Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Johnson beats Donovan Bailey...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • bijanc
    replied
    MJ vs. Bailey

    Johnson moved better after he had a head of steam. The Bailey of '96 was a bolt (if Fredericks and Ato couldn't catch him, few people, ever, could have when he was that vintage).

    Dunno what Bailey's stride frequency was, but during his GM 100 he looks as if he's running faster than anyone I've ever peeped on t.v. Some is due to great NBC camera angle & moving cam, some due to the fact he's closer to the ground than Tommie Smith, The King, Steve Williams and Usain Bolt.

    Leave a comment:


  • scratchman
    replied
    Originally posted by Triplej
    Originally posted by scratchman
    MJ is NOT 6'2.
    According to USATF he is 6'1"
    I was around him a lot during his hey day.
    He wasn't 6'1 either. I'm 5'11" and I know he wasnt 2"taller than me.
    He MIGHT be 6'0.
    ....MIGHT.
    He has a long torso and short legs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Triplej
    replied
    Originally posted by scratchman
    MJ is NOT 6'2.
    According to USATF he is 6'1"

    Leave a comment:


  • scratchman
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    ....he was. Yep...stride.

    MJ didn't have a stride......
    MJ only looked like he didn't have a stride because his turnover was so great. The guy was 6'2". He was one powerful hedge hog. He was a shuffler, a skater not a gracile galloper like Smith, Lewis or Wariner. That type has tremendous power and speed through the midsection and hips. It would not have surprized me if an MJ focused purely on the 100m would have been consistently under 10flat.
    MJ is NOT 6'2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by Texas
    ....he was. Yep...stride.

    MJ didn't have a stride......
    MJ only looked like he didn't have a stride because his turnover was so great. The guy was 6'2". He was one powerful hedge hog. He was a shuffler, a skater not a gracile galloper like Smith, Lewis or Wariner. That type has tremendous power and speed through the midsection and hips. It would not have surprized me if an MJ focused purely on the 100m would have been consistently under 10flat.
    I have no doubts about MJ running 9.95-10.00 on a consistant basis if he'd ran the 100m. I don't see him hanging with the top dawgs in the event however. No a 9.85ish wasn't going to happen. He wasn't going to be there with Bailey, Mitchell, Fredericks or Boldon. He wouldn't have made the 96 4x1 team. He probably would have made the USA trials final however. Yes I know he should have ran the 3rd leg puting Marsh on the second leg and setting Harden on the bench. I doubt the coaches would have thought of that since they couldn't figure out using Lewis on anchor.

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    Originally posted by EPelle
    87 posts between the two of you in one 24-hour period. Who did piss the furthest, and was the wind measurement verified?
    The wind has been verified as gale force in the negative direction, but neither can smell it.

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    ....he was. Yep...stride.

    MJ didn't have a stride......
    MJ only looked like he didn't have a stride because his turnover was so great. The guy was 6'2". He was one powerful hedge hog. He was a shuffler, a skater not a gracile galloper like Smith, Lewis or Wariner. That type has tremendous power and speed through the midsection and hips. It would not have surprized me if an MJ focused purely on the 100m would have been consistently under 10flat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Steve Williams probably could have been one of the all time greats "if" he'd wanted to have ran the 400m. John Smith once said that and I agree. He was tailor made for the event. I was there in Fresno the night he beat Quarrie and Washington in a WR tying 9.1. It looked strange. It looked like everyone "behind" him was running faster..ha! Cat never gave the impression he was moving as fast as he was. Yep...stride.

    MJ didn't have a stride. He also didn't have a start. I doubt he would have done anything at all in the 60. While I can see a 9.95ish if he'd been able to get serious (injuries) about the 100m, I don't see him dealing with the big dawgs in the event. He wasn't going to ever make an impact as a 100m man. He would have ran his 10.02/10.05/9.98 stuff taking thirds or worst. He was a long sprinter, that's were he belonged because that's where he could excell, and he did.

    Speed comes in many guises, some are short sprinters while others excell in the longer sprints. MJ was a long sprinter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Michaelson
    replied
    According to Michael Johnson USATF biography page:

    In 1994 he focused on trying to break 10 seconds in the 100. He finished 8th in the US championship, injured.


    According to the book "Michael Johnson Sprinter Deluxe"by Bert Rosenthal (page 45):

    [after winning the Atlanta Olympic 400] "The celebrating didn't last long. Johnson had to get focused on the 200. After winning his first two heats, Michael was hurting. He had a sore left Achilles tendon, an ailing tendon behind his left knee and a sacroiliac joint that needed constant adjustment."

