Talk:Asafa Powell

early discussion

Hmm, something strange here! First time I loaded the page I got a paragraph ending "He is fat". Second time the offending (both senses of word) sentence was not there. I think someone with better technical capbability than I should investigate. (not registered - so no "handle" sorry.)

Don't worry. This was simple vandlism, removed quickly as such things nearly always are. If you come across any more and feel like doing your bit to keep Wikipedia free of graffiti, have a look at how to revert a page to an earlier version. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "However, he gained some consolation by breaking the 100m world record, in Athens again, on June 14, 2005, setting a time of 9.77 seconds. This beat Tim Montgomery's 2002 record of 9.78 seconds by less than four-hundredths of a second."

9.78 - 9.77 is one one-hundredth of a second - should the figure be thousandths, and if so is there a source for the more accurate measurement? Deadlock 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

related to Colin Powell

From the article "He is a distant cousin of former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.". What does this mean? Does distant mean they do not interact or speak to each other? Or does it mean he is a second or even third cousin? The wording on the Gary Powell pages says he is a 'distant relative'. That wording seems more accurate. David D. 1 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

yup, 'relative' is probably less ambiguous phrasing 3 july. I entered it in on the basis of the Gary Powell entry; does anyone actually have a source to verify these claims?? 19:54

The gary powell article that contained this info has been changed and a google search gives only the wikipedia article mentioning this fact. I have removed the paragraph until the claims can be substantiated. Robdurbar 17:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

his brothers

Searching on google the only reference I can find to a brother is Donovan Powell. I think you are right, Robdurbar, to remove the link to Gary Powell until it is verifiable.

http://www.ttgapers.com/News/2005/6/15/Asafa-Powell-lays-down-the-law/ However, it could all have been very different had he taken his brother Donovan's advice and not become a sprinter. Asafa travelled to Texas to train with his elder brother – a 100M semi-finalist in the 1999 world championships – but after several sessions Donovan advised him to do something else. Instead he remained determined to carry on pursuing his dream and linked up with Jamaican coach Stephen Francis, who showed him videos of the then leading West Indian athlete Ato Boldon, the 1997 world champion at 200M and a four-time Olympic medallist.

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/05/11/world.shtml After Raymond Stewart, Percival Spencer, Donavon Powell, the older brother of Asafa and Michael Green departed, the island of Jamaica, well known as the sprint factory, wondered where the next world group of world class sprinters would come from.

http://www.canadianrunner.com/content/view/4400/2/ Powell, the younger brother of Donovan Powell confirmed on Wednesday that he would make the trip to Australia to compete in the 100m at the Melbourne Commonwealth Games next March.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400945.html For years, Powell wasn't even the fastest man in his own family, staying on the sideline as his older brother, Donovan Powell, competed in IAAF races in 1999, at one point posting a time in the 60 meters that ranked second in the world.

David D. 20:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

9.77 or 9.76?

Can someone with technical knowledge of timing in sprints tell us why Asafa's run in Gateshead was not listed as a new world record? Your account (and the IAAF's) is that the actual time was 9.7629 seconds. From my recollection of elementary mathematics this should have been rounded down to 9.76 - a new world record. In contrast with Justin Gatlin's Doha run of 9.77 the actual time there was reported as 9.7660 which was (correctly) rounded up to 9.77 seconds. Please tell me how 9.7629 becomes 9.77 if we're rounding to the nearest 100th of a second?

ANSWER: Excellent question, and you're not the first to ask it. Unfortunately elementary math has little to do with this. The IAAF Rulebook (available for free viewing on the IAAF website) is the final word, and Rule 165.23(a) states: "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." Thus, only a 9.7600 or faster will be read as a new world record. Ridiculous as it sounds, even a 9.7601 is officially a 9.77. So we're not rounding "to the nearest 100th"; we're only rounding "up"... always "up". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.176.49 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to delete the YouTube link as it does violate policy per above. Anyone think otherwise? Brykupono 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I did it anyway. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

100m performance list

I feel that the list of all the 100 m performances in 2005 and 2006 is a little excessive in detail. The 100 m progression per year seems sufficient. Anybody agree that we should remove this? Mipchunk 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed

Judging by the record recently been made, I'd say the runner ran with a speed of 24 miles per hour. 61.9.126.41 07:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Can someone update the "listens to his coach and smashes 100m world record" link from http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletics/story/0,,2165856,00.html%7CPowell to http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletics/story/0,,2165856,00.html thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.50.66 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey you should put in the fact he was also considering playing soccer or cricket professionally. He was apparently offered trials by a few English clubs because he had raw talent, and his speed would come in handy as a winger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.206.53 (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Asafa Powell cannot handle pressure. If he could he would have won the world championships in Osaka but he lost to the american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericfab (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Charts in Honours Section

