Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No sub-10"/sub-45" in history?...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No sub-10"/sub-45" in history?...

    No athlete ever did it, Ibelieve...

  • #2
    Re: No sub-10

    So is MJ the fastest sub-45 at 10.09?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: No sub-10

      After having a quick look at the sub-10 lists, it doesn't look as though anyone has.

      Methinks that had MJ tried a few more 100's at his peak (July '96ish), then he could have squeezed out a sub-10 100m performance. Also, maybe if Carl Lewis had given the 400m a decent shot, he maybe could have dipped below 45s.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: No sub-10

        ...and I believe Justin GATLIN will be the
        first, especially with such an excellent 100m
        and 400m specialist coach as Trevor GRAHAM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: No sub-10

          I bet JG never tries a serious 400.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: No sub-10

            If you want to count hand timing, then Steve Williams did 9.9/44.8 ... Also 19.8 ...

            I don't think MJ would have run sub 10 even at his "peak" as it is straight away speed that caused all of his injuries from college through his final one in Sacramento at the 2000 trials ... Had he not been injury prone he most likely would have become another 100/200 doubler ...

            Innocent Egbunike was also very close to sub 10/ sub 45 with 10.12/44.17 PR's ...

            Quincy Watts ran 10.30 in high school and surely was capable of more by the time he won Olympic gold in 92 at 43.50 ...

            Kevin Little is another close one with 10.11/44.77 PR's ...

            Another with the ability who was close was Willie Smith who ran 10.2 in high school then moved up to the 400 in college and ran 44.73 as well as a 10.20 in one of his rare 100 appearances post HS ...

            Of course the original MJ - Tommie Smith - had 10.1 to go with his 44.5 and 19.8 times ...

            If we want to consider relays then you would have to add Dennis Mitchell (9.91/ sub 45 relays) ...

            And in the very close department ... Henry Thomas ran 45.09 in high school and 10.15 in college to go with many relay legs under 45 ...

            So there have been several sprinters who have been "right there" along with MJ in that area ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: No sub-10

              Looking at the reverse, are there any sub-10.00's that ran a decent 400? Can't think of even a sub-46. Fredericks and Marsh coulda/shoulda, but don't think they did.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: No sub-10

                I remember Mike MARSH was running serious 400m
                every season on spring. His times were always
                more or less 45"50.
                Dennis MITCHELL was a 400m specialist as he
                was a young unknown athlete(45"2).
                I am not 100% sure, but I think I had watched
                him run a 400m relay at the 1985 World Indoor
                Games in Paris. I remember his incredible
                fighting spirit then.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: No sub-10

                  Dang ... Forgot about Marsh ... Marsh ran 9.93 & 45.08 (in '97) so he is probably the closest of all ...

                  Dennis Mitchell's open 400 best was 45.28 so he was extremely close there as well ...

                  And believe it or not Jon Drummond has a 45.55 to go with his 9.92 and 20.03 ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: No sub-10

                    Note that MJ's PR of 10.09 was set with a maximal 2.0 wind.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: No sub-10

                      >Note that MJ's PR of 10.09 was set with a maximal 2.0 wind.


                      Yes, set in mid-June of 1994, when his 200's were in the 20.1 - 20.2 range (his SB was "only" 19.94). Seeing as his 200m time improved by more than 0.6 two years later, I don't see how that translates to less than a 0.09 improvement in the 100m.

                      IMHO, he would have been worth 9.95 in late 1996.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: No sub-10

                        You might not think that ifyou'd actually seen him run the 100.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: No sub-10

                          >You might not think that ifyou'd actually seen him run the 100.

                          So, you could tell by watching him run a 100 that he couldn't go faster than 10.09? That doesn't make any sense at all. He looked like a freak running the 2 and the 4 when he first burst on to the scene (many a track fan thought his form would never generate a world record). Didn't he run 10.12 around a curve in the first 100 of his Atlanta 200? It seems pretty likely that he could have dipped under 10 if he focused more on the one. He probably never did because he felt he couldn't dominate the 1 as he did the 2 and the 4.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: No sub-10

                            >>Note that MJ's PR of 10.09 was set with a maximal 2.0 wind.


                            Yes, set in
                            >mid-June of 1994, when his 200's were in the 20.1 - 20.2 range (his SB was
                            >"only" 19.94). Seeing as his 200m time improved by more than 0.6 two years
                            >later, I don't see how that translates to less than a 0.09 improvement in the
                            >100m.

                            MJ's PR was just that, a PR ... Its not like he was running that whenever he felt like it ... Matter of fact he never ran under 19.7 away from Atlanta ... Not to discount his WR, just means that that was an aberration and not an indication of what he would have run in a 100 ... Note that it took him another 5 years to improve his 400 ... Based on your logic he should have been running 42.7s in '96 ... There is a reason his PR stood at 10.09 with 2.0 wind ... Given his ego don't you think if he could've dropped a sub 10 he WOULD have just for the attention !!??

                            IMHO, he would have been worth 9.95 in late 1996.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: No sub-10

                              IMHO, he would have been worth 9.95 in late
                              >1996.

                              That was from the previous post ... Not from me ...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X