michael johnson 200m wr


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:04 am

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
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby The King » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:52 am

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.
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby The King » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:57 am

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'
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:20 am

thanks for adding the videos
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:28 am

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.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:31 am

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

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:09 pm

"...curve time was 10.12...

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

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:23 pm

His 9.20 on the straight is an amazing show of speed endurance. 10 straight 9.2's is a hallmark.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:20 pm

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?
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby The King » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:00 am

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.
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby tafnut » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:05 am

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 . . .
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:45 am

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

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:49 am

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!!!
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:57 am

"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?
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby JRM » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:17 am

>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.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:21 am

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

Are you talking specifically about Atlanta, because most of the tracks I've seen are exactly 100m on each straightaway. Many tracks are not, but 100m straights are the norm, I believe.
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby JRM » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:36 am

>Are you talking specifically about Atlanta,
>because most of the tracks I've seen are exactly
>100m on each straightaway. Many tracks are not,
>but 100m straights are the norm, I believe.

Nope. IAAF regulation tracks are 116m curve + 84m straight (it's in the tech manual). All tracks on which championships take place (should!) have these dimensions.

There is a bit more freedom for the dimensions of indoor tracks, some of which don't even have turns of constant radius.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby The King » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:40 am

That's what I've heard.
I was just offering the things which I have heard.

In my own opinion, the 0.4s conversion is ridiculous!!!I agree with you totally JRM.

If MJ wanted to run 100m as a 'career choice', he would of.
It's fun trying to predict what times he would of run had he of fully concentrated running the 100m.

I think he could of run a low 9.90s, possibly a sub-9.90s with a 'good wind'.

He did have an 'iffy' start, but he had good speed maintenance and quite a high top speed.

I have problem imagining those times(low 9.90s & possibly sub-9.90s if lucky, with a good wind)

We'll never know...
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:14 pm

King, I agree with you on MJ's top 100 speed. I think with proper focus on that event,and in a race where he would be pushed to win, I would say 9.92 to 9.96 area. He never really trained for the 100 specifically. The injuries he sustained in college also pushed him towards the 400. He also was built for the curve. I agree with Tafnut he was the greatest curve runner ever. If he would have trained for it his start would have gotten a little better and more consistent. It would have been fun to see him hook up with 3 of the top US runners to run the 4x100. I saw him run it once in Berlin. The meet organizer did a poor job of putting the runners on their legs.The team was Bailey to Johnson to Fredericks to Christie. They only ran 38.87 to barely beat a team of Michael Green to Osman Ezinwa to Davidson Ezinwa to Seun Ogunkoya. They ran 38.88. Why would you run MJ 2nd on that team? He should have been 3rd. Bailey should have been 2nd and Fredericks 1st leg.
Guest
 

Re: michael johnson 200m wr

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:51 pm

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'

Thanks for the videos, this is a coaches dream.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests