Michael Johnson Breaking 800m World Record

Scientific based coach wrote:

The 800 is a sprint. Just because clueless hs coaches force white distance runners to do it doesn't make it a distance event.

Question, who holds the hs national 4x8 record for girls? They sure as heck weren't distance runners!

What would you call all those Jamaicans at Penns killing the 4x8's. Distance runners?

Michael Johnson could have run an amazing 800, but he focused on the 200 and the 400.

He was a 10 flat 100 runner.

When the US finally wakes up and realizes that the 800 is a sprint, then maybe our national record will finally be lowered and we'll get some medals!

A sprint, huh? So you think Usain would beat, say, Galen, KB or Mo over an 800m? Let's look at the number of folks who've run great 800-1500mm times, and then those who ran 400-800m times ... or went a good, solid, elite level 800m time and an elite level 200m?

i'll bet ya a dollar the average "elite" 5k athlete runs the pants off a 100-200m sprinter over 800m. Every day.

Scientific based coach wrote:He was a 10 flat 100 runner

only stats

he ran 10.09pb when only going 19.94 that year

in his 19.32 shape he couda gone

9.75 - 9.80

when wr prior to meet was leroy's 9.85

( bailey ran new wr of 9.84 prior to 19.32 & i credit him with more like 9.80 ability as he had sh!t rt of 0.17s )

mj was very much like yohan who has gone 9.69/19.26 ( wide friendly brussels track ) & 19.44 in his 9.69 shape

mj fractionally inferior over 100 but fractionally superior over 200

mj already ran 19.66wr which was not beaten in '96 games - wouda been great if he'd run 100/200 at trials not 200/400

mj shoud actually have been 1st guy in history to hold simultaneously the wrs for

100

200

400

You're committing your usual logical fallacy. The person you happen to be granting faster times to gets faster, but those around them are stuck with the times they actually ran.

How come you don't say that Johnson should have run 9.75 to 9.80, but he still would have lost to Donovan Bailey, who DID run 9.84 but SHOULD HAVE run 9.68 to 9.70?

Or that Johnson could have run 9.75 to 9.80 when the WR was Leroy Burrell's actual 9.85 which SHOULD HAVE been a 9.70 if he'd run what he should?

If you start granting one runner better times than what they actually ran, you have to give the same deal to all those around them. You can't assume that everybody else had perfect races all the time, but the guys you are talking about never did and could have chopped nice healthy chunks of time off all over the place.

Absolutely no way, first of all if he could have he would have; professional athletes don't leave food on the table. Also, MJ was a pure a sprinter, he could have been a world-class 100m sprinter. There is a big difference between having excellence 100/200 speed and being able maintain speed over 400 meters, versus an 800m where at some point aerobic system have to kick in. With that said, MJ probably could have probably run 1:45x when he was in 400m WR shape, but to run better than that, he would have had to train his aerobic system, which would have been at the expense of the speed needed to run the 200m and still I doubt he could have gotten under 1:44x. MJ has pretty much said the same thing I am saying. Sprinters who successful transition to the 800m are the ones with no 100m credentials, marginal 200m credentials and good, but not great 400m credentials. I have watched many world class 400m sprinter and hurdlers who test out the 800m and only run 1:55.

The 800m is arguably the toughest event in t&f, and it's not just about physical capabilities, you have to train your mind to push through pain knowing you have a half a lap to go. A sprinter trains to accelerate and maintain, the 800m and up trains to endure fatigue.

[quote]TrackCoach wrote:

Absolutely no way, first of all if he could have he would have; professional athletes don't leave food on the table.

Agreed. And going by the same thinking as the original poster, couldn't MJ have gone ahead and gotten the 1500m record too? After all, if he could make a 44.66 for 400m look like a jog, imagine how easy he could have made a 56 look! He (or any other world class 400m runner) could probably literally have run a 56 while munching on a big sandwich in one hand and drinking a Slurpee from the other, all while looking relaxed. Surely without the impediments they could maintain that pace for 3 and 3/4 laps?

And those who suggest it was just laziness (shiftlessness?) that prevented him from going after additional records are out of their minds. I'm not particularly a big fan of MJ or any other athlete, but to suggest they didn't work hard to get where they were is ridiculous.

Gamera wrote:

[quote]TrackCoach wrote:

He (or any other world class 400m runner) could probably literally have run a 56 while munching on a big sandwich in one hand and drinking a Slurpee from the other, all while looking relaxed. Surely without the impediments they could maintain that pace for 3 and 3/4 laps?

That seems likely. After all, Hicham El Guerrouj was known to be able to eat a candy bar while running 63, and he could run over 12 laps at that pace.

longjack wrote:

workout including 2 x 500 Speed 56 seconds 400/rest 15 minutes caught my eye.

that is 11.2 seconds per 100 m.

at that pace you get 600m in 67.2.

is that right?

No, it's 2x500 @ 400m pace of 56, so about 70 per 500. from those workouts, esp. the 600s at 1:30 as just the beginning, you'd think he'd have no problem going well under 1:50. what were his timed 2M runs in?

Michael Johnson would HAVE CRUSHED the 500m and 600m world indoor records. The reason he didn't is because he never like running indoor that much. He rarely did anyways.

