He has totally slowed down close to the finish line when he realized he was not winning. Please at least see the video before posting this. He ran 1:44.09 giving up before the finish line otherwise he would've run ~1:43.95.
And with all due respect you need to be familiar with elite 800m race to understand that it is totally reasonable to infer that an athlete running ~1:43.95 (or use the official 1:44.09 if you prefer) off a ~49.7-49.8 first lap is totally capable of ~1:43.5 in the same race with more even splits. There's no question about it.
I agree with you that this is not the best we've seen from Ovett, I too agree that his best shape was from ~1980 (though sometimes I question if it could have been 77 instead).
~1:43.5 was totally in his realms of possibility in the 78' race as we've seen (you are delusional if you believe it was not and/or you don't understand the impact that running 1 full second slower at that first lap makes at that level).
then you take a better version of that runner, the version from Moscow 1980 - and imagine a pace maker bringing Ovett to the bell at ~50.5 -- which is the lap he ran his last lap in Moscow - but wait, here there's no competition, there's no pressure to win, there's no tactical involved, he's not tired from the heats !! it is basically a time trial set up for him.
It is very reasonable and sensible to think that Ovett could run the last lap in ~52.0 and finish with a 1:42.5.
Just look at his career, stats, and etc, if you still don't believe it was possible, ok, there's not much more I can do honestly.
Read his book and study the 800m in more detail.. all that is left to say.
If you "see" that Ovett has lost over a meter in the last few steps in the '78 EC final, than you just show that you are extremely biased. Beyer just finished way faster (for what ever reason) than Ovett. From 1:32 to 1:39 Beyer made up 1.5 meters, then from 1:39 to 1:43 another meter - because he was running faster. In the last step, Ovett maybe lost 1/100, at most 2/100. That's it, if you like it or not. 14/100 or over 1 meter is laughable.
Give him a 0.5 seconds slower 1st lap, and he might have finished 2/10 faster - but that's speculation. It was a great race for him with pacing all the way, running always close to the curb apart from the finish. It was by far his fastest time during his career. He might hjave been stronger in Moscow '80 and I estimate a 1:43.5 (around the WR at his prime without the outlier Coe) as his best he could do in his career. He just wasn't a 800m time trialist.
When someone has run reasonable fast, Ovett lost.
At exactly 1:40 in the race they are side by side but Beyer is clearly faster, you can see at 1:38 / 1:39 in the video as Ovett tries to respond
At 1:41 Beyer has the edge and the race is over; Ovett slows down significantly for the last ~2.5 seconds of the race conceding that he won't catch him
It is bizarre that you look at this race and can't admit that with a 50.8 first lap (1 full second slower) Ovett would be able to close at least with a 52.7 (1:43.5)
What you don't understand is that sport is not mathematics and a runner's times in one event don't determine what they will do in another. Every runner is different; there is no rule that says what they are capable of.
Again you are wrong. The sport is not mathematics but it is intrinsically related to it.
Runner's times in one event are directly and strongly co-related with what they can do in another event.
That is a fact of concrete reality that you are denying. The evidence for this claim is overwhelming.
And yes, you take an athlete that is faster than another at BOTH the 400m AND the 1,000m and that athlete will be faster as well at 800m from a POTENTIAL perspective.
This is a fact of concrete reality, but you insist to keep denying reality.
Running isn't mathematics; it is physiology. Your bandying numbers about doesn't make Ovett any faster than what he ran and in no way establishes what you claim.
Coe’s coach would certainly agree to the mathematical nature of middle distance training and racing, so much so that his entire training system was based on paces of the race distances and those immediately shorter and longer.
I would also be willing to bet a large sum of money that Coe himself would scoff at the notion that Ovett maxed out his 800m potential at 1:44.
So has Coe ever said he thought Ovett was capable of running near his former wr? You will be looking for a long time to find anything that suggests that.
As you indicate, that is an argument that could apply to any runner and certainly not just Ovett. But Ovett had enough opportunities in his lengthy career to run faster than his pr of 1:44. That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
Wrong again, you simply lack knowledge of Steve Ovett's career.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win. Same reason why you'd never see Coe running faster than 1:43-1:44 in Championship races where it was obvious he was capable of running ~ 2 seconds faster if given the opportunity - the two time trial races that Ovett never had.
You've been provided with overwhelming evidence of the type of runner Ovett was -- more the Championship style racer than the WR beater -- and yet you deny it.
His loss in a fast race was the 1:44.09 after a 49.8 first lap (where he slowed down at the finish by the way, that race is easily a ~1:43.95) and perhaps if you want to include in 1979 he ran 1:44.9 losing to US Champ James Robinson (1:44.7) -- and 1979 was by far the weakest year he had in the 5 years stretch from 77-81.