These charts do not make much sense... it looks as though they were modeled after charts on Powell's IAAF bio page, with necessary labels left out and some information changed. Does anyone have a problem with me making these more coherent? (standardizing the info included in the event column, labeling the place finished column and separating it from the round column, etc.) Any other opinions? Brykupono 23:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ordinary Person standardized the event column info today, so that's done. Thanks. Brykupono 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

False Start

Why would he be disqualified "both athletes moving less than 0.1 seconds after gun firing". *after* the gun firing? That seems fine to me. This isn't explained here or in the false start article (it says sensors in starting blocks are used). Is *before* meant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.162.162 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sport's governing body - the IAAF - has a rule that if the athlete moves within 1/10th of a second after the gun has fired the athlete has false started. (http://www.finishlynx.com/products/reactime/overview/index.htm) This is an arbitrary figure that is based on the idea that the human brain cannot process the information of the sound of the starting gun and then get the body rolling in under 1/10th of a second. This rule is only applied at high-level meets where fully automated motion sensor devices are built into the starting blocks that are tied via computer with the starter's gun. In the vast majority of meets that do not have these sophisticated motion sensor devices false starts are determined the old fashioned way - visually by the officials. --Fizbin 01:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The 0.1 is not arbitrary. It is based on tests showing that a sprinter cannot react in less than 0.1 of a second, and has been substantiated by the actual reaction times of world-class sprinters which are over 0.12 at least 99% of the time. If the human brain could process the information and move the muscles in 0.09 seconds or faster, reaction times from 0.10 to 0.12 would not be so rare.

Asafa's 19.79 200

Anyone know why his initial clocking of a 19.79 200m from a meet in Jamaica a couple years ago is not listed anymore on the IAAF's official website top lists anymore? I can find a 19.90 200m time for Powell, but they no longer list the 19.79. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.40.1 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No such race, not even wind-aided. His fastest 200 is the 19.90 run in Kingston June 25, 2006. You can see his entire race history here: http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/atm.php?ID=4109 (you have to change the year in the lower right to see each year)--Fizbin 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal best table

What's up with all the colours on the personal best table? Are they really necessary? And someone changed the font colour and background to green on the part that says WR! What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatlot!! (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

65.100.186.176 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) "Powell is the only man to have run legally under 9.80 seconds more than once, having done so five times" Hasn't Usain Bolt run a 9.76 and 9.72 (w/ratification)?

That is correct it should be updated. David D. (Talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ALso Tyson Gay has ran 9.77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.108.140 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Gay has only run under 9.80 once. The sentance refers to those who have acheived the feat, more than once. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Information

"Asafa Powell planned to be a mechanic before he took up running whilst studying in Kingston, Jamaica" lol where did you guys get this information? It is so far from the truth!! Asafa got a scholarship to Utech in kingston after his high school coach Mrs. Fraser handed him over to Steven Francis after convincing him to use his god given talent. Seriously this page needsa overhaul because the information here is riddled with glaring inaccuracies.

"Hey you should put in the fact he was also considering playing soccer or cricket professionally. He was apparently offered trials by a few English clubs because he had raw talent, and his speed would come in handy as a winger."

This statement is bull and should be promptly removed because it is just false through and through. Another point of interest is that he came to public attention at the boys and girls championship where he was favored to win but falsestarted.

Come on people stop write foolishness and get some facts

4x100 split times

Split times are dubious at best (no automatic timing), and fairly meaningless since it depend more on where/how the hand off took place than how fast the person actually ran. Also, I can't find anything more than message board/blog posts to verify the times. If there is no objection, I am going to remove the reference to 4x100 split times.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

His borther's death

I noticed that the information on Asafa's brother's death was removed. However, I believe it should be in the article, just in a different form. I'm certain there are a couple of articles where Asafa discusses how this event affected him, perhaps his track form too. The information should be reinserted and rewritten in a way so that Asafa is the subject of the effects of the death. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it, and I pointed out on the discussion on my talkpage that I only took it out because it seemed completely out of place with the section's material. I have no objection with the information being displayed on the page, but it would be far better suited to a personal life section as opposed to the ones detailing his performances on the track. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 09:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Achievements?

