Cram 1:43 - Why Aren't 800's Run Like This Anymore?

Deanouk wrote:

xczvcxzv wrote:

Cram closed around 41.4/54.7. The third lap, around 57, cost him the chance, as he was not quite in the same shape as the previous year--but still good shape--and could not close as fast as in his mile record (53). It would have helped to have competition the last lap as with Aouita coming at him in Cram's 1500m record.

Also, with regard to the 1:43.22, he ran even per 400m, but his second 400m was by no means even. He ran about 26.4/25.0. So, he had plenty in the tank that day and could have gone harder earlier and been under 1:43 certainly.

I think Cram was in as good a shape in 86 as he had been in 85. According to his coach, Jim Headley, on the eve of the European Champs, he was “in the best shape of his life.” The fact he ran his second fastest ever 1500 and 800 in the 2 weeks following the Champs would seem to back that up.

Cram had very even pacing in Brussels - 56.2, 56.2, 56.3. So while he might have wanted it to have been a little faster by 1200m, he was in a great position to break the WR, and only missed by about 0.7.

You are correct about his 200m splits on the 2nd lap of the Commonwealth 800m (26.4/25.0), but don’t believe necessarily that the finish showed he had more left ‘in the tank’. I think I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread that when questioned after the race, he said he was “all out” over the last 200 because the increased roar of the crowd made him believe the rest of the field (McKean in particular) were closing behind him. Had he gone earlier then maybe he could have run a tenth or two faster, but he might just as easily have started slowing down before the end, thus cancelling out the time gained earlier.
in fact his 100m splits on the last lap were: - 13.5, 13.0, 12.3, 12.7.

So he clearly increased the pace quite a lot down the back straight, went all out round the bend and then tried to hold onto his speed down the straight. The fact his ultimate 100 was slightly slower than the penultimate one would suggest he didn’t have loads more in the tank.

I do agree that had the pacing been slightly different - perhaps 25.0, 25.8, 26.0 - he was in good enough shape to break 1:43. Anything faster than 50.6-50.8 at the bell and I think he would have had diminishing returns.

Btw, I think it is totally appropriate to compare Cram’s 1:43.22 to Coe’s 1:44.5 in 86, when you feed in the fact that Coe ran a good 11m extra on the bends. I’m pretty sure you mentioned it yourself years ago in a ‘discussion’ we were having with Ventolin!

Anyway, 11m is = 1.4 secs in a 1:44.5

meaning Coe’s run was equivalent to a 1:43.1 with a 24.4 last 200m.

Cram run 2.5m wide in Edinburgh, which = 0.3, so his run was intrinsically worth 1:42.9 (same as his pb) with a 25.0 last 200m.

Cram didn’t run as wide and McKean was on the rails for the duration, hence they were close at the end.
Moreover, McKean was in much better shape in Stuttgart compared to Edinburgh as shown by the fact that while the finishing times in both races were almost identical, he closed the Europeans (25.1) a second faster than he closed the Commonwealths (26.1).

The one thing I would agree with about it being difficult to compare the 2 is that the Europeans had a lot more changes in pace within the race, whereas in the Commonwealth final Cram seemed to control the race and do his own thing rather than react on what was happening around him.

The Europeans was also a higher standard in that the rounds were on consecutive days and were faster than Cram’s heats in Edinburgh when he had to run a 1:51.4 heat and 1:48.7 semi on the same day, followed by 2 rest days and then a final.

Deanouk wrote:

I think Cram was in as good a shape in 86 as he had been in 85. According to his coach, Jim Headley, on the eve of the European Champs, he was “in the best shape of his life.” The fact he ran his second fastest ever 1500 and 800 in the 2 weeks following the Champs would seem to back that up.

Cram had very even pacing in Brussels - 56.2, 56.2, 56.3. So while he might have wanted it to have been a little faster by 1200m, he was in a great position to break the WR, and only missed by about 0.7.

You are correct about his 200m splits on the 2nd lap of the Commonwealth 800m (26.4/25.0), but don’t believe necessarily that the finish showed he had more left ‘in the tank’. I think I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread that when questioned after the race, he said he was “all out” over the last 200 because the increased roar of the crowd made him believe the rest of the field (McKean in particular) were closing behind him. Had he gone earlier then maybe he could have run a tenth or two faster, but he might just as easily have started slowing down before the end, thus cancelling out the time gained earlier.
in fact his 100m splits on the last lap were: - 13.5, 13.0, 12.3, 12.7.

So he clearly increased the pace quite a lot down the back straight, went all out round the bend and then tried to hold onto his speed down the straight. The fact his ultimate 100 was slightly slower than the penultimate one would suggest he didn’t have loads more in the tank.

I do agree that had the pacing been slightly different - perhaps 25.0, 25.8, 26.0 - he was in good enough shape to break 1:43. Anything faster than 50.6-50.8 at the bell and I think he would have had diminishing returns.

Btw, I think it is totally appropriate to compare Cram’s 1:43.22 to Coe’s 1:44.5 in 86, when you feed in the fact that Coe ran a good 11m extra on the bends. I’m pretty sure you mentioned it yourself years ago in a ‘discussion’ we were having with Ventolin!

