v2 G.O.AT Round 2 Match 3

Today's second match up pits Athletics Michael Johnson vs cycling's Eddy Merckx.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Below are the previous round 1 articles written by forum members

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Michael Johnson- Athletics- Championed by 88chris05

I was eight years old in 1996 and, as a result, the Atlanta Games of that year are the first Olympic Games I can remember properly - and for any sports fan, that's a serious footnote in your memory. It says much about the greatness of the man I'm writing about here that, whenever I think back to that summer of 1996 and the Olympics, the first thing to enter my head is never the Games themselves, and nor is it a collection of moments. Instead, it's just one name which crops up instantly - Michael Johnson.

It took some nerve - or, you might even say, some well-placed arrogance - to wear those golden running spikes, and it must also have taken a large helping of self-belief and stubbornness to ignore the plethora of coaches who had told him right throughout his college and junior career to abandon his unusual 'duck' style of running in favour of the traditional high knee lift, long strides and pumping arms which we usually associate with sprinting. But both the running spikes and that unique style had me hooked from 1996 onwards and I became determined to find out all I could about the man who came away with three gold medals on the track from those Games.

With the emergence of Usain Bolt in recent times, it's easy to forget that, just ten to fifteen years earlier, there was one man on the track who blew everyone's mind and redefined the parameters just as much as the brilliant Jamaican. In fact, I'd argue that Johnson, in many ways, redefined them even more than Bolt has.

For starters, his dominance of the 400m throughout the nineties must be right up there with the greatest spells of dominance in any one event in history. Before Johnson, whose incredible feats earned him the nickname 'Superman', no man had ever won the 400m title at back to back Olympics. Johnson did this at a canter, taking the gold medal in the one lap event at Atlanta in '96 and at Sydney four years later. He won four successive world titles at that same distance, too, from 1993 right up until 1999. His fifty-four consecutive 'finals' wins in the 400m is, of course, a record - so far ahead of his peers in that event is he, that comparisons are pretty pointless.

But there were more notable 'firsts' in Johnson's career. The 100m-200m double is, of course, a rare achievement, the sort which only the giants of sporting history (Owens, Lewis, Bolt etc) have managed. But do you know what's been an even rarer achievement in men's track and field? The 200m-400m double. Because once more, before this remarkable Texan came along, absolutely nobody had managed to win the two events together at the Olympics - or at any major championships, for that matter. Not content with making history once by doing so at the 1995 World Championships in Gothenburg, Johnson made it two 'doubles' in as many years at the following summer's Olympics. And which man has replicated this feat since? That's right - absolutely none of them.

Usain Bolt's double of the 100m-200m (or even his 'double double' of doing the 100m-200m act at two successive Olympics, a feat which he controversially shares with Carl Lewis) make him one of a few, but Johnson's achievements really do make him one of a kind.

I think it's key to remember, also, that the 400m takes on a very different dynamic to the shorter sprints. Unlike the 100m or the 200m, the 400m discipline takes a different type of training, a large amount of kidology and tactics. There is no element of just running flat out as fast as you can; pacing yourself, the concept of even-paced running, adapting to running two bends ect all make it a different ball game. Genuinely, I feel that Johnson's ability to adapt so perfectly to both events make him a serious contender to be considered the finest track athlete the world has ever seen.

Johnsons' gold medal tally in the 200m (two World Championships, one Olympics) doesn't read quite as staggeringly (but is still only surpassed by a certain Mr Bolt, mind you!) but, as I mentioned above, I genuinely think that Johnson expanded the ideas of what was possible in this event more than anyone else has thus far in his own way. In track and field, particularly in the sprints, you seldom see a world record which lasts more than three or four years, generally speaking. It's amazing what the human body can do when you're setting its every faculty towards a certain mark - for instance, Roger Bannister's four minute mile in 1954 was considered superhuman and, almost, a case of someone doing the impossible, and yet it lasted as a world record for a mere six weeks.

So then, let's keep in mind that Pietro Mennea's 200m world record of 19.72 seconds had stood for a whole seventeen years by 1996, remarkable in a sport which is pitted so often against the clock. At the Olympic trials that year, Johnson edged it out with a 19.66, a fantastic feat in itself, but what he did in the Olympics themselves in that event will stay with me forever. Even as an eight year old, I knew I was watching something remarkable. But it's only looking back that I can fully appreciate the magnitude of Johnson's gold medal winning performance.

Johnson won the gold in a staggering 19.32 seconds, a whole .34 of a second ahead of his own personal best (by an absolute mile the most that anyone has improved a short sprint record since the introduction of electronic timing in the sixties), and .36 ahead of second-placed Frankie Fredericks who, just weeks earlier, had beaten Johnson and was fancied by many to do so again (a shell-shocked Fredericks remarked after the race, ""If I'd have known that Michael was going to run 19.32, I wouldn't have bothered showing up.""). Ato Boldon, who took the bronze medal, went to Johnson after the race and bowed, later commenting that Johnson's race that night was ""fifty years ahead of its time.""

Now, I know what you're all thinking. Rather than fifty, the record 'only' lasted for twelve years (still a hell of a long time by track and field standards, of course) before Usain Bolt narrowly beat it with his wonderful 19.30 in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. But as I said before, it's amazing what can be done by the human body when its sole focus is on a time which you have the luxury of shooting for. Basically, if someone can run a 19.32, you know that it's a real possibility and, in many ways, inevitable that someone can eventually go 19.30 or better, like Bolt has. Edging a world record out like that is the norm.

However, totally obliterating one like Johnson did most certainly isn't. With Mennea's 19.72 came the realisation that humans could and eventually would be running in the 19.6 bracket. With Johnson's 19.66 three months before Atlanta came the realisation that maybe, just maybe, we could see a high 19.5 time in our lifespan if we were lucky. Absolutely nobody, however, would have ever dared conjour up the the thought of a man eating up 200m of track in a low 19.3 time. It boggled the mind, tore up all logic and left a world-wide audience, including BBC commentator David Coleman, saying ""this man surely isn't human!""

When Bolt broke the 200m world record, there were loud cheers in my house. However, when Johnson ran that 19.32 in Atlanta, there was nothing but a stunned silence, followed by a series of glances which seemd to be asking, 'Did I really just see that?'

And of course, Johnson's 400m world record still remains intact at 43.18 seconds, despite thirteen and a half years having passed since he finally set it at the 1999 World Championships in Seville. Again, it's worth noting that, in track and field, world records that can last a decade or more come at a premium. From the top of my head, I do believe that Michael Johnson is the only man to have set a world record lasting a decade or longer in two individual events since the introduction of electronic timing, and it says a hell of a lot about the man's accomplishments that you have to scroll a fair way down his CV to find a fact as impressive as that!

In all, Johnson stepped on to a podium to collect thirteen medals at either the Olympic Games or World Championships during his career - and ever single one of them was gold.

And as if his towering accomplishments weren't enough, he still manged to show what sportsmanship should be all about in 2008 when, after his relay team mate Antonio Pettigrew admitted under oath that he had used performance enhancing substances throughout the late nineties and early twenty-first century, Johnson voluntarily returned his Gold medal won with Pettigrew and two others in the 4x400m relay at the Sydney Olympics of 2000. In an age where far too many are adopting a relaxed attitude to doping in sport, Johnson's gesture, to me at least, added to his greatness even more, if that were at all possible.

It's a terrible shame that, a certain Mr Carl Lewis aside, track and field athletes have often struggled to receive their dues over in the States, because in Michael Johnson they really did have one of the finest sportsman to have graced the planet. To me, Johnson is everything a sporting great should be.

