Coe's last lap was 55.3 and the previous 400 was 58.7 in his 3:47.33 world record.
[/quote]
No, Coe's last 2 x 440yd splits in his 3:47.33 WR were 58.6 (not 58.7) and 55.4.
That is 58.3 and 55.1 for the last 2 x 400m equivalents.
Cram's last 2 x 440yds were 58.6 and 53.2, which is equivalent to 58.3 and 52.9 for the last 2 x 400m.
Therefore both Coe's and Cram's 3rd laps in their respective races were the same, 58.3 for 400m.
Coe's first 2 laps were very uneven - 55.3/58.0 for 440yds.
Cram's were almost identical - 57.2/57.3. Much more even paced.
Coe said in his biography that he was holding too much back on the last lap of that Brussels Mile, wanting to keep something for the last 100m. He added that had he 'gone for it at the bell', he would have run 3:46.5 that night.
I disagree. I seriously doubt Cram was ever capable of running a 52.4 first 400m (world record pace for 1000m), followed by 1:34.0 for 700 and 1:49.1 for 800 in a solo race with no lap times and hang on for a 3:31.9, which was only 0.6 off the then world record.
Coe and others have said that he should have run 3:28.0 that night with even pace to 800m, and I agree.
How is a 3:47.3, worth 3:30.5 for 1500m close to his limit if he run 3:29.7 (running wide on penultimate bend and with very uneven pacing) when past his best in 86?
As I showed above, Cram's penultimate 400m was not faster than Coe's in his mile WR, as you incorrectly claim. They were the same, - 58.3.
And I never even referred to Coe's Brussels Mile when comparing him to Cram's 85 form, so it's a moot point that you bring it up. I was comparing Coe's LA form in 84. Coe needed to run a 53 last lap in LA 84 to win, with lots left, he didn't need to run a 53 last lap in Brussels to win. As I said before, he only kicked in the last 100m to win in Brussels.
Yes, I agree that statistically a 3:46.3 with a last lap of 53 is better than a 3:47.3 with a last lap of 55. But that is looking at just 1 aspect of 2 different races when broken down, at you are presuming that Coe's 3:47 Mile was representative of the best he was capable of. I don't believe it was.
I would agree that overall Coe was in better form in 81 than 84, but his LA win and subsequent 1500 victory in Zurich (53.0 last 400m/12.5 last 100m in a 3:32.3) were actually more impressive statistically that his Mile WRs in 81. Just as his 3:29.7 in 86 was better than any time he ran in 81. That does not mean Coe was a better athlete in 86 than in 81, even though he ran more than 2 secs faster.
If you even out his splits in Rieti 86 (54.0, 58.0, 56.1, 41.6), take into consideration he ran 4m wide in total, had 500m without drafting before the bell, and eased off almost running into the back of Chesire at the bell, then his run was worth 3:28 flat. If he could do that when past his best at almost 30, then I don't think a 3:47.3 (=3:30.5 for 1500m) in his best year was close to his limit.
You are choosing to use 1 race of Coe's in 81, with a very different breakdown in terms of pace and with what was at stake, and comparing it to Cram's best ever run. As I have tried pointing out to you, Coe's 3:31.9 1500m, was far more impressive as a performance than his Mile WRs, when taken in context.