If Michael Johnson ran the mile he would've ran around 4:15-4:20 range.

look how fresh he is after running 43.18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_7k3WvRgig

something very sus going on

pfffttt i am so sick and tired of weekend warrior 24min 5k hobbyjogging jock sniffers who WORSHIP guys like michael johnson and create insane fantasies involving him crushing every record from 100-10000. the creatine phosphate and anaerobic systems exhaust VERY QUICKLY you cannot sustain them for long. the reason michael johnson looks "so smooth" is because he is SO fast of a SPRINTER that he is outrunning the "lactic acid" accumulation. the pain starts to set in around 38-39 seconds so he really is experienceing very little discomfort during the race at all. anyone who thinks that michael johnson could run a world class 800m time needs to stop posting on this site. there are CERTAINLY some 400 guys who could and have run excellent 800 times but MICHAEL JOHNSON IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

or the sprinter equivalent to a 24 min 5k. 70 second quarter?

Gamera wrote:

If Michael Johnson really "jogged" a 44.66, why was he never able to run more than 1.48 seconds faster? Surely if he could "jog" 44.66, he was capable of 41 or 42 seconds for 400m all-out?

He was arguably hurt when in his best form. His 19.32 indicates where he was when going all out and fairly fresh. The commonly spouted story (I have no idea the truth, but it's been stated a few times by pro coaches and other athletes from the time) is that he was supposed to go for the 400m WR in '96 after the Olympics at the Zurich meet, but his hamstring injury during the 19.32 made it impossible to be 100% for it. It's obviously not easy to maintain that kind of form for extended periods of time and be race sharp as well.

He obviously didn't jog a 44.66, but he did go under 45 ridiculously easy and he has some crazy fast relay legs to his credit (after having 200m and 400m rounds + finals). He probably would've gone 42mid/high if he ran the 400m all out instead of the 200m the day he ran 19.32.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Scientific based coach wrote:He was a 10 flat 100 runner

only stats

he ran 10.09pb when only going 19.94 that year

in his 19.32 shape he couda gone

9.75 - 9.80

when wr prior to meet was leroy's 9.85

( bailey ran new wr of 9.84 prior to 19.32 & i credit him with more like 9.80 ability as he had sh!t rt of 0.17s )

mj was very much like yohan who has gone 9.69/19.26 ( wide friendly brussels track ) & 19.44 in his 9.69 shape

mj fractionally inferior over 100 but fractionally superior over 200

mj already ran 19.66wr which was not beaten in '96 games - wouda been great if he'd run 100/200 at trials not 200/400

mj shoud actually have been 1st guy in history to hold simultaneously the wrs for

100

200

400

I don't think his form would have permitted him to run that fast without damaging his hamstring, which he did every time he ran the 100m (twice i believe)

ventolin^3 wrote:

only stats

he ran 10.09pb when only going 19.94 that year

in his 19.32 shape he couda gone

9.75 - 9.80

when wr prior to meet was leroy's 9.85

( bailey ran new wr of 9.84 prior to 19.32 & i credit him with more like 9.80 ability as he had sh!t rt of 0.17s )

mj was very much like yohan who has gone 9.69/19.26 ( wide friendly brussels track ) & 19.44 in his 9.69 shape

mj fractionally inferior over 100 but fractionally superior over 200

mj already ran 19.66wr which was not beaten in '96 games - wouda been great if he'd run 100/200 at trials not 200/400

mj shoud actually have been 1st guy in history to hold simultaneously the wrs for

100

200

400

There is no way Johnson would've set the WR in the 100m. There is no way he would've been top 3, even. 19.32 was a piece of perfect and he had incredible speed endurance. His first 30-60m was way too weak to have a chance of breaking the 100m record. On a nice wide, with a fast track like Atlanta and some wind at his back, maybe 9.8high, but probably not even that. 9.9 low at best.

you realize that johnson stumbled a bit in that 200 wr.

so mj could have gone a meter or two better and possibly still have the current world record at 19.1x.

we are talking running the curve 100 in 10 flat and 9.1 in the straight without the stumble.

or slice it and dice it the way you want but the fastest 10 segments should reveal that he went sub 9 seconds (100m) pace for the fastest portion of that race.

in any event, on the day is it so hard to think that mj could not run 2 meters better for an open 100 than he did in his record race?

of course he could. but not with the stumble.

i gotta give em a 9.80 open 100m. and with someone elses start, 9.7x

remember never bolt never really ran the 100m early on and his 100m best pre 2007 was what? 10.3? and a year and a half later he goes 9.69 with a jog finish. nope you can't use that 10.3 as useful data, nor can you use mj 10.09 "best" as useful data.

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/jamaica/usain-bolt-184599#progression

The problem is his first 30m is far too weak, I don't get how you don't understand that. Even if he was in 9.6 shape from 50-100, his first 30m was just not fast enough to get out there and get anything close to the WR. If he could have, he would have, because even MJ knew the 100m is the money race and the world's fastest man title.

I don't get how on earth you think he lost nearly 2 tenths from a tiny misstep. That probably lost him .01 at most.

Karma Police wrote:

Ever heard of Jarmila Krachtochvilova?

Seriously?

Yes, nothing suspicious about her setting 400m and 800m world records (that are still untouchable) at the tender age of 32....

no

nonsense

drivel

bailey ran 9.84 off a 0.17rt

he had poor reaction & was worth 9.80 with standard rt of 0.13

9.80 & that was a virtually perfect race for him apart from slow rt

9.80 NOT 9.70

leroy ran a virtually perfect race in his 9.85

it stays at 9.85

mj in his 19.32 shape wouda crushed him

i just did

get a clue

bailey apart from slow rt ran virtually perfect as did leroy in his 9.85wr

mj didn't run a 100 in '96 but if he had done so in 19.32 shape, i'd have expected

9.75 - 9.80