Eddy Merckx- cycling- Championed by Mad for Chelsea

Eddy Merckx - or Edouard Louis Joseph, Baron Merckx to give him his full name - is undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time. Until recently, people talked of Lance Armstrong's achievements, but they pale to near insignificance besides Merckx's. Nicknamed ""The Cannibal"", he was cycling's last true great all-rounder: capable of winning bunch sprints (he won the Points jersey for the Tour de France on three occasions), he was also a great Classics rider, winning a remarkable 28 Classic races (as well as 3 world titles). Lastly, of course, he was a superb GC (General Classification) rider in the Grand Tours, equally dominant in the Time Trials and in the mountains.

Merckx began his cycling career as an amateur in 1961. He won 80 races as an amateur including the world amateur championships in 1964, before turning professional the following year. In 1966 he won his first big race, the Milan-San Remo classic. In 1967 he repeated the success and won two further classics (Gant-Wevelgem and la Fleche Wallonne), as well as becoming World Champion for the first time. 1968 was the year he won his first Grand Tour, the Giro d'Italia, in which he remarkably claimed all three main jerseys (the GC pink one, the King of the Mountains one and the Points one).

He continued to improve thereon, winning a further 4 Giro d'Italia, adding 5 Tour de France, and a Vuelta a Espana for good measure (the only time he entered the race) upto 1974. He managed the Giro-Tour double (a feat whose attempt saw Contador fail at the 2011 Tour de France) a stupendous three times. He also claimed the hat-trick of jerseys at the 1969 Tour (a unique feat) and added two further points jerseys in the Tour, one in the Giro, and a KOM jersey in the Tour. All the while he continued to add to his Classics tally, claiming at least three per year from 1969 to 1973 (including a remarkable 5 in 1973) and adding four more in 1975. He also added two more World titles in 1971 and 1974. In 1976 he won his final Classic, fittingly the Milan-San Remo (also his first) for an amazinn 7th time.

I won't bore you with the full statistical details of just how amazing Merckx's career really was, but here are a few chosen stats nonetheless, all of which are still records today:
- 28 Classics
- 11 Grand Tours: Tour de Grance x5 Giro d'Italia x5 Vuelta a Espana x1
- 34 stage wins in the Tour de France
- 525 career victories
- most days with the yellow jersey (GC leader) in the Tour de France (96).

I think that's enough to be getting on with. As I stated at the start, Eddy Merckx is undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time, and as such deserves a strong mention in this discussion.

Tough match! I'm going to have to think about this one.

Johnson..

Cant get round the fact that i feel merx is no different from armnstrong. So if we include merx why not include armstrong who I think was better!

Johnson for me. Question marks over how legite Merckxs achievements are with doping a major issue in cycling

Merckx, I suppose. Until we start stripping him of his titles, he's the best there ever was (much better than Armstrong, who can't touch the Belgian for Classics, nor won the Giro or Vuelta, nor wore all three major jerseys at the end of a single Tour de France), and that will have to do. Johnson the most dominant man over his distances in history, I would guess, and one of my favourite athletes. Hard, however to choose between him, Owens and Bolt at the top of the tree (or Lewis, who also has the drug shadow). Merckx is in a league of his own as far as cycling is concerned, and he'll do for me in this one.

Johnson, by a mile. Especially since I watched him in Atlanta, 1996. Thanks Chris, for the reminder and cleaning up the cobwebs of memory.

Johnson by a mile? He only ran 400m!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Johnson by a mile? He only ran 400m!

for the Silver Tongue, Julius.

merckx was the goat of cyclists but you could say johnson was a goat contender as well.
im going for the cannibal.

laverfan

Interested in why you consider Johnson as a mile better than Merckx.

To me it's a close match-up between two fantastic sportsmen who dominated their respective opposition in their time and discipline, but one I ultimately have to give to Merckx because of his versatility as a cyclist.

One thing that MfC's write-up of Merckx skips over is that up to the end of 1969 Merckx was virtually unbeatable when he put his mind to it (hence the overwhelming dominance of his debut Tour de France in 69, winning all three jerseys), but that he suffered a very serious injury to his lower back and pelvis in a crash during a 6 day race (a winter track event) over that winter. After that, his riding suffered because things never healed very well, leaving him with poor alignment of his hips and a habit of fiddling with his bike set-up to alleviate the pain. That he continued to be the best rider on the road, and won a further 4 Tours and innumerable other races subsequently, shows that he was one tough guy.

