Tommie SMITH versus Michael JOHNSON...

[Guest]

These were certainly the two most sensational
all-time quarter milers. Almost unbeatable as
they reigned on tracks.
The legendary Bud WINTER who was Tommie's coach,
explained that if he had specifically trained
for 400m, his phenomenon would have easily been
the first athlete to run a sub-43" 400m!!!...
Unbelievable but probably true just because he
was said to be the perfection.
And let's imagine a Tommie SMITH at the top
expression of his athletic potential racing
against a top bionic Michael JOHNSON on 400m.
An impossible dream duel...
I am not sure Michael Johnson would win.
What are your opinions?

[Arnie]

Michael would have won at 400, the better race would have been at 200. That was Tommie's best distance.

[Guest]

Close but no cigar for Michael Ts would be alittle too much. Why? later!!!

[steve]

MJ over TS at both distances. Both had excellent performances early in their respective careers. Michael was able to continue to signigficantly improve his performances throughout an exteded career, which is something that is very difficult to do. While we will never know for sure, it seems unlikely that TS would have improved throughout his career. MJ's improvement after starting at such a high performance level in college is certainly unusual.

[tandfman]

What makes this and similar discussions so difficult (and some would say delightful, others would say meaningless) is that there's no way to tell what TS would have done if MJ had been around at the same time. TS did what he had to do to be the best in the world when he was running. MJ ran faster, but with better tracks and a few other such details working in his favor. Having seen them both, I'd say MJ at his best beats TS at his best. But does he beat him in real life if TS knows MJ is out there and knows what he can do and so he (TS) has to go to another level to be the best? Can he go to that level, as he went to the level he had to get to in his day in order to be the best? I've no idea and neither does anyone else.

By the way, if I had to choose the race in which TS would have the better chance in this fictitious race, I'd say it was the 400.

[The King]

View both races, and look at both running styles.

MJ's 19.32s WR from 1996 Atlanta,GA OG Men's 200m final:
http://los.idx.com.au/200mwr.zip

From a different angle:
http://los.idx.com.au/200mwr_diffangle.zip

Tommie Smith's 19.83s ex-WR from 1968 Mexico City OG Men's 200m final:
http://los.idx.com.au/1968_200m.zip

[oldbruin]

Its not possible to compare the two because MJ's skills were honed to a much sharper edge than TS. Back in Smith's day track and field athletes did not train full time year around. How long was Tommie Smith's track career? There couldn't have been that many competitions in his whole life where he was in top shape and truly motivated. Johnson on the other hand made a science of competing at very high levels over a great period of time.

Add in all the other intangibles-- nutrition, track surfaces, financial incentives, etc., and it just makes it too hard to compare. In terms of raw talent, though, it's hard to imagine any long sprinter with more than Smith.

One thing that has to be taken with a grain of salt, though, is Bud Winter's statement that Smith could run under 43.0 if properly trained. It may be true, but you have to be a little wary of predictons coaches make about their athletes or that athletes make about themselves. Having goals is great, but they are still only goals until they are acheived.

[Guest]

As suggested by "The King" I looked at the 1968 200m race. Two overriding impressions.
(1) What a tremendous finishing burst by Peter Norman - he seemed to be about 5-6 m down on Carlos with 100 m to go. (2) T Smith appears to ease up at least 6 strides before the finishing line. This means the last ~15 m of the race, and not the last ~ 5 m as most written sources state.
In idealized races between Michael Johnson and TS, I would say that to win the 200m, TS would need a great start - too much to make up otherwise with a poor start (not uncommon for TS). I would prefer TS's chances in a 400 m race, but only in a final (i.e. single race). MJ had strength as well as speed/endurance, to go through heats/semis etc.

[gh]

>As suggested by "The King" I looked at the 1968
>200m race. Two overriding impressions.
(1) What
>a tremendous finishing burst by Peter Norman - he
>seemed to be about 5-6 m down on Carlos with 100
>m to go.>>

Don't overlook the fact that w/ 50-60m to go Carlos (even by his own admission) basically gave up once he saw that he couldn't beat Smith. Norman didn't increase his speed at all, he just slowed down less than most of the rest and weay less than Carlos did.

[jhc68]

Yeah, I had forgotten how dis-spirited Carlos looked down the stretch. He keeps turning to see the rest of the field and gazing at TS moving away as if he can't quite believe it. And TS coasts in... this reinforces my pro-TS bias.

If Tommie and MJ had enjoyed the same level of coaching, the same levels of financial rewards and incentives, stayed injury free and sustained careers over the same number of years, and if, as a previous post indicates, it were one finals race,(knowing that those are all big "if's") I'd bet the farm on TS over either distance. MJ was stronger by any measure, but TS was just plain faster than MJ.