Anyway, 11m is = 1.4 secs in a 1:44.5

meaning Coe’s run was equivalent to a 1:43.1 with a 24.4 last 200m.

Cram run 2.5m wide in Edinburgh, which = 0.3, so his run was intrinsically worth 1:42.9 (same as his pb) with a 25.0 last 200m.

Cram didn’t run as wide and McKean was on the rails for the duration, hence they were close at the end.
Moreover, McKean was in much better shape in Stuttgart compared to Edinburgh as shown by the fact that while the finishing times in both races were almost identical, he closed the Europeans (25.1) a second faster than he closed the Commonwealths (26.1).

The one thing I would agree with about it being difficult to compare the 2 is that the Europeans had a lot more changes in pace within the race, whereas in the Commonwealth final Cram seemed to control the race and do his own thing rather than react on what was happening around him.

The Europeans was also a higher standard in that the rounds were on consecutive days and were faster than Cram’s heats in Edinburgh when he had to run a 1:51.4 heat and 1:48.7 semi on the same day, followed by 2 rest days and then a final.

whatadrick wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

I think Cram was in as good a shape in 86 as he had been in 85. According to his coach, Jim Headley, on the eve of the European Champs, he was “in the best shape of his life.” The fact he ran his second fastest ever 1500 and 800 in the 2 weeks following the Champs would seem to back that up.

Cram had very even pacing in Brussels - 56.2, 56.2, 56.3. So while he might have wanted it to have been a little faster by 1200m, he was in a great position to break the WR, and only missed by about 0.7.

You are correct about his 200m splits on the 2nd lap of the Commonwealth 800m (26.4/25.0), but don’t believe necessarily that the finish showed he had more left ‘in the tank’. I think I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread that when questioned after the race, he said he was “all out” over the last 200 because the increased roar of the crowd made him believe the rest of the field (McKean in particular) were closing behind him. Had he gone earlier then maybe he could have run a tenth or two faster, but he might just as easily have started slowing down before the end, thus cancelling out the time gained earlier.
in fact his 100m splits on the last lap were: - 13.5, 13.0, 12.3, 12.7.

So he clearly increased the pace quite a lot down the back straight, went all out round the bend and then tried to hold onto his speed down the straight. The fact his ultimate 100 was slightly slower than the penultimate one would suggest he didn’t have loads more in the tank.

I do agree that had the pacing been slightly different - perhaps 25.0, 25.8, 26.0 - he was in good enough shape to break 1:43. Anything faster than 50.6-50.8 at the bell and I think he would have had diminishing returns.

Btw, I think it is totally appropriate to compare Cram’s 1:43.22 to Coe’s 1:44.5 in 86, when you feed in the fact that Coe ran a good 11m extra on the bends. I’m pretty sure you mentioned it yourself years ago in a ‘discussion’ we were having with Ventolin!

Anyway, 11m is = 1.4 secs in a 1:44.5

meaning Coe’s run was equivalent to a 1:43.1 with a 24.4 last 200m.

Cram run 2.5m wide in Edinburgh, which = 0.3, so his run was intrinsically worth 1:42.9 (same as his pb) with a 25.0 last 200m.

Cram didn’t run as wide and McKean was on the rails for the duration, hence they were close at the end.
Moreover, McKean was in much better shape in Stuttgart compared to Edinburgh as shown by the fact that while the finishing times in both races were almost identical, he closed the Europeans (25.1) a second faster than he closed the Commonwealths (26.1).

The one thing I would agree with about it being difficult to compare the 2 is that the Europeans had a lot more changes in pace within the race, whereas in the Commonwealth final Cram seemed to control the race and do his own thing rather than react on what was happening around him.

The Europeans was also a higher standard in that the rounds were on consecutive days and were faster than Cram’s heats in Edinburgh when he had to run a 1:51.4 heat and 1:48.7 semi on the same day, followed by 2 rest days and then a final.

You mean as opposed to his fastest 800, 1500, mile, and 2000 in 1985?

Cram might have been as in good as shape as in 85, or even better at the Commonwealth Games, but he was clearly tiring after an epic season by the time of that world record attempt in Brussels. You state that he had perfect pacing. When he ran the mile WR in 85, he was surely capable of at least sub 3:29 with perfect pacing.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Standard Setters wrote:

Slow down, Sal. With the likes of Rudisha in the field Cram probably would have not entered the 800m, let alone gone out in 49-point and/or 1:14... he would have been a good 2 seconds back on the finishing straight.

Thanks for the revisionist history mate but it's all totally irrelevant. Rudisha wasn't entered, and the race didn't go out in 49/1.14. It went out in just over 51, he was around 51.8 and he closed in 25.2

That logic is so ridiculous that's like saying about Ingebrigtsen winning the Olympic 1500m last year "well had El G been in the field he probably would have just entered the 5000, let alone gone out in 1.50 and/or 2.46 at 1200m".

I made a case based on what has actually happened historically in the 800m. The only other race I could think of that was so slow through 600m with such a quality finishing time was Kipketer in Monaco 1997. So if you have some actual history/races you want to put on the table vs irrelevant hypotheticals then let's hear them.