Michael Johnson?


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

Michael Johnson?

Postby #1 Track Stunna » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:48 am

Is he the greatest long sprinter of all times??
#1 Track Stunna
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Washington Pa

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:53 am

I think Tommie Smith was a little longer.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:24 am

Is "long sprinter" synonymous with "400m runner?" If so, I certainly think the answer would have to be yes.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:23 pm

The long sprinter runs the 200/400 versus the short sprinter who runs the 55/100/200. Micheal Johnson has don the impossible throughout his career. Ther is little argument with him being the best but Tommie Smith was very,very good. In my opinion ha Tommie been in Micheals situation he would have been unbeatable. Tommie had to endure some difficult times yet he acheived greatness. For standing up for his beleifs on the greatest stage of all time he has my respect and graditude.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby trackhead » Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:41 pm

Smith's career was cut at 24 years old, with PRs of 10.1, 19.83, and 44.5

Johnson at the same age was at 19.88 and 44.17.
trackhead
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:51 pm

Tommie had more NATURAL ABILITY. No doubt about it.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:08 pm

True Tommie had more natural ability, but Johnson did more with his. Results are what counts. The 200 would have been close, but I think Johnson was a better 400 runner. He had a perfect stride for efficiency. Smith was a big longstrider. Johnson should be ranked 1st.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby jhc68 » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:45 pm

Nah, Rustyjag is wrong... MJ didn't do more with his natural ability, he just got paid more to continue his career. A LOT more!!! Tommie was competing in the days when guys had to pretend they were commuting back and forth from Europe for meets, stay there instead and cash in the promoter supplied plane tickets for living money. It is just plain silly to imply that MJ was more committed or superior in some sense because his career was longer.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Arnie » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:50 pm

No contest MJ all the way, does anyone really think Smith could have run 19.32 or 43.18.
Arnie
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:02 pm

>No contest MJ all the way, does anyone really
>think Smith could have run 19.32 or 43.18.>>

Those of us who were alive then, and saw Tommie run, have no doubt he could have run FASTER than that, given all the technological advantages that MJ enjoyed. This is in no way meant to denigrate MJ's achievements. He's a god, but Smith was an uber-god.
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby trackhead » Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:18 pm

I remember someone describing Tommie Smith run as "it was like Tommie was on a motorcycle."

If only the IOC and USOC weren't a bunch of assholes in 1968 and Smith were allowed all the opportunites that Johnson was...

Johnson is the greatest long sprinter of all time, if only because he was allowed the opportunity to to train as a professional, and because Smith's career was cut so short.

I think that you could say that Smith had the most potential to be the greatest long sprinter of all time.
trackhead
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:51 am

I think there are some implications of anti-drug's post (above). What are you saying about Johnson?
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:14 pm

Would of could of so what! MJ has two world records plus the fastest split ever and they both ran in the 10.10 range. You can say Tommie was faster or could have gone faster ,but so could of MJ. If MJ would have trained specifically for the 100 he would have run faster too. Let's look at facts not potential ,because we all know how that is (Obea Moore).
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Arnie » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:26 pm

Those of us who were alive then, and saw Tommie run, have no doubt he could have run FASTER than that, given all the technological advantages that MJ enjoyed. This is in no way meant to denigrate MJ's achievements. He's a god, but Smith was an uber-god.

I was very much alive at that time and still believe MJ was the greatest long sprinter ever, again no contest.
Arnie
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:02 am

he is the best sprinter in 200&400 I have ever known
Guest
 

Re: Michael Johnson?

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:28 pm

>I think there are some implications of
>anti-drug's post (above). What are you saying
>about Johnson?

How naive are you?
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests