Which T&F athletes who retired 30 years or more could still medal against today's best?

'he was much faster than coe over both 800/1500 that day & wouda had no problem going 12-flat in a pathetic 3'38'

When did he ever finish that fast then, produce the stats

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'he was much faster than coe over both 800/1500 that day & wouda had no problem going 12-flat in a pathetic 3'38'

When did he ever finish that fast then, produce the stats

Exactly. He can't because there aren't any.

He has a limited grasp of the subtleties of language, and is confused over the difference between basic leg speed and speed endurance.

The argument could be made that if Coe could produce a 12.1 in a 3:38 in 80 when in 1:42 mid/3:30 flat shape, then it would have been quicker in 81 when he was in 1:41 flat/3:28 form.It would also possibly have been faster if he hadn't already run 3 rounds of the 800 and 2 heats of the 1500 first in the space of 9 days! But, he didn't so the only fact is that he ran a 12.1 at the end of a 3:38 and no one else has run faster in a 3:38 or faster race.

By the way, I met Coe at a book signing in Guildford 2 weeks ago and had the opportunity of a brief chat about his Florence run. Great experience.

Great, did he give any insights into his run?

Also that 3:38 was off a 2:05 1st 800m so the last 700m was unbelievable pace. It's not like they even pace the race at a steady pace then just kicked for 200m

Wonder what's happened with the Coe/Ovett film, heard there were delays

Flagpole's PRs:

800, 2:03

1 mile, 4:34

2 mile, 9:21

5K, 14:58

8K XC 25:15

10K, 32:25

1/2 marathon, 1:15

marathon 2:55

deanouk wrote:

Exactly. He can't because there aren't any.

He has a limited grasp of the subtleties of language, and is confused over the difference between basic leg speed and speed endurance.

Leg speed? Leg speed? Did you really just use the idiotic term 'leg speed'?

Perhaps you should really be concerning yourself with leg speed velocity. That's the most important speed. Just slightly less important is nose speed as well as thumb speed. Leg speed is WAY down on the list of important speeds for racing.

SPEED IS SPEED MORON!

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Great, did he give any insights into his run?

Also that 3:38 was off a 2:05 1st 800m so the last 700m was unbelievable pace. It's not like they even pace the race at a steady pace then just kicked for 200m

Wonder what's happened with the Coe/Ovett film, heard there were delays

I only got to ask him one proper question, as there was a long queue of people waiting behind me, although I guess there were several components to it. I basically put it to him my thoughts about the fact that as the Florence run was so early in the season (June 10) and that it wasn't a planned record attempt, he could have run faster had he chased the record later in 81 with the kind of regularity that Kipketer and Rudisha had. The first thing he confirmed, after I pointed out that he lost a couple of tenths just after the bell running wide to get past Konchellah, was that it was not a record attempt and he had no idea that Billy Konchellah was going to go off so fast. He said he just went with him once he realised it was a fast pace. I suggested that the 79 800 record in Oslo wasn't planned either, and he said, "No it wasn't," and then responded with "the best ones never are." He then made some comment about the problem with the timing equipment and asked me what the original time was. We agreed it was given as 1:41.72 but later rounded up to 1:41.73. He then made a joke about it being in Italy and Italian tracks being short.

I put it to him that with the above mentioned scenario (i.e, multiple attempts at the record in 81) he could have broken 1:41. He thought for a second and then said, "I think that's pushing it a bit. I could have run 1:41.2."

The last thing I asked was, 'Ok, 1:41.2 in 81. But what if you had been able to run on the new London track built for the Olympics?" He seemed not to have considered this, and then said, "Then yes, it would have been a few tenths faster". So I replied with something like, "well then, there's your sub 1:41."

My next question was going to be about his mileage, but unfortunately the person behind had already walked up to the table and so no luck with that one.

moron

no one is talking about '81

he ran a 12.1 in '80 when in mid-1'42/3.30.0 at best shape

the 1500 time has been demolished, & there are 1/2 dozen candidates who couda expect to match that achievement

your peabrain not comprehend that straub with a 3'33.6pb from previous year finished it in a 12.5 ???

what does your numbskull think a 3'26/3'27/3'43 guy wouda finished it in ???

idiot

you are dreaming

coe was NEVER in 1'41-flat shape in '81

you are the only idiot in the world who thinks this stat means something

no one bothers to even talk about morceli's sub-52 in a sub-3'33 which is a hugely more impressive achievement

deanouk wrote:But what if you had been able to run on the new London track built for the Olympics?" He seemed not to have considered this, and then said, "Then yes, it would have been a few tenths faster". So I replied with something like, "well then, there's your sub 1:41."

yeah

& then ask him his london time in a completely solo effort from gun to tape ( no billy to draft him )

oh, he never ran faster than 1'44 in his life in a solo run

ventolin^3:

Nobody doubts where you stand, and if I apply the tourette filter judiciously to your posts, I learn a lot, but have you recently considered whether you're actually accomplishing what you intend?

I'm going to borrow from an economist named Arnold Kling here:

"Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn’t you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn’t that sort of pathetic?"

Are you (a), (b), or (c)?

Deanouk -

thanks for reply. You gave me more info than I had anticipated. However I have read your postings on this and other forums over the year ... on various topics, quite a few on milers and various runner's splits etc. You have a formidable cache of knowledge - have you ever thought of writing a book on such? .... I'm serious

W. Mitty wrote:..I learn a lot..

take it

here is some serious in-depth cognitations on noah which are easily figured out from

his '99 1kwr/mile offer prelim best fit to 0.05s of

47.50 / 1'42.95 ->

2'11.89

3'26.55

3'43.23

then you rewatch races/examine circumstances/age/etc

that near perfect fit fit makes it all look fine

however

the 1k was run off tired legs with a 3'29.1 just 2/7 before, win in brussels - he was not rested in rieti

then the suicidal opening 400 in the 1k of 49.8

even out all the uneven 200 splits & you get ~ 2'11-flat/low

( & i didn't go anally retentive searching each 100 split, which is not reliable, but obviously gets it below 2'11 )

offer something for the 3'29.1 in his legs & you have to think at worst high-2'10 at worst in perfect race & rested

then think about his 3'43.4

at perfect even pace, that has to be near 3'43.0

then we get prelim

46.3 / 1'41.70 ->

2'10.79

3'26.16

3'43.05

however, then think of age

i don't think noah as a kid had done enough quality mileage to have been "fully developed" at mile

he maya been pretty developed at 800/1k, but mile is different proposition

my leaning is that he was a putative mile wr holder in '99 but his endurance wasn't fully developed

( like geb in '94 when he ran 12'56wr but in '95 ran 12'44wr - probably geb was capable of close to 12'50 in '94 but hadn't "matured" enough )

offering "putative" endurance, a more likely prelim estimate for '99 is

46.5 / 1'41.75 ->

2'10.71

3'25.66

3'42.44

at present, i reckon noah was a low/mid-46/high-1'41 guy in rieti but hadn't "filled out" to complete mile potential

however, the 800pd gorilla is 49.8 split & still hanging onto not just a semblance of an elite 1k, but 2'11.9wr !!!

we coud extend the 400 range to 46.0/high-45, but that is extreme conjecture...

48 years ago Mary Rand long-jumped a 6:76 WR in Tokyo (wind -1.6) while 6:89 medalled in London.

martin b wrote:48 years ago Mary Rand long-jumped a 6:76 WR in Tokyo (wind -1.6) while 6:89 medalled in London.

that woud offer her her a basic ( 0 wind ) on '70s synthetic track of

~ 7.17

[/quote]

take it

here is some serious in-depth cognitations on noah which are easily figured out from

http://www.jundo.co.uk

[/quote]

Thank you!

Vladimir Kuts, 1956, would have won the 5000m at the 2012 London Olympics.

Great stuff on Coe, Deano. I always assumed he was going for the record

Some like Ventolin cannot understand that a runner like Coe would be at the top whichever era he was born in. Whatever time it took he would have done it. As for those 3:26 runners maybe they should have been able to finish in 12 flat, but they never did.. and on faster tracks

no one wrote:

Deanouk -

thanks for reply. You gave me more info than I had anticipated. However I have read your postings on this and other forums over the year ... on various topics, quite a few on milers and various runner's splits etc. You have a formidable cache of knowledge - have you ever thought of writing a book on such? .... I'm serious

Hi. Thanks for message and sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

I don't think there would be much of a market for a book on split times unfortunately, although I do have extensive splits for most top 800 to mile races and hope to get round to putting them on spreadsheet and possibly internet at some point. For me the breakdown of splits within a race can tell us much more about an athlete's potential.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Great stuff on Coe, Deano. I always assumed he was going for the record

Some like Ventolin cannot understand that a runner like Coe would be at the top whichever era he was born in. Whatever time it took he would have done it. As for those 3:26 runners maybe they should have been able to finish in 12 flat, but they never did.. and on faster tracks

Good point. But he also ignores facts. He mentions that there are half a dozen athletes able to run 1:42.0 & 3:30.0, but then chooses to ignore the fact that Coe is the ONLY man who has actually broken both those barriers, and that was 30 years ago. None of those 3:26 runners did run a 12.0 last 100m in any of their races.

ventolin^3 wrote:

then think about his 3'43.4

at perfect even pace, that has to be near 3'43.0

Most of your comments above are exaggerated, but how on earth anyone with an ounce of knowledge of that run can bring it down to 3:43.0, is beyond me!

It was the perfect race for him. Not only did he have EL G pacing and drafting him all the way to the home straight, but his lap times were as efficient as it possibly could be in reality (as opposed to some laboratory scenario that doesn't exist), 55.9, 56.2, 56.1, 55.2. No tweaking or evening out splits is going to get it down a further 0.4.