Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

michael johnson 200m wr

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • michael johnson 200m wr

    this may seem hard to belive but i think michael johnson could have gone faster than this fantastic time of 19.32 in the final he stumbled out of his blocks for the first 7 metres which cost him hundredthes of seconds belive it or not i think michael johnson was capable of going faster when he broke the world record he looked like he was trying but something tells me that if he was pushed he could off gone alot faster he seemed to have some more in the tank anyone agree

  • #2
    Re: michael johnson 200m wr

    Yes I agree he could of run faster.

    This is because there is no such thing as the 'Perfect race'.

    When you view the Video, you will clearly see a stumble from MJ, about 3.5-4 strides out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: michael johnson 200m wr

      Sorry, the video is:

      Atlanta ’96 OG Men’s 200m Final:
      http://los.idx.com.au/200mwr.zip

      Atlanta ’96 OG Men’s 200m Final (from a different angle)
      http://los.idx.com.au/200mwr_diffangle.zip

      You can see the stumble best from the 'Different angle video'

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: michael johnson 200m wr

        thanks for adding the videos

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: michael johnson 200m wr

          I was there that day and they showed it umpteen times on the Jumbotron and I swear he ran that time BECAUSE he stumbled. When he pulled himself up from the 'stumble' (it looked more like he caught a spike), he absoulutely exploded into full acceleration. I belive he thought he might have lost the race there and had to make up for it immediately. In any case that curve time was unbelievably fast (10.12ish) and I credit it to the stumble.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: michael johnson 200m wr

            you could be right because he did run a very fast bend

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: michael johnson 200m wr

              "...curve time was 10.12...

              If you're talking about the first 100m, what the hell would that equate on the straightaway?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                His 9.20 on the straight is an amazing show of speed endurance. 10 straight 9.2's is a hallmark.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                  Feelin'Super, I'd like to know the same thing. What would a 10.12 on a curve from lane 3 equate to in a straight 100 meter race?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                    There are sevral conversions about what kind of time the 1st 100m split of a 200m race equates to a staright 100m race.

                    The conversion which I have read in several books(and also which i have seen over the ineternet) is 0.4s.

                    Below are the conversions of each estimated 1st 100m split for MJ from his 19.32s in Atlanta.
                    10.12s - 0.40s = 9.72s.
                    10.13s - 0.40s = 9.73s.
                    10.14s - 0.40s = 9.74s.

                    In 1994 MJ ran his 100m PR(for the final time!)
                    of 10.09s(+2.0m/s following wind)
                    2h3 Knoxville on the 15th of June 1994.

                    When his 200m PR at that time was 19.79s(from the 1992 US Olympic Trials out of Lane 8!), and his best time for the 200m that year was 19.94s
                    (±0.0m/s)1st in Monaco GP on the 2nd of August 1994.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                      Although I've often heard a .3 factor, this clearly does not apply to MJ, whose running style and posture are ideal for the curve. Indeed, he's clearly the best curve runner ever. In that light, I would believe a .2, which converts to 9.92, which is within the realm of possibility. I very much doubt he was capable of a sub 9.90 (his start was 'average' relatively speaking). But you never know . . .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                        Given the difference in amount of time spent on the curve for each lane, no single number makes any sense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                          I must tell you, but at first that stumble out of the blocks looked suspicously like a rolling start. The reaction times from the race did not bear this out however.

                          This is a very tough record!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                            "Given the difference in amount of time spent on the curve for each lane, no single number makes any sense."

                            um . . . they spend the exact amount of time on the curve - 100m worth of time. One issue, however, is that lane 8's curve radius is larger than lane 1's, so there should be less of a slowing effect there. Since there is (should be) so little 'strategy' going on in a 200, I've always thought that lane 8 would clearly be the best to run in, but most runners prefer 4 or 5 so they 'pull on' competitors (?!). Does that mean they are not running their own best race in any lane?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: michael johnson 200m wr

                              >um . . . they spend the exact amount of time on
                              >the curve - 100m worth of time.

                              Actually, they spend 116m on the curve, and only 84m on the straight.

                              Also, the curvature *is* the significant effect which slows the athlete's speed. Outer lanes have a greater radius of curvature, so they will have an easier time accelerating (not fighting radial forces).

                              In my studies, I've found that lane 1-8 gives a "differential" of roughly 0.1-0.15s, so just over 0.01s per lane.

                              As for the 9.72 coversion, sorry King, but that's absolute nonsense. Neither Fredericks nor Boldon have broken 9.86, and you are giving them low 9.7 equivalents in that race?

                              Using numerical simulations, I've found that MJ's first split might have converted to a mid-9.9 on the straight, and that's probably a bit generous. I do, however, believe that would have been a sub-10s race on the straight.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X