ukathleticscoach wrote:
'mickey-mouse sized track'
He would still have finished more than 20m ahead of Ryun on that track
you posted same time as
souly in likely ~1'43.0 / 3'29.0 shape
running 36.8 in a 3'48.9
v
Ryun running
36.5 with a 11.6 in a 3'38.2 on dirt chewed up by a 10k
think more...
Peer Mediator wrote:Different times in the late 70's and early 80's
rubbish
serious time-chases always from '79 on
The circuit was mainly about winning then and not always time trials
drivel
every serious euro race was a tt from '79
you were hardly born in '70s
learn from adults back then
every euro invite meet from '79 with coe/ovett then maree/scott/cruz/aouita/cram was a paced tt
idiot
don't talk rubbish
we even have don who was denied 800 shot in moscow & chased everywhere to face coe :
http://villanovarunning.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/don-paige-30-years-after-boycott.html"I was third or fourth at 400, Coe was in second behind a rabbit [pacesetter], which they always have at meets in Europe..."
your peabrain does not know better than don who actually beat coe over 800
every euro meet with a "big name" had pacers from '79
There was no Diamond League with a race every week being taken out in 49
idiot
you've been told enough times, they don't pay enough $ nowdays for quality pacers
when was the last time we saw pacer go
24-low/mid / 49.5/50.0 ???
and there was no one else around in Coe's peak years running 1:43 let alone 1:41
cruz
came around quick enough
an unquestioned 1'41.77 on a proper track with crimnal workload in past 6/7 of 2 1'42's & a 2'14
zebugge musta had a convulsion cruz turned up in zurich with this plan
fully rested for koln, only a total moron woudn't have expected worse than
1'41.0 / 1'41.2
There was also no financial incentive, or at least nothing like there is now, to run fast times so often
drivel
always money from '77 when world cup started
& it was lot more for fast times which were chased than today's 1'42 or 3'30 guys chasing 1'44 or 3'32 wins
That came more in the mid and late 80's once trust funds were set up in 85
drivel
you think firenze/rieti/oslo/koblenz/etc were "freebie" meets ???
you are a fool
Also have to remember you are comparing someone's times from today with someone competing more than 30 years ago
on iaaf 65% limit
That's like comparing Coe's times with Whitfield or Moens
utter drivel
those were dirt & no pacers
How many times did any of their performances rank alongside Coe's top 10?
coe's top 10 offer nothing nowdays
go fetch me his verified best dirt 800
throw in best dirt 1500 or mile
i believe he ran a 3'54 on dirt before '84 games when likely 3'29-low shape
There is a much clearer version of the race here...
anyone with a brain & access to youtube knows
Idiot.
Find me one race in which Coe went sub 50 on first lap after 78 other than Firenze and Cologne in 85 when not in top shape, or even when the leader in his races went sub 50. In fact, you claim to have seen all races on satellite, so please list all the races from 79 to 84 where the pacemaker went through in sub 50! Ot even sub 50.4. Go on, go fetch them?
It will be a very short list.
Almost every Diamond League 800 in the last 4 years goes out in sub 50, certainly sub 50.5. Rudisha had his own rabbit going out every time in 50 flat or lower between 2009 - 2012, so certainly almost all the races he was in had sub 50 first laps.
Your historical knowledge is warped like your reasoning.
ventolin^3 wrote:
zebugge musta had a convulsion cruz turned up in zurich with this plan
ah yes, the good old Mr. Zebugge!!!
ventolin^3 wrote:
when was the last time we saw pacer go
24-low/mid / 49.5/50.0 ???
Utter moron. Practically every f*'ing race on the Diamond League circuit this year!
FACTS (not your deluded drivel and convenient change of history Ventolin)....
First lap times by rabbits this year....
Eugene ~ 49.82
Zurich ~ 49.69
Rome ~ 49.42
Paris ~ 49.90
Glasgow ~ 49.94
Monaco ~ 49.41
Doha ~ 50.86
Shanghai ~ 50.22
New York ~ 50.48
Proof if ever needed that Ventolin talks utter rubbish and makes things up.
Now, run along and give me all the rabbit times for Coe in his races between 79 and 84. Put up or shut up!
ventolin^3 wrote:
Serenity wrote:Rudisha has to be viewed as Goat because of his WR and Olympic titleno
kip wouda run
~ 1'40.6
in zurich if not offered suicidal 23.0/48.3 but 23-high/49-low
he was unallowed to run atlanta which he wouda won easily as his 1'41.83 in rieti looked worth 1'41.4 shape if no extra distance & ideal drafting
that wouda given him the gold he lacked
But ventolin, don't you get it? If Kipketer had run 1:40.6 and won Olympic Gold, then you're right, he would be the GOAT. But he didn't do that. Just because someone maybe could have done something doesn't mean that they're the best. They have to actually do it.
I don't understand how you don't see this.
ryun's 3-24?
does the video exist?
Bad Wigins wrote:
Serenity wrote:Coe also ran a couple of extra meters wide passing the rabbit, which cost 0.2 at lest.
Everyone exaggerates the effect of running wide. Coe spent about 30 meters of turn 3 in the outside of lane 1, well inside the line of running in lane 2. That's only about 1 meter wide. Even on a standard track, the extra distance for the entire turn would be pi * delta r ~ 3.14 meters, and for that 30 meter stretch, 3.14 * 30/100 = about 1 meter. At 50 second pace, or 8 m/s, that costs an extra .12 seconds.
If it costs anything, that is. Running at that speed in lane 1 is hard, as turning requires centripetal acceleration proportional to the square of your speed. The extra force required to stay on the rail is nearly twice as great at 8 m/s as it is at 6 m/s. Applying that to forward speed can make up some or all of that .12 seconds, particularly if you do it going into a straight where you can maintain the effect.
Run a 26 second 200 in lane 1 or lane 2, all else being equal it's likely the lane 2 rep will be 0.1 seconds faster just because it's lane 2.
Your figures are wrong.
Look at the HQ version of the race. For a start the bends are certainly more than 100m. The standard for IAAF tracks is 115.61m. On the 2nd and last curves (easier to tell than the 1st and 3rd) Coe takes c 15 sec to run from end of back straight to beginning of home straight, and he's operating at about 0.128 sec per metre, which is a conservative figure as that's only 1:42.4 pace.
15.0 / 0.128 = 117m.
Thus the curves would appear to be exactly the same as any other track.
Now the 3rd bend where he runs wide.
He is already wide of Konchellah as they hit the bell. He runs the next 3.5 secs (approx 27m - again a conservative estimate) about 30cm from the inside of the line separating lanes 1 and 2.
The distance of a track is measured 30cm from the curb, which is the shortest distance and fastest line to run in an 800. The radius of the curve from that line 30cm out from curb is 36.8m. Each lane is 1.22m wide, so the distance from the measured curve to the line separating lanes 1 & 2 is 92cm.
Let's say Coe runs that 25m from the bell 40cm inside that line, or 52cm from the shortest line. This represents a radius of 37.32m
Use in 2 Pi R = 234.48m which we need to divide by 2, as this is for both bends run at that distance. That works out at 117.24m
117.24 - 115.61 = 1.63m This would be the extra distance run if he ran 52cm wide of the measured curve for the entire bend. Clearly he only does this for 27/115.61m (0.233) of the curve. 1.63 x 0.233 = 0.38m.
Not a lot.
But, he then moves out wider to about 10cm inside the line separating lines 1 & 2, and doesn't fully move back in front of the rabbit for almost 7sec. That is a lot more than the 30m you suggest.
I actually timed it as 6.75. That is 52.7m out of the 115.61m of the entire bend, which = 0.456.
10cm from the line with lane 2 means he runs a radius of 36.8 + 0.82m. Lets say 0.8m to be conservative. Thus 2x Pi x 37.6 = 236.24/2 = 118.12m
118.12 - 115.61 = 2.51m. This is the distance extra he'd have run if he'd been 12cm on the inside of lane 2 for the entire curve.
He only runs 52.7m or 6.75sec or 45.6 % of the entire bend in this position.
This is 1.144m extra.
Add the 0.38m and the 1.144m together and Coe runs an extra 1.524m extra
At approx 12.8 per 100m, this mans each 1m = 0.128.
0.128 x 1.524 = 0.195sec.
Again there were several 'conservative' measurements taken in that, so I think rounding it to 0.2 is reasonable.
So Coe's run was more like 1:41.5 on a relatively poor track (compared to the current mondo ones) and with no one pushing him on the last lap.
Peer Mediator wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Everyone exaggerates the effect of running wide. Coe spent about 30 meters of turn 3 in the outside of lane 1, well inside the line of running in lane 2. That's only about 1 meter wide. Even on a standard track, the extra distance for the entire turn would be pi * delta r ~ 3.14 meters, and for that 30 meter stretch, 3.14 * 30/100 = about 1 meter. At 50 second pace, or 8 m/s, that costs an extra .12 seconds.
If it costs anything, that is. Running at that speed in lane 1 is hard, as turning requires centripetal acceleration proportional to the square of your speed. The extra force required to stay on the rail is nearly twice as great at 8 m/s as it is at 6 m/s. Applying that to forward speed can make up some or all of that .12 seconds, particularly if you do it going into a straight where you can maintain the effect.
Run a 26 second 200 in lane 1 or lane 2, all else being equal it's likely the lane 2 rep will be 0.1 seconds faster just because it's lane 2.
Your figures are wrong.
Look at the HQ version of the race. For a start the bends are certainly more than 100m. The standard for IAAF tracks is 115.61m. On the 2nd and last curves (easier to tell than the 1st and 3rd) Coe takes c 15 sec to run from end of back straight to beginning of home straight, and he's operating at about 0.128 sec per metre, which is a conservative figure as that's only 1:42.4 pace.
15.0 / 0.128 = 117m.
Thus the curves would appear to be exactly the same as any other track.
Now the 3rd bend where he runs wide.
He is already wide of Konchellah as they hit the bell. He runs the next 3.5 secs (approx 27m - again a conservative estimate) about 30cm from the inside of the line separating lanes 1 and 2.
The distance of a track is measured 30cm from the curb, which is the shortest distance and fastest line to run in an 800. The radius of the curve from that line 30cm out from curb is 36.8m. Each lane is 1.22m wide, so the distance from the measured curve to the line separating lanes 1 & 2 is 92cm.
Let's say Coe runs that 25m from the bell 40cm inside that line, or 52cm from the shortest line. This represents a radius of 37.32m
Use in 2 Pi R = 234.48m which we need to divide by 2, as this is for both bends run at that distance. That works out at 117.24m
117.24 - 115.61 = 1.63m This would be the extra distance run if he ran 52cm wide of the measured curve for the entire bend. Clearly he only does this for 27/115.61m (0.233) of the curve. 1.63 x 0.233 = 0.38m.
Not a lot.
But, he then moves out wider to about 10cm inside the line separating lines 1 & 2, and doesn't fully move back in front of the rabbit for almost 7sec. That is a lot more than the 30m you suggest.
I actually timed it as 6.75. That is 52.7m out of the 115.61m of the entire bend, which = 0.456.
10cm from the line with lane 2 means he runs a radius of 36.8 + 0.82m. Lets say 0.8m to be conservative. Thus 2x Pi x 37.6 = 236.24/2 = 118.12m
118.12 - 115.61 = 2.51m. This is the distance extra he'd have run if he'd been 12cm on the inside of lane 2 for the entire curve.
He only runs 52.7m or 6.75sec or 45.6 % of the entire bend in this position.
This is 1.144m extra.
Add the 0.38m and the 1.144m together and Coe runs an extra 1.524m extra
At approx 12.8 per 100m, this mans each 1m = 0.128.
0.128 x 1.524 = 0.195sec.
Again there were several 'conservative' measurements taken in that, so I think rounding it to 0.2 is reasonable.
So Coe's run was more like 1:41.5 on a relatively poor track (compared to the current mondo ones) and with no one pushing him on the last lap.
Guess who else obsesses about "extra time" from running wide.
That is not a standard track, and you can't clearly see how wide Coe is as he rounds the bend, so your precision is a waste of time. It would have been simpler for you to just say he ran 50 wide instead of 30, and also some distance in the middle of lane 1. He really ran 40 wide at most, and the time he was slightly wide is trivial. Everyone runs a bit wide even in time trials.
But 30 or 50, it's a moot issue. Even if he went an extra 1.5 meters instead of 1 meter, you can't assume that cost him any time at all. I suppose you, like Ventolin, have never had to stick to the kerb at 8 m/s. If you had, you'd know drifting wide allows you to apply more force to forward motion and make a move. A "move" in the 800 is more about sustaining speed than acceleration, but Coe certainly came out of turn 3 faster than he would have if he'd stuck to the kerb, and that increased speed had a generous 300 meters left to make up that lost 1.5 meters.
For a given runner and turn radius, the force required to turn is mv^2/r. At 66 pace, v^2= 36m^2/s^2. At 50 pace, it's 64m^2/s^2, far closer to the 80 to 100m^2/s^2 that keeps 200 and 400 runners the hell out of lane 1 if they can help it.
No, Coe would not have run 1:45.5.
quizzical.. wrote:
ryun's 3-24?
does the video exist?
Remember Simple Jack's "head movies" in Tropic Thunder? Similar scenario here.
Yes. Plus, Rudisha had to run rounds, making his performance even more incredible. Coe did not have to run rounds. Also, there is no pressure like Olympic final pressure. In most world record attempts there's no real competitive pressure - the athlete just has to run. If he fails, so what? He can always make another attempt. If you fail in an Olympic final it's 4 more years.
leading a 1;40 800 for 800m is more impressive than anything coe did
I don't know where you get that business about Firenze being short. Coe at the time, in 1981, had brought the 800m into the modern era and was far above the other competitors. When he broke 1:42 there was no reason for him to go after it again for time. He had plenty of other races to go after world records. And we know that he was never really the same again after 1981, except possibly for brief periods. When he took silver behind Cruz in 1984 and dominated the 1500m, he was not in the same speed shape but he was pretty strong after a short bout of health, and he ran his best 1500m time later. What he proved in 1981 was that he would go faster when there was a time to challenge. Had there been a Kipketer or Rudisha, who as specialists focus solely on this one event and don't have to train for 1500m simultaneously, or race in other events except 400s as a buildup early in season, he would certainly have run faster at that time. In 1984, he was not nearly as strong in the 8 after his toxic plasmosis and injury issues.
As for Ryun, he did not only close out a 3:38 in 36.5 with 11.6 on a rutted dirt track, but he also did it with no competition at all after the first few steps of that finish when he broke away from the Germans. Souleiman, by contrast, was fighting step for step the whole way for big bucks to close in 36.8 in a 3:48 on synthetic.
Peer Mediator wrote:Idiot
more drivel from a fool
Find me one race in which Coe went sub 50 on first lap after 78 other than Firenze and Cologne in 85 when not in top shape, or even when the leader in his races went sub 50
why on earth does your peabrain think the "circuit" refers only to coe ???
are you so dumb you coudn't read/comprehend paige's comments that nearly every circuit race back then was a tt ??
In fact, you claim to have seen all races on satellite, so please list all the races from 79 to 84 where the pacemaker went through in sub 50! Ot even sub 50.4. Go on, go fetch them?
It will be a very short list
moron
why stop at '84 ???
cruz ran great in '84, johnny great in '84/'85 with 1'42.9 & 1'42.6
these were all paced races with fast openers you fool
Almost every Diamond League 800 in the last 4 years goes out in sub 50, certainly sub 50.5
what part of you peabrain didn't comprehend 24-low/mid ???
a sub-50/50.5 is worthless if it isn't reached smoothly
the pacers go out far to fast then throttle back at the bell
all advantage is lost
the pacers today are rubbish
Rudisha had his own rabbit going out every time in 50 flat or lower between 2009 - 2012, so certainly almost all the races he was in had sub 50 first laps
fool
Rudy's pacer has been complete waste of time as he has hardly ever got close to him
he gets a paycheck for doing virtually nothing of use
Your historical knowledge is warped like your reasoning
idiot
your peabrain seems to have not heard of cruz or johnny ???!!!
Peer Mediator wrote:Utter moron. Practically every f*'ing race on the Diamond League circuit this year!
idiot
can't you read ???
i said
24-low/mid / 49.5/50.0
your peabrain not have a clue why is i stated 24-low/mid ???
it's because, a 49.5/50.0 is absolutely worthless unless it is reached smoothly with elite in tow, meaning a proper 200 split to keep elite close behind
learn to think you fool
FACTS (not your deluded drivel and convenient change of history Ventolin)....
First lap times by rabbits this year....
Eugene ~ 49.82
Zurich ~ 49.69
Rome ~ 49.42
Paris ~ 49.90
Glasgow ~ 49.94
Monaco ~ 49.41
Doha ~ 50.86
Shanghai ~ 50.22
New York ~ 50.48
now fool
give me the 200 split of every pacer in those races
Proof if ever needed that Ventolin talks utter rubbish and makes things up
moron
you can't seem to read or if you have managed to, you can't seem to think of implications
a peabrain
Now, run along and give me all the rabbit times for Coe in his races between 79 and 84. Put up or shut up!
idiot
why does yourpeabrain think coe was only 800 guy on the circuit between '79 - '84 ???
& why on earth stop at '84 ???
coe ran rubbish 800 in '84 whilst cruz ran 1'41.77 !!! & johnny 1'42.9 & johnny ran 1'42.6 in '85
coe never broke 1'43 after firenze
there were
11
runs faster between firenze - end '85 than coe ever ran again after firenze !!!
coe offered nothing to the circuit for 800 between firenze - end '85
who gives a sh!t about the pacing for a guy who offered nothing to the 800 circuit after '81 ???
do you have friends?
Hey peabrain
Rome 23.9
Doha 24.7
Pre 24.2
Monaco 24.0
Glascow 24.2
Zurich 24.3
*havent got time to YouTube every race.
These are the splits of the first non rabbit across the line and in all races the athlete was hot on the tail of your wabbit (able to draft). Splits look within your range to me.
Peer Mediator wrote:For a start the bends are certainly more than 100m
how the hell do you know how much more ???
no track markings & no running clock
The standard for IAAF tracks is 115.61m. On the 2nd and last curves (easier to tell than the 1st and 3rd) Coe takes c 15 sec to run from end of back straight to beginning of home straight, and he's operating at about 0.128 sec per metre, which is a conservative figure as that's only 1:42.4 pace.
15.0 / 0.128 = 117m.
Thus the curves would appear to be exactly the same as any other track
utter drivel
no running clock
no track markings to give 200m out
no head-on shot of entering last bend with a running clock
He is already wide of Konchellah as they hit the bell. He runs the next 3.5 secs (approx 27m - again a conservative estimate) about 30cm from the inside of the line separating lanes 1 and 2
nonsense
he looks mid-lane until he passes billy
that is no more than 30cm out from ideal line
The distance of a track is measured 30cm from the curb, which is the shortest distance and fastest line to run in an 800. The radius of the curve from that line 30cm out from curb is 36.8m. Each lane is 1.22m wide, so the distance from the measured curve to the line separating lanes 1 & 2 is 92cm
nonsense
it's ~ 60cm fom curb until swinging wider past billy
Let's say Coe runs that 25m from the bell 40cm inside that line, or 52cm from the shortest line. This represents a radius of 37.32m
nonsense
he is averaging 30cm too wide until passing billy when has to go wider
Use in 2 Pi R = 234.48m which we need to divide by 2, as this is for both bends run at that distance. That works out at 117.24m
117.24 - 115.61 = 1.63m This would be the extra distance run if he ran 52cm wide of the measured curve for the entire bend. Clearly he only does this for 27/115.61m (0.233) of the curve. 1.63 x 0.233 = 0.38m.
Not a lot
it's less
more like 0.2m
But, he then moves out wider to about 10cm inside the line separating lines 1 & 2, and doesn't fully move back in front of the rabbit for almost 7sec. That is a lot more than the 30m you suggest
nonsense
he is at least 20cm inside line when passing billy
I actually timed it as 6.75. That is 52.7m out of the 115.61m of the entire bend, which = 0.456
nonsense
you don't know bend length
it coud be as low as 110m
10cm from the line with lane 2 means he runs a radius of 36.8 + 0.82m. Lets say 0.8m to be conservative. Thus 2x Pi x 37.6 = 236.24/2 = 118.12m
118.12 - 115.61 = 2.51m. This is the distance extra he'd have run if he'd been 12cm on the inside of lane 2 for the entire curve
nonsense
he is at least 20cm inside line when passing billy
& cuts in smoothly when past
it is nowhere near even 20cm out for whole of segment after passing billy
He only runs 52.7m or 6.75sec or 45.6 % of the entire bend in this position
no
again
you don't know bend length
This is 1.144m extra
nonsense
at 0.2m at widest point or 0.7m out from shortest line
this has to be averaged as he cuts in smoothly after passing
that 0.7/2 = 0.35m average wide
this is all takes 6.5s & he is running bend in ~ 12.75s as that is 1/2 of 25.5
that yields
0.35 * pi * 6.5/12.75 =
0.56m
with 0.2m earlier wide ->
0.76m
Add the 0.38m and the 1.144m together and Coe runs an extra 1.524m extra
nonsense
it's 1/2 this
At approx 12.8 per 100m, this mans each 1m = 0.128.
0.128 x 1.524 = 0.195sec
no
it's
0.09s
Again there were several 'conservative' measurements taken in that, so I think rounding it to 0.2 is reasonable
rubbish
no poper observation of how far out in lane & no averaging of width when past billy
does your peabrain think he kept running wide when past billy or tried to move back in ???
So Coe's run was more like 1:41.5 on a relatively poor track (compared to the current mondo ones) and with no one pushing him on the last lap
nonsense
it was more like 1'41.6-low/mid on an unknown track with questionable measurements & busted timing & no faster than current tracks if iaaf applied their 65% energy return limit
jjjjjjjjj wrote:I don't know where you get that business about Firenze being short
see guys like aouita & sabia who ran huge pbs there
i didn't expect aouita to break 13'15 & he runs 13'04 !!!
hugely questionable track
Coe at the time, in 1981, had brought the 800m into the modern era and was far above the other competitors. When he broke 1:42 there was no reason for him to go after it again for time
yes he did
i was a huge fan back then & as an adult & i had never heard of firenze meet
coe needed to back this up in somewhere like zurich or brussels or rome or stockholm to legitimise that firenze run
meets fans had heard of with unquestioned timing
he had 8 more goes that year to run an impressive 800
a solo-1'42+ wouda been some evidence to back up firenze
he managed no better than 1'45.4 !!!
his 1'44.5 split in a 1k was good but 2'12.18 is not impressive even for a wr - go see what iaaf values that compared to 800 today - same values shouda applied 30+y ago
He had plenty of other races to go after world records
nothing to back up that 800wr over 800 in 8 attempts
And we know that he was never really the same again after 1981, except possibly for brief periods. When he took silver behind Cruz in 1984 and dominated the 1500m, he was not in the same speed shape but he was pretty strong after a short bout of health, and he ran his best 1500m time later
other years
What he proved in 1981 was that he would go faster when there was a time to challenge. Had there been a Kipketer or Rudisha, who as specialists focus solely on this one event and don't have to train for 1500m simultaneously, or race in other events except 400s as a buildup early in season, he would certainly have run faster at that time
no
anyone who saw firenze run on the following weekend knew he was at his absolute limit
800 was always his event
everything was geared to 800 & 1500wr was a nice side-effect
he had a 3'57pb before 1st mile wr
no one at the time was thinking wr, just a good 3'50 - 3'55 clocking as he was clearly better than 3'57 but not expected to have 1500 endurance as only known as an 800 runner albeit wr holder
as for kip, he ran 1'41.2 off a suicidal 23.0/48.3, likely 1'40-mid off 24.0/49-low
the argument can be instantaneously conversed to kip couda run lot faster than 1'40.6 calibre if he had coe to run against
i don't buy that either
The Dingo wrote:
Cue Ventolin hijacking this thread with "track was short!!!" statements and saying Coe was worth ~1:42 flat, despite the fact that he actually ran faster than that, whereas every other athlete he talks about was worth 1-10 seconds faster then what they actually ran.
Haha right on cue.
Ever since Ventolin wrote this about the Mens Triple Jump in 2011 :
"taylor needs to find a mere 7cm in the next few years ( & fet right wind ) & he can have the wr
think about that, he is 7cm from wr ability..."
when in actual fact, he had just jumped 17.96, a full 33cm from the World Record, I knew most of his coulda woulda shoulda nonsense amounts to nothing more than the cretinous ramblings of someone unhinged from reality.