitude can significantly assist sprint performances. One estimate suggests that 200m performance can improve by as much as 0.3s at altitudes over 2000m, more than twice the benefit of a 2.0m/s tailwind.[2] For this reason, and because the 100m mark was only improved at altitude between 1968 and 1988, some feel that the low-altitude record progression during that time period has significance. The IAAF does not recognize the low altitude distinction.


 * The following progression of low-altitude marks starts with the "record" when the IAAF started to recognize only electronic timing and continues to the first mark that equaled the world record in 1987. (Ben Johnson's 9.95 run in 1986 and 9.83 run in 1987 are omitted.)"
 * Anyway, thanks for the reasoned response to my slightly too inflammatory criticism, Canada Jack. I'm still not sure the list belongs, but I suppose it does add some interesting information to the topic. On reflection, it is pretty similar to noting Ben Johnson's 9.79 somewhere in the page, without putting it in the progression. 76.10.173.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Yes, that sounds better. But the chief reason that other altitude records aren't set all the time is that there are few big meets held at altitude, not that the effect does not exist. And, as mentioned, some athletes simply avoid competing at altitude to avoid "tainted" records. But it would be, in my view, a bit misleading to say the reason that some wanted the low-altitude distinction made was because high-altitude records stood 1968-1988. It is more accurate to say that some feel that altitude-aided marks should be omitted because of the assistance given in the same way marks with excessive wind are.

And while it is true the IAAF does not distinguish low and high-altitude records, it nevertheless recognizes the assistance altitude gives in sprint and jump events, and accordingly affixes an "A" to marks made at locations over 1,000m altitude.

As for your "inflammatory" criticism, I felt that including this list might be controversial, so I welcome the chance to defend it. There were some good points which you raised which needed to be addressed. And if the "casual" fan as you describe yourself doesn't see the answers to these questions in front of him, then that means something needs to be clarified. Which hopefully improves the page. 159.33.10.93 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above was written by me, btw. Canada Jack (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that with Bolt's 9.58 in Berlin 2009, the whole debate about altitude is moot. Andrewvit (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bolt doesn't make it moot. It just goes to prove how exceptional he is.  If he were to run at an altitude meet in peak form, who knows what he could do.  Since, particularly Carl Lewis, the egos of the elite runners kept them from making an attempt at a high altitude location.  They didn't want to say it was an exceptional advantage.  They also wanted the record to be out there to improve upon.  Once one of them sets something outlandish at altitude, then it could be a career challenge to ever improve.  Now, Bolt has done that just on his exceptional ability, but as we saw in Berlin, he was able to improve upon his own exceptional mark. Trackinfo (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though the section is labeled "low altitude", the talk page here seems to indicate that the records listed are in fact high altitude ones. That's very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.44.112 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the marks listed under low altitude were run at low altitude locations. 1968 to 1987, the official world record was set at a high altitude location, these marks excluded those (considered advantageous) high altitude marks. Trackinfo (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Official IAAF record progression
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)

Fastest times overall
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)


 * Nevermind. I saw the other page and added a link to it in "see also". Timneu22 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyson Gay's 9.71 - August 16, 2009
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)

Page clean-up complete (hopefully)
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)

Thousandths place
Here I present an argument why a third decimal in the 100m time is meaningless. First, the automatic time given to the thousandth place is unofficial and is not verified through any official channels. The IAAF considers all such marks unofficial. While they have released the unofficial thousandths-place measurements, they are only meant to provide the basis on which one rounds down to the nearest hundredth to obtain the official automatic time. Second, aside from technological limitations (which no longer exist, though), the IAAF has chosen to measure performances only to the nearest hundredth of a second because this allows for possible physical measurement errors. These come in several forms. As per the official competition rules, the timing mechanism is only required to start within 1/1000th of a second of when the race begins (i.e. when the gun fires). Furthermore, the camera may have some error in alignment; the official competition rules require that the camera is aligned with the finish line, with maximum extension before and after by up to 2 cm. Finally, there is the design of the track itself. The IAAF standard for track layout allows the 100m straight to be measured with maximum error of +/- 2 cm, and the full track to be 400m +/- 4 cm. If you don't believe me, see here for the track guidelines. Most notably, a measurement error on the order of 1 cm yields an order of magnitude timing error of 0.001 seconds, assuming that a runner travels at 10 m/s.

It is for all these reasons that timing measurements to the thousandth place are physically meaningless. Unless track-making guidelines become much more strict (which is rather unrealistic, especially given the natural variance of materials, such as from thermal expansion), the IAAF will never move to recording world records or official times in thousandths. It might seem informative to Wikipedia readers to see these thousandths-place auto-times included, but in fact they are deceiving. There is a physical reason why the IAAF chooses to round to the nearest hundredth. Therefore I propose that the physical meaningless of thousandth-place measurements be stated in the article, or that these unofficial auto times be removed. Mipchunk (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have not consulted the IAAF's progression lists, Mipchunk. Go to the lists here . page 546 and 547, and you will see that, indeed, the IAAF has these times to the thousandth of a second on their record progression lists! So your statement First, the automatic time given to the thousandth place is unofficial and is not verified through any official channels is demonstrably false - ALL the times on the page as it stands come straight from the IAAF record progression list.


 * While they have released the unofficial thousandths-place measurements, they are only meant to provide the basis on which one rounds down to the nearest hundredth to obtain the official automatic time. Not sure where you get that idea from. DO you have a source for this contention? Especially given that previous auto times listed clearly bear little relation to the ratified world record time. Look at the auto times for the records at 10.0 seconds. So your conclusion as to why the IAAF includes these times is not supported by any facts you have thus far supplied.


 * In the end, your argument is fine, and you have strong points here, but the people to debate this with is the IAAF, not wikipedia. The bottom line is that the IAAF has chosen, for whatever reason, to include on their progression lists a) wind gauges and b) auto times. Post-1977, those auto times which the IAAF has chosen to include are to the thousandths of a second. We, therefore, should not arbitrarily exclude measurements which the IAAF itself deems relevant to include.


 * Shall we also, by your logic, omit the pre-1977 auto times? Or how relevant, truly, are wind gauges? Do those figures accurately measure the true assistance of the wind? Is Flo Jo's 10.49 time with a 0.0 wind gauge realistic? Well, it may not be, but it's there on the IAAF list and therefore should be on ours. We could, using your rationale, quibble with just about every wind gauge reading listed on the page. It is not our place, I submit, to do so, as long as the authority, in this case the governing body for track and field, chooses to include these data. The same logic applies to including auto times to the thousandth.


 * Besides, part of your premise may be incorrect. Chiefly your premise that the thousandth of a second is the potential new timing accuracy, or that the IAAF is merely using these times to round to the nearest hundredth. It may be that the IAAF is considering future ratifications to the 250th of a second, for the very rationale you present - the margin of error is greater than a thousandth of a second. Assuming your assumptions are correct, the margin of error is about 2 cm for the track (which is about c. 2/1000 of a second), 1 thousandth of a second for the timer. Therefore, the margin of error in timing is 3 thousandth of a second, which you would agree, is well within the current timing level of accuracy for record consideration (10 thousandths of a second). On the page, therefore, the IAAF might deem a 9.763 by Powell as exceeding the previous record of 9.768, perhaps rounding the former to the nearest 250th - 9.764 - but consider the 9.762 as a tie as it rounds as well to 9.764. Or, it may be that the IAAF will refine the specifications for these times by requiring a margin of error for track measurements to the millimetre, depending on factors including the natural expansion and contraction of the track surface.


 * But, as I suggest above, this is all beside the point. The IAAF chooses, for whatever reasons, to include these auto times to the thousandth of a second on their record progression lists. Therefore, so should we. Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From your above link, "Where known, unofficial automatic times are given" - I'm pretty sure that settles the point as to whether or not thousandths-place automatic times are unofficial. The point is that they are not ratified, and therefore serve no purpose other than to mislead readers as to the ratified nature of those times. And, from the IAAF Competition Rules here, we can see that "Unless the time is an exact 1/100th of a second, it shall be read and recorded to the next longer 1/100th of a second." This obviously does not hold for the manual timing records; the unofficial automatic times were essentially ignored in those records. In the same document, we can see that wind gauges are similarly rounded down to the nearest tenth. I am, in fact, in full agreement with the IAAF. The plain and simple fact is that there is no ratification for the unofficial thousandths-place automatic times, but that the IAAF recognizes that this measurement is sufficient for accuracy to the nearest hundredth. Mipchunk (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me you are getting a bit desperate with your argument, now that you realize that these marks are straight off the progression list. Which is why you have the strawman argument that these are "unofficial" times. Well, who claimed otherwise? Mipchunk, to be plain and simple, the IAAF chooses, on their record progression lists, to include wind gauge readings (which aren't "official records"), auto times (which in many cases here are not "official records") and, for that matter, dates of the records (which are not "official records") and the venue (which are not "official records"). If you can supply a rationale to arbitrarily omit one section of data from the IAAF's own lists, let's hear it (as opposed to, say, why we should keep venues as if they are of any particular relevance). But the gist of what I get from you is that you feel that these thousandths are "silly" for several reasons, chiefly that the accuracy of the time if greater than the margin of error. Fine, I understand the argument, I see your point. But that is your personal opinion of what is "relevant" information and if you were the IAAF, you'd likely not have the category listed. But you aren't, so we should do what I have done here and replicate what the IAAF itself feels is relevant information, leaving my - and your - personal opinion out of it. So, as I have suggested, you might contact the IAAF to get them to remove the "silliness" from their record progression lists. Until that time, since the IAAF sees fit to list the records, so should we. Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will first remark that I had already reviewed the progression lists at the time it was released, before the World Championships, so it was before I even posted my original comment on this talk page. I understand that the IAAF has included these thousandths-place times on that document; it is not, however, part of the official ratified world records list. As their statement in that document suggests, where known, these unofficial automatic times are included for informative purposes. Contrary to what you have said about wind, date, and venue being not part of the official records, they are in fact recorded officially, and since you prefer that I cite everything, you can easily find the world record application form here. The unofficial time from which the official time is obtained from rounding down, however, is not one of these parameters. As I said before, I am fine with including these unofficial automatic times, but it must be stressed in the article that these were never ratified nor are they to be considered the officially recorded time. Mipchunk (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the IAAF has included these thousandths-place times on that document; it is not, however, part of the official ratified world records list.