That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
False. As false as saying Snell couldn't run significantly faster than 1:44.3 or Jim Ryun couldn't run significantly faster than 3:33.
As false as saying Coe could never go significantly faster than 1:43.07 because that is the fastest he ever ran in an actual competition 800m in his entire career (and he competed in the 800m way more often than Ovett, and by the way that was a race he lost).
Your reasoning is pure nonsense, but as I said you will keep denying because you've gone too far with it.
Again you are wrong. The sport is not mathematics but it is intrinsically related to it.
Runner's times in one event are directly and strongly co-related with what they can do in another event.
That is a fact of concrete reality that you are denying. The evidence for this claim is overwhelming.
And yes, you take an athlete that is faster than another at BOTH the 400m AND the 1,000m and that athlete will be faster as well at 800m from a POTENTIAL perspective.
This is a fact of concrete reality, but you insist to keep denying reality.
Running isn't mathematics; it is physiology. Your bandying numbers about doesn't make Ovett any faster than what he ran and in no way establishes what you claim.
Again you show up to twist the discussion and make false inferences just as you've done with others through this thread.
Running isn't mathematics and that's exactly what I have written in my previous post. The "physiology" of it that you cite is intrinsically related to mathematics.
I never intended to "make Ovett any faster than what he ran" as through the thread we have been discussing potential based on evidences.
You never discussed the evidences provided to you in detail, prehaps because you are not very familiar with the event on the elite level.
This is laughable. Ovett ran a best of 1:44.09 and was never a killer at 800m. More of a miler/2miler (held WR at 2miles for a bit). Never a very speedy guy. More of a strength guy with great racing acumen. Not in Coe's class overall, but still a truly great runner.
What exactly is "laughable" - the discussion about Ovetts 800m ceiling?
"Never a very speedy guy" - He ran 47.5 out of blocks when he was 18. Ran a 12.5 100m split from 1300-1400 to break open a world class field in a 3.34 1500m race. That counts as a fairly good indicator of basic speed. No he's not David Rudisha but that's pretty good for an 18 year old in 1974.
I don't get your point - you're saying that 1.44.09 was his limit? But he was a strength guy right? As you said held the world 2 mile famously beating Rono - and yet he was faster than both Cram and Elliot (nowhere near sub 48 seconds out of blocks) but didn't have the potential to match those guys over 2 laps?
Yeah okay.
You said previously you thought he was capable of around 1:43 or just under - which was similar to what I suggested. You simply take longer to say it - but you essentially agreed with me and not the "1:42" or better guys. Is this the kind of "nonsensical circular gibberish" you were referring to?
What posters here don't seem to get is that any discussion about what Ovett might have done over the 800 remains speculation. It isn't and cannot be fact - he never ran it. I have suggested he was likely capable of being faster than 1:44 in ideal conditions and maybe around 1:43, but this rouses nothing but indignation in those who insist he must be at least a whole second faster than that. The irony of how so much hangs on so little for so many of you.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
What exactly is "laughable" - the discussion about Ovetts 800m ceiling?
"Never a very speedy guy" - He ran 47.5 out of blocks when he was 18. Ran a 12.5 100m split from 1300-1400 to break open a world class field in a 3.34 1500m race. That counts as a fairly good indicator of basic speed. No he's not David Rudisha but that's pretty good for an 18 year old in 1974.
I don't get your point - you're saying that 1.44.09 was his limit? But he was a strength guy right? As you said held the world 2 mile famously beating Rono - and yet he was faster than both Cram and Elliot (nowhere near sub 48 seconds out of blocks) but didn't have the potential to match those guys over 2 laps?
Yeah okay.
You get credit for what you run. Not what people on a Message board say you maybe could have run. He ran 1:44.09 and 2:15.91. Those were marks he actually ran.
If you want to throw numbers out there that guys could have run, then everyone gets faster. They become runners that they never were on the track. Potential is a guess and has no value. I believe Coe could have run 1:41.00 and 3:27high. Peter Coe also felt that way. These are opinions, nothing more. I watched almost Ovett's entire career, and I never thought for a split second that he could run 1:40. Never. I never heard anyone else say anything like this.
Running isn't mathematics; it is physiology. Your bandying numbers about doesn't make Ovett any faster than what he ran and in no way establishes what you claim.
Again you show up to twist the discussion and make false inferences just as you've done with others through this thread.
Running isn't mathematics and that's exactly what I have written in my previous post. The "physiology" of it that you cite is intrinsically related to mathematics.
I never intended to "make Ovett any faster than what he ran" as through the thread we have been discussing potential based on evidences.
You never discussed the evidences provided to you in detail, prehaps because you are not very familiar with the event on the elite level.
The physiology isn't "intrinsically related to mathematics". Everybody's physiology is different; mathematics won't make them the same.
You and Salvatore find agreement yet it escapes you that his suggested time of what he thought Ovett was capable of was closer to my estimation of around 1:43 - not what you were claiming. But since you are buried in "mathematics" you apparently don't see what English can tell you.
"I don't believe he could run 1:42.5 because I don't believe, your arguments and reasoning will be ignored. I don't believe because I decided I don't believe no matter what. I don't believe. There is no way. Running is not mathematics. He ran what he ran.
Of course my reasoning doesn't work when I compare to runners like Peter Eliott, but I'll say comparisons do not make sense when it is convenient to me.
Coe ran under 1:43 only twice and those were in two time trial races, but I will ignore this fact because it is not good for my reasoning.
The fact other runners like Peter Snell, Jim Ryun and others also clearly ran significantly slower than their potentials will be ignored because it doesn't help my reasoning.
Of course, I'll also ignore discussing Ovett's races in detail, those numbers and stats that I don't understand very well. 11.8, 50s final lap, thrashing Rono, or Walker, or even Eliott, I don't understand what these mean so I'll just ignore it as it seems to hurt my reasoning.
At the end of the day there's no reasoning: I don't believe because I don't believe and you are all not very convincing. There is no way. 1:42.5 for Ovett there's just no way. I've decided".
"I don't believe he could run 1:42.5 because I don't believe, your arguments and reasoning will be ignored. I don't believe because I decided I don't believe no matter what. I don't believe. There is no way. Running is not mathematics. He ran what he ran.
Of course my reasoning doesn't work when I compare to runners like Peter Eliott, but I'll say comparisons do not make sense when it is convenient to me.
Coe ran under 1:43 only twice and those were in two time trial races, but I will ignore this fact because it is not good for my reasoning.
The fact other runners like Peter Snell, Jim Ryun and others also clearly ran significantly slower than their potentials will be ignored because it doesn't help my reasoning.
Of course, I'll also ignore discussing Ovett's races in detail, those numbers and stats that I don't understand very well. 11.8, 50s final lap, thrashing Rono, or Walker, or even Eliott, I don't understand what these mean so I'll just ignore it as it seems to hurt my reasoning.
At the end of the day there's no reasoning: I don't believe because I don't believe and you are all not very convincing. There is no way. 1:42.5 for Ovett there's just no way. I've decided".
I think I am more capable of saying what I think than you are. You only show your usual pomposity in trying to justify your views.
If I am wrong can you point to the occasion where Ovett ran 1:42, since you argue conjecture about what might have been possible as though it is fact?
You avoid the inconvenient fact, as I pointed out above, that Salvatore's estimation of what Ovett might have been capable of was pretty much the same as mine - but not the same as you are claiming. Does he not understand "mathematics"?
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
Wrong again, you simply lack knowledge of Steve Ovett's career.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win. Same reason why you'd never see Coe running faster than 1:43-1:44 in Championship races where it was obvious he was capable of running ~ 2 seconds faster if given the opportunity - the two time trial races that Ovett never had.
You've been provided with overwhelming evidence of the type of runner Ovett was -- more the Championship style racer than the WR beater -- and yet you deny it.
His loss in a fast race was the 1:44.09 after a 49.8 first lap (where he slowed down at the finish by the way, that race is easily a ~1:43.95) and perhaps if you want to include in 1979 he ran 1:44.9 losing to US Champ James Robinson (1:44.7) -- and 1979 was by far the weakest year he had in the 5 years stretch from 77-81.
That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
False. As false as saying Snell couldn't run significantly faster than 1:44.3 or Jim Ryun couldn't run significantly faster than 3:33.
As false as saying Coe could never go significantly faster than 1:43.07 because that is the fastest he ever ran in an actual competition 800m in his entire career (and he competed in the 800m way more often than Ovett, and by the way that was a race he lost).
Your reasoning is pure nonsense, but as I said you will keep denying because you've gone too far with it.
The more you say the less convincing you are.
Says the bloke who's convinced school girl Phoebe Gill is doped up to the eyeballs.
If you "see" that Ovett has lost over a meter in the last few steps in the '78 EC final, than you just show that you are extremely biased. Beyer just finished way faster (for what ever reason) than Ovett. From 1:32 to 1:39 Beyer made up 1.5 meters, then from 1:39 to 1:43 another meter - because he was running faster. In the last step, Ovett maybe lost 1/100, at most 2/100. That's it, if you like it or not. 14/100 or over 1 meter is laughable.
