Talk:Michael Johnson (sprinter)

message: Just browsing this and it seems far too biased.  Too much praise.  Granted the achievements are noteworthy, but the way its written is just lavishing it and then some.  Needs to be made more neutral.
: Well edit it then! --Lancevortex 10:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Biased

message: I didn't think that Gh's edits added to the clarity of the article, in fact rather the opposite. I have therefore reverted to the previous version. Any comments (especially from Gh) appreciated. 
--Lancevortex 14:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for reverting Gh's changes

message: The article for Kerron Clement and this one are apparently conflicting; the other page says that the record belongs to Kerron Clement at 44.57 seconds, while this page says that the record belongs to Michael Johnson at 43.18 seconds. Which is correct, or what am I missing?
: Clement holds the indoor record, Johnson the outdoor (and absolute) record. --Lancevortex 12:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 400m record

message: I think the use of Many at the beginning and in the Bailey race section should be removed.
: they have now been removed. --Lancevortex 11:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel terms

message: As currently written, this section suggests that the race was a non-starter, since '...Johnson pulled out a few moments into the race'. A review of the footage clearly indicates Johnson did not 'pull up lame' until the race was 2/3rds over (at about 10 s into a 15 s race), and after Bailey was looking to be a sure winner. The race showed a lot more than the article suggests. Indeed it appeared that Bailey would 'easily win the race' before Johnson pulled up lame - the article suggests Bailey easily won the race because Johnson pulled up lame. The article needs to give Bailey more credit.
:I also think the Bailey-Johnson section is inappropriate for the above reasons, and others. Why is it there in the first place? If we are to fill the page with various race anecdotes, we could put the race where Johnson pulled his hamstring in a 200 m race against Maurice Greene, or various times where he had particularly great races. I personally think that a link to the Bailey-Johnson article is enough for now. At the moment, the section is sitting there, slightly out of context. A reader might ask, why is this specific race important? Surely athletes can get injured rather often? Mipchunk 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that tends to indicate a willingness to read something into nothing. The part regarding the Goodwill games was probably stuck in there for lack of somewhere else to put it at that time. I will move that part. Meanwhile, let me remind you that it is inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy to refactor discussion page contributions, which you did by sticking your "American cheese" comment in the middle of someone else's comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bailey Section Inappropriate

message: The old version said "In the 10 years since this record was set, [i.e., Johnson's 19.32] no other athlete has even approached Johnson's first world record mark of 19.66 s, until July 11, 2006, when Xavier Carter of the United States posted a 19.63 in Lausanne, leading many to believe that the current mark will endure."
Well, obviously this was written before Carter did his 19.63 and simply ammended with a reference to him, as Wallace Spearmon did 19.65 Sept 2006 and 
Tyson Gay twice came within several hundredths of a second of hitting 19.66 as well. Clearly, Johnson's 19.32 was not threatened, but the way the sentence was structured it seems as if Carter's time somehow reinforces the notion "that the current mark will endure." Unless someone can find a link to someone saying that these recent marks somehow make Johnson's 19.32 more likely to last many more years, I have gone ahead and rewritten the line.
To be fair, I'd say that the mark COULD be broken as Carter and Spearmon, 22 and 21 respectively both exceeded what Johnson did at age 28 - his 19.66 - and more may come from these two and Gay - 23 and 24 in 2006 when he ran 19.68 and 19.70 - and these three presumably would be eager not only to approach Johnson but to beat each other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canada Jack (talk
::I've seen that my insert has been rephrased, with the new phrase: "No other athlete even approached Johnson's first world record mark of 19.66 until July 11, 2006, nearly ten years after his 19.32 performance, when Xavier Carter of the United States ran a 19.63 in Lausanne." However, this is not strictly true, as Frank Fredericks ran 19.68 behind Johnson's 19.32 record in 1996. We still need to say this better. Canada Jack 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of Xavier Carter's 19.63

