Sebastian Coe teenage years

jklhhkhgfdh wrote:

Get More Real Real wrote:

...One thing for sure, he didn't get laid as a teenager.

I hope not.

He made up for it once he was married though.

captain and me wrote:

I Disgree Deano - I think he did start the strength work when he got to Loughborough (Fall '75) and that is in part why he made the 800m breakthrough (1.47 in '76), and kept so doing through to '79 and the 1.42.3. I would believe that Peter embraced the strength work as somewhat of a missing piece of the puzzle, and something he had limited knowledge and experience in, so left it up to Gandy to help in that direction - with Seb away at school anyway.

Secondly, who says he didn't do any specific 800m work prior? according to what is published in BTfDR, he did sessions that I would call 800m centric, just not at the expense of other development (multi-pace).

Hi. I wasn't claiming to be correct, I was just putting forward a possible scenario. Yours could just as likely be the case.

I did find a few extracts that might add a bit more light on the matter.

Coe jnr definitely started Loughborough Uni in October 75 (P.62, "Running My Life")

'The previous season, 1976, in which Seb and his coach had decided that they must move away from the 5000m and concentrate on basic speed, Seb was running experimentally in the main.' (David Miller, P.42 "Running Free")

Now, that could mean (likely in my opinion) that they made the decision at the beginning of the season (winter 75/76) to focus more on 1500m, which he ran at the OLympic trials that year. Or it could mean that they only decided towards the end of the season.

Of August 1976.... 'I won, and easily, with a time of 1:47.7 - three whole seconds quicker than at Loughborough (N.B. cinder track). From being a good county-standard runner when I'd arrived that morning, I'd set off back across the Pennines with a time that propelled me to the fringes of international competition........sitting in companionable silence with my father. Not till we reached the Snake Inn did he even speak. "I think we might just have found your distance (meaning the 800)." ' (P.70-71, 'Running My Life')

To me that means the focus towards 800m must have come in the winter of 76/77.

He goes on to say a few pages later,...'That autumn (76), back in Loughborough, I worked on building up my body strength and conditioning. This was now embedded in my weekly programme and, under George Gandy's guidance, I had become quite a confident weightlifter, lifting many times my own body weight. I was also training with sprinters on the synthetic track at the Harvey Hadden sports complex in Nottingham. (twice a week). ' (P.75)

My interpretation is that he joined Loughborough in autumn 75, did some weights and conditioning under Gandy's guidance with a view to running mainly 1500s in the summer of 76, bit with a view of doing a few 800s to help with his 1500 ability. Once he ran that 1:47, realising he had more basic speed and 800 potential than expected, a decision was made to up the weights, conditioning and incorporate more sprinting throughout the entire year, wit a view to running more 800s in 77. But I still believe the long term goal at this stage was the 1500m (in Moscow).

Coe did an interview with Athletics Weekly (Jon Wigley ) at Xmas 1977, which appears in full in the 'Coe & Ovett File'. I think some of his responses in this also back up what I have outlined above.

JW: - IN November 1976 you raced indoors over 600m (1:19.7). Was that a deliberate start to a racing programme that you planned or was it just a test of speed?

SC: - I really had been trying out a new approach to the winter (76/77) un that I was wanting to work on the leg speed during the winter for the outdoor races the following season. I was doing a lot of sprint work under G. Gandy with some of the Loughborough University sprinters - Steve Scutt,.....We just wanted to see what kind of effect this sort of speed work has. I was doing lots of repetition work - 150's, 200's - things like this, plus weights training and circuit training - I'D STARTED THAT SERIOUSLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

JW: - What sort of training were you doing at this time (European Indoor Champs, March 77)?

SC: - Mainly 300's and short sprint work with George Gandy at Nottingham. Certainly not time trials as was reported and not 400m - I very rarely did 400m in training at that stage anyway. A typical session was 10 x 120m and rolling off the next 180m from the bend, just jogging back down the straight for recovery. I ran a 23- something 200 in one session with George (N.B. compared to 21.7 he ran in 81) .... The majority of the sessions were geared to speed. Even the steady distance was a bit faster. The runs were not as long but the mile pace was faster. I was only doing the one session a day. Tuesday and Thursday I was doing track work and the rest of the week was 5-6 mile runs plus weight training and circuit training. I was trying to get one run a week of 10 miles but I didn't manage that every week because of the racing, but that was usually a Sunday.

JW: - What sort of potential do you see at 1500?

SC: - THE BASIC REASON I CAME DOWN TO 800 WAS TO WORK ON THE LEG SPEED FOR 1500 AND THEN 1500 OR ANYTHING ABOVE - who knows what it will be. I've come down distance from cross-country, 3000 track, 1500, right down to 800, and I'm planning to do some 400's this (1978) season. I'm sure when it's time to move up again, having a good grounding in 800 running can only be to my benefit. I don't think you can make a great separation between 800 and 1500. You can no longer go up -distance to hide from speed...... In 1976 I was running 3:42 for 1500 and I ran the Emsley Carr mile in 3:58 (actually it was 3:57), so I left the 1500 with fairly good times and a European Junior medal. Obviously when I go back to it I'll be that much faster and stronger, with the psychological advantage of knowing I can run sub 1:45.

Check your school sic, library for bound back issues

of Track & Field News (TF&N), they used to publish

yearly synopsis on featured athletes.

is this a joke ???

it is completely absurd to claim accuracy from a vid to 0.1s ???

laughable

only such an afflicted individual woud try to claim legit time from a vid !!!

to claim accurate timing from a vid is nonsense !!!

you can't even see the starter fire the gun, so on top of timing nonsense, no way of knowing if this race was false-started

this was mandatory auto-time era from 1/1/81

HT not acceptable for wr purposes

the nonsense of HT in that era can be seen from women's 800 wr set in '80 by olizarenko in moscow warm-up meet for games with auto 1'53.85 but with HTs of 1'54.7, 1'54.6 & 1'54.5 !!!

one HT was 0.35s off auto-timing !!!

& this was year when only HT was legit & woud have best timers available as warm up for games & 1 HT was 0.35s off !!!

it beggars belief how far off the HT couda been for a mickey-mouse meet in firenze !!!

is this a joke ???

there wouda been NO official timekeepers as this was auto-time era from start of year

they may have been part of meet set-up but they had NO "official" status as only auto-timing acceptable from start of year & only that submittable, but it didn't exist !!!

& as olizarenko's run shows, HT couda been 0.35s out !!!

iaaf wr book of '15 of hymans expresses incredulity at the timing fiasco, which coe will obviously have removed from next edition

in kondrateyva's "10.87" in leningrad in '80, hyman's comments :

"Three types of timing device - hand timing, automatic timing and a photo-electric cell device were in operation at this meeting. The automatic timing was not used as the film did not develop properly, and so times were taken from the photo electric cell device. As IAAF rules required a photofinish to be submitted, the Soviet federation did not submit the mark for approval as there was no photo (a similar occurrence the following year did not prevent the approval of Sebastian Coe’s 1:41.73 WR). The 10.87 was nevertheless accepted as a USSR record"

no

it was 1m

is this a joke ???

no auto timing & with HT that coud be 0.35s out in top meets all on mickey-mouse 6 lane track in unknown meet !!!

try more like 1'42-flat on a zurich in perfect race with auto-timing

at oslo another mickey mouse 6 laner

oslo had built up huge reputation but it was a nonsense track

it didn't even have the finish line at end of the straight !!!

i have read that it was joke 105/95 track when iaaf rules today say track has to be minimum 110/90

illegally long straights for today's rules !!!

huge help for distances of 800 & above, probably helping a 800 by 0.5s compared to gold standard 116/84

the "great" oslo track was joke !!!

it was a speed-skating track !!! with an athletics track shoved on top !!!

because of it's absurd dimensions, oslo in '60/'70'/'80s was never legit to hold highest standard meets such as a european championships or world championships & that's why those calibre of meets were never run on it which oslo musta prayed for, to be exposed on grandest stage for a full 1/52+

now oslo has proper 8 tracks & more or less 116/84 dimension track & it is rubbish for clockings !!!

oslo is worst meet for clocking nowdays on diamond league since it has got neutered to a standard 116/84

manangoi, the WC ran some 3'34 rubbish on it this year & he lost to a brit who didn't even make final in london coming 8th in semi !!!

no

the nonsense 105/95 dimensions helped 800 by ~ 0.5s from estimates i've done, compared to gold standard 116/84

coe's perfect run that day in zurich with ideal 0.5s slowing 200s wouda been

~ 1'42.5

is this a joke ???

it was about 9m extra & repeated analysis of vid shows no clashing of elbows with jones

total figment of imagination

coe shoud be damn happy that jones was exhausted by trials solo'in 1'43.7 !!! after rounds !!!, seeing as coe never broke 1'44 solo !!!

jones in trials was 1'42-flat/low shape in a 1-off & if not for exhaustion of trials, he wouda won silver

is this a joke ???

name 1 serious race of bolt's where timing broke down ???

to compare coe to bolt on any level is utter nonsense !!!

he was breaking wrs in major championships !!! always with full auto-timing & of course running clock

jklhhkhgfdh wrote:

Get More Real Real wrote:

...One thing for sure, he didn't get laid as a teenager.

I hope not.

That was my question, too. Who knew the little fella would grow up to be a horn dog.

captain and me wrote:

I Disgree Deano - I think he did start the strength work when he got to Loughborough (Fall '75) and that is in part why he made the 800m breakthrough (1.47 in '76), and kept so doing through to '79 and the 1.42.3. I would believe that Peter embraced the strength work as somewhat of a missing piece of the puzzle, and something he had limited knowledge and experience in, so left it up to Gandy to help in that direction - with Seb away at school anyway.

Secondly, who says he didn't do any specific 800m work prior? according to what is published in BTfDR, he did sessions that I would call 800m centric, just not at the expense of other development (multi-pace).

In The Perfect Distance p 77, it says Gandy would not initially have a great deal to do with Coe. Therefore did not start weight work in fall 75, and performance of 1.47.7 was not due to weight work in the winter before.

The year before the 1.47.7. Coe ran a 36.2 300m and a 8.14 3000m and a 3.45 1500, but only a 153.8 800. He was capable of running sub 1,50. So the 1.47.7 was not a breakthrough, merely continuing the progression.

The question to ask is why had Coe run so few 800s in his junior career, why had Coe, throughout his junior years (until 19), run so poorly over 800 - even compared to 400m/300m times. Why did he very rarely race 400m. Why, when you have a slow 800m PB and you have just run 36.2 and 8.14, not run an 800m?

Read my summary on page 3 of his race selection as a junior.

I initially wondered why Australians were so poor over 800m (for 35 years), found data to back that up, then thought of reasons for it and possible solutions. Then really took a good look at Coe's background/racing as a junior and it appears to me, he developed speed and endurance but not speed endurance. He rarely ran 800m. Big focus on 1500 3000 cross country - opposite to Australian juniors middle distance runners.

Why do you even bother to read a thread on someone that you persistently criticise, belittle and show disdain for? It beggars belief that you should spend so much time and write so much on someone who you cannot stand! Very bizarre behaviour.

No one is interested in your biased and inaccurate nonsense, because you have proved time and again that you are unable to give a detached appraisal of the subject matter.

The IAAF "Standard" track of 116m curves is now the only configuration that can be used for MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS. That does not mean that meets of elites at International level have to take place on such tracks. Many meets over the decades have taken place on 'Non Standard' configuration tracks. Times set on such tracks are legitimate, legal and ratified by the IAAF.

Maintaining that an 8 lane track with 116m curves are the only recognised tracks of true fans is nonsense. Otherwise you are claiming that all track enthusiasts from the 50's, 60's, 70's etc are not true fans, and times set on a wide variety of differently configured tracks during those times are not legitimate, including most of Ryun's performances that took place on 440yd tracks. You can't state that only a standard track will do and then cherry pick which anomalies from the past are exempt and which aren't!

Here are extracts from an Official 'American Track & Field Track Facilities Resource Guide 2008' published document which might serve to educate you a bit on this issue and the dichotomy of which you cannot grasp.

"Sure, two different facilities may be perfectly acceptable for competition, but that doesn’t make them identical. Why? Because depending upon the area available, the sports field(s) to be accommodated and other factors, the track designer has the option of several different track configurations. These days, one of these designs has moved to the forefront in terms of preference according to the American Sports Builders Association.

That design, the non-equal quadrant track, has two equal curves and two equal straightaways that may be either shorter or longer than the curves. The International Amateur Athletic Federation

(IAAF) specifies a type of this track (often referred to as the “international standard track”) that has straightaways of 84.39 meters and measure line radii of 36.80 meters. This type of track is found in many competition facilities and, if the site permits, will be the track of choice in many cases, particularly for multi-use facilities..........As to track, its WIDER RADIUS FAVORS runners, ENHANCING their performance...............

The equal quadrant track consists of two straightaways of 100 meters each and two curves of 100 meters each. Previously, this design was popular, so popular that many considered it the only way to build a track. It has fallen out of favor, however, according to track professionals.

“The equal quadrant track is INFERIOR for several reasons,” says Brett T. Long of Brett T. Long Landscape Architecture in South Lake Tahoe, CA. “It doesn’t accommodate a full soccer field and THE LONG STRAIGHTS AND TIGHT RADIUS TURNS ARE NOT OPTIMAL FOR TRACK COMPETITION."

The equal quadrant track also presents safety concerns, claims Peter J. “Duffy” Mahoney of USA Track & Field in Indianapolis, IN, since “the narrow radius of each turn makes the turns/track slower due to centrifugal forces acting on the runner moving around the turn, as well as contributing to possible injuries to the legs of the runners due to forces acting on them as the runner moves around the turn.”

According to Patrick Maguire of the Boston, Massachusetts–based firm Stantec, with the use of a track with a wider radius, “the entire track facility is improved. Not only does it allow for a wider internal field with more breathing room on the sidelines—very important for soccer and women's lacrosse—it also makes for a faster track as runners are able to maintain greater speed around the wider turns.”

"Although the international track may be preferred, there are limitless other configurations that would provide a functional, LEGAL facility."

“There is no incorrect track configuration as long as it meets the requirements of the association whose rules will govern its use,” says Ron Nemeth, a retired track builder and former athletic director. “Is the equal quadrant track wrong? No—it is simply outdated. Is the IAAF track more correct? No—it is simply more important to the development of not only facilities to meet the needs of owners of multipurpose sports venues, but also the development of its athletes in meeting their full potential. Will change occur again? Most likely, but don't let that influence your decision today.”

The three sentences are worth thinking on. If the preferred configuration for IAAF Championships were to change in the future, should all performances that are currently set on the "Standard" track configuration be dismissed as irrelevant?

The other important consideration is that the older "Equal Quadrant" tracks are clearly stated as being slower for the athletes.

https://www.sportsbuilders.org/press/track_facility-08_lores.pdf

There have been many world records set on 6 lane tracks, and there is nothing in any document published by the IAAF that states times on 6 lane tracks are not acceptable.

"Running tracks can have a variable number of lanes (typically from four to nine) and, in accordance with IAFF requirements (International Association of Athletics Federations), each lane is 1.22m wide."

Number of lanes are irrelevant and a total red herring. The only prerequisite is that it is a 400m track and the lanes are 1.22m wide.

Likewise, no IAAF rules state that tracks have to have 'standard' 84m long straights and 116m curves for record purposes.

Moreover, scientific testing on tracks with longer straights and thus tighter bends, shows it is actually a disadvantage to athletes and slows them down.

Even if the old Oslo track was of a different configuration to the current "standard" IAAF ones, that does not make them illegal nor faster. There were many tracks of different configurations being used in the last century, and any records set on them that were ratified by the IAAF made them legal.

"Although the IAAF standard track is the norm for track dimensions, the IAAF accepts other tracks. One type of track is the equal quadrant track, which is a 400 meter track with 100 meter bends and 100 meters along each straightaway, measured along lane 1."

“We choose the equal quadrant track (to test) because before the IAAF standard track became so popular, the equal quadrant track was preferred. However, today THE STANDARD TRACK is by far the most widely used design for a number of reasons, including A WIDER TURNING RADIUS that favors runners and ENHANCES PERFORMANCES, ….”

When comparing times for equal quadrant and standard tracks in windless conditions over 400m, “The final TIME in the EQUAL QUADRANT track is 0.06 seconds SLOWER than the IAAF standard track simulation, due to the SMALLER RADII on the bends. This causes the runners to spend more time on the ground than in the air, which increases their time. An equal quadrant track has longer straights than the IAAF standard track, which gives the runners on an equal quadrant track an advantage to be able to run faster on the straights. However, THIS DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGE THAT THEY HAVE ON THE BENDS.”

MICHAEL FRANTZ PHD - Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Department of Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science, University of La Verne, California.

So that would assume that Coe's run on the tighter bends of Oslo would make his 800m performance at least 0.12 secs faster on a current standard configuration athletics track. And that isn't taking into consideration the improvements in surfaces since the 1970's.

So you are totally wrong in claiming it made times faster. It would have been the exact opposite, if indeed it even did have longer straights and shorter bends than the 'current standard' configuration.

As for the timing in Firenze, there was an article in AW (26.1.1985)which stated categorically that the IAAF were perfectly justified in ratifying Coe's run in Firenze. It was written by Bob Sparks, President of the Association of Track and Field Statisticians, member of the IAAF Press Commission and renowned for unearthing and correcting thousands of fully-automatic photo-finish times, chronicling every sub-four-minute miler, and who played a key role in the input to the formulation and adjustment of the IAAF Scoring Tables of Combined Events.

He wrote, "The IAAF delegates responsible for the approval knew that the time was not obtained from the conventional photo - finish camera, but they considered that the system used was equally efficient in producing a time to the required standards of accuracy."

"The facts are as follows: -

1) The photo-finish film was fogged and unreadable, as a result of accidental mixture of developer and fixer in the development chamber of the camera.

2) Independent AUTOMATIC times were obtained from two digicron timing devices. The timing system in the digicron unit is activated by the starting gun, as with the photo-finish camera. Times are registered when a photo-electronic circuit at the finish line is broken; the times are displayed on a linked printer (rather than electric scoreboard) thus producing a PERMANENT RECORD.

3) There were 2 digicron units. The photo electric circuits were installed in parallel (one for each unit) at heights of 119cm and 127cm.

4) The times recorded were 1:41.727 and 1:41.724 respectively ( only 0.003 difference). The official winning time was announced as 1:41.72, but the IAAF subsequently corrected this to 1:41.73. (as the average of the 2 times would be 1:41.7255)."

5) The time recorded by the official back up timekeepers was 1:41.6.

Whatever way you look at it, he certainly broke 1:42.0 in Florence on a ratified track with automatic timing that was activated by the starter's gun and registered by 2 photo-electric circuits at the finish. Moreover, none of this was any of Coe’s fault.

From the IAAF Technical Guide Book: -

2.2 Facilities for Track Events

Although there are a number of different layouts for the 400m oval track, it is IAAF’s objective to create uniform criteria, not only with a view to improving the performance parameters necessary for equal opportunities for all athletes and for the suitability for competition but also to simplify the principles of construction, surveying and certification of facilities. Experience has shown that the most suitable 400m oval tracks are constructed with bend radii of between 35m and 38m, with an optimum of 36.50m. IAAF recommends that all future tracks are constructed to the latter specification and this will be referred to as the “400m Standard Track”.

This means that the IAAF have been in the process of establishing as many ‘Standard’ track configurations, as of when this was written, as new ones are built, to make it more suitable for all athletes. It does not state that those without a radii bend of 36.5m are illegal!

2.2.1.1 Layout of the 400m Standard Track

“The 400m Standard Track has the advantages of a simple construction, straight and curved sections of almost equal length and uniform bends which are most suitable to the running rhythm of athletes.”

That means ALL athletes, including those who run 800m.

“All lanes have a width of 1.22m ± 0.01m. The 400m Standard Track has 8, 6 or occasionally 4 lanes but the last is not used for international running competition.”

That means that a 6 lane track can be used for international competition.

Coe ran 10m extra in the LA 800 final, and he had 150m of partial drafting. Cruz ran 7m extra on bends.

Coe spoke about clashing elbows with Jones twice in the home straight in the interview after the race, and it was shown clearly from a front on camera angle in the replay. Haven't you watched every elite 800m over the last 40 years? If you didn't see this that is your loss. It is no figment of the imagination. You just haven't done your research thoroughly.

It cost Coe 2m and a closer finish to Cruz.

Thanks for the info Deano. The bottom line is, either by design or not, the futire 800m champion is best advised to focus on pure speed and pure endurance, and avoid lactic work.

said88 wrote:

On my site you will find some of his early races, maybe this is some help for you:

http://thegreatdistancerunners.de/

This list is absolute garbage. Only 1 American (on the 'honorable mention' list)? Kiss my red, white, blue, and hairy ass.

Jockey Sized wrote:

xcvxcvxcvx wrote:

Just before his 20th birthday, he ran major pr's of 1:47.7 800m and 3:58 mile.

Prior to that year, you would not have considered him that great a prospect by present American hs standards. I had a teammate who broke 1:55 as a sophomore at 15 or 16 years old back in the '80s. Coe didn't show a huge amount of talent. Loughborough and its strength coaches and their steroids (Loughborough scientists at that very time were running experiments with steroids) must have made a huge difference.

Coe weighed 112 pounds in the Euro '78 800 final. Those must have been some faulty steroids.

That's an interesting observation because the anabolic steroids at that time, specifically the mid to late 70s caused immediate weight gain and weren't particular useful for middle distance runners. The early steroids were basically the same ones given to race horses. By the early to mid-80s, the formulations and dosages were figured out and adapted for middle distance. Coe's potential was evident in his teens, he had good raw speed, he trained really hard and his training logs are a clear indication of his capability and his career progression is not that abnormal. It's unlikely Coe was on anabolic steroids prior to 1980, blood doping is a greater possibility. If you take the totality of everything we know about Coe, even if you add in the rumor and innuendo, in my mind, there really isn't enough to suspect Coe was a doper.

With all of that said, the Brits had a front row seat to witness the success the Scandinavians where having with blood doping and the Soviet Bloc with steroids. The Brits were not oblivious to doping and there is evidence that it was part of the Brits consciousness and even perhaps experimentation.

Coe went to Loughborough in 1975.

He was due to graduate in 1978 but deferred this until 1979 because he was facing his first major outdoor championship in 1978 European and did not want this to clash with 'Finals'. 1979 was a fallow year in the championship calendar.

Also the list of races in "Seb Coe: Running My Life" is incomplete. I know that on 5 March 1977 he ran the 800m leg for Loughborough in the AAA Indoor relays (800/600/400/200). He ran 1:51 in the final and there were heats. It may be that he ran 600 or even 400 rather than 800 in the heats.

no

i analyse

if rubbish posted about aggrandizing, i offer reality

means nothing to me as much as Ryun/Big-Man/Kip/Cruz/Kipkurgat/etc

no interest

delusional

eh ?

you posted total joke above

now we have even more nonsense below

yes

no

they have to

116/84

or nonsense track

nonsense clocking

is this a joke ???

laughable !!!

when has zurich or koln or stockholm or london or rome been outside outside of 116/84 ???

any meet in last few decades outsida 116/84 is nonsense meet

nonsense, worthless tracks

laughable !!!

is this a joke ???

ratifying clockings on mickey-mouse 6-laners ???

utter joke !!!

when is a WC or OG going to be run on a 105/95 ???

how about WC or OG on a 6-laner ???

is this a joke ???

you dare to claim that generation+ of standard design of 116/84 legitimises nonsense 105/95 of '70s of oslo ???

is this a joke ???

i have no interest in ancients, only in it's value for ~ 116/84

i deal with dirt/synthetic later

is this a joke ???

iaaf said nowdays 110/90 minimum

oslo was illegal, total nonsense 105/95

oslo hugely beyond variation of any other track

what is this nonsense ???

what track dimensions are you offering ???

are they nonsense, illegal 105/95 of oslo ???

offer them !

is this a joke ???

i'm happy with 116/84 with 114/86 to 118/82

i'm not interested in nonsense tracks now or ever, hugely outside iaaf mandate to serious meets of

116/84

unfortunately, you are not really gifted to understand the importance of

116/84 v 105/95

latter wrecks 200/400 !!!

but swings around hugely for 800/1500...

learn physics

116/84 has evolved 30y ago to become most fair overall for 200 - 10k

no

it's nonsense

learn some logic

do you think widening radius leads to continued quicker ???

do yo have no clue about overall clockings for 400 - 10k ?

you seem to forget that the more straight you have the more advantage you have for 800m & above providng radius is not absurdly small

utter joke ???

what is this nonsense track ???

tell me when we see it on diamond league ??

what is this nonsense ???

it's

~ 116/84

or nonsense

the guy makes no specification for 200m or 10k races where there are different centrifugal forces

what is this nonsense ?

it's

~ 116/84

or nonsense

tell us when iaaf change config from 1166/84

that has been config for decades now

until it changes, your point is worthless

if after '68, they are nonsense

8 lanes or nonsense

is this a joke ???

it's 8 lanes or more

anything less is nonsense track

no serious outdoor track has 6 lanes anymore

is this a joke ???

you expected Big-Man to run 1'40.91 on a 4 laner ???

what is this joke ???

utter joke

it indicates kicka-ball stadium

illegal straights/bends from track stuck onto kicka-ball stadium

is this a joke ???

do you have any clue about iaaf regulations ???

what part of minimum 110 did you not comprehend ???

can't you comprehend basic laws ???

minimum iaaf radius is 35.00

is this a joke ???

only 116/84 has been acceptable for decades

nonsense 105/95 was joke in '60s, it is joke now

is this a joke ???

how would a 1/199 track be quicker than 116/84 ???

it was & it was nonsense

105/95 is hugely illegal under current rules which mandate miimum of 110/90

the reason such a limit was introduced is obvious

it aids clockings for 800 & above !

no

it makes them both

if Big-Man had run exact same WR on oslo '70s track, i'd expect his clocking to have been ~ 1'40.4 ???

not anymore

all serious tracks who ever dream to hold a WC or OG are ~ 116/84 with little variation

no 116/84, no serious track

you seem to be ignorant of fact that most of last century iaaf was no more than a stamping-body, which cared nothing more than rubber-stamping any meet which proferred some semblance of a clocking

it even ratified stepanova's incredible 52.94wr which was set on a 398m track !!!

iaaf was utter nonsense back in last century !!!

this is most absurd nonsense ever posted !!!

show me a serious meet on an equal quadrant track ???

albeit oslo close at 105/95

show me an equal quadrant track anywhere in the world today ???

the minimum iaaf radius is 35.00m, which means semi-circle of 110m, which means 100m bend is illegal

learn basic math

moreso, tell us when a quadrant track has ever held a diamond league or WC or OG ???

when is it going to ???

no

it's nonsense track & illegal by iaaf rules

learn 35.00m minimum radius

oslo had nonsense illegal 33.4m radius

this superficially impressive paper turns out to be virtual garbage on detailed inspection

little/none of the work is original

the 2 authors culled equations from previous papers & input equations into maple

the crucial aspect for all this is angle of inclination of torso on bend, which they mention once & at best culled from a guy who did video camera research on a standard track

they don't mention this angle

they make absolutely no mention of what this angle is on an equal quadrant track, mainly because there are NO equal quadrant tracks to do research on

if they dared post nonsense that they made an estimate for the angle on an equal quadrant bend, it is utter nonsense !!!

even more damning is their conclusion that an equal quadrant track is only 0.06s slower for 400 compared to a 116/84

johnson holds oslo track record in 105/95 days, close to 100/100 of equal quadrant & he ran 43.86 when chasing wr at every opportunity

in gothenburg, after rounds, he ran 43.39 !!!

a whole 0.47s quicker !!!

that makes their conclusion of 0.06s difference an utter nonsense !!!

the angle of inclination changes hugely from a 100/100 or 105/95 track to a 116/84 for 200 or 400 to 800 & 1500 & 5k...

it wrecks 200 lesser amount the 400 because of lessening speed around the bend which is cubic force factor & by 800 has swung big-time in favor of faster 800 time due to much longer straights to run on & more trivial disadvantage of tighter bends because of much less speed on bends decreasing centrifugal force handicap which is related to cube of speed

is this a joke ???

you understand nothing about physics

the centrifugal forces are related to cube of speed

they are hugely less in a 800 race than 400 one as one is at ~ 8m/s & other at ~ 9m/s

also that 0.06s figure is nonsense as johnson's 43.86/43.39 showed

coe was helped by probably about 0.5s in oslo

if he'd run exact same race on a 116/84, it wouda been

~ 1'42.8+

is this a joke ???

iaaf have mandated 65% energy return for decades

how does a track break the law of physics & be quicker than legal, which has been rule for decades ???

no

the main paper you presented is nonsense

no angles of inclination stated for 100/100 or 116/84, no calculations involving these shown

there 0.06s difference is nonsense considering 43.86/43.34

no

learn physics

the centrifugal forces are huge on tight track for 200, lesser for 400, much less for 800 & upwards

itight tracks change from wrecking 200, less so 400, to aiding 800 & up by serious amount

no

oslo had 105/95

that laughable track didn't even have the finish line at end of the straight !!!

mickey mouse speed skating track with athletics track foisted on top

why was oslo never mecca for 200/400 ???

is this a joke ???

there was no phot0-finish so therefore NO legit auto timing

what is this unearthing nonsense ???

either you have a photo finish to submit or you don't

you don't dig it up in a field ?!

what is this correcting nonsense ???

all it takes is for someone with 20/20 vision to examine a photo-finish pic & determine when torso crosses line

a HS kid coud do that

chronicling every sub-4 miler is monkey-work, nothing but compiling

adjusting scoring tables is little more

any free computer program, even excel will do it to assign 2 standard deviations to top-100 performances in each of the events

it's nothing more than HS statistics

a joke

to infer that sparks was doing rocket science is laughable !!!

utter nonsense

the rules have not changed

no photo-finish pic, no auto-time clocking

it;s laughable to consider that the official woud even contemplate his timing equipment was inadequate

the official didn't own the equipment

bottom line :

since 1/1/81, NO photo-finish pic, NO legit auto time

coe's firenze submission was illegal & nonsense

even before considering mickey-mouse unknown meet, mickey-mouse track & laughable 6 lanes !!!

nonsense proferrence

no pic, no auto-time

this all indicates damn cheap, worthless meet with no $$$ to spend, buying/borrowing/begging for cheapest equipment available & it showed !!!

coudn't even afford a working photo-finish !!!

worthless clocking

NOT auto-time & not legit

the reason for requirement off pic is so that any fractional movement at finish line from officials or spectators or anybody opposite of timing device couda triggered timing device

it means photo-cells couda been triggered many tenths before coe crossed the line !!!

that is why photo-finish pic is mandatory, as it shows athlete with clock to 0.01

firenze offered none

no photo finish pic, meaning movement opposite timer couda triggered device hugely early

as for timers, it's laughable !!!

not legit

olizarenko's 1'54.85 had one HT of 1'54.5 !!!

all this on proper OG track let alone mickey mouse firenze !!!

nonsense

no way at all we know he broke 1'42

olizarenko's run with best timers available showed HT can be 0.3+ out

nonsense ratification

no chance firenze submitted any ratification when built to iaaf

i doubt iaaf even had a track-ratification body back then

they don't now !!!

iaaf were just rubber-stamp body back then

no involvement in track certification at all !!!

with no photo-finish, this is NO auto-timing

it's nothing better than a casio 0.001 stopwatch !!!

bottom line

NO photo-finish pic NO legit clocking

no one said it was

just that in his main event, i amongst many hugely waited to see him run similar later in year in his main event

he coudn't even break 1'45 !!! in a 800-only race !!!

firenze clocking of little value

is this a joke ???

it means 36.5 +/- a meter may be just about acceptable

iaaf are NOT experimenting with tracks

it is 120+y of the sport & the tracks specs are settled on

it's 116/84

nonsense 105.95 of oslo are illegal for today's rules & joke times run on them, hugely aiding 800 & above

is this a joke ???

no specific 200 or 400 or 800 or 1500 or 10k mention

200 guys benefit from huger bends

did you not comprehend blake off crap RT running 19.26 on 120+ bend of brussels ???

is this a joke ???

when was 6-laner last seen on serious tv meet ???

6 lane is utter joke

mickey-mouse track stuck around kicka-ball pitch or even worse, skating rink !!!

no

it was 9m

& that's generous

no

he had ~ 175m of partial/full drafting

he had ~ 100m of quality drafting when converted

& he gets virtually 0 drafting from small guy ahead !!!

then yo never fail to mention his stumble at 24+ into race where he lost a step, splayed his arms out wide

that alone cost coupla tenths

why do you not mention any of cruz's problems ???

is this a joke ???

i have watched it numerous times over many years

there is NO elbow clash with jones, not even once

coe is talking nonsense

just making excuses

how about cruz getting baulked 24+ with his arms splayed out ???

why is this never mentioned by you ???

cruz was in incredible shape in games

even after flu, he ran 2'14-flat virtually solo !!!

then 2 more incredible runs in zurich/belgium within days with poor drafting/wide running

he ran utterly incredible 1'41.77 in lon just 44 hours after brussels !!!

if he had run koln fully rested, no 3 previous runs & ignoring flu handicap, cruz in koln shouda run at worst

~ 1'41-flat !!!

well, apart from full vid of nairobi runs of Big-Man & Kip's 1'42-low in tokyo, yes, i've seen all the 800s i woud wish, albeit caballo's 1;43.44 in 100F i didn't see on tv at the time

i seen most every run i wanted to in synthetic track era, most of them live on tv or satellite at time or youtube

you didn't

no

no elbow clash seen at all

laughable

i watched these races live on tv as grown man then spent $$$ on satellite for '80/'90s/'00s to see runs such as hicham's 3'26-high in rieti off incredible 2'44+ split when on course for 3'24+

races you never seen in your life, just read about

is this a joke ???

non-existent elbow clashes cost coe :

0m

cruz ran brutally fast rounds, coe didn't

cruz got baulked at 24+ in splaying arms out wide, costing him 2m there from loss of momentum/speeding up

a genuine 2m loss, not a figment

cruz bossed this race

coe in his trademark limpet-pathetic style of "draft the big man" tried to hang on & got blown away

cruz was in

1'41-flat

in koln if skipped brutal 3 runs past week & fully rested

he was quantum leap better than coe coud ever dream of...

LOL. Better late than never.

You are like a stuck record. I (and other posters) offer actual published stats and literature from a variety of official documents and sources to back up our arguments, but all you can reply with is your normal, 'Is this a joke?" No, they are not jokes but extracts from published work.

The IAAF state that tracks do not have to be 8 lanes or the standard configuration for record purposes. If you cannot understand this, then that is your problem.

Studies have shown that a track with longer straights and shorter, sharper bends are a disadvantage to athletes, all athletes. It doesn't specify which events. I suppose you think it slows down women running 200 and 400 but helps women 800 runners too!?

If you cannot comprehend that or offer alternative published data to the contrary, as opposed to just blurting out, 'Is this a joke?' then again, that is your problem.

You are suggesting that all these published stats are wrong and that you are right, with nothing to back it up. This is arrogance beyond belief

Which was the last piece of your ramblings that were published? Please outline your list of work in the field of science or athletics!

You have been wrong about Kwemoi, Kiprop, Korir, Murphy, to name but a few, this year. Your analysis is woefully far-fetched and your predictions are almost always wrong.

I will listen to and read accounts of the experts and people on here who know what they are talking about, not someone who is incapable of admitting when they are wrong, and is always changing their mind about things.

calculo wrote:

is this a joke ???

ratifying clockings on mickey-mouse 6-laners ???

utter joke !!!

There have been many world records set on 6 lane tracks

if after '68, they are nonsense

8 lanes or nonsense

and there is nothing in any document published by the IAAF that states times on 6 lane tracks are not acceptable

is this a joke ???

it's 8 lanes or more

Why are less than 8 lanes acceptable up to the end of 1968 but not after?

Which published rules by the IAAF stated this as the case?

Could it be something to do with the fact that Ryun ran some of his best times on tracks that had less than 8 lanes?

- like the Dusseldorf 1500, which had 7 lanes?

- or the 3:33.1 1500 WR, which also had 7 lanes?

- or the Kansas Relay track where he ran a 46.9 relay leg in 66, which you claim is evidence of 44 flat ability, which had 6 lanes?

Surely these races and the times set on them are also nonsense?

"In 1975, Coe experienced a stress fracture and took time off from training. In the fall of that year, he enrolled at Loughborough University in Leicester. His father asked the coach, George Gandy, to help Coe with weight training and to get him on the track team, running the 400-meter race."Another post indicated that weight training at Loughborough was the key to his development. His times, simply put, were not that impressive until after that point. He was doing a great deal of high quality work and we do not know what he was running above and beyond that as later in his career he let far lower totals be reported than apparently he was actually running, as in the Canova story of his running 30k in 1:40. Coe's junior times pre-Loughborough were markedly worse than the better American junior times. Even 3:45 at 18y pales in comparison to 3:55 or 3:53 miles; indeed, it is slower than Ryan Hall ran (3:42.7).When he was 18, Coe won the 1975 Northern Counties under-20 3,000 meters. This victory and others led him to be chosen for the European junior championships in Athens, where he won a bronze medal and set a personal record for the 1,500 meters. His father realized that Coe needed to add strength in order to have a strong, fast finish. Coe used weight training to build up his strength for that final kick. In 1977, the family made an unusual decision: instead of pushing Coe toward longer and longer distances, they would concentrate on shorter distances, where Coe had much more potential.

Jockey Sized wrote:

xcvxcvxcvx wrote:

Just before his 20th birthday, he ran major pr's of 1:47.7 800m and 3:58 mile.

Prior to that year, you would not have considered him that great a prospect by present American hs standards. I had a teammate who broke 1:55 as a sophomore at 15 or 16 years old back in the '80s. Coe didn't show a huge amount of talent. Loughborough and its strength coaches and their steroids (Loughborough scientists at that very time were running experiments with steroids) must have made a huge difference.

Coe weighed 112 pounds in the Euro '78 800 final. Those must have been some faulty steroids.

I never realized Coe was unable to win Olympic Gold over 800m.

Does anyone know what happened? Twice? Wasn't he the WR holder?

kljV wrote:

I never realized Coe was unable to win Olympic Gold over 800m.

Does anyone know what happened? Twice? Wasn't he the WR holder?

Poor trolling effort Ventolin

Rieti also had only six lanes for Daniel Komen's 7:20.67.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6gLVIAXWQo

is this a joke ???

utter drivel !!!

are you blind &/or stoopid

vid shows 8 lanes !!!

utter drivel !!!

are you blind &/or stoopid

vid shows 8 lanes !!!

it even has lane 8 marked !!!

shot yourself once more in foot

mickey-mouse oslo of 6 lanes

mj ran 43.86 there & same year won gold in 43.39 !!!

so what does that tell you about Ryun & 44-flat ???

you want to try again for 6 lanes & 400m ???

no

utter nonsense is that you got dusseldorf & coliseum WRONG as non-8 lane tracks

it is so crushingly humilating an embarrassing post, anyone with fraction of self-respect woud never post here again !!!

utter total absurdity !!!