As for the concerns over doping, it is worth remembering that the peloton of the 60s and 70s was very different from that of the 90s / 00s - we aren't talking about the EPO era where doping makes a clear difference to performance, but where riders were taking things mainly for recovery. The first of Merckx's 'failed' dope tests is a notorious controversy, with the Giro organisers looking for a way of stopping Merckx winning their race (the Italians have a long history of such actions, varying from paying riders to stay away to actively sabotaging them on the road) and so a very dubiuous doping control was carried out. Merckx has always denied having any drugs in his system at the time of this control.

The second positive was for norephedrine, which was in a cough syrup given to Merckx by the team doctor, who admited to this being an act of carelessness - it's a product that has subsequently been removed then reinstated to the WADA banned list.

The third positive came late in Merckx's career (1977, his final full year) and is the one doping incident that Merckx holds his hands up to in that he was too trusting of the doctor - he was positive for an amphetamine-based stimulant, along with several other top riders.

There is no serious suggestion that Merckx dominance (which extended back to his amateur career, where he was world champion in 1964, and continued to 1975) was a product of doping technology.

laverfan wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Johnson by a mile? He only ran 400m!

for the Silver Tongue, Julius.

Difficult decision.
Both the G.O.A.T.s of their own sports (Johnson particularly in the 400m), but Merckx's legacy possibly tarnished somewhat by doping?
So I'm going for Johnson

mystiroakey wrote:Johnson..

Cant get round the fact that i feel merx is no different from armnstrong. So if we include merx why not include armstrong who I think was better!

sorry but this is just wrong. Armstrong's "achievements" pale besides Merckx's, there's just no comparison possible. Also, read dummy's excellent post about how different things were in the 70's/late 60's compared to the Armstrong era.

I don't mind people voting for Johnson, who was indeed an incredible athlete, but I think Merckx deserves this one, just. The greatest cyclist of all time by a considerable distance, and for me it would be a real shame if he didn't make the latter stages of the competition.

Trouble is, cycling has a small following in the UK and an even smaller following on these boards. Added to the fact that Johnson was more current and that the voting has (so far) mostly favoured the more recent athletes, I think Johnson will walk this one.

Very very sad and makes yet another reason to go seek out Armstrong and give him an almighty punch in the face... Through absolutely no fault of his own doubts are being cast over Mercx achievements because of the actions of a cheat 30 years later!!! Bizarre in a land where the justice system operates on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong Johnson was an amazing athlete and I applaud his achievements not least how he has managed to avoid the insinuations that are being levelled at Mercx. Wasn't Johnson around in the same era as Ben Johnson and the late Flo-Jo (didn't she die as a result of prolonged steroid abuse although was never actually caught).

I do believe that Michael was clean as I believe Mercx was clean and I think this contest should be judged on that level playing field. On that basis Mercx is the clear winner as he was indisputably the best cyclist that's ever lived. Johnson, although phenomenal doesn't however stand quite as head and shoulders above all other athletes. (Bolt? Lewis? Owens?)

Did Mercx not fail at least one test where he admitted to being on a banned substance but blamed a doctor? Ironically he was supportive of Armstrong pretty much up til the bitter end.

he failed a few i believe.

offcourse he was a supporter of armstrong. Just like Freddie star was a supporter of Jimmy Saville!!

The banding together of Armstrong/Mercxk is laughable. Armstrong has been officially stripped of all his titles, so his official record now puts even me level with him in terms of things won - hardly a GOAT then!

Mercxk's titles stand and always will. So he has to be judged on that not conjecture. As JAS says if you're getting into that you may as well say Johnson could have been doping giving the era he was around in.

That argument doesnt particularly work though when he has never failed a drugs test

Could have worded it better. I'm referring to basing our judgements on conjecture. Merckx's titles are there in the record books, judge him on that, not a handful of doping incidents that have had no bearing on said record.

