How did Michael Johnson break the WR at age 32?

My answer to the original question, which I think others have already given, is that he underachieved when he was younger. Probably could have run sub-43 at a younger age but failed to do so for whatever reason.

let's not forget the Bailey/Johnson matchup in 1997

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dke75BFdVHM

I was 14 and sooooooooo disappointed.

BRG/253 wrote:Nah... while he undoubtedly had the speed potential to run the 100m, he never had the training or experience to break the WR. He also had a clear predisposition to get injured when running fast.

that is overblown

he ran 10.09pb ( +2 ) in US Champs in '94 in a heat but injured & last in the final - i doubt conditions were good with mitchell winning in 10.13 - likely cold/poor weather which tends to higher chance of muscle pulls

his best 200 that year was 19.94

he was 0.62s faster at 200 in '96 & that indicates somewhere in region of quicker 100 by upto 0.3s

that wouda got him 9.8-flat

ventolin^3 wrote:

that is overblown

he ran 10.09pb ( +2 ) in US Champs in '94 in a heat but injured & last in the final - i doubt conditions were good with mitchell winning in 10.13 - likely cold/poor weather which tends to higher chance of muscle pulls

his best 200 that year was 19.94

he was 0.62s faster at 200 in '96 & that indicates somewhere in region of quicker 100 by upto 0.3s

that wouda got him 9.8-flat

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.

I see VenTard is back again.

C3PO Zoom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3PO couldn't break 12 seconds from the blocks.

His 10.09 PB came in the US champs, which mostly proves he didn't have the ability to run 100m speeds required to make it to an Olympic final to make a 9.80 possible. When the man fired his muscles at that sort of speed without a running start he seemed to just break on his own.

When they did the 150 against Bailey it was evident too.

I'm thinking anything better than a 42.7 would have snapped the mans Hamstring

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

moron

offer something or f*ck off

o.O wrote:His 10.09 PB came in the US champs, which mostly proves he didn't have the ability to run 100m speeds required to make it to an Olympic final to make a 9.80 possible. When the man fired his muscles at that sort of speed without a running start he seemed to just break on his own

learn to read

he ran 10.09 in heats

he got injured running the final, won in a paltry 10.13 by mitchell

mitchell ran 9.94 that year

the conditions in that meet were not good

to run 10.09 in those conditions was superb

When they did the 150 against Bailey it was evident too

no one is talking about '97 when the exertions of 19.32 before had left a semi-permanent hamstring weakness at extreme speeds

I offer that you are a tard.

Your tard-like tendencies, on this particular topic, have been exhaustively revealed on previous threads.

Further discussion with you is pointless, all that remains is to either ignore or mock you.

You have brought this upon yourself, VenTard.

Just curious, did you run (sprints) in high school and college? Not trying to slam you brother, just trying to get an idea what we're dealing with here. SOMETIMES people start running later in life after being couch potatoes before then and see great progress, set PRs at an older age, etc.In my case, I started running at age 8 and then began serious training by age 13, so for me by the time I was 35, I had been running hard for 22 years and I was done. I had one summer of decent races when I was 37, but the PRs were long gone, and I've been very slow since then (mostly due to MUCH less running and a persistent calf injury).

Paul Ron wrote:

exactly... I'm 33 and running at my lifetime bests in the 100. It is not world-class, but I beat the crap out of ALOT of college kids.

Just a number wrote:

Because 30 isn't as old as everyone makes it sound. Take care of your body and you'll be running well throughout your 30s

Agreed, setting PR's in the mid-late 30's seems inconceivable for someone who was at peak training during their 20's.

Regarding MJ, and disregarding everything VenTard says, there is no way he could have won the 100 in Atlanta as he was. Absurd.

However, if he had focused on the 100/200 to the exclusion of the 400, he would almost automatically have been a low-mid 9.9x guy.

Just at the start alone, he left .10 on the table, maybe .15 In the 200, his start was likely optimized to reduce impact, be as smooth as possible, and save energy for the straight.

If his body held up, I think that he could absolutely have been a mid-9.8x 100m runner, but he would have needed much more extension, and obviously increase his speed envelope, at some sacrifice of his excellent speed endurance.

Nobody has ever gone below 9.85 using anything close to the abbreviated technique of MJ. Look at how sub-9.85 guys run--they all have GREAT absolute top speed, especially the sub-9.80 guys.

The guys who were right around 9.85--guys like Burrell, Boldon, etc.--didn't necessarily have the greatest top speed, but had really good speed endurance, and that is the fastest that speed endurance will get you in the 100...the race is just so short that you cannot concentrate on speed endurance to the exclusion of other critical parts of the race.

Around 9.85 can be done with a decent start, decent top speed, and excellent speed endurance.

