|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:12:42 GMT -5
Just looked it up and that time was barely wind legal. It's impossible to compare personal bests with results of an actual specific race (unlike swimming, the conditions and tracks vary a bunch). He never got close to breaking 10 in the 100. If he were that fast in the 100 on any given day, Team USA would have put him on the 4x1 at some point - they didn't. Yeah, agree on all counts. This is the kind of mistake that people who aren't knowledgeable about track and field would make. I could potentially have seen Team USA putting him on the 4x100 for publicity purposes if they felt that the rest of the team was fast enough that he wouldn't jeopardize their gold medal chances. But they didn't even do that, so I have to agree that he just wasn't fast enough in the 100 to be truly competitive at the Olympic level. In 96, he ran the opening 100 of the 200 in 10.12, which also would have finished 6th in the 100. So same track, same meet, is that time also out of context?
|
|
|
Post by pelican on Jul 26, 2021 14:13:27 GMT -5
The 100 and 400 are just completely different. I don't think it's possible to be truly competitive at the Olympic level in both. If you haven't run track, you may not realize what a brutal race the 400 is. I think the 800 is worse, but the 400 isn't that far off. Those extra 200 meters make a big difference. Michael Johnson's best 100 time would have made the finals in both of the Olympics where he won the 400. (He would have finished 5th and 6th). Not knowing much about track, I am sure you are right about how different they are, so someone who could compete in all 3 would be rare, but it clearly is possible if the scheduling wasn't an obstacle. Also seems odd that the sprints and hurdles of roughly the same distance and the distance and steeplechase aren't more often contested by the same people. Is there a reason why? As has already been mentioned, conditions vary, so a personal best isn't something you can run every single time. He also ran his 100m PR earlier in his career than he ran his 200/400 PRs; it's unlikely you'd be in peak 100 and 400 shape at the exact same time. I think the shorter hurdle races are different enough that you can't just transition into them. Obviously a world-class 400-meter hurdler is probably going to be a very good 400 meter flat runner, but not every 400-meter runner is going to have the skill to run the hurdles. As for why more people don't transition to the steeplechase, somebody who's in a 1500 or 5000 Olympic final (especially someone finishing 4th) could easily win a medal at that distance. That person is a full-time professional with a shoe contract and possibly other sponsors. It's not worth it to switch to steeple with no guarantee that you'd be successful there. I doubt this is true. I really don't think the money is all that different. Emma Coburn (gold and silver at worlds, bronze at Rio 2016) and Evan Jager (silver at Rio, bronze at worlds) are probably making as much money as any other American pros. The only two that I think definitely make a lot more than them are Centrowitz (Olympic gold in 1500) and Rupp (because he's been Salazar/Nike's pet project for years).
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 14:13:49 GMT -5
Yeah, agree on all counts. This is the kind of mistake that people who aren't knowledgeable about track and field would make. I could potentially have seen Team USA putting him on the 4x100 for publicity purposes if they felt that the rest of the team was fast enough that he wouldn't jeopardize their gold medal chances. But they didn't even do that, so I have to agree that he just wasn't fast enough in the 100 to be truly competitive at the Olympic level. In 96, he ran the opening 100 of the 200 in 10.12, which also would have finished 6th in the 100. So same track, same meet, is that time also out of context? Well, even at the same meet, it isn't necessarily the same. The wind is probably the biggest factor for any given race. When Mike Powell broke Bob Beamon's long jump world record in Tokyo 1991, Carl Lewis also had a series of amazing jumps, but only some of them were wind-legal. If I remember correctly, one of those jumps actually exceeded Beamon before Powell broke the record for good, but this Lewis jump wasn't wind-legal. Edit: Also, as c4 points out below, running the curve and running the straightaway are not the same.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 14:14:04 GMT -5
Because steeple is a fringe event with less sponsorship money? Some good Americans have focused on steeple in recent cycles but they're still losing internationally to the Africans and there's more money in being the best/2nd Best American in a more traditional event than being a bronze medalist or Olympic finalist in the steeple. Fast people also don't like the steeple because it's riskier - pack running over barriers really heightens the possibility someone else will take you out. Those are all excellent reasons to run normal races instead of steeplechase if a choice is forced, but seem like pretty poor reasons to not run both. Besides adding a second event would mean a financial windfall, especially if you win both, see Michael Johnson as compared to every other 200 or 400 winner ever (except the ones who were also 100m guys) Steeple takes too much out of you to double up, really. And training for the steeple technically would take away the time (read: miles) someone competitive at a traditional race would need to keep up their fitness.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 14:14:44 GMT -5
Yeah, agree on all counts. This is the kind of mistake that people who aren't knowledgeable about track and field would make. I could potentially have seen Team USA putting him on the 4x100 for publicity purposes if they felt that the rest of the team was fast enough that he wouldn't jeopardize their gold medal chances. But they didn't even do that, so I have to agree that he just wasn't fast enough in the 100 to be truly competitive at the Olympic level. In 96, he ran the opening 100 of the 200 in 10.12, which also would have finished 6th in the 100. So same track, same meet, is that time also out of context? Not same track - opening 100 takes you down the curve in the 200. Who knows on wind at the time. 10.12 wouldn't have advanced him out of the semis at that same meet. He never got close to 10.0. There were probably a dozen guys sub-10 at the time. (And 10.12 is massively off from that).
