Lol. And you don't!? Talk about pot calling kettle black
Deanouk, you are truly the most notoriously biased poster in the history of this website.
You only have to look at your lists of the 'greatest runners' to see what kind of bias you have. Just because it's shared by the majority here, doesn't mean it's any less biased.
To rule it out for Kipketer is to say that as a "clean" athlete he was faster than all the best on EPO in his generation. Color me sceptical on that. The "case" against Coe - who of course wasn't Soviet bloc - is far weaker.
To rule it out for Coe is to say that as a "clean" athlete he was faster than all of the best doped up athletes (apart of two?) of the next three generations including the EPO generation.
You bias is clear to see. Is this a phenomenon of people from English speaking countries?
So it's not just that rampant Kenyan doping has defiled the sport history, with countless tainted performance, times, and championship finals. Anybody outside of Kenya who ever managed to compete with them is automatically declared suspect too. It's almost like a virus.
It was before EPO. He is also not Kenyan, which ranks second only to Russia for doping busts. If Coe possibly doped in some way I would say for certain that the fastest md Kenyan - sorry - Dutch athlete - in the '90's absolutely did, with EPO rife and no test for it.
(Also, Elliott and Ryun's world marks were bigger outliers than Coe's 800m record).
You just reek of bias. On the one hand, Kipketer was barely and maybe not even better than Coe based on the better tracks and racing opportunities. On the other hand, he is more likely to have doped despite being far less of an outlier because there was no EPO test and Kenya some 20 years later would start getting assorted drug busts. And because this was the EPO era. Well, how much testing was going on in the '80s, and how effectively they were stamping out Soviet doping or blood doping/steroid use from anyone else? The answer? Not much and almost not at all.
I'd just advise you to leave drugs out of the equation, and focus on your other arguments which are not great either, but at least are less easy to poke giant holes in.
Your point might have some merit if British middle-distance runners were getting busted like flies for roids as soon as testing came in. 30 years later, it still hasn't happend once. Unlike Morocco and Kenya, where as soon as EPO testing came in, dozens of elite runners were getting caught. You also have to explain why the British didn't appear to jump on the EPO bandwagon in the 90's, even when it was legal, let alone there not being any testing for it. How is it plausible to believe that Coe, Cram, Ovett were all roiding and taking blood transfusions, and yet a decade or two later, Yates, Anthony Whiteman etc chose not to go the EPO route (the idea that that generation were so untalented as to be slower than the 80's Brits and the present ABP Brits, despite full throttle EPO, is absolutely absurd)?
Again, you have to fall back on the race card, even if it's not explicitly stated here. If there is no testing, everybody will dope equally, and it's racist to suppose otherwise.
There was drug and blood doping testing in the 80's. That is presumably why the Soviet Bloc athletes were careful when and where they ran outside of the Soviet Bloc, and produced superhuman performances in the Eastern Bloc, such as Beyer in Prague 78, and Straub in Moscow 80.
Leaving aside the fact that Coe and Ovett did lose to Soviet Bloc athletes in these instances, the fact that they could generally beat them clean, is due to them being far more talented, as well as the basic doping testing (outside the Soviet Bloc) just mentioned.
To rule it out for Coe is to say that as a "clean" athlete he was faster than all of the best doped up athletes (apart of two?) of the next three generations including the EPO generation.
You bias is clear to see. Is this a phenomenon of people from English speaking countries?
So it's not just that rampant Kenyan doping has defiled the sport history, with countless tainted performance, times, and championship finals. Anybody outside of Kenya who ever managed to compete with them is automatically declared suspect too. It's almost like a virus.
You and the weak Armstrong creep and the real viruses here. Spreading lies, bigotry and hatred.
Lol. And you don't!? Talk about pot calling kettle black
Deanouk, you are truly the most notoriously biased poster in the history of this website.
He definitely is. And he now also just openly lies (for example: in the 80 and 84 1500m OG finals all of the best were there).
And he just fails any common sense. Someone who really thinks that ignoring Kipketer's three outdoor world titles while comparing him to Coe just shows it's not possible to have some discussion with him about the subject. Not even Coevett would argue like that.
There were several attempts in this thread to compare their championship results fairly, but he just points on a mistake for 76 and runs away.
Deano, I know you don't care much about TAFN rankings, but still the magazine has some reputation, don't you think?
How do they rank Coe for the 83 season?
800m 10
1500m not in top 10
Why do you they have him so low?
And what if Coe would have been "injured" in 80 and 84 Olympics and never would have competet at a global champs. Would you rank him the same like now? Or if he would have won 4 golds in Helsinki and Rome?
Deanouk, you are truly the most notoriously biased poster in the history of this website.
You only have to look at your lists of the 'greatest runners' to see what kind of bias you have. Just because it's shared by the majority here, doesn't mean it's any less biased.
Well that’s just total bull, ElBull, but I guess never the twain shall meet.
John Wesley Harding09/26/2020 9:27pm EDT5 years ago
Hello friends. I have been noodling over life’s big questions, such as who are the top 100 men’s middle and long distance (800-marathon) runners of the last 75 years. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far. First, one honorable...
Over half the list is non-African (and that’s counting ex-pats and immigrants as African). Africa for sure puts up the most of any continent, but you can’t dismiss Bekele, El Guerrouj, Rudisha, Kipchoge, Gebrselassie, Farah, Aouita, Morceli, Kipketer, Bikila, Keino, Tergat, Lagat, Kemboi, Komen, Yifter, Rono, Kiptanui, Shaheen, Gammoudi, Ngugi, Wanjiru, Cheptegei, Ngeny, Kamworor, Makhloufi, Tadese, Bayi, Khannouchi, Amos (pre-bust), Cheruiyot, Sihine, C. Kipruto, Bungei, Bile, Niyongabo, Boit, B. Kipruto, Mulaudzi, Skah, Jipcho, Hissou, Wolde, Konchellah, Desisa, Mutai, Edris, Gebrhiwet, P.K. Koech and Ismael Kirui as being undeserving (well, maybe you can, but I won’t).
I might have a recency bias, considering there are a few modern guys listed who I might move to worse placings now two years later.
That's another way of describing the best- informed.
bias
noun 1. "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."
Not surprisingly, you don't care about fair or unfair as long as it fits your views. Says a lot about you.
I see you are easily confused by how the English language can be used. One person's "bias" is another person's "insight". But that is too subtle for you.
So it's not just that rampant Kenyan doping has defiled the sport history, with countless tainted performance, times, and championship finals. Anybody outside of Kenya who ever managed to compete with them is automatically declared suspect too. It's almost like a virus.
You and the weak Armstrong creep and the real viruses here. Spreading lies, bigotry and hatred.
I see it is hard for you to hear opinions that don't match your own.
Deanouk, you are truly the most notoriously biased poster in the history of this website.
He definitely is. And he now also just openly lies (for example: in the 80 and 84 1500m OG finals all of the best were there).
And he just fails any common sense. Someone who really thinks that ignoring Kipketer's three outdoor world titles while comparing him to Coe just shows it's not possible to have some discussion with him about the subject. Not even Coevett would argue like that.
There were several attempts in this thread to compare their championship results fairly, but he just points on a mistake for 76 and runs away.
I see that your life depends on your being right on subjects that are merely matters of opinion.
Coe didn’t run in 4 global 800s between 79 and 84, he ran in 2, getting 2 silvers, whereas Kipketer had twice as many opportunities. Coe was ill in 83 and didn’t contest the World Champs. Yet you treat it as a defeat, which is ridiculous. Kipketer was unable to run in Atlanta, but you don’t view that as a defeat do you? Kipketer also had a world indoor champs to run in, which also didn’t exist for most of Coe’s career. You can’t dismiss one athlete’s lack of world golds when comparing him to an athlete in a different era when the former had less than half the opportunities to compete in said world champs. You also ignore Coe’s victory in the World Cup in 81, which was emphatic, when the field was much better than the field he faced in Moscow. if you’re comparing Coe and Kipketer directly in their championship/ major games record, then you should be looking only at those events at which both had equal access to. Therefore Olympics and Europeans, as they were both held every 4 years during their entire careers. If it were decided that the Olympics would in future be held every 2 years, do you not think that there would be many more repeat champions? Of course there would! Would it be fair to make a judgement that an athlete in the future, running in Olympics one year, World champs the next, then back to Olympics, etc, who ends up with 4 global golds, was better than say Snell, because he had won twice as many golds? Of course it wouldn’t. But that is in essence what you are doing. Comparing apples with oranges again.
Whether he's sick, ill, injured, feeling the pressure or whatever that is part of how you evaluate one's career and greatness. Being available and running at your best at the biggest events is part of being great. Let's say Coe's career was 1978-1988, and Kipketer's was 1994-2004.
So we have for Coe 8 races: 1 Gold (Europeans), 3 Silver (1 European, 2 Olympics), 1 Bronze (Europeans), 3 DNCs (2 Worlds, 1 Olympics) For Kipketer we have 10 races: 4 Gold (3 Worlds, 1 Europeans), 1 Silver (Olympics), 1 Bronze (Olympics), 2 DNP (1 Worlds, 1 Europeans), 2 DNC (1 Olympics due to citizenship, 1 Worlds due to injury)
That is as objective as I can make it. Their best 10 years broken out.
You act like Coe and Kipketer faced wildly different scenarios, when in actuality in Kipketer's early prime ('94-99) he had 3 Global Title opportunities (and one Europeans) and had near-perfect seasons in the two seasons where he was unlucky to be unable to compete at a global meet ('94 off year, '96 ineligible). Kipketer went 3 for 3 in his global chances (gold), and finished 8th at Europeans with Malaria and a rough race scenario.
Meanwhile for Coe's early prime ('79-84), he had the same 3 Global Title opportunities (and one Europeans) and had near-perfect seasons in two of the seasons where he was unlucky to be unable to compete at a global meet ('79 and '81 ~ no global meets). This is the same as Kipketer. In Coe's global chances, he got 2 silvers and due to illness (again sorry this matters), he didn't compete in 1983. In 1982 he did best Kipketer with a European Silver.
Are you serious? Of course he couldn't make it to the line in 83; he was in hospital having treatment for a serious illness. No one can predict when an illness wil lay you low and no one in their right mind would consider it a failure to win a race if they weren't even there.
And of course he couldn't make the line in 87 as he was out all season with an injury after his very first race of the season. In any case, he'd been training all winter to move up to 5000m, so he wouldn't have been running 800m at a championships that year if he hadn't been injured.
Perhaps we should include his failure to 'make it to the line in Barcelona 92 as well!
Deano, part of being a great athlete is availability. "Of course" he didn't accomplish X, Y and Z is explanatory but doesn't add to Coe's greatness, it detracts from it. We were evaluating Coe vs. Kipketer, and Coe getting sick, injured, or feeling crushing pressure in Moscow, not running enough high-level 800s to prepare, these are merely excuses.
What did the two accomplish, how many important races did they run and win, records set and how did they perform with the chips down. That is greatness. Coe as a total middle distance runner is awesome, but at the 800 he is not on Kipketer's level.
Your point might have some merit if British middle-distance runners were getting busted like flies for roids as soon as testing came in. 30 years later, it still hasn't happend once. Unlike Morocco and Kenya, where as soon as EPO testing came in, dozens of elite runners were getting caught. You also have to explain why the British didn't appear to jump on the EPO bandwagon in the 90's, even when it was legal, let alone there not being any testing for it. How is it plausible to believe that Coe, Cram, Ovett were all roiding and taking blood transfusions, and yet a decade or two later, Yates, Anthony Whiteman etc chose not to go the EPO route (the idea that that generation were so untalented as to be slower than the 80's Brits and the present ABP Brits, despite full throttle EPO, is absolutely absurd)?
Again, you have to fall back on the race card, even if it's not explicitly stated here. If there is no testing, everybody will dope equally, and it's racist to suppose otherwise.
There was drug and blood doping testing in the 80's. That is presumably why the Soviet Bloc athletes were careful when and where they ran outside of the Soviet Bloc, and produced superhuman performances in the Eastern Bloc, such as Beyer in Prague 78, and Straub in Moscow 80.
Leaving aside the fact that Coe and Ovett did lose to Soviet Bloc athletes in these instances, the fact that they could generally beat them clean, is due to them being far more talented, as well as the basic doping testing (outside the Soviet Bloc) just mentioned.
Again, the straw man here is that I think the Brits were doping. I don't. I was just pointing out fallacies in Armstronglivs arguments about the impossibility of beating dopers that he cherrypicked to only matter in Kipketer and Rudisha's era. There was drug testing in the '80s, '90s and Aughts. I agree drug testing is probably better now, but for the eras were talking about I don't think there's a large difference, and if we presume these athletes are clean as I do I can believe they beat less-talented dopers.
Deano, part of being a great athlete is availability. "Of course" he didn't accomplish X, Y and Z is explanatory but doesn't add to Coe's greatness, it detracts from it. We were evaluating Coe vs. Kipketer, and Coe getting sick, injured, or feeling crushing pressure in Moscow, not running enough high-level 800s to prepare, these are merely excuses.
What did the two accomplish, how many important races did they run and win, records set and how did they perform with the chips down. That is greatness. Coe as a total middle distance runner is awesome, but at the 800 he is not on Kipketer's level.
Well said. Coe in my opinion is the 3rd best 1500 runner all-time behind El Guerrouj and Morceli, and the 4th best 800 runner all-time behind Rudisha, Snell and Kipketer = 3rd best MD runner behind El Guerrouj and Rudisha. That’s pretty, pretty, pretty good.
In his 1:41.24 he was paced/drafted to 430m, when the rabbit drifted outwards, enabling Kipketer to run no extra distance. He then had 2 athletes right behind him up to 600m. So that isn't 'zero competition'.
In his 1:41.11, he was paced/drafted up to 550m.
That's 150m extra help than Coe had in either of his WR runs, both of which required him to run around the pacer on a bend. The effects of this were negligeable in the 79 race, costing maybe 0.1secs, but more damaging in the 81 race, where he ran about 50m of the bend wide in lane 1, causing him to run c. 2m extra, which is worth 0.25 - 0.3 secs. That brings his effort down to a conservative 1:41.5. With an extra 150m of pacing/competition, then it would probably have given him another tenth or two. But he had no competition on the 2nd lap in either race, being some 30m + ahead of the rest of the field in both races by 500m.
OK a couple of notes. In the 1:41.24 he was paced/drafted to 430m but it was too fast. I dont think guys 5-10 meters back helps much. Sorry that feels like BS. They were not competing with him. In the 1:41.11, he had to go around the pacemaker, which I see you've ignored. He had zero competition.
Also Coe went around the pacer at around 450, so you've subtracted that drafting part. He also as most ran 25m of the bend in the outside of lane 1. Probably more like 15-20m. You are overstating the effect of this.
There are videos out there, and you can obfuscate as much as you want, but you're making too much of these marginal differences. Apples to apples might be the 1:41.24 and Coe's 1:41.7. I'd probably argue 48-low is worse than having to make a pass on the turn.
He definitely is. And he now also just openly lies (for example: in the 80 and 84 1500m OG finals all of the best were there).
And he just fails any common sense. Someone who really thinks that ignoring Kipketer's three outdoor world titles while comparing him to Coe just shows it's not possible to have some discussion with him about the subject. Not even Coevett would argue like that.
There were several attempts in this thread to compare their championship results fairly, but he just points on a mistake for 76 and runs away.
I see that your life depends on your being right on subjects that are merely matters of opinion.