michael johnson

michael johnson being such a speed endurance athlete could of had easily his 400m wr stood at 41.55 rather than 43.18 today. no disrispect to his 43.18 it is a phenomenal time but that 41.55 is more simple than it seems he would need to run the the first 200m in 20.50 well with in his reach and the last 200m in 21.05 which he can also achieve or maybe it should be the other way around with 21.05 going out and 20.50 for the last 200 metres considering michael johnson always had a strong finish

[Rob]

Re: michael johnson

..

Re: michael johnson

i didnt mean it sarcasticly i think that michael johnsons 400m wr is a bench-mark a phenomenal time and i cant see 43.18 being broken for years i was just simply stating a fact and how much potential michael johnson had and that he has never run to his full potential i wasnt running him down i was complementing his rare gifted talent

Re: michael johnson

Is your keyboard missing the CAPS and period keys? They usually come in handy when trying to read complete sentences.

Re: michael johnson

I'm sure there are some physiologists who have more knowledge than myself...

but the concept of sprinting 400 meters near max velocity produces some very interesting problems at about 250 meters.

the ole bill cosby line about rigomortis coming off the turn...well, I'd suspect rigo comes a little bit earlier, given the 1st 200 meters...

I do think MJ 200 mark is a better mark than his 400, but.. 41 range is like 3:25 mile!!

[Rob]

Re: michael johnson

..

[Conway]

Re: michael johnson

Did you watch the 43.18 race ?? If you did you saw a man giving everything he had .. A man at the peak of his 400 abilities running his ass off in pursuit of the record ... A record that he did not shatter but beat by .11sec (people tend ot forget about Butch) ... This race was near perfection ... We may see a sub 43, but to even talk about a sub 42 is heresy at best ...

Re: michael johnson

rob i am not disrespecting michael johnson in the slightest he is a super athlete all i was sugesting or predicting that maybe he was possible of running 41.55 with both split times well with in his reach and the fact that he is a endurance sprinter i'm not trying to start an argument nor am i disrespecting the great man michael johnson.

Re: michael johnson

Unfortunately, Curt, both this statement, "i was just simply stating a fact" and your understanding of the dynamics of the 400 are lacking in substance. If MJ equalled the dynamics of his 19.32 in a 400, he MIGHT have gone high 42-something. The 400 is a different animal, and MJ understood it better than maybe anyone else in recent times. He WAS very near MAXIMUM in his WR race.

Re: michael johnson

thats cool man

Re: michael johnson

I think he was capable of a high 42. He was a consistent 43.50 or below guy. Anybody who has run track before knows that there is a time when you have that 1 spectacular race. You feel like you are floating. I don't know if he ever had that perfect race in the 400. What do you guys think he was capable of. I always thought he was a sub 10.00 100 man, but never trained specifically for that race. Of course alot of people think he would have beena spectacular 800 man as well. What do you guys think he was capable of in 100,400, and 800? I left the 200 out ,because I think we all saw what he was capable of.

[stevehj197]

Re: michael johnson

10.00
19.32
43.05
over 1:50

[gh]

Re: michael johnson

>I think he was capable of a high 42. He was a consistent 43.50 or below guy.>>

Not really. He only broke 43.50 four times: once in '95, twice in '96 and once in '99.

[Rob]

Re: michael johnson

..

[stevehj197]

Re: michael johnson

>100m: Not sub-10.00
200m: As achieved
400m: 43.10
800m: Forget it.

In effect, that's what I said. Sounds easy to "lope" a 48, then hang on and run a 54, for a smooth 1:42, until you gotta do it ! If it was that easy, or even remotely close to it, it would have occurred loooooong before now.