Anybody who thinks Johnson is better than Mercks clearly know's nothing about him. Someone above thinks Armstrong is better than EM??

Clueless!

To add to that.....

This poll seems pointless because the majority of people voting won't have heard/known/seen/appreciated a lot of the sportsmen/women being put forward which means very biased voting.

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:That argument doesnt particularly work though when he has never failed a drugs test

Did Flo-Jo (same era) ever fail a drug test during her career?? Clearly she was doping but didn't get caught so you have to question the capability of drug testing in athletics in that period.

Treading a rather tricky line here as I in no way want to insinuate that Johnson was anything less than clean but by the same token, it is grossly unfair that Mercx is being tarred by the drugs brush when in reality there's more of a case for levelling accusations of PED use at Johnson.

Drug testing in athletics for years was woefully inadequate, who knows perhaps it was even open to corruption. Didn't anyone else find it strange how many east European athletes avoided being caught in the 80s/90s.

I'm not saying cycling had it right in the 70s either. Just trying to say that these 2 greats should be judged on a LEVEL playing field, not one skewed by recent high profile confessions which have NO bearing whatsoever.

I've gone for Merckx but with a heavy heart as MJ is a legend. But Merckx is for me the number one all time in his sport, I'm not sure that's the case with Johnson though he's in with a shout.

Flo Jo retired in 1988 when they were only tested in competition. Similar testing to what Merckx would have to under go. Random drug testing came in to effect in 1989 in Athletics. Surprise surprise Flo Jo decided to retire then...

So basically Johnson competed in a completly different era to Flo Jo in athletics and was found to be clean by a much more stringent testing system then Merckx ever had to compete against

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Flo Jo retired in 1988 when they were only tested in competition. Similar testing to what Merckx would have to under go. Random drug testing came in to effect in 1989 in Athletics. Surprise surprise Flo Jo decided to retire then...

So basically Johnson competed in a completly different era to Flo Jo in athletics and was found to be clean by a much more stringent testing system then Merckx ever had to compete against

The US doping agency was formed in 2000 because of a host of suspicious and hidden failed tests between 88-95.
But for what's its worth I think and hope MJ was clean.

JAS wrote:Treading a rather tricky line here as I in no way want to insinuate that Johnson was anything less than clean but by the same token, it is grossly unfair that Mercx is being tarred by the drugs brush when in reality there's more of a case for levelling accusations of PED use at Johnson.

Drug testing in athletics for years was woefully inadequate, who knows perhaps it was even open to corruption. Didn't anyone else find it strange how many east European athletes avoided being caught in the 80s/90s.

I'm not saying cycling had it right in the 70s either. Just trying to say that these 2 greats should be judged on a LEVEL playing field, not one skewed by recent high profile confessions which have NO bearing whatsoever.

How is that levelling more of a case at Johnson? He was around at a time when testing was better and it was harder to avoid detection.

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Flo Jo retired in 1988 when they were only tested in competition. Similar testing to what Merckx would have to under go. Random drug testing came in to effect in 1989 in Athletics. Surprise surprise Flo Jo decided to retire then...

So basically Johnson competed in a completly different era to Flo Jo in athletics and was found to be clean by a much more stringent testing system then Merckx ever had to compete against

That's fine SJE and as I've stated several times I believe Johnson was clean, the point I'm trying to get across is that it's unfair to tarnish one over the other given the eras they competed in. In reality athletics is no better or worse than cycling when it comes to rooting out drugs cheats.

If we start having to factor in the stringency of drug testing in different eras in order to make our choices then that's a sad day for sport. Getting back to the central point, Mercx achievements and dominance and the very nature of the events he competed and dominated at make him, for me a contender for the whole GOAT not just this round...and I'm not even a cyclist.

manos de piedra wrote:

JAS wrote:Treading a rather tricky line here as I in no way want to insinuate that Johnson was anything less than clean but by the same token, it is grossly unfair that Mercx is being tarred by the drugs brush when in reality there's more of a case for levelling accusations of PED use at Johnson.