9.80-9.85 can be done with a decent start, really good top speed, and really good speed endurance.

Sub-9.80 can only be done with a great start, great top speed, and great speed endurance.

MJ never exhibited the first 2 of those 3.

IMHO it is doubtful that he could have gotten the second, ever, for whatever reason (inability, injury)--which is probably why he chose to run the 200/400 instead of the 100/200.

MJ was, above all, disciplined. I mean really, really nuts.

I would bet that all of his great races have nearly identical profiles.

Never got busted for pot (Ndure). Never partied and drove his car into a tree and cut his foot (Bolt). Never tried to be hip and drink crap like energy boost drinks (Rodgers). Never experimented with gas-station sex crap (Merrit). Never showboated like an a-hole (Greene). Heck, I don't even know if he got distracted by girls (or guys).

He was totally disciplined. He was used to being on top, and never went to pieces except when he faked the injury in the race against Bailey, the first time he really knew he was out of his element, out of his range of discipline.

He was so disciplined as to have been mechanistic.

It was both his greatest strength and IMO his greatest weakness.

So you think he was clean?

moron

you have no clue

your drivel about his cadence handicapping him is utter nonsense

he split 10.12 on the curve - whupping frankie with 10.16 & ato who went 10.18

it took superb speed to do that

frankie ran 9.86 into a wind prior to games, which was intriniscally superior to burrell's wr of 9.85

ato went 9.90 in the final

what does your peabrain make of that ?

then tell us what you reckon mj wouda run in that 100 final in his 19.32 shape

offer me a number moron

Sprintgeezer: Personally, I would take ventolin's contributions on this board over yours any time.

And a man of your age calling someone a 'tard' demonstrates a real lack of class. Grow up or go away.

to be fair, mj didnt have the start ability to go into the 9's. some athletes just dont start out well in a race, mj was one of those guys when it came to the 100m.

if he were to have focused on the 100m and 200m, instead of 400m then he could have gone into the 9's but at a great sacrifice to other elements of his running (obviously his 400). it took the man a little longer to get his wheels going in order to hit sub 10.

if he were to have been given a running start to a 100m, then defintiely under 10, most likely under 9.9 easy. but he simply couldnt get out that fast or had that ability.

in HS i couldnt break 26 for 200m from a flat start. but i could run from 100m to 300m under 26 in the middle of any 400m race (first leg) and go from 0-200 in 26 and come back in 26 mid at the end. granted i never did anything competeively shorter than 400m (or longer than 1 mile) but i had good speed (for my ability level) off a running start. standing starts/blocks just didnt work even if i did train in them a bit.

its silly to use one personal anecdotal refference though, but this is just my honest opinion.

boubatronic wrote:

Sprintgeezer: Personally, I would take ventolin's contributions on this board over yours any time.

As you wish. I just hope that you understand the basis of our arguments, although I suspect that you do not.

And a man of your age calling someone a 'tard' demonstrates a real lack of class. Grow up or go away.

I'm not a big believer in the success of meeting incessant vulgarity with class. It's tedious, and when the stakes are as low as they are on a running board, it's inefficient.

And many thanks for steering the conversation in a fresh direction. I still encourage you to actually analyze VenTard's argument--consider his most recent post. I'm interested in your analysis, please post it.

boubatronic--Is this the type of contribution that you prefer? Let's look at VenTard's post:

ventolin^3 wrote:

moron

you have no clue

your drivel about his cadence handicapping him is utter nonsense

he split 10.12 on the curve - whupping frankie with 10.16 & ato who went 10.18

it took superb speed to do that

frankie ran 9.86 into a wind prior to games, which was intriniscally superior to burrell's wr of 9.85

ato went 9.90 in the final

what does your peabrain make of that ?

then tell us what you reckon mj wouda run in that 100 final in his 19.32 shape

offer me a number moron

10 sentences.

1 & 2 are ignorable utter vulgarity.

3 is vulgarity combined with irrational obfuscation--nowhere did I ever mention MJ's "cadence"

4, 6, and 7 recite known facts, recited many times on similar threads, and are merely repetitive

8 is simple vulgarity

10 is vulgarity combined with a poor attempt to define the limits of the debate, a poor attempt at baiting

5 is conclusory and represents an opinion that has never been in dispute, and is merely argumentative

9 is the only sentence with any worthwhile content that is not merely repetitive, argumentative, offensive, or vulgar

I understand that characterizing all of VenTard's contributions based on this single post could be unfair--but IMHO it is fairly representative of the majority of his posts. The remaining minority, that are not substantially repetitive, argumentative, offensive, or vulgar, are based on statistical analyses that have no demonstrated statistical validity.

That you prefer those types of posts to ANY others, including my own, reveals much about yourself.