[BWebb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


this is even more impressive when you take into consideration that Johnson's 200 record is less than double the 100 record, and by a fair amount at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The feat was remarkable, but this statement isn't why. Of course it's going to be less than double the 100 time because he is at full speed when he starts the second 100 of the race.

[/ QUOTE ]

figure out how many people in the sport of track and field can run a 200 faster than double their 100 time, then get back to me.

edit to add: I'll make this easy on you, only 2 people in history have ever run a 200 in a time faster than double the 100 meter world record at the time. The other guy was the former world record holder and his 200 time was faster than double the 100 meter record at the time he ran it by about a tenth of a second. When Johnson did it his time was faster than double by almost 4 tenths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know much about track and field so I'll take your word for it. To me, it just seems like that would be the case. In the 100m, you are going from zero to whatever. The first few meters are going to be slower because of this. So by multipling that by two, you include those slower meters twice, whereas in the 200m there is only one start. Anyway, that was my rationale, but I guess it is wrong.