Drug testing in athletics for years was woefully inadequate, who knows perhaps it was even open to corruption. Didn't anyone else find it strange how many east European athletes avoided being caught in the 80s/90s.

I'm not saying cycling had it right in the 70s either. Just trying to say that these 2 greats should be judged on a LEVEL playing field, not one skewed by recent high profile confessions which have NO bearing whatsoever.

How is that levelling more of a case at Johnson? He was around at a time when testing was better and it was harder to avoid detection.

Diggers put it quite succinctly at 4.09pm. And for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever I'll say for at least the 4th time I believe Johnson was clean, I just believe the same level of benefit of the doubt should be extended to Mercx.

JAS wrote:Treading a rather tricky line here as I in no way want to insinuate that Johnson was anything less than clean but by the same token, it is grossly unfair that Mercx is being tarred by the drugs brush when in reality there's more of a case for levelling accusations of PED use at Johnson.

Drug testing in athletics for years was woefully inadequate, who knows perhaps it was even open to corruption. Didn't anyone else find it strange how many east European athletes avoided being caught in the 80s/90s.

I'm not saying cycling had it right in the 70s either. Just trying to say that these 2 greats should be judged on a LEVEL playing field, not one skewed by recent high profile confessions which have NO bearing whatsoever.

Mj hasn't ever failed a test. Mercx has. and if he was today would be held accountable. Mercx clearly knew that Armstrong was up to yet backed him up in the media. It's simple from my pov.. Anyway neither will get past the next stage

Jas dude he was caught red handed so why extend the benefit of doubt

i have my doubts about how high the standard of cycling was in the 1960's and how much of the worlds population gave it thier intrest. for me to be the best cyclist back then wasnt no where near as hard as being the best 400m runner ever, what cant be doubted is johnsens standard within his sport, a sport which is open to all. as his world record in 400 still stands and only another phenom in bolt took his 200 of him.

400m is probally the second most competed event in athletics(is that a fair assement?)

so to still have that record is something else

Two genuine contenders for the title of GOAT so it's a shame to see them up against eachother at this stage but as a cyclist i've got to go for Merckx, he was and still is my idol, the man I looked up and hoped to emulate.

mystiroakey wrote:400m is probally the second most competed event in athletics(is that a fair assement?)

so to still have that record is something else

The marathon must be right up the these days.

I've gone for Merckx too but share Ghosty's feeling that these are two worthy contenders for the final title. So much so it's almost a flip of a coin for me.

Merckx wins it for me after a photo-finish.

Both he and Johnson were hugely successful but The Cannibal's enduring legacy just shaves it. His world wide reputation was established in the 1960s and has continued to endure, including in countries like our own where cycling has attracted little attention or interest until recently. I'm confident that Merckx's name will continue to be known and respected when Sir Wiggo and Dame Victoria are even unable to get a guest spot on 'Ant and Dec'!

I'd go for Johnson on gut feel just because 1996 Atlanta was one of the most memorable sporting moments for me, 400m and especially the 200m. He was so far ahead of the competition (who weren't at all bad). I hope he was clean...

The other reason to pick Johnson I reckon is that running is something done by everyone everywhere - if you're super talented as a youngster you're reasonably likely to get spotted. However cycling is far more niche. The total pool for Johnson to be compared with is far greater than Merckx ...

Johnson is the guy whom I idolized when I grew up, the very first time I heard his name i didn't even know which sport he belong too, there were days in my school hood we talked about the hero in Johnson and funnily still we knew nothing about which sport he belong too, I only started watching tracks just to see why this name getting pronounced everywhere.

Like Chris mentioned the man inspite of being a legend had such a positive attitude for the sport and the reality, certainly a GOAT contender and hence my vote.

I could never vote for a cyclist, theyre nothing but a mob of cheating druggies.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I could never vote for a cyclist, theyre nothing but a mob of cheating druggies.

And track and field athletes aren't?

To be fair, Johnson is one of the few top class Americans who I have no doubts over their cleanness - he has also quite a long record of speaking out against doping.