Give him a 0.5 seconds slower 1st lap, and he might have finished 2/10 faster - but that's speculation. It was a great race for him with pacing all the way, running always close to the curb apart from the finish. It was by far his fastest time during his career. He might hjave been stronger in Moscow '80 and I estimate a 1:43.5 (around the WR at his prime without the outlier Coe) as his best he could do in his career. He just wasn't a 800m time trialist.
When someone has run reasonable fast, Ovett lost.
At exactly 1:40 in the race they are side by side but Beyer is clearly faster, you can see at 1:38 / 1:39 in the video as Ovett tries to respond
At 1:41 Beyer has the edge and the race is over; Ovett slows down significantly for the last ~2.5 seconds of the race conceding that he won't catch him
It is bizarre that you look at this race and can't admit that with a 50.8 first lap (1 full second slower) Ovett would be able to close at least with a 52.7 (1:43.5)
And yes he was better in Moscow -- voilá!
What is bizarre, is that you seriously try to convince people that Ovett could have covered the last 2 1/2 steps 14/100 faster (over 1 meter) - conceding that he won't catch Beyer...
Beyer was able on the last straight to run significantly faster than Ovett. First he made up his ~1.5 to 2 meter deficit. Then both continued with there different speeds and Beyer finished 25/100 or around 1.9 meters ahead of Ovett. But you are still saying that Ovett could have finished with a faster speed on the last ~2.5 seconds then he did the 10 seconds before? Completely nonsensical and also not at all to see on the video. 2/100 - nothing more.
Me and nobody else can "admit" that a 1.0 second slower 1st lap would have resulted in a 1.6 seconds faster 2nd lap - because nobody can know this. You think it is like this, I don't think it is.
Why do you think Ovett wasn't good in 1979? He almost broke the 1500m and Mile WRs, set his 1000m PB and was running constantly great. When confronted with a 1:44.70 in the 800m, he lost.
Wrong again, you simply lack knowledge of Steve Ovett's career.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win. Same reason why you'd never see Coe running faster than 1:43-1:44 in Championship races where it was obvious he was capable of running ~ 2 seconds faster if given the opportunity - the two time trial races that Ovett never had.
You've been provided with overwhelming evidence of the type of runner Ovett was -- more the Championship style racer than the WR beater -- and yet you deny it.
His loss in a fast race was the 1:44.09 after a 49.8 first lap (where he slowed down at the finish by the way, that race is easily a ~1:43.95) and perhaps if you want to include in 1979 he ran 1:44.9 losing to US Champ James Robinson (1:44.7) -- and 1979 was by far the weakest year he had in the 5 years stretch from 77-81.
That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
False. As false as saying Snell couldn't run significantly faster than 1:44.3 or Jim Ryun couldn't run significantly faster than 3:33.
As false as saying Coe could never go significantly faster than 1:43.07 because that is the fastest he ever ran in an actual competition 800m in his entire career (and he competed in the 800m way more often than Ovett, and by the way that was a race he lost).
Your reasoning is pure nonsense, but as I said you will keep denying because you've gone too far with it.
The more you say the less convincing you are.
No he isn't. That's your typical gaslighting. Typical, when you have zero arguments.
You avoid the inconvenient fact, as I pointed out above, that Salvatore's estimation of what Ovett might have been capable of was pretty much the same as mine - but not the same as you are claiming. Does he not understand "mathematics"?
At exactly 1:40 in the race they are side by side but Beyer is clearly faster, you can see at 1:38 / 1:39 in the video as Ovett tries to respond
At 1:41 Beyer has the edge and the race is over; Ovett slows down significantly for the last ~2.5 seconds of the race conceding that he won't catch him
It is bizarre that you look at this race and can't admit that with a 50.8 first lap (1 full second slower) Ovett would be able to close at least with a 52.7 (1:43.5)
And yes he was better in Moscow -- voilá!
What is bizarre, is that you seriously try to convince people that Ovett could have covered the last 2 1/2 steps 14/100 faster (over 1 meter) - conceding that he won't catch Beyer...
Beyer was able on the last straight to run significantly faster than Ovett. First he made up his ~1.5 to 2 meter deficit. Then both continued with there different speeds and Beyer finished 25/100 or around 1.9 meters ahead of Ovett. But you are still saying that Ovett could have finished with a faster speed on the last ~2.5 seconds then he did the 10 seconds before? Completely nonsensical and also not at all to see on the video. 2/100 - nothing more.
Me and nobody else can "admit" that a 1.0 second slower 1st lap would have resulted in a 1.6 seconds faster 2nd lap - because nobody can know this. You think it is like this, I don't think it is.
Why do you think Ovett wasn't good in 1979? He almost broke the 1500m and Mile WRs, set his 1000m PB and was running constantly great. When confronted with a 1:44.70 in the 800m, he lost.
I don't have a problem to concede to an argument when I see it, but I am not sure you got my point here.
Beyer was faster than Ovett at the final stretch, that is clear, however you can also clearly see from the video Ovett slowing down in the final 2 seconds of the race.
Look at how the gap grows in the final 2 seconds compared to the previous 2 seconds.
It is pretty obvious Ovett slows down
You point correctly that he finished approximately 1.9m behind Beyer and my point is that, hadn't he slowed down, he'd be behind approximately half of that distance, which doesn't contest any of your premisses. Beyer was faster than him at the final stretch, closed the gap and won the race by opening a small gap at the last 2-3 seconds of the race.
I didn't say Ovett wasn't good in 1979. I said it was the worst of the 5 years of his peak period which was from 1977 through 1981. Ovett himself writes in his book that he thinks his best year is 1981; most people would agree by the evidence of his races that it was either 1980 or 77/78; none will mention 79. You are right that he was running consistently well, but there's nothing spectacular compared to the other years.
In 1980 there was the Olympic 800m race, in 77 the 1,500m at the European (11.8 100m around the bend overwhelming John Walker) and in 78 it is often overlooked that in the same Champ he ran the 800m we are discussing (1:44.09) a few days later he was running one of his finest races, simply destroying the field with a 24.8 final 200m in a 3:35 race - whilst doing some waving at the final stretch. Very few runners in the history of the event would have the ability to do that. 77 and 78 are also the years he overwhelmed Henry Rono, in 77 at the 3,000m and 78 in the better-known 2 miles race he set a World Best with a ~55.7 last quarter to a 8:13.51 finish (and that was a prime Henry Rono at his legendary 78' season).
The near-mile WR you mention in 79 is a good example of why 79 - despite being a year he was running quite well - was not in the same level of the other years during his prime. In that race he didn't break the mile WR closing the race in a 28.0 last 200m (3:34 mid over 1,500) - compare that with the 24.8 in the 3:35 race of the year before and you will see what I mean -- 79, though great, was not in the same level of 77-78 for him.
The fact he lost a race when confronted with a 1:44.7 means what? Runners from all generations lose races when confronted to times they were able to run.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
What is bizarre, is that you seriously try to convince people that Ovett could have covered the last 2 1/2 steps 14/100 faster (over 1 meter) - conceding that he won't catch Beyer...
Beyer was able on the last straight to run significantly faster than Ovett. First he made up his ~1.5 to 2 meter deficit. Then both continued with there different speeds and Beyer finished 25/100 or around 1.9 meters ahead of Ovett. But you are still saying that Ovett could have finished with a faster speed on the last ~2.5 seconds then he did the 10 seconds before? Completely nonsensical and also not at all to see on the video. 2/100 - nothing more.
Me and nobody else can "admit" that a 1.0 second slower 1st lap would have resulted in a 1.6 seconds faster 2nd lap - because nobody can know this. You think it is like this, I don't think it is.
Why do you think Ovett wasn't good in 1979? He almost broke the 1500m and Mile WRs, set his 1000m PB and was running constantly great. When confronted with a 1:44.70 in the 800m, he lost.
I don't have a problem to concede to an argument when I see it, but I am not sure you got my point here.
Beyer was faster than Ovett at the final stretch, that is clear, however you can also clearly see from the video Ovett slowing down in the final 2 seconds of the race.
Look at how the gap grows in the final 2 seconds compared to the previous 2 seconds.
It is pretty obvious Ovett slows down
You point correctly that he finished approximately 1.9m behind Beyer and my point is that, hadn't he slowed down, he'd be behind approximately half of that distance, which doesn't contest any of your premisses. Beyer was faster than him at the final stretch, closed the gap and won the race by opening a small gap at the last 2-3 seconds of the race.
I didn't say Ovett wasn't good in 1979. I said it was the worst of the 5 years of his peak period which was from 1977 through 1981. Ovett himself writes in his book that he thinks his best year is 1981; most people would agree by the evidence of his races that it was either 1980 or 77/78; none will mention 79. You are right that he was running consistently well, but there's nothing spectacular compared to the other years.
In 1980 there was the Olympic 800m race, in 77 the 1,500m at the European (11.8 100m around the bend overwhelming John Walker) and in 78 it is often overlooked that in the same Champ he ran the 800m we are discussing (1:44.09) a few days later he was running one of his finest races, simply destroying the field with a 24.8 final 200m in a 3:35 race - whilst doing some waving at the final stretch. Very few runners in the history of the event would have the ability to do that. 77 and 78 are also the years he overwhelmed Henry Rono, in 77 at the 3,000m and 78 in the better-known 2 miles race he set a World Best with a ~55.7 last quarter to a 8:13.51 finish (and that was a prime Henry Rono at his legendary 78' season).
The near-mile WR you mention in 79 is a good example of why 79 - despite being a year he was running quite well - was not in the same level of the other years during his prime. In that race he didn't break the mile WR closing the race in a 28.0 last 200m (3:34 mid over 1,500) - compare that with the 24.8 in the 3:35 race of the year before and you will see what I mean -- 79, though great, was not in the same level of 77-78 for him.
The fact he lost a race when confronted with a 1:44.7 means what? Runners from all generations lose races when confronted to times they were able to run.
When you still "see" Ovett losing 14/100 in the last few steps of the '78 EC final, you are just biased. From the video of the race, it might be possible that he didn't put his max effort on the last 1 or 2 steps - that's 1/100, at most 2/100. He lost to Beyer by 25/100, because he couldn't hold his pace.
You think a 1.0 second slower 1st lap would give him a 1.6 second faster 2nd lap - based on which formula?
Regarding the extra meters covered, Marco Arop has run something like 51.2/49.4 for 1:40.6 in the Paris final. What do you think he could have run with a 50.5 1st lap?
How do you compare Ovett's 54.9/50.5 (for sure in weaker shoes) to that? Or to Kipketer's 48.2/53.0 in Zürich '97?
That you say Ovett in '79 wasn't as great as in the other years during his prime is based on exactly one thing: it helps your argumentation. Do you know all of Ovett's race distributions during this year? He raced great over 1500m/Mile (his by far best event) during the full season. When confronted with a very good 800m time, he lost. As always during his career. I can give you a very simple explanation for this: he just wasn't a great 800m time trialist like Coe, Cruz, Cram or so many others who came later. He could use his great finishing capabilities for his benefit (EC '78 (ignore Beyer) or OG '80).
You can see him as a potential 1:42.8 or maybe 1:41.0 runner if you like. I'm unbiased and see him at slightly under 1:44.0 in Prague and maybe at 1:43.5 in Moscow.
Despite his success, he wasn't an 800m runner. What do you think, why did he race the distance so rarely?
That you say Ovett in '79 wasn't as great as in the other years during his prime is based on exactly one thing: it helps your argumentation. Do you know all of Ovett's race distributions during this year? He raced great over 1500m/Mile (his by far best event) during the full season. When confronted with a very good 800m time, he lost. As always during his career. I can give you a very simple explanation for this: he just wasn't a great 800m time trialist like Coe, Cruz, Cram or so many others who came later. He could use his great finishing capabilities for his benefit (EC '78 (ignore Beyer) or OG '80).
You can see him as a potential 1:42.8 or maybe 1:41.0 runner if you like. I'm unbiased and see him at slightly under 1:44.0 in Prague and maybe at 1:43.5 in Moscow.
Despite his success, he wasn't an 800m runner. What do you think, why did he race the distance so rarely?
I'll comment just because I like this subject.
1979 this is his "race distribution"
400m (in relays) - 4
600m - 1
800m - 3 (+1 in 4x800 relay)
1000m - 2
1500m - 9
mile - 4
2000m -1
He won everything including except that one race vs James Robinson in Cologne. Looking at just the 3 800m races he contested solo, he won a race in Dublin in 1.46.2, finished second to JR in 1.44.91 (1.44.70) and won at Crystal Palace in 1.49.6
The thing is I don't disagree with you that Ovett wasn't a great front running/time trial 800m guy because he wasn't. But how many truly were/are? Coe, Cruz, Gray, Kipketer, Bucher, Bungei, Rudisha are the guys that spring to mind when I really think about guys who were fearless going after it on a consistent basis.
But looking closely at that 1979 season globally, there is only one race the entire year that we would by todays standards deem to be a "fast" race and that was the Coe "out of nowhere" WR race in Oslo. Zurich was won in 1.44.2, Cologne 1.44.70 and the 4th fastest race of the year was 1.45.20 in Split, Croatia which is basically what you need to run to win an NCAA D1 conference title these days. So fine, Ovett isn't a great front running 800m runner - but it's not like he had many opportunities to jump in a quick 8 and just use his strength to hang on to one or two guys and get a time. It was either guessing right that the Oslo 800m was going to be that fast, but I'm not sure many people saw that coming including Coe himself.
I just think it's harsh to say "well he couldn't even win a 1.44.70 race" when it's the only decently fast 800m he runs in all year. This was back in an era where a season was still built around practicing race craft 80% of the time and running fast 20% of time - something that had flipped as soon as the mid 80's - unfortunately just past his prime. The guy was still showing up to "National League" races and blowing guys away in 1.48/1.49 or running in 4x400m relays - again something that just doesn't happen anymore for the worlds best guys.
Why did he race the distance so rarely? He was better over 1500m/mile, better running them from the front and most importantly they were the WRs he was capable of running. It's not really any different to El G who could easily have run a number of fast 800's if he wanted to in his era running mid pack in the madness created by Kipketer - but he chose to not to for obvious reasons. Here we are penalizing Ovett because he did show up (albeit infrequently) in an era where there were far less truly fast races to begin with - almost none by todays standards.
You're entitled to your opinion, I'll still stick with this - if there were the volume and depth of 800m runners and races comparable to today back in his prime window era (78-81), he is a high 1.42 performer.
I don't have a problem to concede to an argument when I see it, but I am not sure you got my point here.
Beyer was faster than Ovett at the final stretch, that is clear, however you can also clearly see from the video Ovett slowing down in the final 2 seconds of the race.
Look at how the gap grows in the final 2 seconds compared to the previous 2 seconds.
It is pretty obvious Ovett slows down
You point correctly that he finished approximately 1.9m behind Beyer and my point is that, hadn't he slowed down, he'd be behind approximately half of that distance, which doesn't contest any of your premisses. Beyer was faster than him at the final stretch, closed the gap and won the race by opening a small gap at the last 2-3 seconds of the race.
I didn't say Ovett wasn't good in 1979. I said it was the worst of the 5 years of his peak period which was from 1977 through 1981. Ovett himself writes in his book that he thinks his best year is 1981; most people would agree by the evidence of his races that it was either 1980 or 77/78; none will mention 79. You are right that he was running consistently well, but there's nothing spectacular compared to the other years.
In 1980 there was the Olympic 800m race, in 77 the 1,500m at the European (11.8 100m around the bend overwhelming John Walker) and in 78 it is often overlooked that in the same Champ he ran the 800m we are discussing (1:44.09) a few days later he was running one of his finest races, simply destroying the field with a 24.8 final 200m in a 3:35 race - whilst doing some waving at the final stretch. Very few runners in the history of the event would have the ability to do that. 77 and 78 are also the years he overwhelmed Henry Rono, in 77 at the 3,000m and 78 in the better-known 2 miles race he set a World Best with a ~55.7 last quarter to a 8:13.51 finish (and that was a prime Henry Rono at his legendary 78' season).
The near-mile WR you mention in 79 is a good example of why 79 - despite being a year he was running quite well - was not in the same level of the other years during his prime. In that race he didn't break the mile WR closing the race in a 28.0 last 200m (3:34 mid over 1,500) - compare that with the 24.8 in the 3:35 race of the year before and you will see what I mean -- 79, though great, was not in the same level of 77-78 for him.
The fact he lost a race when confronted with a 1:44.7 means what? Runners from all generations lose races when confronted to times they were able to run.
When you still "see" Ovett losing 14/100 in the last few steps of the '78 EC final, you are just biased. From the video of the race, it might be possible that he didn't put his max effort on the last 1 or 2 steps - that's 1/100, at most 2/100. He lost to Beyer by 25/100, because he couldn't hold his pace.
You think a 1.0 second slower 1st lap would give him a 1.6 second faster 2nd lap - based on which formula?
Regarding the extra meters covered, Marco Arop has run something like 51.2/49.4 for 1:40.6 in the Paris final. What do you think he could have run with a 50.5 1st lap?
How do you compare Ovett's 54.9/50.5 (for sure in weaker shoes) to that? Or to Kipketer's 48.2/53.0 in Zürich '97?
That you say Ovett in '79 wasn't as great as in the other years during his prime is based on exactly one thing: it helps your argumentation. Do you know all of Ovett's race distributions during this year? He raced great over 1500m/Mile (his by far best event) during the full season. When confronted with a very good 800m time, he lost. As always during his career. I can give you a very simple explanation for this: he just wasn't a great 800m time trialist like Coe, Cruz, Cram or so many others who came later. He could use his great finishing capabilities for his benefit (EC '78 (ignore Beyer) or OG '80).
You can see him as a potential 1:42.8 or maybe 1:41.0 runner if you like. I'm unbiased and see him at slightly under 1:44.0 in Prague and maybe at 1:43.5 in Moscow.
Despite his success, he wasn't an 800m runner. What do you think, why did he race the distance so rarely?
In the 78 race, he didn't put his max effort not for 1 or 2 steps as you claim, but rather for 7 or 8 steps as you can clearly see from the video. At 1:38 - 1:41 in the race clock you can see Ovett fighting hard as Beyer passes him. By 1:41.5 the race is over and he starts slowing down - there are 6-8 steps to the finish depending on how you count for the last 2-2.5 seconds of the race.
As for Arop, interesting that you mention as I have been following him recently - he certainly seems to be in WR shape for a while now and some even say 1:39 is possible. There's a recent thread here with a workout he posted a few weeks ago that many people claimed a 1:39 was possible. I am not sure I see your point re the Paris race though - 51.2 and 49.4 counting the extra meters (i haven't done this estimation myself but will trust you); with a 50.5 first lap instead he wouldn't have closed that fast but maybe a little bit faster as a final time. Judging from his recent training, I personally think he is at 1:40 low shape.
Kipketer is one of my favorite runners ever. I am of the opinion that he was very close to sub 1:40 shape at this day in Zurich. It is not only the 400m split, he's also gone ~23.0 for the first 200m which is suicidal. The fact he still ran 1:41.24 - a then World Record - is remarkable. I don't think I've ver seen a runner in that kind of shape for the 800m. Maybe Arop is in similar shape now but then with the advantage of the super shoes so I'd still take Kipketer that day in Zurich. Look at what happened with Amos in Zurich with a similar first lap (and 23.5 200m).
That you say Ovett in '79 wasn't as great as in the other years during his prime is based on exactly one thing: it helps your argumentation.
This is false and I posted my arguments based on facts and evidence. It wasn't as great because there's nothing spectacular from this season, contrary to 77-78, 80 and 81 (the year Ovett himself thought he was at his best). I posted you the evidence in my previous races, with stats and splits, including an example from the 79 season. Don't say that my opinion is based on "it helps your argumentation" when I actually posted evidence for it. It is not fair or honest.
he just wasn't a great 800m time trialist like Coe, Cruz, Cram or so many others who came later.
This is a false inference. You are inferring he wasn't good at 800m time trialing because he never tried. You cannot reach this conclusion. One thing that is true and there's evidence - including from Ovett himself - is that he didn't enjoy time trials as much of other runners did. This is a matter of mentality, personality. Some runners enjoy more than others. I've given other examples for this, one that is very clear is Mo Farah who never really cared about time trial races despite having the potential to get much closer to the then 3,000m/5000m WRs (some will actually argued he had decent chances of getting those records).
He could use his great finishing capabilities for his benefit (EC '78 (ignore Beyer)
Not true as this race is not an example of "his great finishing capabilities".
You can see him as a potential 1:42.8 or maybe 1:41.0 runner if you like. I'm unbiased and see him at slightly under 1:44.0 in Prague and maybe at 1:43.5 in Moscow.
You think I am biased but I have no particular preference for Ovett and if there's any runner I'd be biased about would be Cruz since I am Brazilian. It is simply a matter of evidence.
Slightly under 1:44.0 in Prague means what? 1:43.8?
So Ovett splits in that race were ~49.8 and ~54.3.
Are you defending the point that with a full second slower in his first lap, he would have finished only .2 or .3 faster ? I don't think so.
Again my case is based on evidence - show me a runner capable of a 24.4 last 200m in a 3:35 race (pre-super shoes); or capable of a 11.8 100m segment (not even Coe as he had 12.1 for final 100m split at his race in Moscow); or capable of a 50.5 last lap in an Olympic final with a ~25.0 last 200m (other than Coe of course). Show me other runner with 21.7 200m speed and 13:20 5,000m strength.
Show me evidence please.
Despite his success, he wasn't an 800m runner. What do you think, why did he race the distance so rarely?
He was a 800m runner and a 1,500m/Mile runner who matured quite early -- you can clearly see that as he was only 1 year older than Coe !! of course his individual biology played a role. Note how quickly he faded after his accident in 82, Coe was ~32/33 and ranked 2nd in the World at the 800m as well as a Silver Medal at 89' World Cup. Very different metabolism and development from Ovett.
81 was the last season of his "peak" and yet he was only 25/26. Coe's 1:42.3 is from 79 -- I mean, you're not really into time trials, and now the WR becomes significantly harder, perhaps even unattainable, why bothering...? I don't know. Only Ovett could answer this question.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.