the sub-10,20,44 club

burned agent wrote:

currently only wayde van nieker and michael norman are in it

very clearly michael johnson had the ability to join it but chose not to

who else could have been there, and why do you think it took until 2016 to finally do it?

Easy quick answer is probably Lyles. I'd personally have to dig through the up and comers to see who else has done what as far as quality and range to see who projects to have a shot at such a thing beyond Lyles, but clearly he's an obvious option.

Dunno if he'd ever really chase the 400, though. If he does, he'd probably have to kiss his 100 meter chances goodbye, so I don't see him even attempting such thing anytime soon unless he comes to believe his 100m start is a lost cause (which might be a possibility, itself; his start/acceleration is close to atrocious for how talented he is). For the time being he's got a legit shot at 100m glory, so other than general fitness pursuits I do NOT see him training for the 400 to get him near low 44s/high 43s.

One could go hype/fanboy and say waaaay in the future maybe Boling could have the range for such a thing. But, obviously, he's got a long way to go before we could really talk about him having a shot. But his range is pretty legit, and he is pretty fast.

I wouldn't put my money on Boling accomplishing this.

Bolt

Rai Benjamin and Kenneth bednarek can with out a doubt do this.

Xavier Carter and Bolt may have been able to do this. Maybe tyson gay also, he ran sub 45 training for the 100 and 200.

Tuohy can do anything.

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

birdbeard wrote:

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

I mean, it is a pretty logical assumption that if you can run 19.32 for 200 you have the fitness to run sub 10, but who knows.

burned agent wrote:

currently only wayde van nieker and michael norman are in it

very clearly michael johnson had the ability to join it but chose not to

who else could have been there, and why do you think it took until 2016 to finally do it?

It is not clear Michael Johnson ever had ability to sprint sub-10 100m. Johnson's running style was more efficient than a 100m sprinting style. With different training, Johnson's compact and efficient running style leads me to believe he could have been a sub-73 600m man. From middle school to college, Johnson maxed out his 100m ability.

burned agent wrote:

very clearly michael johnson had the ability to join it but chose not to

He actually spent the 1994 season racing the 100 a bit and only managed 10.09 that year.

I wouldn't say he chose not to run sub 10.

And he first ran sub 20 in 1990 and his fastest 200 was in 1996, so 1994 would be prime for a sub 10 rom him.

Of course he would have run sub 10 in Atlanta in 1996 he if he chose that event.

birdbeard wrote:

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

Michael Johnson may have actually done this in the first half of a 200.

Can anybody confirm? I'm not even sure how to track down that info.

semi_pro wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

Michael Johnson may have actually done this in the first half of a 200.

Can anybody confirm? I'm not even sure how to track down that info.

According to this article Michael Johnson ran 10.12 and 9.20 for the first and second halves of his WR 200m run respectively. While this doesn’t prove he never broke 10 in the first 100m of any of his races it does make it seem very unlikely. It also doesn’t speak to potential. I’m personally inclined to think that he could have trained to go sub-10 on the right day if it had been a priority without sacrificing his sub-20 and sub-44 opportunities over the course of his career.

Boling may possibly become the first and only sub-10/20/44/29'-plus guy

semi_pro wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

Michael Johnson may have actually done this in the first half of a 200.

Can anybody confirm? I'm not even sure how to track down that info.

I found an oldish link about this very thing. It's a "simulation" based on "official" data, so there's some art and science happening here:

That link, if you include reaction time, gives him a a 10.13 first 100 on the curve. The text accompanying the numbers claims that the numbers indicate that on a straight, that 10.13 opening 100 would translate to a 9.91, so according to that guy and his numbers, he was MORE than capable of running a sub 10 at his 19.32 peak. I would have to venture to agree.

I always heard rumors that Johnson was often skittish with the 100 because it put his hamstring in danger, the implication being he eventually stopped bothering with them at all because the risks were too high and it didn't really present any value to his training.

Devils advocate: in '94 Johnson had a career PR over 200 meters of 19.79 (from '92). In '96, at peak, he dropped .47 off that time with that 19.32. Clearly he didn't slough off nearly half a second ONLY off his second 100 of his 200 ability. If he's going 10.09 in '94 (even off a +2.0 wind, which is indeed what he had in that '94 100m), and he supposedly went 10. 13 on a curve in '96, AND he had lost nearly half a second off his 200m ability (arguably from 19.79 to 19.32), then the writing on the wall seems pretty clear that he had access to a sub 10 100m dash.

Johnsons form doesn't really look like it would lend itself to a sub 10.....but, honestly, the only reason it "lends" itself to a 19.32 is because he actually DID it and we can't debate the possibility. So, I'm inclined to agree he could have gone legal sub 10 if he had pursued it a bit more after 1994. Assuming he didn't blow off his hammy in the chase, which is maybe a BIG if, frankly. Considering the I fo, I thi k he could have run a fairly not well executed, nor hamstring risky, 9.98ish 100 after the Olympics in '96 if he had an outright goal of joining the so-called "club". But I thi bbn k after Atlanta he probably was pretty sat with his golds and records and didn't care much about ramping up for a 100.

When did he blow out his hammy against Bailey in that 150? Was that still in '96 or was that a year later? I'll have to google...

Mr. Pedantic wrote:

When did he blow out his hammy against Bailey in that 150? Was that still in '96 or was that a year later? I'll have to google...

June 1, 1997

Xharrisonyellow wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

I do not think Michael Johnson could have "obviously" done it. He was a tenth a second away in the 100. That's a long way.

Bolt, yes.

I mean, it is a pretty logical assumption that if you can run 19.32 for 200 you have the fitness to run sub 10, but who knows.

Eh, he was a top-end speed 200/400 guy. His 10.09 PR was with a 2.0m/s tailwind. I don't think it is a given at all.

here we go again wrote:

Mr. Pedantic wrote:

When did he blow out his hammy against Bailey in that 150? Was that still in '96 or was that a year later? I'll have to google...

June 1, 1997

Ah, so that event cant be used as an excuse against his '96 form.

birdbeard wrote:

Xharrisonyellow wrote:

I mean, it is a pretty logical assumption that if you can run 19.32 for 200 you have the fitness to run sub 10, but who knows.

Eh, he was a top-end speed 200/400 guy. His 10.09 PR was with a 2.0m/s tailwind. I don't think it is a given at all.

I feel like "here we go again" and his link/post, and my link, both make a clear argument against that take, though.

My link claims Johnson would have gone through 60 meters on the CURVE of his 19.32 200m in '96 in 6.66. That's practically a paced 60, as far as sprinting goes, and -again- that's on a curve. He had plenty of acceleration ability.

6.66 doesn't get you to sub 10, but -call it mental gymnastics if you want- I see a 6.66 60 meter on curve, a 10.13 on a curve, a .87 10 meter split, all in ROUTE to a 19.32 200m pretty indicative of all the tools needed for a legit sub 10.

Mondo Duplantis could do it, but he doesn't want to.

You are correct on both counts. Noah is the strongest sprinter in the world, with the best speed endurance since Bolt. He has the indoor 300m record, which is nothing to sneer at, and he could probably split 43 in a 4x400 any given day. Boling is also special - no two ways around it.