Coe Ovett Cram videos

ukathleticscoach wrote:

deonouk What about 1984 I still think if Coe had got closer to Cruz or headed him he could have run him closer -maybe he was not in 800m shape to do that? I think as his main rivals where at 1500m he geared up for that (+ he'd missed training) - Cruz came out of nowhere to suprise him

Hi mate! Just a quick response for now.

Someone writing for Athletics World at the time said that Coe would have gained a lot had he actually been drawn in the same race as Cruz in one of the prelims. I tend to agree.

Secondly, Coe still ran quite wide on most of the bends. Cruz ran wide too in places, but Coe was always just to the outside of him. I calculated once, that had both men run just 800m (i.e on the inside of lane 1) in a hypothetical run that day, then Cruz's time would have been c.1:42.5 and Coe c.1:42.7. Coe also had the misfortune of clashing elbows with Earl Jones at the start of the home straight, just at the point when he was gathering himself for a final push. This was shown on slow mo at the time (by the BBC I think), and probably cost him a couple of meters. I think it was actually closer than the final result showed, though having said all that, I don't think Coe would have beaten him on that day.

I'm sure Coe felt, quite rightly, that looking at what was happening on the scene in 83, that he would still be good enough to win the Olympic title in 84, even despite the comeback from illness. I'm sure he didn't foresee that Cruz would emerge as a 1:41 runner in 84!

Despite all his problems and only starting to train in Jan/Feb 84, there just wouldn't be enough time to train and race adequately to be in 1:41 form for the Olympics. So he prioritised the 1500m instead. Knowing he was in 1:42/1:43 form for 800, must have given him confidence for the 1500. He was close to winning both, but Cruz was in the form of his life and would not be denied. Now, had Coe been in his 81 form over 800 in LA, then that would have been a different story.

Fair play to Cruz - he was in awesome shape in 84 but surely this is the best sequence of rances by any runner ever?

3 August 1984 800m 1:45.71 1h

4 August 1984 800m 1:46.75 3qf

5 August 1984 800m 1:45.51 1sf

6 August 1984 800m 1:43.64 2 Final

9 August 1984 1500m 3:45.30 2h

10 August 1984 1500m 3:35.81 3sf

11 August 1984 1500m 3:32.53 1 Final

ukathleticscoach wrote:

People don't understand, as well that for an 800m or 1500m runner 47.5 is very, very fast even at the top elite level.

I once saw Cram warming down past me after the national xc, even jogging with those huge limbs he looked like a running machine. There is an interesting interview with Coe somewhere where he said he had to get in front of Cram, because if you let him get the lead he got more confident and there was no holding him

Yes, I agree, especially for a predominantly 1500m runner, 47.5 is pretty awesome.

Coe did say that about Cram. He was talking about 1500m rather than 800, where I feel Coe believed he could beat Cram however it was run.

That's why Coe put in that semi kick with 200m to go in LA to stay in front of Cram, when he made his effort to pass Coe and Abascal.

So what did Coe do in a much slower race in the final of the 86 Europeans? Give Cram a 4m head start and a wall of runners between them with 400m to go! You just can't do that to someone like Cram in a 3:41 race. Clearly Coe did not take his own advice there!

bazza wrote:

Fair play to Cruz - he was in awesome shape in 84 but surely this is the best sequence of rances by any runner ever?

3 August 1984 800m 1:45.71 1h

4 August 1984 800m 1:46.75 3qf

5 August 1984 800m 1:45.51 1sf

6 August 1984 800m 1:43.64 2 Final

9 August 1984 1500m 3:45.30 2h

10 August 1984 1500m 3:35.81 3sf

11 August 1984 1500m 3:32.53 1 Final

Yes, it's certainly the most intense series of middle distance races put together at a Major Champs I've ever seen.

To be able to run a 3:32 1500m in your 7th race in 9 days, topped off with a last 100m of 12.7 is pretty remarkable! All the more so considering where he'd been 9 months before; ill, unable to train from August to January, and universally written off by the majority of the Athletics' press and his peers alike.

I remember an interview with John Walker in one of the British newspapers on the eve of the LA Olympics. He'd basically said that while he thought Coe was possibly the greatest he'd seen at the distance, he believed he had no chance in LA, and that he'd never win another title again. I'm sure that didn't go down well with Coe.

