Michael Johnson might have run under 9.8. His fastest 100m in a 200m was 8.76. In the 19.32, his second 100m was around 9.2. Of course, his start would have to be there, but you know the top end speed was there to run a fast 100m. Yet, he didn't try as a pro.
Yeah, I've argued this many times. I'm sure he could have easily gone sub 9.8, maybe even sub 9.7.
Kerley focused on the 100 for one year and runs a 9.84...and he's never broken 19.75? If MJ put in two years of training for the 100 he'd be way, way sub 10.
Michael Johnson might have run under 9.8. His fastest 100m in a 200m was 8.76. In the 19.32, his second 100m was around 9.2. Of course, his start would have to be there, but you know the top end speed was there to run a fast 100m. Yet, he didn't try as a pro.
Yeah, I've argued this many times. I'm sure he could have easily gone sub 9.8, maybe even sub 9.7.
Kerley focused on the 100 for one year and runs a 9.84...and he's never broken 19.75? If MJ put in two years of training for the 100 he'd be way, way sub 10.
And of course I take the other view. He would have maxxed-out around 10-flat, maybe PB at 9.95-10.00 in great conditions. Look back in the threads for the full arguments from years ago.
Kerley’s rise is fascinating, and without precedent in my admittedly-imperfect memory. Although both great at 400, they are totally different types of 100m sprinters. Totally!
Michael Johnson might have run under 9.8. His fastest 100m in a 200m was 8.76. In the 19.32, his second 100m was around 9.2. Of course, his start would have to be there, but you know the top end speed was there to run a fast 100m. Yet, he didn't try as a pro.
A sub 9.8 would have been a WR during the time frame of MJs entire career.
Id guess he could have been a low 9.9X guy back then.
Based on his 400 fitness and the form he showed, I would have guessed the same as for Ackbar.
Neither Kerley prior to last year, nor Ackbar ever in his long career, showed any sign that they were capable of Kerley’s current 100m form, which is required to get into the 9.8’s. I would not have placed the limit on Kerley though, as he was only 24, and gave no suggestion that his body was incapable of sustaining the required form in training and in comp. Ackbar was different—he was older when fast, and it was well-known that his body couldn’t handle the block work, drive, etc req’d to be great in the 100m, even when younger.
10.09 was his best. He might have gotten a bit lower under great conditions. He was physically incapable of the blocks, drive, and vmax required to achieve real 100m success in his era. He knew it, this comes from him.
All these 9.7/9.8 fantasies amount to no more than “if he were a completely different person, he could have done it”.
Leave it be. He was by far the fastest of his era in the 2, and the long-time 4 WR-holder, his legacy is as good as it gets in track.
Based on his 400 fitness and the form he showed, I would have guessed the same as for Ackbar.
Neither Kerley prior to last year, nor Ackbar ever in his long career, showed any sign that they were capable of Kerley’s current 100m form, which is required to get into the 9.8’s. I would not have placed the limit on Kerley though, as he was only 24, and gave no suggestion that his body was incapable of sustaining the required form in training and in comp. Ackbar was different—he was older when fast, and it was well-known that his body couldn’t handle the block work, drive, etc req’d to be great in the 100m, even when younger.
10.09 was his best. He might have gotten a bit lower under great conditions. He was physically incapable of the blocks, drive, and vmax required to achieve real 100m success in his era. He knew it, this comes from him.
All these 9.7/9.8 fantasies amount to no more than “if he were a completely different person, he could have done it”.
Leave it be. He was by far the fastest of his era in the 2, and the long-time 4 WR-holder, his legacy is as good as it gets in track.
i think 9.95 is fair and 9.9 if you want to get pie in the sky. IF he got to race it in nice conditions in the couple weeks following ATL. especially knowing the injury history. without that, and a lot of acceleration work, who knows. but that is part of the game. if your body can't handle that, i guess it means you aren't built for that event.
as far as that stupid 150 things goes, johnson was in poor form, obviously. bailey won with a time that johnson would have blown out of the water 12 months prior.
Based on his 400 fitness and the form he showed, I would have guessed the same as for Ackbar.
Neither Kerley prior to last year, nor Ackbar ever in his long career, showed any sign that they were capable of Kerley’s current 100m form, which is required to get into the 9.8’s. I would not have placed the limit on Kerley though, as he was only 24, and gave no suggestion that his body was incapable of sustaining the required form in training and in comp. Ackbar was different—he was older when fast, and it was well-known that his body couldn’t handle the block work, drive, etc req’d to be great in the 100m, even when younger.
10.09 was his best. He might have gotten a bit lower under great conditions. He was physically incapable of the blocks, drive, and vmax required to achieve real 100m success in his era. He knew it, this comes from him.
All these 9.7/9.8 fantasies amount to no more than “if he were a completely different person, he could have done it”.
Leave it be. He was by far the fastest of his era in the 2, and the long-time 4 WR-holder, his legacy is as good as it gets in track.
i think 9.95 is fair and 9.9 if you want to get pie in the sky. IF he got to race it in nice conditions in the couple weeks following ATL. especially knowing the injury history. without that, and a lot of acceleration work, who knows. but that is part of the game. if your body can't handle that, i guess it means you aren't built for that event.
as far as that stupid 150 things goes, johnson was in poor form, obviously. bailey won with a time that johnson would have blown out of the water 12 months prior.
and again, why do you call him Ackbar? lol
I have no doubts in 1996 MJ was more 9.99 than 10,09. And I don't see him ever being anything more than that 9.95 you mentioned, I do see that a very real possibilty.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.