By the way, how fast was Carlos' disputed run at the Tahoe Trials with the infamous brush spikes, and how come those shoes were deemed illegal? Would they still be illegal by modern definitions?

[gh]

>>By the way, how fast was Carlos' disputed run at the Tahoe Trials with the infamous brush spikes, and how come those shoes were deemed illegal? Would they still be illegal by modern definitions?>>

As I understand the definition, would still be illegal. He ran 19.92.

[Guest]

Leading up to Atlanta while I regarded MJ as the top 400m runner of all time I ranked him behind Tommie Smith and a couple others as the best 200m runner of all time. The race was such a stunner that few people remember that he didn't go undefeated that year.

It is unfortunate that the track was never used again as it robs us of the opportunity to assess how much of an impact the surface (arguably the fastest of all time) had on the WR performance.

[gh]

One tough thing about trying to play with a TS/MJ matchup is luck of the draw. Who gets what lane? This isn't like the 100, or a mile, where it makes no difference.

If TS gets a tighter lane than MJ, he probably can't beat him. MJ inside TS and MJ might win. MJ a couple of lanes inside TS and I don't think so. Put Tommie in lane 8 and it's all over.

[Guest]

>the infamous brush spikes . . . how come those shoes were deemed illegal? <<

If you owned a track, you wouldn't ask that question. It's my understanding that those brush spikes produced unacceptable wear and tear on the artificial surfaces they were designed for. Great for the runners perhaps, but terrible for people who invested in tracks and didn't want to have to re-surface them very frequently.

[The King]

>As suggested by "The King" I looked at the 1968
>200m race. Two overriding impressions.
(1) What
>a tremendous finishing burst by Peter Norman - he
>seemed to be about 5-6 m down on Carlos with 100
>m to go. (2) T Smith appears to ease up at least
>6 strides before the finishing line. This means
>the last ~15 m of the race, and not the last ~ 5
>m as most written sources state.
In idealized
>races between Michael Johnson and TS, I would say
>that to win the 200m, TS would need a great start
>- too much to make up otherwise with a poor start
>(not uncommon for TS). I would prefer TS's
>chances in a 400 m race, but only in a final
>(i.e. single race). MJ had strength as well as
>speed/endurance, to go through heats/semis etc.


From my 50Hz Video-Tape of the race which I own.
I have found the following splits for both TS & Peter Norman for each 100m (100m splits)

50Hz Video-Tape (50 frames/s)
1968 Mexico City OG Men's 200m final.

Wind: +

Tommie Smith (USA)
100m: 10.52s
200m: 19.83s
100m splits:
10.52s/9.,31s = 19.83s(WR)

Peter Norman (AUS)
100m: 10.70s
200m: 20.06s
100m splits:
10.70s/9.36s = 20.06s (NR)

Obviously altitude has helped the latter part of the race (the final 100m/the home strecth)


Your comments about TS catious start, did not reflect his start in the final.

He seems to react well to the gun, but in post-race ineterviews he mentioned that he had to conserve more energy than usual on the bend, because he tore his addcutor in the Semi.
And then his speed at around 140-150m is great.
Just like Bob Hayes in the previous OG (Tokyo '64 Men's 4x1 relay final, hand-timed anchor of 8.6s on a cinder track)...

After the Semi-final he mentioned that he tore his adductor, and he was certain that 'he was out for the final'...

[The King]

Sorry I did not finish my post.
The wind for that race was; + 0.9m/s

[Guest]

You sure you were able to find the 100m point accurately? I realize it was at altitude but I find it hard to believe that a journeyman like Norman could run a 9.36 when modern aces like Fredericks and Boldon could only run 9.54 and 9.62 behind MJ on that hard Atlanta track.

[The King]

>You sure you were able to find the 100m point
>accurately? I realize it was at altitude but I
>find it hard to believe that a journeyman like
>Norman could run a 9.36 when modern aces like
>Fredericks and Boldon could only run 9.54 and
>9.62 behind MJ on that hard Atlanta track.


Skeptical, FF did not run the 1st 100m in 10.14s as your splits suggest.

If you view the link to MJ's race, look at Fredericks & Boldon, Boldon is slightly ahead of him at the 4x100m exchange point (100m mark)
(possibly 0.02 or 0.01s in front. Probably the latter.)

My splits for Fredericks of 10.19s/9.49s,
suggest that he was behind Boldon (10.18s/9.62s)at the 100m mrak, but overhauled him in the last 100m of this classic race...

As for Norman. I don't know why his last 100m was so fast.

Could be a mixture of things,
adrenelin, altitude (as you mentioned), the fact that he made it to the OG final, and he possibly gave it everything he had.

From the video-footage of the race, whilst everyone was dying in the last 30 or 40m (especially John Carlos!!!), Norman seems to just hold on and on and on etc.

H eran a conservative bend (just lik Tomie Smith) and when in the home straight, he just boomed, and ran the 'chase of his life!'

[Guest]

Skeptical, FF did not run the 1st 100m in 10.14s as your splits suggest.>>

No offense, King, but the IAAF world record progression book says he did. It has complete halfway splits for everybody in the race. I'm more likely to believe a source like that than some nameless person a message board.

But even using your splits, I still refuse to believe that Peter Norman was that much faster than Fredericks.

[Guest]

<
From my 50Hz Video-Tape of the race which I own.
I have found the following splits for both TS & Peter Norman for each 100m (100m splits)
50Hz Video-Tape (50 frames/s)
1968 Mexico City OG Men's 200m final.
Wind: +
Tommie Smith (USA)
100m: 10.52s
200m: 19.83s
100m splits:
10.52s/9.,31s = 19.83s(WR)
Peter Norman (AUS)
100m: 10.70s
200m: 20.06s
100m splits:
10.70s/9.36s = 20.06s (NR)
Obviously altitude has helped the latter part of the race (the final 100m/the home strecth)>

Thanks to "The King" for the splits. Looking at the video as such can be misleading. It appears that Norman finished even faster than TS - evidently not so. But as others have commented, the second 100m by Norman is really something. All serious fans have known since Oct. 1968, that Carlos "lost" or gave up on the silver by concentrating too much on TS and slowing down drastically at the end.

Given Michael Johnson's great 200/400 (won/lost) record and timings over a decade and more, it is interesting to see how many people feel TS might have had a good chance to beat him in one race or the other.

[The King]

>Skeptical, FF did not run the 1st 100m in 10.14s
>as your splits suggest.>>

No offense, King,
>but the IAAF world record progression book says
>he did. It has complete halfway splits for
>everybody in the race. I'm more likely to believe
>a source like that than some nameless person a
>message board.

But even using your splits, I
>still refuse to believe that Peter Norman was
>that much faster than Fredericks.


Ok. I can't argue with the IAAF World-Record progression book...

You say the book lists everyone's half-way splits, what are the splits for Oba???

I have always been curious, as he seemed to have a strong finish (as always)

Thanks

[Guest]

Thank you for posting the 3 videos of Johnson and Smith. An absolute delight - particularly the 19.83 - not seen that for ages - Best wishes, Richard Hymans

[Guest]

I seem to remember that the source I used for the Atlanta Splits was an article published by the French Federation which had analysed video (in various events) and produced data from that.

As far as Peter Norman was concerned, he was a poor 100m man, but always very strong in the second half of a 200m

[Guest]

View both races, and look at both running styles.

Thanks King: (68 Oly Race) I have something to study or the next week now.

[Guest]

Dos anyone knowthe length of TS's strides approx? Also, what was Carlos' first 100 meter split in the 200 final in 68?

[The King]

>>>By the way, how fast was Carlos' disputed run
>at the Tahoe Trials with the infamous brush
>spikes, and how come those shoes were deemed
>illegal? Would they still be illegal by modern
>definitions?>>

As I understand the definition,
>would still be illegal. He ran 19.92.

He was hand-timed in 19.7s wasn't he???

If the 'normal' hand-timing 'conversion' to F.A.T times is +0.24s. 19.7s would become a 19.94s.

That hand-timing is pretty good for the '60s.

[Guest]

Correction to the post I had on this re the source used for '96 split times - they ame from data released to the press in Atlanta - (Johnson 10.12, Fredericks 10.14, Boldon 10.14, Thompson 10.34, Williams 10.40, Garcia 10.43, Stevens 10.43, Marsh 10.58 - the French source (on checking again) had slightly different times - 10.13, 10.20, 10.20

[Guest]

michael johnson ran 19.3 once,,ran 19.66 once,,same summer.tommie smith ran 19.5 for 220yds. in cinders although straight away was unbelievable.

tommie smith never ever reached his prime or athletic peak strength,he was banned after 1968 black glove.i give tommie-jets 400 michael 200.
also noted:-michael johnson had no real comp when he ran 43,s//tommie smith had lee evans//freeman//vince mathews//carlos//john smith//larry black//larry james{its runored he ran 42.9 at penn relay leg?

all these guys were high 43/low 44 runners anytime anywhere athletes day or night.all ran 43 on relays.
im mean michael j//buthc reynolds//steve lewis/quincy watts//danny everett all peaked mostly at diffrent times.all the other guys who ran with tommie-jetts were done they all were around that same time.and none of those guys ever ever had 1/10 of advantages of todays lazy runners.civil rights were at there peak,,civil unrest in america//no money in track//shoes were a joke&heavier.+track surfaces.
its like alot of these guys from tommies time were from another planet.

[The King]

>Correction to the post I had on this re the
>source used for '96 split times - they ame from
>data released to the press in Atlanta - (Johnson
>10.12, Fredericks 10.14, Boldon 10.14, Thompson
>10.34, Williams 10.40, Garcia 10.43, Stevens
>10.43, Marsh 10.58 - the French source (on
>checking again) had slightly different times -
>10.13, 10.20, 10.20


Thankyou for listing the numbers of the 1996 Atlanta OG final.

[Guest]

<Dos anyone know the length of TS's strides approx? >

I seem to recall that in 1966 in a T&FN article about one of TS's world records, his stride length was "measured" at between 8'7'' and 8'11".

[JRM]

>I seem to remember that the source I used for the
>Atlanta Splits was an article published by the
>French Federation which had analysed video (in
>various events) and produced data from
>that.

Those french splits are very inaccurate. If you study them, you'll see they suggest both Fredericks and Johnson *accelerated* in the last 50m or so. Quite impossible, considering the race. In fact, here are some simulation results I've done on that race (Sim.), compared with the french ones (Fr). The last column is the differential between the two times. Note that they're all reasonable (within a few 0.01s) except at 146.42m, where the differential rises to 0.30 seconds!

Split Fr. Sim. Diff.
90.00m 9.29 9.26 -0.03
100.00m 10.13 10.12 -0.01
110.00m 11.00 11.01 +0.01
131.14m 12.93 12.89 -0.04
140.28m 13.75 13.71 -0.04
146.42m 14.57 14.27 -0.30
158.56m 15.42 15.38 -0.06
167.70m 16.27 16.23 -0.04
176.84m 17.12 17.09 -0.03
185.98m 17.97 17.96 -0.01
200.00m 19.32 19.32 0.00

On the TS vs MJ subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not altitude-assisted. His "straight track" 200m time is doubtful at best (wind? track measurements?). Where exactly was this race, anyway? I've always wondered that.

[The King]

On the TS vs MJ
>subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith
>doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not
>altitude-assisted. His "straight track" 200m
>time is doubtful at best (wind? track
>measurements?). Where exactly was this race,
>anyway? I've always wondered that.

Tommie Smith's 19.5s 220y/200m record of 19.5s (hnad-timed) was run in San Jose,California, U.S.A on 7th of May 1966.

[Guest]

<On the TS vs MJ subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not altitude-assisted. >

Are you talking about (equivalent) auto timing? If not, a quick look at some T&FN, I have on hand shows the following manual timings from 1967 and 1968.
1967. 20.1y (Sacramento, 6/10): 20.2 (Los Angeles, 7/9). I am not counting three 20.2ys at Provo in June.
1968. 20.3y (San Diego, 6/1), 20.3 (Sacramento, 6/21), 20.2 (Los Angeles, 6/30).
I can look up his 1965 and 1966 races later and supply the necessary stats. You may be 100% sure that MJ was the better runner, but there is no need to denigrate TS's calibre.

[JRM]

>Are you talking about (equivalent) auto timing?

Yes, because comparing the magnitude of a hand time to a FAT time is pointless. If you add to that the lack of wind information, then you really have no basis for comparison whatsoever.

Also, in re: the 19.5, having a "constant" tail-wind helping you down a straight 200m stretch is going to give a tremendous advantage over the same gauge reading for a curve 200m (we're probably talking at least 0.3 or 0.4s).

I'm not trying to detract from Smith's performances at the time they were run. His victory margin over his competitors is a indication of his abilities.

[Per Andersen]

>You may be 100% sure that M.J. was the better runner.

Are you kidding? These things are completly unknowable. So Johnson's times are "better" So what? Every athlete is confined to his era. But what we do know is that in 1967 on a cinder track in San Jose Tommie Smith sat a w-rec in the 400 with 44.5 and beat the leading 400m runner of that period in the process. Assume that Tommie Smith had come around 30 years later - modern tracks, modern training etc. Is it inconceivable that Tommie then could have run the 400 under 43.0? I think not. We can play with these things till the cows come home but we just can't know.