The only reason Ovett did not win the Moscow 1500m was that he had won the 800m.He already had Olympic Glory when the 1500m started and deep down in his pschyche he gave it to Coe.

Both magnificent racers.

deanouk wrote:Likewise in 1980, Coe only ran one fast race, destroying Walker, Scott & Bayi in Zurich with 3:32.19. He only started sprinting with 100 to go, and won by over a second. Again, he had crap pacing, running 54.5, 58.2, 58.8, 40.6 and 13.0 for the last 100m. If that's not 3:30 ability; especially considering Wessinghage and Hudak ran 3:31 that year; then I don't know what is.

the race is on youtube :

in no way does this look like a 3'30 run even with uneven pacing

he looked hesitant the last lap & coudn't put any daylight between him & a some past their peak/yet to peak guys until last 100

that looks a low-3'31 run under perfect circumstances

the times of wessinhage/hudak are irrelevant - maree ran 3'29.77 in '86 when he'd never looked in his life in the same league as coe ( despite a 3'31.2wr once ) - clearly these guys had much better potential over-distance endurance than coe as they had no great 800 speed ( somewhat like hicham/morceli who coud run 3'26/3'27 of probably no better than 1'43 speed )

Deano said

So with that reasoning, the 83 Worlds was a 400m race, as that's only when the pace increased dramatically, Ovett's World Cup win in 77 was a 200m race, as the previous 200m to that point was outside 29 secs

The only way Ovett would have beaten Coe that day is had the pace continued to dawdle to the bell, and if Ovett was to trap Coe with a burst and the latter got boxed; as in the 800m final or the European 1500 of 86.

--------------------------------------

That's '77 comparison is ridiculous. So is the '83. In Moscow they dawdled through in 2.03. Then Straub set it up. Like Scott in LA. I still can't work Scott out.

To be even considering that Coe may have won the LA 800 had it been run a different way shows your bias. Cruz blew him away in the last 100. The fact is Cruz was able to dominate an Olympic Final and a whole series for that matter. Why didn't Coe do that in Moscow?

Different story had Coe been in 81 form? To be honest, I think not. look at Cruz's series of races and he ran just as quick later that year.

Yes, there may be something to saying Ovett sub consciously did not allow himself to win it.

'he looked hesitant the last lap & coudn't put any daylight between him & a some past their peak/yet to peak guys until last 100'

What nonsense he hammered the field - if you do that over the last 100m why are you going to go earlier? Walker was only 28 he was just outclassed

BTW I really could not care what his potential time was in 1980 - even 3:31 was closed to the WR then and he won Olympic Gold. I doubt he's worrying about it now

[quote]deano's mate wrote:

Deano said

So with that reasoning, the 83 Worlds was a 400m race, as that's only when the pace increased dramatically, Ovett's World Cup win in 77 was a 200m race, as the previous 200m to that point was outside 29 secs

The only way Ovett would have beaten Coe that day is had the pace continued to dawdle to the bell, and if Ovett was to trap Coe with a burst and the latter got boxed; as in the 800m final or the European 1500 of 86.

--------------------------------------

That's '77 comparison is ridiculous. So is the '83. In Moscow they dawdled through in 2.03. Then Straub set it up. Like Scott in LA. I still can't work Scott out.

To be even considering that Coe may have won the LA 800 had it been run a different way shows your bias. Cruz blew him away in the last 100. The fact is Cruz was able to dominate an Olympic Final and a whole series for that matter. Why didn't Coe do that in Moscow?

Different story had Coe been in 81 form? To be honest, I think not. look at Cruz's series of races and he ran just as quick later that year.

1:41.77, 1:42.34

[quote]deano's mate wrote:

Deano said

So with that reasoning, the 83 Worlds was a 400m race, as that's only when the pace increased dramatically, Ovett's World Cup win in 77 was a 200m race, as the previous 200m to that point was outside 29 secs

The only way Ovett would have beaten Coe that day is had the pace continued to dawdle to the bell, and if Ovett was to trap Coe with a burst and the latter got boxed; as in the 800m final or the European 1500 of 86.

--------------------------------------

That's '77 comparison is ridiculous. So is the '83. In Moscow they dawdled through in 2.03. Then Straub set it up. Like Scott in LA. I still can't work Scott out.

To be even considering that Coe may have won the LA 800 had it been run a different way shows your bias. Cruz blew him away in the last 100. The fact is Cruz was able to dominate an Olympic Final and a whole series for that matter. Why didn't Coe do that in Moscow?

Different story had Coe been in 81 form? To be honest, I think not. look at Cruz's series of races and he ran just as quick later that year.

1:41.77, 1:42.34 and 1:42.41 in 5 days was awesome. As great as Coe was, Cruz in 1984 was unbeatable.

ukathleticscoach wrote:What nonsense he hammered the field - if you do that over the last 100m why are you going to go earlier? Walker was only 28 he was just outclassed

because you idiot, there was no one in that field who was a threat to him & his sole aim when lining up that day woud be to break the wr

you don't break wrs in a 1500 if you leave your burst to the last 100

you go hard from at least 400 out, but he didn't do so until last 100

as for walker, he was a shot-fighter by then - years of accumulated beatings from ovett & also some injuries

BTW I really could not care what his potential time was in 1980 - even 3:31 was closed to the WR then and he won Olympic Gold. I doubt he's worrying about it now

i sure bet he did at the time

he was officially joint wr-holder at the time & you can sure bet he didn't like being "joint" anything & wouda liked to bury the record to prove the doubters of his 1500 gold wrong

he didn't with that run & retrospectively it looked worse when ovett went 3'31.36 a coupla weeks later

So what time did they go through 800m in the World's 83, Commonwealth 86, European 86? All were slower than Moscow, where Coe went through in 2:05 not 2:03 actually. You're argument is a nonsense anyway, but if you're going to make one, at least get the facts right.

And what has LA got to do with it? It was a completely different type of race, run at a much faster and consistant pace, yet Coe still won by a long way. That's 2 dominant wins in 2 very different types of race. Ovett's victories were far more predictable; a burst with 200m to go; and up until Moscow they rest of the field had always played into his hands.

You clearly can't read. I did not say Coe would or may have won had the race been run differently. I specifically said Cruz wasn't to be denied. I actually said, but for the clash with Jones and the running wide, it would have been closer. Coe was not at his career best in the LA 800, Cruz was.

Why do you think Cruz ran 1:41.77, 1:42.34, etc after LA? Because he was trying to break Coe's WR, which he failed to do, despite at least 3 attempts. He was running those at the fast end of the season (late August)on some of the fastest tracks. Coe ran his in early June. When do you think an athlete is more likely to be in their top form? Someone in early June (with the European & World Cup and a planned race against Ovett- who pulled out- in late August/early September) or someone with their championship run behind them in late August?

Coe was more than 2.5 secs faster than the next fastest at 800 in 81. Why should he feel the need to carry on trying to beat his own time, when there was no danger of anyone else getting anywhere near it!? Cruz in 84 wouldn't have beaten the Coe of 81. Cruz never displayed the leg speed at 400m (Coe ran 45.5 that year) nor the endurance to run a 2:12 1k or a solo 3:31 1500. In fact Cruz attempted Coe's 1000m record and fell more than 2 secs short.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that if you're inferior at 400 and 1000m, you're not going to better in an intermediate distance.

I agree with your earlier point that he wasn't as good in 80 as 81, but I still think both he & Ovett could have run 3:30 in 1980. Coe said in his biography that it was a WR attempt, but when the pace slowed down dramatically after 800, and the rest of the pack were with him at the bell, he decided to just go for the win, rather than take a risk and go all out for the record. He was still probably tired (physically and mentally) from Moscow, and he was up against athletes who were fresh from not being at the Olympics. For the likes of Scott and Walker, this was the most important race of the year.

Notice that Coe does a few mini surges on the last lap, then keeps throttling back until the straight. I don't think there was any chance he was going to get beaten, and I don't think he was close to being fully extended either, but you're entitled to your opinion. He was perhaps guilty of lacking the confidence of really pushing it from the front in search of a record (as I feel he was also in the 81 Brussels Mile), but that's more born out of just not running the distance enough than any lacking physically. Certainly anyone who can open up a gap like that in the last 100 has quite a bit of unused energy at the end.

If interested I broke his run down using your old(or is it revisited?) formula:-

Coe’s 3:32.19 in 1980

54.5(26.4,28.1), 58.2, 58.8, 40.6 (13.0 for the last 100m).

200 x (200 /26.4)^3 = 86957.73158

200 x (200/28.1) ^3 = 72110.91777

400 x (400/58.2) ^3 = 129858.6882

400 x (400/58.8) ^3 = 125923.8482

200 x (200/27.6) ^3 = 76101.41579

100 x (100/13.0) ^3 = 45516.61356

Total = 536469.2151

536469.2151 / 1500(m) = 357.6461434

Then find the cube root to get speed per second = 7.098248218

Then take 1500m and divide by speed = 3:31.32

Take off 0.25 for no drafting from 1000 to the bell and you get 3:31.07.

I still think he had a bit left that night, so a 3:30 .something isn't unrealistic. I would also suggest that he had been at a season's peak 2 weeks earlier in Moscow. Soon after Zurich he went to check out a back problem and discovered he had sciatica and had been running with a pelvic displacement for most of the season. He ended his season as a result.

Ahaha! Fabulous! In a thread like this, it's inevitable.

The Deano-Ventolin True Times (tm) have emerged.

But OK, since they have then I'm going to analyze my own 800m performance according to the DVTT formula.

1:58.4. Splits, 57.2, 61.2.

Wind, blowing moderately. At least 3m/sec. Figure 2 s per lap = 4 sec.

Position, bad. Running in lane 1.5 for at least two of the curves. Figure 4 sec per lap = 8 sec.

Should be a 1:46.4.

Then there was suboptimal pacing. Should have a differential of ~ 2 sec, not four. Another 2 sec.

=1:44.4

But then, the track was crumbly and crappy. Another 1 sec per lap = 2 sec.

= 1:42.4

A seagull dive bombed me around the bottom curve. I flinched and wavered from the path.

Another 1.41 sec.

DVTT = 1:40.99. So forget Rudisha. I should hold the WR.

haha seems like Deano has caught a dose of Ventolitis. Is it curable?

the rock doctor wrote:

haha seems like Deano has caught a dose of Ventolitis. Is it curable?

ROFL!

Very good. :0)

I was just using Ventolin's own formula to make the point to him, that there isn't a great deal between a low 3:32 and a 3:30 with a bit of tweaking. Uneven pacing definitely has an effect on the athlete's ability to run their optimal time. I'm sure drafting also has some effect, but that's more subjective due to conditions, wind speed, distance between athletes, and I don't try to specify exact times or variables for different athletes.

I also DON'T agree with Ventolin's calculations for different track surfaces and indoor v outdoor tracks. I also think his "calculator" has some worth, but cannot be applied as randomly as he uses it; there are just too many variables and subjective analysis involved. So while I'm happy to take on board (and often use) some of what he says, I don't have Ventolitis. I hope!

I'm basically claiming that based on what my eyes witnessed, what I read at the time, and the fact that the pace was very uneven, Coe "could" have rum 3:30.** in Zurich 1980, when he actually ran 3:32.19. I'm talking about 1.5 secs. I don't think that requires any great leap of faith for the vast majority of posters on here! Of course people disagree, as Ventolin does. That's his right.

But, what I'm proposing is very different from the claims that Ventolin has made in the past, based on a long list of different factors (and amusingly parodied above), where he can claim that Ryun's 3:33.1 was worth 3:24/3:25 on a synthetic track.

I'm "suggesting" a 1.5 secs differential, not 8.5.

Cheers.

'he didn't with that run & retrospectively it looked worse when ovett went 3'31.36 a coupla weeks later'

Yeah, it was a shocking run winning like that

What world are you living in - don't answer it's a rhetorical question

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'he didn't with that run & retrospectively it looked worse when ovett went 3'31.36 a coupla weeks later'

Yeah, it was a shocking run winning like that

What world are you living in - don't answer it's a rhetorical question

Exactly! At their level, there is little difference between 3:31.3 and 3:32.1. Ovett's run was later, thus more time to recover after Moscow, and he had better/more even pacing; I think Wessinghage (or possibly Walker) took it up on Ovett's behalf on that 3rd lap, which was the difference between the 2 runs. Whatever, both were clearly capable of much faster than either of those runs.