Coe's 1'41.73 shoud never have been ratified as an Auto-time !

It’s indicative that if we were to take Coe’s 1.41.73 out of the equation, totalling up his next 5 fastest times over 800 - they total up to only a tenth of a second faster than the total times of Steve Cram’s 5 fastest times over 800.

And Cram was primarily a 1500/miler.

true but that is side-issue

my feeling is that actually, cram's best distance was 800 but 1500 was glory event & so didn't bother much with 800

he even said he wished he'd run a few more 800s in '85 but wasted time on 1k & 2k when for his legacy he shouda gone for 800s

( 2k wr utterly worthless )

cram wouda been in trouble in a slow-paced 800 needing a fast last 200 or 100, but flat-out from the gun when just question of hanging on, he was an incredible talent !

whatever. the record's 1:40 now.

Agree. Italian corruption.

Agree with what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is, he ran 1:41.6 or 1:41.7 hand timed when no one else on the planet at the time had gone under 1:43.50. He was light years ahead of everyone at the time and that alone means we should respect the time and regard it as a WR (but then agree that Cruz equaled it with his 1:41.77).

I think you should spend more time looking in to Snell's 800m WR 1:44.3 (1:45.1 880y) and show me how the track was measured correctly and if the track had regulation markers on the inside lane (flags look to be on the inside of the whight line to me and that lasts straight can't be more than 60m long if you watch him come off the turn). His last 200m was 28.2 and that last straight took him about 8.1 sec to run.

http://youtu.be/5t4g9B5vBCE

cram's training did not really include the super fast 200s and 400s that would have been needed for him to maximize at 800m. In fact, he even trained for the mile with 57 repeats (on 60 seconds rest) when he was a 3:46 miler, where other top milers were pushing low 50s frequently. This was by design but it suggests there was definitely more there in the 800-mile.

Since you prefer to speculate. What kind of 800m do you think a 46.87 400m and 3.29.77 1500m runner could run?

sometimes can auto- timed not be same or less than hand timed ?

well , lucky that picked a race before jan 81' .

okay got years mixed up.

record was summer 81'

but what are photo cell timers in comparison to stop watch

that's why i said he maya struggled in a tactical 800 with a fast last 200 in say 25+ from the field

it however alters in no way that flat-out from gun, he was capable of an incredible 800 :

his zurich 1'42.88 was purely a tactical race on his part where he has stated he only had 1 ambition : beat cruz & a fast clocking wouda been nice bonus

he in fact ran ~ 5m extra on the bends in that race, which if route-1 wouda been 1'42-low & that still doesn't take into account the pathetic pace to bell

i groaned when i saw 50.6 on the clock when any seasoned observer expected/wanted 49-mid/high with cruz & cram right behind in sub-50

off a 49-mid/high for pacer with cruz/cram close behind, for a perfect route-1, i wouda expected cram to have run ~ 1'41-mid/high that day

his "lack" of 200 workouts didn't hamper his intrinsic flat-out from gun ability over 800

definitely

he wasted a race in that meaningless 2k & in his other runs, only the 1500wr had some decent pacing, but he looked in far better shape in his mile/800/1k runs

aduck2022 wrote:sometimes can auto- timed not be same or less than hand timed ?

there is a damn serious problem if that happens

aduck2022 wrote:but what are photo cell timers in comparison to stop watch

photo-cell NOT acceptable by the iaaf for ratification

this has nothing to do with his merits but acceptability for ratification

the hand times were 2 of 1'41.6 & one of 1'41.7

i have already shown in rono's 13'06.20 auto that hand-timing can be way out - in his race the 3 watches all showed 13'05.4 !!!

that is 0.8s discrepancy between auto/HT !!!

there are also other examples of huge discrepancies :

- ron in his epic 10k wr ( page 94 ) :

27:39.4 (27:39.0 - 27:39.4 - 27:39.6, electronic: 27:39.89) !!!

one watch is 0.89s out from auto-time !!!

- this one is very relevant as it 800 & 1y before coe's run : on page 267 :

1:54.9 Nadezhda Olizarenko (URS) Moskva 12.06.1980

this was warm-up meet for games :

Olizarenko 1:54.9 (submitted by the Soviet Federation as 1:54.9 and

ratified by the IAAF accordingly, the 3 hand held watches registered: 1:54.5 - 1:54.6 - 1:54.7, electronic:

1:54.85)

the 3 HTs are considerably faster than auto-time ( only the slowest one is acceptable ) with one being 0.35s faster than auto-time !!!

2 of the 3 hand-times in that race were nonsense

just this last example shows hand-times for 800 cannot be relied on as an accurate substitute for the auto-time which was lacking in coe's run

you have a point, considering that his time was matched many times after : Ryun, doubell & wottle

the main issue is that snell ran 1'45.1y ( all 3 watches ) & 800 time taken was 1'44.3 !!!

800m: 1:44.3

(1:44.2 - 1:44.3 - 1:44.4)

that is a tortuous 0.8s slowing in 4.6+m !!!

Ryun went 1'44.9y but no 800 time taken but standard 0.6s conversion gave him tie

then we have further example :

on page 206

2:02.0y Judith Pollock (AUS) Stockholm 05.07.1967

(all 3 watches 2:02.0, 800m: 2:01.1)

that's a 0.9s difference when maths says 0.72 is expected !!!

my problem with snell's run is mostly with timing, albeit he ran it on a grass track, allegedly of 385y, which is 352.044m which woud be way illegal nowdays

( it has to be 400m obviously )

the other problem with grass is that you can roll-it so that it can end up virtually rock-hard ( likely hugely illegal for iaaf 65% energy return limit ) making the WACA pitch look like a dusty featherbed in bombay !!!

So Ryun's 880 hand timed run on synthetic could have been 1:45.7, also 0.8 sec out?

That means he didn't actually equal The WR.

You display a persistent undermining of anything Coe did.

At the end of the day there is a video of Coe's run and anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to use a stopwatch can see that his run was way under 1:42. I got 1:41.5 & 1:41.6 when timing it. It is hardly his fault there was a fault with the timing, or are you that paranoid you think he went there especially because he knew the timing would be faulty?

Where is the video of Ryun's 880? Your blind faith that this run must have been perfectly timed is further evidence of bias.

Coe also ran 2m extra on 3rd bend and had no one pushing him on 2nd lap. In my book that makes it marginally superior to Cruz's run, in which he had more pacing and company up to 700m.

Kipketer's photo-electric cell time was 1.41,74. And the photo showed

it was 1.41,73. Same could have been in Coe's case if there had

been one. Both cell times showed between 1.41,720-1.41.730 for Coe.

The main thing is, that in Florence race the clock was activated by starters

gun and stopped by Coe's upper body crossing two light beams. It is highly

unlikely, that his photofinish time would have been outside 1.41,71-1.41,74.

explain how they arrived at 1.41.73 .

if photo cell timers were times given

then what are these hand timed 1.41.6 1.41.7

Total rubbish. You don't get any idea of the length of the straight or bends from that video.

much appreciate, link to iaaf's conclusion on how arrived at 1.41.73

struggling to find.

aduck2022 wrote:

much appreciate, link to iaaf's conclusion on how arrived at 1.41.73

struggling to find.

You do realise the internet wasn't quite as popular back then?