A fifth in a semi-final? A 7th in a final?? A fourth in a semi-final??? A DQ final???? These are not notable achievements for a runner who is the second fastest of all time, and should be removed.--Fizbin (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would recommend that the sections be organised in a "Competition record" format. Powell's performances at major tournaments should be noted, regardless of how well he did (or didn't do). I'm contemplating writing up a draft for constructing athlete biographies, including it as part of WP:Olympics or perhaps starting up a parallel project "WikiProject:Athletics". However, I think that'll be left until the summer when I've more free time. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the championship medals (gold, silver, bronze) in the info box can serve for the bulk of this, with an Achievements section limited to world records and more esoteric stuff such as most sub-9.9s, etc. If you go to the most decorated T&F athletes of all-time (say, Carl Lewis, as an example) there is no significant comprehensive competition record, nor should there be. That leaves the boundaries of being encyclopedic and moves into information minutia overload.--Fizbin (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If only the most major tournaments are mentioned (i.e. IAAF World Championships and Olympics) then it generally isn't over the top. Perhaps it would be better if the results from the tournament's events could be grouped into one line of the box (rather than 1 per event). Carl Lewis is not the best example; just last month it was roundly rejected as a good article with multiple problems (including a completely unnecessary non-free image and some unverified claims which the GAR failed to pick up). A better example is that of Ian Thorpe (a featured article) which details the competition record alongside the prose. Furthermore, reduction of major competitions into a table at the end of an article can hardly be classed as "minutia overload". If people don't want to read it they don't have to; if they're looking to quickly see how an athlete performed at, say, the 1996 Olympics they can quickly find that material in a chronological competition record. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sillyfolkboy. Wikipedia guidelines say something like anything that you'd find an a specialized encyclopedia is fair game. Some sort of competition record is highly likely to be found in a specialized sports encyclopedia, so I think it is appropriate here. I do agree, however, that the section could be better named. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

>A better example is that of Ian Thorpe (a featured article) which details the competition record alongside the prose.

You lost me. There are no highlights of fourth, fifth and seventh place finishes in any info boxes in this article. A description and explanation in prose is fine if the result was unexpected, but the current AP article highlights it in easy-to-find boxes, which is not appropriate.--Fizbin (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the section "Accomplishments and major competition summary" to better reflect the nature of the material in the section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fizbin - Perhaps you are missing the point of the competition record: sometimes non-medal placings can be just as notable as golds. For example, much was made of Tyson Gay's lack of medals at the 2008 Olympics. Asafa Powell is the perfect example of this too—his failure to perform to the same level at major tournaments is one of the most key facets of the sprinter. In my mind, Powell's record breaking performances make his lack of major medals very interesting. It is fair to explain the subject's successes in an article, but sometimes failure to succeed can be just as notable. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First, let me be clear that my objection is about references to notable non-performances in info-type boxes, not the prose of the article. For the most part, anything that is championship meet-specific should be handled by the gold/silver/bronze listings in the main info-box. The stuff that is currently in the 'notable results' section is either a duplicate of the main info box, or should be handled in the prose of the main article (which it is, for the most part). The notable non-results should be discussed in the prose, not highlighted (or lowlighted) without explanation in an info box. For instance, the box in the notable results about him taking 7th in the 2003 WAF (a highly marginal championship, by the way) makes it look like he sucked. In fact he was new to the scene and he was probably thrilled with that result. This whole 'notable results' section as currently depicted is superfluous and misleading, in my opinion. --Fizbin (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Standardise terms

I suggest that the article be standardised to British English (e.g. metre, favourite) as this is closer to Jamaican than American English. Similarly, I propose that dates be standardised to Day before Month rather than the American style of month before day. What are other people's thoughts on this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this move. Languages should always be written in the style of native speakers from the country of origin itself, I hate variants such as American/Australian/whatever. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 09:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WAF

Why the focus on WAF? It has the effect of diluting the important stuff. Let's face it the WAF is not particularly important, especially since it comes at the very end of a long season. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The WAF is the culmination of a long GP season and is somewhat the IAAF GP championship for the year. It is important from the point of view that GP's are important and entry into the WAF is based solely on points gained at GP events throughout the season. While it is not as important as the World Championships, it is notable for its unofficial "GP Championship" structure. That said, I don't think there is a particular focus on the WAF, just an inclusion of it. Toyracerx (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was looking at the table at Asafa_Powell#100_metres where WAF races represents 50% of the entries, as well as in the infobox. For both I would have thought it better to reserve them for major championship medals. If a WAF is of particular interest, for example, if he had beaten Gay or Bolt, then adding the information to the text would be best. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Asafa

There needs to be an IPA to show whether it's pronounced AS-a-fa or a-SAF-a because I have no clue. Spiderone (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The pronunciation depends on who you ask. His mother was once quoted as saying she calls him "assa-fa". I have heard him directly introduce himself as "ah-sah-fah" Toyracerx (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

change in format

Why was the heading format changed? Previous versions of the page had his career formatted by year, someone has changed the titles but they do not watch the wording. Any objections to reverting to previous format?