Look here Tafnut, first of all I called it "My" board because of the fact that I came up with the topic, in case you didn't notice genius, My name is right beside the very first comment at the top. Second of all, what the hell is the address for? I really don't care who you are. Anyways, your saying that Ben Johnson is a 10.40 sprinter off of the drugs, so the drugs sliced of 0.6s off of his 100m time? If you knew track at all, you would know at the speed that are going around those times, that is about 8m of distance. Are you an idiot? Steroids will not make such a drastic change, it will take a sprinter who is already capable of running fast (10.1, 10.2), and cause you to be able to train at the level that will allow your body to handle getting under 10s. A 10.4 sprinter? On your little address there, it says that you are a track/ coach. I can tell which one you pay more attention too. Don't ever try to flex muscles on a T&F News message board. You look stupid.
I think all of you are wrong and MJ is the best sprinter ever. No one has ever had the combination of speed and endurance he has had. If he concintrated on the 100, I bet the world record would be under 9.7 right now. Ben Johnson was a great sprinter, but the fact that he had to use steroids to run his fastest times is cheap. You can't give credibility to someone who cheats like that. And by the way, alot of you so called track and field fans don't seem to have any faith in the NATURAL abilities, and NATURAL accomplishments of athletes. It's really sad that when someone runs a phenominal time or has a great career, you credit it with drugs.
Dear Knowledgable (sic),
I really shouldn't respond, but it's post here or do real work, so . . .
a. your name and address are what again? I am so old and feeble, I must have missed it. Anonymity is great for stating unsupportable opinions, but zeroes out credibility. If I say something foolish ( and oh yes, I have) I take responsibility. Taking potshots from behind the rocks is unseemly at best.
b. as to who has made himself look foolish, I beg to differ, but I leave that to others.
c. the name calling is really kind of sad. That shows the mind of someone who feels inferior and needs to put others down to build himself up.
Now, discretion being the better part of valor, I leave you to your withering counter-attack on my character.
Other than his 9.83 and 9.79, did Ben Johnson ever run any other fast times? Aside from those two times, the best I can find for him is a 9.90 windy time along with a handful of times between 9.90 and 10.00.
"Other than his 9.83 and 9.79, did Ben Johnson ever run any other fast times? Aside from those two times, the best I can find for him is a 9.90 windy time along with a handful of times between 9.90 and 10.00"
Yes, that's about right. However, in this day and age of sub-10 expectations, one must remember that Johnson's times were run when perhaps two other people in the world were running sub-10! Sure, Johnson "only" ran 9.95 in 1986, but that was at sea level when the WR was 9.93A (and Carl Lewis' PB was 9.98).
Furthermore, Johnson never ran faster than 9.79 because his career was unexpectedly cut short. But everyone knows about that...
I would love to have seen Tommie Smith run in this day and age...talk about great range. And he had a great coach in Bud Winters ( one of the first american coaches to really understand sprint training and Mechanics)..His career was just begining as most of the sprinters of his era, but no money in the sport stop many runners too early in their careers
>Other than his 9.83 and 9.79, did Ben Johnson
>ever run any other fast times?
Like a previous poster stated, how can you be so quick to dismiss these times? I'm not sure if you were old enough to remember (not an insult, just curious...), but at the time those marks changed the paradigm. Yes, Calvin Smith had run 9.93 at the lofty altitude of Colorado Springs, but Ben's 9.83 and 9.79 at sea level were truly landmark performances.
It was a very simple question: "Other than his 9.83 and 9.79, did Ben Johnson ever run any other fast times?" You are terribly mistaken to believe that I am dismissign these times as being unimportant. On the contrary, these times brought the 100m to a new level -- that an athlete could run sub 9.90 or below.
However, these two times alone do not necessarily qualify Johnson as the greatest sprinter ever. True, the world will never know what Johnson might have done if he had never cheated (or, was never caught cheating). That fact alone make it nearly impossible to judge is worthiness of such a title.
Besides, the ever changing technology (track surface, shoes, training methods, supplements - both legal and illegal, etc) makes it difficult to use times to compare runners of different eras. The fact that there were so few sub-10 100m between 1968 and the early 80's suggests that Smith's 9.93, even at altitude, marked a change in the paradigm.
On another note, the fact that Johnson had only a few "truly remarkable" times along with the other "still incredibly fast at the time" times leads to think of Bob Beamon and the fact his wr leap was nearly 2ft farther than his 2nd best. Does his 29'2'' leap mean he is one of the best long jumpers ever? Or, a long jumper who was at the rioght place at the right time?
