How did Michael Johnson break the WR at age 32?

ventolin^3 wrote:

BRG/253 wrote:One's ability at event A doesn't change in direct proportion to the change in one's ability at event B. Life just doesn't work like that.

no

in 100/200

the change is virtually proportional for elites

if you slash 0.6+ off your 200, you can look towards ~ 0.3s off your 100 & start to asymptote towards

200 time = 2*100 time

if you are equally proficient at 100/200

see how bolt, a "200 guy" with 19.93wjr ended up with

19.19/9.58

in 2 seasons

the change is virtually proportional for elites

if you are equally proficient at 100/200

Taken to arguing with yourself now?

ukathleticscoach--

I know how you feel about Chambers competing in London...has there been any final word on the subject?

Even at his age, he could very likely end up atop the UK rankings in the 100...and although I have no idea what the UK 200 depth is like, given that Chambers is down in Jamaica and training hard, he might be in the mix for that event as well, not to mention the 4x100.

It will be interesting to see what he is able to do by mid-summer...yes, I know you chafe even considering his involvement, but he could be the UK's best entrant into the glamour event, and he might even make semi's depending on how much he improves. His presence might elevate the UK profile as much as his history would depress it.

Just a thought.

BOOBA, see this therad

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4384887&page=4

geezer lays pretty heavy wood on ventolin, like he just laid on you

geezer seems to end fights even better than he starts them, which is pretty good

come on boobs, retaliate!

This is what everyone keeps saying/thinking about Wariner. 400 runners aren't exactly ready to be 800 runners. They can be obviously, but I think you sacrifice some of that 43/44 open speed training to train for the 800.

Dara Torres nearly won an Olympic gold medal in her 40s. Guess again.

Ha! I love people squabbling on message boards. Take this ad hominem AND this ornate language AND this incisive analysis!

BOOM!

My balls are bigger than yours!

I think this little playground brawl between SprintGeezer and Ventolin can be resolved swiftly. Two things:

Ventolin: TI83s are cute, really. But it's time to drop the numbers and get laid.

Geezer: I appreciate the vigor. But wouldn't that be better served in other areas? Thus no longer necessitating the use of Cialis?

(Think about it ;)

There's no brawl.

It's just that it's not interesting to watch VenTard masturbating.

While he can at times come up with something interesting.....uh, sorry, no, I was confusing him with someone else.

who ever said

sarms and epo = w.r

sarms were only in research at start of 2000's

and first athletes to use were alittle after this

with l.xiang and powell.

steroids key but epo is the difference that made times .

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Hey boubatronic, if you prefer VenTard's contributions, then there is but one thing left to say to you:

"moron

offer something or f*ck off"

Owned!

Yes. I ran through HS, College, and a couple of years post-collegiate... I was a multi-eventer. Had a back injury in '05 and tried a few comebacks, but the pain and frustration was just that, frustrating. In '09, got a coaching job and started training with my athletes again... pretty much "general strength-ed" my way through a full training year and competed a couple of times in individual events with some very encouraging results. The '11 season was much the same with a slight increase in volume, and again, the marks were getting better.

This season, I have competed the most since '05 and ran under 11 seconds in 3 out of 4 meets, with my first race being into a head wind... I ran 10.77 for a season-best time, and my lifetime PR is 10.64, from '01.

I'm being a sprinter for the first time in my life... the multi's take too much time, and I just cant put it in. But this has been a lot of fun, and the college guys do get a kick out of it too.

One of the major factors in helping return to this level has been diet... I simply dont eat fast food or drink alcohol at all. I was very bad at both of these in the past, but at 33, you have to do things right if you want to compete at a relatively high level again.

All I was saying was this:

Ventolin's contributions on this board have often led to some really constructive debates. Whatever you say about him, his knowledge and passion for athletics shines through.

Sprintgeezer however is nothing but a narcissistic troll.

Yes, ventolin calls people a 'pea brain' or a 'moron'. However, anyone with a scintilla of intelligence or maturity would recognise that this is worlds apart from abusing someone as a 'retard'.

I don't think anybody here is questioning Michael Johnson's training or talent. But I think we can all admit he was likely receiving some kind of "aid." Whether that be a supplement that might now be banned or something of a more, shall we say, 'sinister' nature--MJ was merely doing what all the top athletes were doing.

It's like Lance or Bolt. Sure, they probly were/are doped, but all the top guys were/are--and it's OKAY in my book. They all want that small edge, but some guys are just genetic freaks and can do what everybody else cannot.

Honestly, if you wanna blame somebody, blame the culture of sport as a whole. Incentives for better performances, human nature, pharmaceutical companies, meet directors, sponsorships...these are all ingredients in the cauldron that contribute to the so-called 'culture of cheats.'

IMO, I don't look down on people who do what they do. It's good to be a hard worker. Sometimes there's a fine line between what is supplementary and what should be banned. I don't always understand it. Besides, we're always redefining these things and conducting new research.

Sports purists will say that they prefer a competition where everybody is 'clean.' To them, disallowing all drugs means that the playing field is level. This, of course, is not true. Even without drugs, individuals would find a way to get to new technologies and laboratories that would give them the competitive advantage over others who cannot afford/access such resources.

The playing field will never be level, per say, and the top athletes will garner better resources and aid in continuing their success.

Ok. Thanks for the info. Just for clarity though, your PR in the 100 was set 11 years ago, so while you might be CLOSE to that PR of yours, you are currently slower than you were then. Maybe you will eclipse it yet, but so far that's not been the case. Good luck though!

Yeah, I would say that I am still about one step behind, but there have been some training sessions that have been as fast as ever, including one (dead calm day) that might have been a legitimate PR.

There is no doubt, that the "raw" natural ability to run fast under any circumstance (crappy diet, partying) is gone, but the situation is a good example that it is possible to return to competition levels that might have previously seemed unattainable. And also, genetics is probably a major determining factor... I was unfit for a few years, but never "fat".

Thanks for best wishes...

Paul Ron--

That is great! In my experience, you can hit 33 or maybe 34 years of age, without losing anything in the sprints, unless it is due to injury.

I was just below 11-flat at 34, but was somewhat faster than you when young which, all other things being equal, tells me that you maybe could have gone faster when young. I, too, did multi's.

That is good news--say that you could have gone 10.3x or 10.4x if training exclusively sprints...if that's the case, then 10.5x is not out of the question at 33 IMHO.

Awesome.

Ahh, the old argument that "even if he was using, PED's alone didn't get him the WR, he still had to put in the work."

What about the suggestion that some PED's, say 'roids, are actually psychoactive, and give you the emotional motivation to work harder than you normally would, or harder than others who are not using 'roids are capable of working?

Yes, WR guys put in the work--but do they get their motivation from the same PED's from which they get their physical capacity?

Regardless of the answer to that general question, it is known that MJ competed against essentially a whole team of acknowledged dopers--none of whom was nearly as good as he was.

I think it still comes down to both ability and discipline.

Discipline, like I said before--the guy had basically a wooden personality, which served him very well.

And ability in this sense--I think that MJ was basically a short sprinter--a 100-type guy--who got injured when he tried to do what was necessary to really excel at the 100, so he stuck with what he did well--rapid turnover and brief contact time--and modified his form accordingly to enable him to maintain those qualities over 200, and even 400, meters. Hence he ran like a duck.

No other great 400 guy has run like that, say Reynolds or Wariner or Watts--and none of those guys has been a native 100m guy. IMHO it takes a native 100m guy to have the ability to WR in the 400m, which is why I keep wishing that guys like Gay, Bolt, Blake, etc. would all run the 400 during some point in their careers.

This type of thinking is reinforced by the suggestion that coach d made on this board, that runners run the shortest distance at which they can excel. The native 100 runners, therefore, naturally run the 100m, and not the 400m. MJ only ran the 200 and 400 because he would get injured trying to be #1 in the 100m.

So IMHO he had not only more discipline, but more relevant ability, than other 400m guys. Even now, who is there? Wariner? Merritt? James? None of them run anything like MJ, none are native 100m guys--and none will run 43.18

On that topic, I think that the prevailing orthodoxy has been wrong in the 400 and 100 for a long time. MJ is the best evidence of that in the 400, and Bolt (a "400 runner running the 100") is the best evidence of that in the 100 (too tall, shouldn't get out of the blocks fast enough, blah, blah, blah...)

moron

it is clear you have no clue about mj

in '95 he ran 19.79 & 43.39

his 100 time wouda been at worst 10.00 - 10.05 based on a 10.09pb from 1y before when he was "only" 19.94sb

now idiot, do some research

in his autobiog :

"slaying the dragon"

he outlines he trained like a maniac for '96 & put on

~ 15 pounds of muscle with brutally hard weight-training

that is how he powered from 19.79 to 19.32

use your peabrain & work out what that wouda done to a previous likely at worst 10.00 - 10.05 from '95

VenTard--

^LOL

I see they've let the sloped-forehead crowd out for the day!

VenTard/boubatronic