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    good points

    he did get injured initially in '88 aged 21y when he broke his fibula with 20.07 prior to that ( likely wouda got into 200 team, but not going to win gold with deloach 19.75, King 19.79 )

    however, apart from stomach bug in '92 ( not an injury ), next time he got an injury was '94 - 6y later

    '96 - injury at tail-end of 200

    then injuries in '98, '99 ( broke 400wr after recovery ), '00 ( pulled up in 200 trials but dominated 400 )

    apart from that inexplicable fibula break aged 21y & injury in '94 aged 27y, his next injury was aged 29y in atlanta & injury years '98 - '00 aged 31y - 33y when he was pretty ole & beat-up

    from '88 - '96 ( 21y - 29y ) he only had 1 injury year in '94, which isn't bad for anyone !

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Michaelson
    replied
    Michael Johnson, for all his greatness (especially as a big-meet performer) seemed to get injured a lot. In fact, I believe he did not run the 4 x 4 in Atlanta because he got injured in the 200.

    So, what are the chances that he gets to the 100 final healthy? What are the chances he finishes the 100 final, healthy or not?

    Like Icarus, the extra effort of racing 100 (vs. running the first 100 of the 200 [yeah I know the turn puts more stress on your body]) might be enough for MJ to crash and burn.

    Just my opinion, it's all speculation, how can you have a right and wrong answer on this one?

    Leave a comment:


  • scratchman
    replied
    I dont think MJ beats Bailey in the 100.
    Too many other race dynamics in the open 100 vs. a 200 bend.
    I think if MJ had worked at the 100, learned the race, he definitely goes under 10.
    ... No doubt in my mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    You really do need to talk with some sprint coachs because you know absolutely nothing about the keys to the 200m. Nobody can run a 100m all out much less a 200m,
    i have no idea which coaches you are talking to, but if they come out with nonsense like "nobody can run a 100m flat-out" - they deserve the sack & only a fool woud repeat their statement

    you run a 100 flat-out, gun to tape

    200m has to be a modified sprint as all out effort can't e maintained for more than 13 or 14s

    the key ?

    take curve out 0.1 - 0.2s slower than your 100pb + 0.15 - 0.2s for curve, meaning for standard 10.00 guys, you run curve in ~ 10.25 - 10.4s dependent on your 200m ability

    There is a reason no 9.7 sprinter has come remotely close to his 19.32, talking Americans.
    nonsense

    a 9.69 guy ran 19.30

    You see eldrick the 200m is not about blazin' speed
    nonsense

    apart from mj, the slowest 100m pb as of today of any <19.8 guy is deloach with 10.03, with most in mid-9.8 - mid-9.9 range

    in any intelligent poster's eyes, it takes blazing speed to run < 19.8

    if it were then Bolt would have broken a 200m record held by Tyson Gay or Mo Greene or Donovan Bailey
    you seem to be incapable of grasping that not every 100 guy can run a 200, but you pick stupid examples

    - tyson 19.62 was 2nd fastest ever at the tme in poor weather

    - mo ran 19.86 & won '99wc for 200 - he wasn't as good over 200 as 100,but good enough for a gold

    - donovan wasn't interested in the 200 !!!

    There is a reason only ..multi talented ...sprinters
    meaningless phrase

    if they run 13.1 for 110h or lj 8.50+ then it means something

    Even after Bolt's 9.76 clocking in Kingston, Mills insisted that his athlete – who as a 16-year-old ran 400m in 45.35sec – was "a quarter-mile runner." Indeed, if Mills had had his way, Bolt would have been running one-lap races this season in preparation for a 200m challenge, with a view to moving up later in his career.
    no disrespect to mills, but this is hogwash

    bolt is frightening no one over 400, but he terrifies every 100m guy

    if he'd carried out this "masterplan", bolt woudn't have even got a chance at winning the greatest prize in the sport - 100m gold

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    I know, Texas, it's all about you and and your playmate, eldrick. :P

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by Texas
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by Chris McCarthy
    Originally posted by EPelle
    87 posts between the two of you in one 24-hour period. Who did piss the furthest, and was the wind measurement verified?
    I thought they were the same person??
    No, they're just the same age. Five, as near as I can tell. :P
    It's a big old world out there, you have a ton of options...right? Read what interests you, works for me!
    Works for me, too. It happens that what EPelle and Chris McCarthy wrote interested me.
    This really isn't about you......honest!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X