>a previous poster stated, how can you be so quick
>to dismiss these times? I'm not sure if you were
>old enough to remember (not an insult, just
>curious...), but at the time those marks changed
>the paradigm. Yes, Calvin Smith had run 9.93 at
>the lofty altitude of Colorado Springs, but Ben's
>9.83 and 9.79 at sea level were truly landmark
>Who wrote that last comment about Bob Hayes, his
>daughter or something? Whatever, if you want to
>call him the best sprinter ever, you can do that
>Ms. Hayes, but lets get serious for a second.
>Maurice does have the 60m world record, but I
>saw that race with my own eyes, and he caught a
>flyer, plain and simple. If you average Bens
>60m times throughout 86-88, there is no
>comparison with any other sprinter ever. You
>have a better argument in trying to say that
>somebody was better than him in the 100m, let
>alone the 60m. Ben ran 9.79 with no comp, and
>6.41 with no comp. He was WAY ahead of his
>time, and for whoever said that Carl Lewis would
>have ran better if he was on drugs, HE WAS ON
>DRUGS IDIOT! We've already covered that point.
>If you're going to add to my board, make sure
>e you read messages written before you.
You speak as though you're teaching a class and everything you say is undeniably proven fact. Which it is not. You talked (at length) about the "fact" that "he was on drugs", but the "fact" is that you ASSUME that they were. In the interest of dialogue and conversation (since you posted here, that has to be your interest, otherwise, why are you here?), let those who would ASSUME they are clean, do so.
It is not your "board" to enforce, and it is you that comes off the IDIOT with how you present yourself and your (flimsy) argument--whatever it is, I forget.
"Besides, the ever changing technology (track surface, shoes, training methods, supplements - both legal and illegal, etc) makes it difficult to use times to compare runners of different eras."
Actually, it makes it very easy to compare times between eras -- at least from the point of view of their relative "magnitude". Mid- to late-80s: very few sub-10s, and Ben is the exclusive redsident of the sub-9.95 region. Second place to his 9.83 was 9.93, and 9.79 was 9.92. The track surfaces were generally much softer than those of the late 90s. Harder surfaces yield greater energy return and make it easier to run faster. Greene's 9.79 was run on a newly resurfaced, very hard track in Athens. Training methods only improve; nutrition and supplements become more effective.
In short: a 9.79 in 1988 is a greater feat than a 9.79 in 1999.
"The track surfaces were generally much
softer than those of the late 90s. Harder
surfaces yield greater energy return and make it
easier to run faster. Greene's 9.79 was run on a
newly resurfaced, very hard track in Athens.
Training methods only improve; nutrition and
supplements become more effective. In short:
a 9.79 in 1988 is a greater feat than a 9.79 in
I'll agree up to a point... When you compare Johnson's 9.79 in 1988 and compare it to the times that followed (1989-2003), it probably is a greater feat than a 9.79 today. And yes, this is because track, training, and nutrition has improved should yield faster times. However, this logic only applies to the time period from 1988-2003. How do you compare the 9.79 in 1988 to a 9.95 in 1968, when conditions were inferior to those in 1988 and beyond? [I realize that the 9.95 was at altitude, but it is irrelavent to my point -- substitute any time you want]. Logic that works well going in one direction does not necessarily apply when going the other direction.
Unless someone can come up with a mathematical model that allows times run in unequal environments to be compared equally, I don't see how the question of "who is the best sprinter the world has ever seen" can ever be definitely answered.
THE SAD CASE IS THAT 2 RUNNERS HAVE BROKEN 10 SECONDS THIS YEAR AND 1 IS A AUSSIE EVERY EUROPEAN RACE HAS BEEN OVER 10 SECONDS THE SPRINTING IS GOING BACKWARDS NOT FORWARDS IT IS IN A VERY SORRY STATE AT THE MOMENT.
Very good point PEZ, sprinting does seem to be going backwards this year, and I believe that it has a lot to do with the fact that it has become very difficult to use performance enhancing drugs because of how much it is being monitored now. People are all of a sudden running slower now. Hmmmmm, I wonder why? I referred to BEN as the best sprinter because of the fact that he had run times of today way back in 1986-1988 (good point JRM), and may have been on something, but the plummit in results lately because of the monitoring of banned substances in track today is pretty good evidence that sprinters of today have been staying away from taking substances this year.
TAFNUT, I need you to stop talking directly to me. Like most people on this board, I have no idea why I would give you my address, and I have no idea why you gave me yours. I called you an idiot because of that, and I am probably not the only person on this board who thinks that. If you think that has something to do with insecurity in myself, whatever. Just stop talking directly to me, and stay on the topic. I really don't care who you are or where you live.