Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
With the benefit of hindsight, how fast could he actually run?
you shouldn't have wasted time reading the thread
i was typing at the same time, still not fast enough
don't listen to your boss
hindsight is 20/20
ie original speed
20mph in one leg and 20mph in the other
when I've got 2 minutes to get my coupon on and ladrokes is 3 minutes away.
I have an innate dislike of the man and no idea why.
I saw Seb Coe at lunchtime, he's a very pleasant man.
he's very nice and a lot funnier than you might think.
...but I honestly have no knowledge of Michael Johnson's politics.
Seb Coe is the ultimate lizard.
(Incidentally, Colin Jackson ranks slightly above Michael Owen)
100m PB - 10.09
200m PB - 19.32
How fast would that be in today's money? Both of those were about 20 years ago now, so can probably cut a second or two off each, in real terms.
why you getting in his 100m grill? Might as well post his marathon PB.
(you can use all the vowels between b and t)
kinds of running he was fastest at. Probably best to leave this one to the people who understand what they're talking about.
he didn't compete in 100m at top level.
he wasn't fastest at 100m. What the hell are you on about.
Not compared to other people. This is about Michael Johnson, not other runners.
but if you have made your mind up.
just multiply 100m by 4
...which would have been reached during his 200m rather than over 100m?
Thank you Pentago
what exactly was MJ's top speed at his peak?
vs. 372.7 leagues per sun circuit.
but what does that mean in real terms? Half a second? Two seconds?
10.09 is alright, probably wouldn't make a world champs/olympic final. Maybe not even the semis in a particular strong year.
19.32 is obviously mint, only bolt gone quicker. But he's better over longer distances as he's an endurance sprinter.
With advances in stopwatch technology, I dare say he was a lot quicker than 10.09. You can tell with the naked eye it was at least a 9.80 run.
The 200m one - again, you say Bolt's gone quicker. But with advances in technology, can we be sure he actually did?
...that time has got quicker in the past 20 years.
Just that technology has meant we can record it quicker than previously
or timing advances (in which case, goodbye).
Mostly technology advances
pulled up lame cos he was getting whooped. According to Bailey
The additional challenge to Bailey being that he was unaccustomed to running a curve...
Wouldn't have even been close over 300m.
Usain Bolt, strength, size and speed but a huge question mark over endurance or Mo Farah with is endurance but lacking in strength.
Both equally incentivised.
and sharing any surplus produce with the most needy in society.
I read in an interview that they had both wanted to be farmers from a time before man had tamed the beasts of burden. Think it was in the Sunday Express.
Can you take your pre-Civil War southern American fantasies elsewhere please?
...but this was absolutely next level stuff in '96.
Worth it just for Coleman's commentary to be honest.
reminded me of Roger Black in 96. To be fair to him, there was no way he would ever have won gold barring Johnson's leg falling off during the race, so he did the right thing.
how fast was that, with the benefit of hindsight/improvements in technology?
Good trolling btw
I thought I was on a hiding to nothing. Really pleased with how it turned out.
Well he smashed the 200m record by 0.32 seconds. Usain Bolt has now beaten this by `only` 0.13 seconds. It took Bolt 12 years to do this.
So... yeah, Johnson pulped the record books for the 200m in a manner which will take a long, long time to be beaten. Seismic.
Were with Virgin hospitality so Usain Bolt was on the same flight of them, one of them clocked him, turned around and excitedly went "That's Usain Bolt" to the bloke behind him, "Yeah I know, he took my record" responds none other than Michael bloody Johnson!