message: Just want to add a note on the phrase "world's fastest man/human" which Johnson was called after the 200 m victory and world record at the 1996 Olympics. It should be noted that the unofficial title of "WFM" typically was awarded either to the 100 m Olympic champion OR to the world record holder in that event.
When Johnson ran 19.32 to win gold in 1996, many commentators, particularly in America, noted that that worked out to 9.66 on average per 100m, clearly "faster" than Donovan Bailey's world record in 1996 of 9.84. What many who said this did not mention (or, more likely, did not know) was that the winning Olympic time (at least since electronic timing generally was used starting with the 1968 Olympics) was the 200 m time was almost ALWAYS "faster" than the 100 m time. In fact, all but one Olympic champion in the 200 m ran "faster" at the Olympics than the 100 m champion from 1968 to 1996. (the exception: Hasely Crawford's 10.06 was "faster" than Don Quarrie's 20.23 in 1976; Mike Marsh was also "slower" in the 1992 200 m final, but ran "faster" in an earlier round).
AS for the claim that Johnson's average speed was clearly "faster," this was a new criteria seemingly invented to give him the title, when in the past this criteria didn't seem to apply. If it had, then Italian Pietro Mennea, who ran 19.72 in 1979 was the "world's fastest human" until 1994, yet for most of that time, Carl Lewis was claimed to have held that title though he never in fact exceeded Mennea. 
The article quotes an average speed of some 25 mph, but many 100 m sprinters have been recorded as reaching peak velocities in excess of that. Bailey was measured as having reached a peak velocity of 27.1 mph during the 1996 final (this was quoted in a 1998 article). This speed may have been exceeded by some more recent sprinters, but I have not seen any reports that Johnson ran quite that fast during a race. Canada Jack 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on "world's fastest man"

message: I've removed this section once again, because it says quite clearly at the top of this page that "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced must be removed immediately". Can the editor provide any credible sources for his/her claims that thousands have questioned Johnson's integrity? Is it not much more likely he retired when he did because he was 33 years old and as a multiple Olympic winner and world record holder, he had achieved all he could in his sport?Pawnkingthree 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: I've changed the wording about Johnson's 300 m "world record" because, bluntly, this is no "world record." Only events sanctioned by the IAAF can have "world records," other events may be run but have no official status and are often called "world bests," like in the 2 miles. And by comparing the improvement Johnson made on the old "mark" is meaningless as the event is seldom run, certainly not at big-time meets where the world's top athletes would be competing. Canada Jack 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 300 metre "record"

message: Unfortunately, the IOC has stripped the entire team of this medal due to the misdoings of others besides Johnson. The medal winning is no longer valid. However, it is entirely proper to show in the infobox that a medal was won but was later disqualified. The article explains the circumstances of this action (affirming that Johnson was not to blame, only effected). Another editor persists in removing this notation, which then misrepresents the status of Johnson's valid medal wins. At present, this is a 3RR issue with the anonymous editor involved, but beyond that person, Johnson can no longer be considered a gold medal holder for that event. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000 4x400 Olympics medal

message: hi michael i am a big fan i am doing a esay on you can you tell me some info. on you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.53.4 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: from a girl t hat you do not know but big fan

message: This part should probably be removed since the article for the information was from 2001 and I am pretty sure someone has beaten that. Michael Phelps has over 50 medals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.117.23 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Medal Won

message: The article states "In 1996, Johnson ran 16.55 seconds in the 200 m at the U.S. Olympic Trials."  I don't know what his time was, but it clearly wasn't under 19 seconds!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.197.37 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect time

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Johnson (sprinter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524104919/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2004455894_digs04.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2004455894_digs04.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Johnson (sprinter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102160547/http://youth.michaeljohnsonperformance.com/ to http://youth.michaeljohnsonperformance.com//
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a problem with the accuracy with which Sports journalist have reported Johnson's stroke. Many have stated that he had a TIA (transient ischaemic attack). Johnson's own words do not mention a TIA or mini-stroke - he just says that the had "a stroke". The symptoms that Johnson describe are those of a stroke, not a TIA. I think the editor is obliged to rely on Johnson's own words about the precise medical condition - there is, after all, no news report from his doctor. What more authoritative source is there on his precise medical condition? The interpretation by journalists of the information given by Johnson is clearly wrong. They have confused a mild stroke with a "mini-stroke". 
I appreciate the edit made might technically test the limits of rules on sources for living persons. However, I think reliance must be placed on deciding which information is correct, and allow suppression of obvious errors by sports journalists commenting on something outside their area of expertise.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stroke not TIA 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) which is of relevance to this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. TarnishedPathtalk 23:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress