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
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.
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 . . .
"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?
>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.
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.