Not sure how you can take a look at a document called "Progression of Official World Records," and simply declare that, sorry, these particular times on this "official list" are, uh, not part of the official list. Sorry, mipchunk, but these times quite clearly are. It matters not one whit whether the times are there for "informative purposes," the only question is: Are they there? If so, then we should logically include them. Besides, the IAAF says nothing about these being here for "informative purposes," it simply states these it sees fit to include auto times where known. Indeed, it only remarks on time to the tenth in this regard anyway, not to times to the hundredth.

Contrary to what you have said about wind, date, and venue being not part of the official records, they are in fact recorded officially...

...but this information is not the "official record" per se. The ratified time is. Since auto times, and times to the thousandths if known, are listed, the IAAF logically does not see it as extraneous information. The information, however, is not required by the IAAF.

Anyway, I fail to see how anyone can see a continuous column called "time" and be confused with a column with sporadic marks listed called "auto" as to which column reflects the ratified records. But there is a rather simple solution here if you concede that we should reproduce what the IAAF has - and that is to rename the "time" column as "mark" which is understood more unambiguously to be "the record" and perhaps highlight these marks by bolding the number, leaving the wind and auto time plain or in smaller text. Canada Jack (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose that nothing in the column needs to be changed, but that a sentence simply be added stating that the additional automatic times are unofficial. As an aside (in case I was misinforming you), wind, date, and venue MUST be submitted for ratification as a world record. But the non-rounded automatic time is not. Mipchunk (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you have a point about the possible confusion over what was the record and what wasn't, so might consider bolding the official record. I have no problem with the line in the intro to clarify. Maybe something like "The Iaaf includes automatic times in its progression lists, to the hundredth to 1976, and to the thousandth in recent years. However, these are not the official ratified times." Canada Jack (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyson Gay
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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, that's much clearer.Mcelite (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Terms need to be clearly explained
Although there is various discussion about timing methods, nowhere is it clearly explained what "Time" means as opposed to "Auto". I thought "Time" might mean "hand-timied", but then why do some entries have both? What is the point of listing a separate less accurate hand-timing when electronic timing is available? It is very unclear. 217.44.214.6 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Time" is the ratified world record. "Auto" means, where applicable, an automatically timed result was also generated. Depending on the record, the auto times were either done IN ADDITION to the official ratified hand-timed mark, or were THE OFFICIAL TIME, rounded to the tenth or the fifth of a second, depending on the rules then in effect. It's rather confusing as into the 70s, auto-timed events were not simply rounded up or down to the nearest tenth, but had time added to more closely match what would have been recorded by hand-timing. In recent years, the IAAF has been listing the auto-times to 1,000th of a second where available, but the actual ratified record is the "time" to the 100th.


 * A common fallacy is the belief that a record to the tenth indicates a hand-timed record. No, the records until 1977 were rendered to the 10th, even if a far more accurate time was recorded. Numerous records which were in fact auto-timed to the hundredth were ratified to the tenth. Jim Hines' 9.9s world record was auto-timed. Sebastian Coe's 1979 mile world record was ratified as 3:49.0, as the rules then in effect had distance records rounded to the tenth. In 1981, the IAAF started to accept times to the 100th for distance events.


 * The "time" and "auto" and "wind" are listed as per the IAAF progression lists which don't explain the distinctions, but since the source mentions them, so do we. Canada Jack (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Lewis 1991 - 1.0 or 1.2 m/s wind?
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)