Prefontaine vs Coe vs Ovett vs Rupp

Come on! What a waste of time.

What I tell fans of football, etc, is that one of the beautiful things about track and field is it's objectivity.

There is no place for the LeBron vs MJ vs Magic nonsense.

We know - yes KNOW - to the 1/100th of a second, EXACTLY who beats whom. Speculation has no place, unlike in subjectively judged non-sports like figure skating!

"Ovett beat Coe head to head over 800m twice.

Coe never beat Ovett over 800m.

So in this hypothetical race, Ovett beats Coe at 800m?"

-bingo. it already happened. for goodness sake, you answered it with your second sentence.

Dixie Gnormose wrote:

Come on! What a waste of time.

What I tell fans of football, etc, is that one of the beautiful things about track and field is it's objectivity.

There is no place for the LeBron vs MJ vs Magic nonsense.

We know - yes KNOW - to the 1/100th of a second, EXACTLY who beats whom. Speculation has no place, unlike in subjectively judged non-sports like figure skating!

Wow. So you really don't understand the sport, huh?

Here is a hint to help you get started - racing is not time trialing.

hallamshire harriers wrote:

fan of US distance running wrote:

Ovett beat Coe head to head over 800m twice.

Coe never beat Ovett over 800m.

So in this hypothetical race, Ovett beats Coe at 800m?

-bingo. it already happened. for goodness sake, you answered it with your second sentence.

You left out the context of what I was replying to. I have added it back in to make my point.

I wrote that because you wrote Coe beating Ovett at 1500m was reason to believe that Coe would win this hypothetical race.

Most people, including myself, wrote Coe would win at 800m. Using your line of reasoning, this would not be the case, which goes against what most people have been writing would happen.

Steven Ovett wrote:

If Rupp had to push, Ovett would just sit and sit and sit and give him a cursory wave as he trotted past with 80m to go. Ovett's finishing speed was frightening and he never really tested himself over 5000m in his prime

indeed

Steven Ovett wrote:

Ovett made a mockery of most of his races in his prime (77-80) and I don't think it's a given that Rupp would beat him over 5k without pacers. If Rupp had to push, Ovett would just sit and sit and sit and give him a cursory wave as he trotted past with 80m to go. Ovett's finishing speed was frightening and he never really tested himself over 5000m in his prime so I think it's widely accepted he could have run a lot faster. He ran as fast as he needed to. One of thee most talented middle distance runners we've ever seen. Over 10000m though Rupp would be supreme.

His speed was tested over 1500 against Coe over a fast pace. So I would guess over a fast 5k pace his speed would be lacking as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g32F1ZFt2RU

Amazing 800M vid

Pre was killed at 25 but everyone who was around him at the time felt he would move to the 10k eventually. (after getting whipped again at 5k in Montreal). He ran just a few 10k's and showed a lot of promise, so after 3-5 more years of competition I think he could have taken the group at that distance.

Why is Pre on this list?

No. You're deluded and uninformed.

Ventolin has something to say about this as well -

"Most people, including myself, wrote Coe would win at 800m. Using your line of reasoning, this would not be the case, which goes against what most people have been writing would happen."

-....your point being? It's not ok to go against what most people are writing? man oh man, I give up on this forum. best to stick to just front page news for sanity sake, I think.

Rupp's 5000 time being faster is simply because hes from a later era.

Otherwise we might as well say Coe v Ovett v Pre v Zatopek v Ryan Kirkpatrick

Well obviously Ryan Kirkpatrick as he's the only one who broke 13.20.

I can't see Rupp beating some of the 10k guys Ovett neat over 9 miles of mud in the National cross country.

hallamshire harriers wrote:

fan of US distance running wrote:

You left out the context of what I was replying to. I have added it back in to make my point.

I wrote that because you wrote Coe beating Ovett at 1500m was reason to believe that Coe would win this hypothetical race.

Most people, including myself, wrote Coe would win at 800m. Using your line of reasoning, this would not be the case, which goes against what most people have been writing would happen.

-....your point being? It's not ok to go against what most people are writing? man oh man, I give up on this forum. best to stick to just front page news for sanity sake, I think.

Did it again.

My point was exactly what I wrote.

Your line of reasoning has odd consequences when applied to other distances. I was merely pointing that out.

You seem stressed. Take a deep breath. It's just a forum post. It will be OK.

Let's say there is perfect drug/blood dope testing.

Suddenly Ovett and Coe are eliminated. I'm not so sure about Pre or Rupp.

I mean come on, the reason there haven't been any runners like Coe and Ovett since is that they were UNNATURAL runners! There haven't been any runners since like Said Aouita or Nourredine Morceli either. Look at the way Ovett toyed with people! There's a word for that: too juiced to lose. Why was the UK so good? Because they were like Morocco back then! Cram, Moorcroft, these guys would still be great runners. Did the UK magically forget how to train great runners? Did they just lose interest in Olympic medals? I don't think so. You know who else had a slew of great runners and then nothing? Spain. And Morocco. And Russia. And China.

That's my not-so-humble opinion.

Hi Ventolin!

Pre beats Rupp at 5K??? Pre's 5K time is Rupp's 5K split on route to the american 10K record. All said!~