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 14:24:17 GMT -5
Well, as c4 pointed out, the training for the 400 and 100 are very different. Also, you can't just take someone's personal best and drop it into another race without any context. There are other factors like the wind, temperature, altitude and track surface that can make a pretty big difference. Would you say that the top sprinters, if they chose to, could transition to hurdles at the same distance, say over 3-4 years, and win? This is an interesting question that I'm not quite sure of. I think that it's theoretically possible that a top 100m runner could learn how to run the hurdles, but there is so much more money to be made by being the fastest man in the world at 100m than there is in being the best at 110 hurdles. If you're really fast enough to compete for gold at 100m, it doesn't make much sense to split that focus with a different discipline. The best sprinters don't even do long jump anymore, and Carl Lewis only did it for as long as he did because of his quest to get the world record after Powell beat him out for it. His original plan was to retire after hopefully breaking the world record at the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo so that he could just focus on the sprints.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:24:30 GMT -5
In 96, he ran the opening 100 of the 200 in 10.12, which also would have finished 6th in the 100. So same track, same meet, is that time also out of context? Not same track - opening 100 takes you down the curve in the 200. Who knows on wind at the time. 10.12 wouldn't have advanced him out of the semis at that same meet. He never got close to 10.0. There were probably a dozen guys sub-10 at the time. (And 10.12 is massively off from that). Woops, forgot the curve. But, again coming from a relatively ignorant perspective, wouldn't the curve slow you down as opposed to the opposite? Also arent we also discussing times from a guy who didn't even regularly run this race? Wikipedia - the end all be all of sources for athletics, has no times for him from the majority of the years he competed. Is it unreasonable to presume that he could have knocked off .03 or .04 if he regularly ran it and prepared for it?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:27:03 GMT -5
Those are all excellent reasons to run normal races instead of steeplechase if a choice is forced, but seem like pretty poor reasons to not run both. Besides adding a second event would mean a financial windfall, especially if you win both, see Michael Johnson as compared to every other 200 or 400 winner ever (except the ones who were also 100m guys) Steeple takes too much out of you to double up, really. And training for the steeple technically would take away the time (read: miles) someone competitive at a traditional race would need to keep up their fitness. How would the training be different other than some time spent practicing going over the steeples - is that what they are called - which doesnt look particularly precise, as opposed to the hurdles for example?
|
|
|
Post by pelican on Jul 26, 2021 14:27:44 GMT -5
Because steeple is a fringe event with less sponsorship money? Some good Americans have focused on steeple in recent cycles but they're still losing internationally to the Africans and there's more money in being the best/2nd Best American in a more traditional event than being a bronze medalist or Olympic finalist in the steeple. Fast people also don't like the steeple because it's riskier - pack running over barriers really heightens the possibility someone else will take you out. Those are all excellent reasons to run normal races instead of steeplechase if a choice is forced, but seem like pretty poor reasons to not run both. Besides adding a second event would mean a financial windfall, especially if you win both, see Michael Johnson as compared to every other 200 or 400 winner ever (except the ones who were also 100m guys) I think you are underestimating how hard it is. For steeplechase, you are going to have to spend a lot of time running over barriers. That's an additional injury risk and it's time that could be spent doing other workouts. I know swimmers do a ton of hours in the pool, but with running it's extremely hard to put in more than 2 hours a day running. Marathoners are going to do a bit more volume, but anyone running 10000 or shorter is probably topping out at 120 miles (or less) per week, and many are running less than that most of the time. And a lot of that running is at what is a fairly easy pace for them. But going over steeplechase barriers is something that you have to do at race pace or close to it. You can't just jog and jump over it. As for the sprints, there is a ton of competition. Swimming is something that only a relatively small slice of the human population has access to. But almost every kid in the world has sprinted down a street or across a school yard. If you're good at sprinting, someone is probably going to notice. I agree with the people who say that if the events were more spread out you might see a few more people run multiple events. (Distance runners especially have a tough time doing multiple events.) But it still wouldn't be easy. Somebody like Christian Coleman (not at the Olympics because he got banned for missing drug tests) is just a pure explosiveness type of runner with a fantastic start (he has the 60-meter world record). He's a really, really good 200-meter runner, but I think that event would be much harder for him to win than the 100.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 14:28:57 GMT -5
Not same track - opening 100 takes you down the curve in the 200. Who knows on wind at the time. 10.12 wouldn't have advanced him out of the semis at that same meet. He never got close to 10.0. There were probably a dozen guys sub-10 at the time. (And 10.12 is massively off from that). Woops, forgot the curve. But, again coming from a relatively ignorant perspective, wouldn't the curve slow you down as opposed to the opposite? Also arent we also discussing times from a guy who didn't even regularly run this race? Wikipedia - the end all be all of sources for athletics, has no times for him from the majority of the years he competed. Is it unreasonable to presume that he could have knocked off .03 or .04 if he regularly ran it and prepared for it? The 100 isn't something extra preparation would make him better at. It's not that complicated of a race - you get out of the blocks and you run. He already trained his start from other events. The converse is something I would entertain (f.ex., running the curve in the 200, managing the 400 is something where you'd say maybe a 100 runner would improve if they didn't run the race often). Also, Johnson almost certainly ran the 100 very often in training as part of his speed work. If he were putting in competitive times, he would have added it or run it more often (some Diamond League meet - or the equivalent back then - would offer beaucoup bucks for him to show up and triple, etc...)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 14:31:25 GMT -5
