Sebastian Coe: 1984 Olympic 1500m

Residual follow on - not so.I don't wish to embarrass a friend but I think the i think the images speak for themselves.http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ6JxIVh4YH2ZHN3anEzMl8zM2RtcWZkY2Z4&hl=en

middle distance wrote:

On my copy I see 3:06.7, 3.19.8 (both 3:19.7 and 3:19.8 appear on screen as he is above the line almost simultaneously) and 3:32.4/3:32.5 (as above).

There appears to be a residual follow on of about 0.1.

So I would think it would be 3:06.8, 3:19.9, 3:32.5, giving splits of 25.7 and 12.6/12.7.

But what's 0.1 between friends!

And there wasn't 2 sebs at the finish - there is something white permanently on the infield (it just looks like a british runner)

Hilarious!

Middle distance is also right.

Even on the distorted images you've so painstakingly reproduced for us, his torso hasn't reached the line at 3:19.6, and he appears to be above the line on both the 2nd and third images (3:19.7 and 3:19.8). I see you haven't taken a subsequent one at the finish when he's on the line, but rather one just before it. On my copy it shows the clock still at 3:32.4 then goes straight to 3:32.53 without showing 3:32.5. Practise with the slow mo freeze frame button.

Whether you add on the 0.1 or not, his last 100 is still 12.7 (3:32.5 - 3:19.8).

Quibble over 0.1 if you will, but the fact remains it was faster than what you originally posted.

I said 3.19.7 - and I agree that the book I read with 13.04 is wrong. He ran a 12.8 last 100.I am glad you were amused.

epopians wrote:

Hilarious!

Middle distance is also right.

Even on the distorted images you've so painstakingly reproduced for us, his torso hasn't reached the line at 3:19.6, and he appears to be above the line on both the 2nd and third images (3:19.7 and 3:19.8). I see you haven't taken a subsequent one at the finish when he's on the line, but rather one just before it. On my copy it shows the clock still at 3:32.4 then goes straight to 3:32.53 without showing 3:32.5. Practise with the slow mo freeze frame button.

Whether you add on the 0.1 or not, his last 100 is still 12.7 (3:32.5 - 3:19.8).

Quibble over 0.1 if you will, but the fact remains it was faster than what you originally posted.

[quote]mid distance runner wrote:

I said 3.19.7 - and I agree that the book I read with 13.04 is wrong. He ran a 12.8 last 100.

I am glad you were amused.

[quote]

No, he ran 12.7 at least for the last 100m. His torso is STILL clearly directly above the line at 3:19.8 and the line is completely in the middle of his stride at this point. That's regardless of whether or not there is a residual follow on. You can always find more than one stationary image with the same time shown if you rewind and fwd it enough. Just like you can get almost 2 identical images showing times separated by 0.1 if you rewind and fwd to get it just so.

I don't know how to create web links of still photos, but looked at race earlier and when Scott passes the 2 lap marker (800m) his torso is in line with the start line at 1:56.7, before the clock stops at 1:56.81. At 1200m Abascal is in line with the running clock at 2:53.1, before it flicks on to 2:53.21. So there's 2 examples of a residual 0.1 follow on. You showed one image of him less than 1m from the line with 3:32.4 showing. I've tried it out and there's also one as his torso touches the line showing the same time, as it ticks over to 3:32.53.

If you take the residual follow on which is definitely there in several instances during the race, then his last 100 "could" be as fast as 12.6. I choose to err on the side of caution.

If you choose to take the former time shown on the line in the first instance and the latter time at the end of the race to make you feel better and validate your initial incorrect attempt to be a smart alec, then good for you.

ventolin^2 wrote:

epopians wrote:If Ovett had been healthy, maybe the race would have been slightly different over the last lap. With the positions they were in with a lap to go, I think Ovett would have got by Cram in the last 100, but he sure as hell wouldn't have beaten Coe that day, even at his absolute best of 1980.

ovett was NOT at his absolute best in '80

anyone who watched his career from '76 onwards knows the best form of his life was in '78 when he ran 1'44.09 in a tactical & overly fast 1st lap 800 & 8'13.51 when just shadowing rono & kicking off him - couda gone at least a coupla secs faster if rono had had the energy that late in the season ( 8'13.5 is =~ 7'37.0 with 1.08 conversion & rono ran a -ve split 7'32.1wr earlier )

Oh he wasn't was he! And that's a fact is it, because you say so?

So what if he ran 1:44.09 and 8:13 for 2 Miles in 78. You think he couldn't have done so in 1980 or 79?

Anyone running 1:45.4 in an Olympic final with laps of 54.9/50.5 and a last 200 of 25.0 is certainly capable of sub 1:44 that year.

Yes, he was great in 78 (79 and 81 also), but 80 is the year he broke the 1500 and Mile records.

Ovett himself actually regards 81 as his best season if you have ever taken the time to read his book.

What stood out to me was Scott going hard from 8th to first with 1000m to go.

Looked like a Webb move.

Too much effort early and way too much time for the field to react.

I was impressed as can be by Coe's race. Nothing to add to Zatopek's wonderful comments.

But I think we should not forget Cruz was at his best too.

His last 100 of the 800 was blinding. And that was a great field too.

It was easily my favorite and most memorable race as well. Coe's journey represented my first (and only) brush with Olympic greatness.Prior to the LA games, Coe travelled to Illinois and stayed at the home of legendary coach Joe Newton of York High. As primarily an 800m runner at York, I was absolutely awestruck. Over several weeks, our team had the privilege of watching Coe train, even getting the thrill to hold the stopwatch and call out times on his 200m rep workouts.The best part was that he truly was a total gentleman. He took the time to chat us up, answer our questions, and even pretend that he was impressed with my 800m time. A world-class athlete, preparing for his defining Olympics, and he was incredibly courteous to a bunch of dumb teenagers. Needless to say, he won us over as fans.Three of us went to LA to watch the 800m final where he finished second to the great Joaquim Cruz. We were crushed. However, a week later, we were all screaming and yelling at the tv for that 1500 final. That race, more than anything else, has made me an avid follower of track and field for the last 25 years.

"middle distance" is pulling the semi-strawman act. If you read statements from El G's coaches, they trained him to be able to up the tempo over the last 600 to 800 to counter the Europeans who liked to wait until the last 100 - 300. They named Coe as the top example of the man who would wait until the homestretch, and Steve Ovett who at his best would blast off over the last 250. I think it was a good move on their part. If you have a slow race and wait until the last lap you are setting things up anyone to win in some cases.

As great as Coe was, he certainly never approached Morceli in finishing speed over a full last lap. Look at the number of races between 3:30 - 3:32 that Morceli finished up with 51 second last laps. Coe was a different type of runner. Morceli and El G were finishing up 1500 world records with 53 plus sec last laps, running sub 3:30 with routine 53 and 54 second last laps.

The only time I've seen problems with split times is when officials walk in front the 'beam' or place their hand in front of it. The most notorious is the idiot doing that in a race where Jeremy Wariner ran 43.6. The fool broke the line so the clock read something like 40.5 for the finish which would be one hell of a run, not to mention impossible. Even for Sebastian Coe.

I've seen the infamous Ryun race from Dusseldorf, I wish someone would release it now that we have Youtube. It's bizarre to see someone run away from the rest of the field like that. He almost doesn't look human, more like a robot. I saw it when I worked for ABC years ago, so I know they have it in the Tape Vault with some other cool stuff that never sees the light of day, like footage, not the whole race, of Herb Elliott running 3:36 back in 1958. Of all the old time runners, I think Snell in the 800 and Ryun in the 1500 could have been competitive with runners from the 1980's up to today. They certainly had the talent. Probably Ron Clarke too, but he'd still be kickless.

I would note that El G actually ran the full last 800 in his Olympic win in 1:46, in a faster race than Coe's 1980 win, which was impressive with Straub showing his best form ever trying to burn off the British runners. I always thought that was a better win in terms of the competition than Coe's win in 1984, despite the field. Ovett was in top shape, and he came off the final curve and found out he was a very tired runner as he put it, adding that he tried his best. Straub did what he had to do and Coe lived up to his potential. Coe's problem in the 800 was letting the race go out slow. I believe he only made up .1 on Ovett in the homestretch, and that's because he had a target. It's hard to beat anyone who's finishing up with a 50.6 or so last lap.

By the way, ignore Ventolin. A few guys here have "ventilated" him as they put it, making quite a fool of him and his ridiculous material.

There's a book by Cordner Nelson and Roberto Quercetani that has decent info on splits, although some numbers are juxtaposed are mistyped. For instance, they have Ryun running a final 1320 in 2:48.7 in his world record 1500, but the final 1320 was actually 2:47.8. They have a few other mistakes like that in the book or are guessing some splits based on video which is hard to do, which they do for example in Coe's final world record in the mile. His last 200 is listed as 27.1, but I timed it faster than that. But I'm timing something from video so what I clocked him at means nothing. He certainly looks like he's running faster. His last 100 in that race was very fast. I believe the book by the pair has Coe finishing up in L.A. in 13, but I'd have to go dig the book up to check.

I don't know which race you're speaking about with Aouita running the last 100 meters in 11.8 unless it's the race where he almost caught Cram when both broke 3:30. I think they originally had Aouita at 11.7 and Cram at 12.2. Cram's last lap was a scorcher at 53.2 and Aouita blazed an even faster 52.5. I remember being amazed that Cram was able to find something over the last few meters and hold on, it's obvious he was surprised to all of a sudden see the Moroccan right next to him with a few meters to go. Having a target will make you run faster. I don't think Aouita running 11.7 or 11.8 is unbelievable if someone is crediting Coe with 11.8 or 11.9 with no target but the finish line. I can only go by an old tape I have or what's been on Youtube. If Cram is running in the 12's, which it certainly looks like he did, the Moroccan is running faster.

Great post GoCoe.

I know it's going back a long time, but can you remember roughly) any of his times in training?

By the way, interesting article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/sport/sportslife/6416398/Sebastian-Coe-and-Michael-Johnson-my-first-Olympics.html

He won a ho hum race against a weak field in slow time, big deal.

This is the stupidest comment I've seen on this site in months--equivalent to saying that the earth is flat and that pigs fly.

Zatopek's comments are right on the mark--and capture what nearly all of us (real fans) thought at the time. The '84 1500 was one of the greatest championship 1500s ever run--and it ensured Coe's historical stature.

quote]Sebastian Coalminer wrote:"middle distance" is pulling the semi-strawman act. If you read statements from El G's coaches, they trained him to be able to up the tempo over the last 600 to 800 to counter the Europeans who liked to wait until the last 100 - 300. They named Coe as the top example of the man who would wait until the homestretch, and Steve Ovett who at his best would blast off over the last 250. [/quote]I have no idea what the "semi-strawman act" is! Is it an American saying?I understand what you're saying and agree that the Moroccans had the right idea. However, to be fair to Coe, he didn't need to go from 500m out to win a race when he was at his best. He had superior basic speed so used that advantage by leaving it to the last 100m. The only time someone tried to run a long way from home was Straub in Moscow. It doesn't mean that Coe couldn't have run a 51 or 52 sec at the end of a 3:32 or faster race. It just never happened. I would think had Abascal run the penultimate last 200m faster in LA, Coe would have run 52 something. The reason EL G went so early (and Cram to a lesser extent) was because there were faster finishers in many of his races, and the whole ethos was different by the late 90's. If it were a Championship race he knew he had to go far out and even on the circuit he was always interested in the time.

Sebastian Coalminer wrote:

As great as Coe was, he certainly never approached Morceli in finishing speed over a full last lap. Look at the number of races between 3:30 - 3:32 that Morceli finished up with 51 second last laps. Coe was a different type of runner. Morceli and El G were finishing up 1500 world records with 53 plus sec last laps, running sub 3:30 with routine 53 and 54 second last laps.

See previous comments. As you pointed out, they preferred different tactics. On the other hand, Morceli and EL G didn't approach the speed Coe produced over the last 100m in some of his races.

Sebastian Coalminer wrote:

I believe he only made up .1 on Ovett in the homestretch, and that's because he had a target. It's hard to beat anyone who's finishing up with a 50.6 or so last lap.

Yes that's right, but Coe had run in lane 2 on both the last 2 bends and thus covered about 6m further than Ovett before they even reached the home straight. Coe's last 400 would have been sub 50 had he run both bends on the curb.

quote]Sebastian Coalminer wrote:"middle distance" is pulling the semi-strawman act. If you read statements from El G's coaches, they trained him to be able to up the tempo over the last 600 to 800 to counter the Europeans who liked to wait until the last 100 - 300. They named Coe as the top example of the man who would wait until the homestretch, and Steve Ovett who at his best would blast off over the last 250. [/quote]I have no idea what the "semi-strawman act" is! Is it an American saying?I understand what you're saying and agree that the Moroccans had the right idea. However, to be fair to Coe, he didn't need to go from 500m out to win a race when he was at his best. He had superior basic speed so used that advantage by leaving it to the last 100m. The only time someone tried to run a long way from home was Straub in Moscow. It doesn't mean that Coe couldn't have run a 51 or 52 sec at the end of a 3:32 or faster race. It just never happened. I would think had Abascal run the penultimate last 200m faster in LA, Coe would have run 52 something. The reason EL G went so early (and Cram to a lesser extent) was because there were faster finishers in many of his races, and the whole ethos was different by the late 90's. If it were a Championship race he knew he had to go far out and even on the circuit he was always interested in the time.

See previous comments. As you pointed out, they preferred different tactics. On the other hand, Morceli and EL G didn't approach the speed Coe produced over the last 100m in some of his races.

Yes that's right, but Coe had run in lane 2 on both the last 2 bends and thus covered about 6m further than Ovett before they even reached the home straight. Coe's last 400 would have been sub 50 had he run both bends on the curb.

Lol! Thanks for that. I'm glad others feel the same way about him. I thought he'd gone away for good this time. I don't mind so much what he puts, it's just the rudeness which is unnecessary.

Yes I have that book too. Called "The Milers". It's a great reference book, but as pointed out on here by several people, there are mistakes in it.

I've mentioned the Ryun anomalies before with other posters. And what they have for him in their book doesn't always correspond with what I've read in other books. Hence what many have been talking about on this thread.

Coe's splits for his Mile WR (Brussels) do not match what the clock shows. They do correspond with the 100m split times published by L'Equipe (French Sports daily) at the time. They were shown in AW and appear in "The Coe & Ovett File" book. His last 200m was 26.9, last 100 13.1 (given as 13.2 in The Milers).

The last 100m given for LA is also wrong. See posts on thread above. Wiki gives it as 12.7, I see it as 12.7, someone else sees it as 12.8!

Yes, it was the 3:29.67 Nice race. And the 11.7 (or 11.8) is completely wrong and accepted as wrong by the IAAF and all other statisticians. Someone thought the line as they entered the straight was 100m from home, but it was the 90m line. The IAAF "Progression of World Records 2007" book has Cram's last 100 as 13.7 and Aouita's as 13.3. But as we've found out from above posts, you can't always believe what you see in books, incl this one. When I looked at the race on my tv, even though tenths aren't shown on the video of this race, I believe their splits were slightly faster. You can do a frame at a time and work out roughly what each tenths looks like in terms of distance covered. I calculate Aouita's to be 13.1/13.2 and Cram at 13.6. The IAAF book also gives 0.9 between the two of them with 200m to go (26.8 C-25.9 A), which to my eye doesn't seem right. There doesn't seem to be as big a distance between them as that. Cram's time seems correct from video playback, but I can imagine Aouita's time was more of a guesstimate. Looks more like 26.1 to me. They were actually closer together at the bell, and I have their last laps at 53.4 for Cram, 52.9 for Aouita. Whatever, there will be debate as to which are correct, but the last 100m by both men were certainly outside 13 secs. So NO, Cram wasn't running in the 12's and neither was Aouita. NOR the 11's.

quote]Sebastian Coalminer wrote:"middle distance" is pulling the semi-strawman act. If you read statements from El G's coaches, they trained him to be able to up the tempo over the last 600 to 800 to counter the Europeans who liked to wait until the last 100 - 300. They named Coe as the top example of the man who would wait until the homestretch, and Steve Ovett who at his best would blast off over the last 250. [/quote]I have no idea what the "semi-strawman act" is! Is it an American saying?I understand what you're saying and agree that the Moroccans had the right idea. However, to be fair to Coe, he didn't need to go from 500m out to win a race when he was at his best. He had superior basic speed so used that advantage by leaving it to the last 100m. The only time someone tried to run a long way from home was Straub in Moscow. It doesn't mean that Coe couldn't have run a 51 or 52 sec at the end of a 3:32 or faster race. It just never happened. I would think had Abascal run the penultimate last 200m faster in LA, Coe would have run 52 something. The reason EL G went so early (and Cram to a lesser extent) was because there were faster finishers in many of his races, and the whole ethos was different by the late 90's. If it were a Championship race he knew he had to go far out and even on the circuit he was always interested in the time, rather than just winning against a classy field as Coe and Ovett used to. It was very rare, even in record attempts in the early 80's, for the leading protagonists to be on their own from the pack with a lap to go (usually because the pacing had been so erratic and crap!). So, time and time again, Coe and Ovett would just be content to sit at the front of the pack and wait until the last 100m.

See previous comments. As you pointed out, they preferred different tactics. On the other hand, Morceli and EL G didn't approach the speed Coe produced over the last 100m in some of his races.

Yes that's right, but Coe had run in lane 2 on both the last 2 bends and thus covered about 6m further than Ovett before they even reached the home straight. Coe's last 400 would have been sub 50 had he run both bends on the curb.

Lol! Thanks for that. I'm glad others feel the same way about him. I thought he'd gone away for good this time. I don't mind so much what he puts, it's just the rudeness which is unnecessary.

Yes I have that book too. Called "The Milers". It's a great reference book, but as pointed out on here by several people, there are mistakes in it.

I've mentioned the Ryun anomalies before with other posters. And what they have for him in their book doesn't always correspond with what I've read in other books. Hence what many have been talking about on this thread.

Coe's splits for his Mile WR (Brussels) do not match what the clock shows. They do correspond with the 100m split times published by L'Equipe (French Sports daily) at the time. They were shown in AW and appear in "The Coe & Ovett File" book. His last 200m was 26.9, last 100 13.1 (given as 13.2 in The Milers).

The last 100m given for LA is also wrong. See posts on thread above. Wiki gives it as 12.7, I see it as 12.7, someone else sees it as 12.8!

Yes, it was the 3:29.67 Nice race. And the 11.7 (or 11.8) is completely wrong and accepted as wrong by the IAAF and all other statisticians. Someone thought the line as they entered the straight was 100m from home, but it was the 90m line. The IAAF "Progression of World Records 2007" book has Cram's last 100 as 13.7 and Aouita's as 13.3. But as we've found out from above posts, you can't always believe what you see in books, incl this one. When I looked at the race on my tv, even though tenths aren't shown on the video of this race, I believe their splits were slightly faster. You can do a frame at a time and work out roughly what each tenths looks like in terms of distance covered. I calculate Aouita's to be 13.1/13.2 and Cram at 13.6. The IAAF book also gives 0.9 between the two of them with 200m to go (26.8 C-25.9 A), which to my eye doesn't seem right. There doesn't seem to be as big a distance between them as that. Cram's time seems correct from video playback, but I can imagine Aouita's time was more of a guesstimate. Looks more like 26.1 to me. They were actually closer together at the bell, and I have their last laps at 53.4 for Cram, 52.9 for Aouita. Whatever, there will be debate as to which are correct, but the last 100m by both men were certainly outside 13 secs. So NO, Cram wasn't running in the 12's and neither was Aouita. NOR the 11's.

OOPs. Don't know what happened there!? Meant to press Preview I think.

Apologies!

Wow, just amazing, coe was class.

X-Runner wrote:

What stood out to me was Scott going hard from 8th to first with 1000m to go.

Looked like a Webb move.

Too much effort early and way too much time for the field to react.

It wasn't a spontaneous panic move. He and his coach planned on this dumb tactic for months. He was going to make sure the pace was honest and not leave it to the last 400 with everyone bunched up together and fresh like in Helsinki.

The 1500 is too short a race to drop anyone without any help. His move was definitely strong but to break the field and gap them at that point he would have had to run a 55 instead of a 57. Everyone just slipped in behind.

I guess El Gerrouj basically did this in Athens but Scott wasn't prepared. Would have been interesting to see how that race would have developed had he not pushed the middle. I guess track history fans should thank him for making thatone of the greatest championship 1500's ever.

I find it amazing that everyone else is wrong, every statistician. Only middle distance is able to ascertain the correct splits in critical races, everyone else be damned. Now I don't have access to the splits for all the races mentioned, but I can watch the videos. Aouita is flying as he tries to catch Cram in their historic race. He was certainly under 13 seconds over that last 100 meters. I will agree that Aouita was closer than .09 with half a lap to go. He and Cram were close coming up on the bell, then Cram moved out early as he usually did when he was in top form. Aouita had unbelievable range. I never thought I would see it again until Alan Webb showed range almost as good. But so far Alan has proved to be a mental case.