Steeple takes too much out of you to double up, really. And training for the steeple technically would take away the time (read: miles) someone competitive at a traditional race would need to keep up their fitness. How would the training be different other than some time spent practicing going over the steeples - is that what they are called - which doesnt look particularly precise, as opposed to the hurdles for example? It's much less precise than the normal hurdles but still a lot of work and the consequences of missing it are disastrous (not just for the race but for injury too). It's a lot about being able to manage the barriers when fatigued too.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:48:42 GMT -5
Woops, forgot the curve. But, again coming from a relatively ignorant perspective, wouldn't the curve slow you down as opposed to the opposite? Also arent we also discussing times from a guy who didn't even regularly run this race? Wikipedia - the end all be all of sources for athletics, has no times for him from the majority of the years he competed. Is it unreasonable to presume that he could have knocked off .03 or .04 if he regularly ran it and prepared for it? The 100 isn't something extra preparation would make him better at. It's not that complicated of a race - you get out of the blocks and you run. He already trained his start from other events. The converse is something I would entertain (f.ex., running the curve in the 200, managing the 400 is something where you'd say maybe a 100 runner would improve if they didn't run the race often). Also, Johnson almost certainly ran the 100 very often in training as part of his speed work. If he were putting in competitive times, he would have added it or run it more often (some Diamond League meet - or the equivalent back then - would offer beaucoup bucks for him to show up and triple, etc...) You sidestepped the question about whether the curve makes you slower or faster. I'd also suggest that since he very rarely ran it, the odds of him posting his best time in a timed race, seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Swimming
Jul 26, 2021 15:32:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 15:32:01 GMT -5
The 100 isn't something extra preparation would make him better at. It's not that complicated of a race - you get out of the blocks and you run. He already trained his start from other events. The converse is something I would entertain (f.ex., running the curve in the 200, managing the 400 is something where you'd say maybe a 100 runner would improve if they didn't run the race often). Also, Johnson almost certainly ran the 100 very often in training as part of his speed work. If he were putting in competitive times, he would have added it or run it more often (some Diamond League meet - or the equivalent back then - would offer beaucoup bucks for him to show up and triple, etc...) You sidestepped the question about whether the curve makes you slower or faster. I'd also suggest that since he very rarely ran it, the odds of him posting his best time in a timed race, seems unlikely. It might make it faster or slower depending on how he took the curve and where it fell. I brought it up mainly because you were saying it was the same track, and it wasn’t. I think you’re just really set on this line of thinking. He, in close to peak form, with wind at the absolute limit of legality (literally), was still far off - in relative terms - a top 100 time. If he were competitive at the highest level, he would have competed it at the highest level. Or USATF would have put him as one of the 5-6 in the relay pool and he would have gotten another medal without having to work through heats.
|
|
|
Post by pelican on Jul 26, 2021 15:46:42 GMT -5
The 100 isn't something extra preparation would make him better at. It's not that complicated of a race - you get out of the blocks and you run. He already trained his start from other events. The converse is something I would entertain (f.ex., running the curve in the 200, managing the 400 is something where you'd say maybe a 100 runner would improve if they didn't run the race often). Also, Johnson almost certainly ran the 100 very often in training as part of his speed work. If he were putting in competitive times, he would have added it or run it more often (some Diamond League meet - or the equivalent back then - would offer beaucoup bucks for him to show up and triple, etc...) You sidestepped the question about whether the curve makes you slower or faster. I'd also suggest that since he very rarely ran it, the odds of him posting his best time in a timed race, seems unlikely. The curve is going to make you slower, but you're accelerating from 0 m/s anyway so I don't think it's a huge factor.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 15:57:38 GMT -5
You sidestepped the question about whether the curve makes you slower or faster. I'd also suggest that since he very rarely ran it, the odds of him posting his best time in a timed race, seems unlikely. If he were competitive at the highest level, he would have competed it at the highest level. That's true. I can name every Olympic 100m men's champion off the top of my head going back to 1980. Other than Michael Johnson, I probably couldn't do that with any of the 400m winners (I just looked them up, and I definitely remember some of them after seeing their names, but I couldn't have named them from memory). If Michael Johnson was truly competitive at the 100, he would have been heavily incentivized to focus on that race because there's so much more fame and fortune in it. Credit to him for figuring out another way to become a household name as a non-100m sprinter, though even then, I think he massively benefited from the fact that he was American and did it in an Olympics that were being held in the US. I'm not sure that a runner from another country would have gotten the kind of attention that he did, even if they were able to pull off the same double.
|
|