Coe was the best - both his WR's were run solo from 420m. If another athlete had been able to push him in 1979 he would have put the record completely out of sight. He just floated around in his 79 WR. 'The way he ran was just unbelievable. He looked like he could run under 1:40, he never tied up at all' (John Walker)
Im a roadrunner wrote:
Coe was the best - both his WR's were run solo from 420m. If another athlete had been able to push him in 1979 he would have put the record completely out of sight. He just floated around in his 79 WR. 'The way he ran was just unbelievable. He looked like he could run under 1:40, he never tied up at all' (John Walker)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jKIpKS6FI8
If memory serves my correct, there was a breakdown in the usual (and internationally used) timing system at Firenze when Coe set his world record - and the timing system the track resorted to was subsequently deemed by some as not up to par. It’s forgotten about these days, but at the time, I recall one particular journalist had quite a bee in his bonnet about it and pursued the controversy long after everyone else had become fed up with it.
Considering his world record time was only 4 hundredths of a second faster than Cruz’s, it’s worth mentioning.
Michael Vickora wrote:
coe, ovett, cram. that order.
You're bloody right, mate.
Just a couple of significant omissions, though: D. Beckman & J. Bond.
(C'mon, seriously... Btwn those 3, combined, how many 800m-Oly gold medals?!)
No to 2012 wrote:
Im a roadrunner wrote:Coe was the best - both his WR's were run solo from 420m. If another athlete had been able to push him in 1979 he would have put the record completely out of sight. He just floated around in his 79 WR. 'The way he ran was just unbelievable. He looked like he could run under 1:40, he never tied up at all' (John Walker)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jKIpKS6FI8If memory serves my correct, there was a breakdown in the usual (and internationally used) timing system at Firenze when Coe set his world record - and the timing system the track resorted to was subsequently deemed by some as not up to par. It’s forgotten about these days, but at the time, I recall one particular journalist had quite a bee in his bonnet about it and pursued the controversy long after everyone else had become fed up with it.
Considering his world record time was only 4 hundredths of a second faster than Cruz’s, it’s worth mentioning.
spot on - the timing equipment was faulty and they turned it off. Carl Lewis had been announced as winning the 100m in 9.92 seconds, a new world record, however, it was subsequently modified to 10.13 seconds. This was after Carl had completed a couple of laps of honour. The photo-finish equipment also failed leaving officials to rely on something called Digicron photocells which project laser beams across the track, which, when broken by the athlete, record times down to 1/1000th of a second. Coe's times were 1:41.724 and 1:41.727, while mandatory hand-timing was 1:41.6, 1:41.6 and 1:41.7.
Dave Cocksedge wrote in AW 'it's a great shame that Coe's run should be marred by confusion and official incompetence; and it's a mystery why the manual return of 1:41.6 was not forwarded for ratification. Photocell read-outs often placed by the finish line are provided as a guide for spectators. They are not official.'
(from Pat Butcher's The perfect Distance p215/6)
the greatest ever... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOgaH1kBil4
try this one on for size
Coelacanth wrote:
try this one on for size
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o6LQ4g7cc
It fits....
- pacemakers
- no "rounds"
- on juice (not even breathing hard after crossing the line...Have you ever run an 800m?! well, you know what i mean, then...)
No to 2012 wrote:
Yes, I thought Tracker1 was rather harsh about our Brazilian colleague’s comment.
We certainly never did see enough of Cruz.
I don’t know what happened - injuries maybe?
But he was magnificent at the 84 Olympics running a 1.45 - 1.45 - that might have been a 44, but I do know he ran a 1.44 semi and won the gold in 1.43.00.
The following year he came to Europe and in a shortened tour ran 1.41.77.
Not bad even when compared to Kipketer’s world record of 1.41.11.
And that was it - I suppose he did ran again, but I can’t recall anything like as well as in those two years.
With 100m to go in the 88 final, I thought he was going to do it again! He actually DID run well even in the early 90s.
Good point this guy is not even close to JC when comes to "natural" talent.( JC, Always fought against drugs. EVEN AGAINST FLO-JO BACK IN TIME. joaquim was clean and natural) WILSON WASN'T EVEN breathing hard after this race. SOUNDS LIKE EPO TO ME!!) JOAQUIM WILL BE ALWAYS #1!!!!
PAU NO CU DO WILSON !!!!
I don't get the "he doesn't even look tired so he must be on epo" posts. First of all guys like Coe often looked very fresh right after all out races. But is there something I don't understand here? Why would epo make the athlete less tired at a faster pace? If they weren't tired why couldn't they go faster? Can someone explain?
How big was Cruz? Height and weight?
wusup wrote:
How big was Cruz? Height and weight?
Bump, I'm also curious about this
Bramer83 wrote:
Coelacanth wrote:try this one on for size
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o6LQ4g7ccIt fits....
- pacemakers
- no "rounds"
- on juice (not even breathing hard after crossing the line...Have you ever run an 800m?! well, you know what i mean, then...)
Kipketer was as clean as they come. I've never met anyone (seriously) involved in pro track who has ever had reason to think otherwise.
An no one has ever run sub 1:42 without a designated pacemaker. Hell, Atlanta '96 had Johnny Gray as the undesignated pacemaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zixez2ulDZsWilson was THE BEST EVER.
omurphy21 wrote:
I don't get the "he doesn't even look tired so he must be on epo" posts. First of all guys like Coe often looked very fresh right after all out races. But is there something I don't understand here? Why would epo make the athlete less tired at a faster pace? If they weren't tired why couldn't they go faster? Can someone explain?
Explaining is not something that is done often around these parts.
Why would anyone suspect Kipketer of doping more than Coe? Kipketer, judging by appearance and stride alone, seems FAR more talented, and Coe was living in a prime age of doping/roids when there were no tests!
Kipketer was probably clean, and I'm certain that he would've beaten Coe 7 times out of 10 or better.
No to 2012 wrote:
We certainly never did see enough of Cruz.
I don’t know what happened - injuries maybe?
Actually it wasn't injuries, Cruz was murdered for missing a penalty kick in the World Cup. Before that, he was involved in a sex scandal with Xuxa.
somehomodude wrote:
Why would anyone suspect Kipketer of doping more than Coe? Kipketer, judging by appearance and stride alone, seems FAR more talented, and Coe was living in a prime age of doping/roids when there were no tests!
Kipketer was probably clean, and I'm certain that he would've beaten Coe 7 times out of 10 or better.
Probably 10 out of 10; head to head, Kipketer would always be in front of Coe (he had more natural speed). I don't see Coe running him down as strongly as Kipketer could finish. So how would Coe win?
Fanatic wrote:
somehomodude wrote:Why would anyone suspect Kipketer of doping more than Coe? Kipketer, judging by appearance and stride alone, seems FAR more talented, and Coe was living in a prime age of doping/roids when there were no tests!
Kipketer was probably clean, and I'm certain that he would've beaten Coe 7 times out of 10 or better.
Probably 10 out of 10; head to head, Kipketer would always be in front of Coe (he had more natural speed). I don't see Coe running him down as strongly as Kipketer could finish. So how would Coe win?
Kipketer had more natural speed than Coe? I don't think so - 400m PB Kipketer 46.85 Coe 46.87 (45.5 relay leg). When Coe was at Haringey he frequently worked out with the sprinters. In 1986 (when he ran his fastest 1500m) he was knocking out 200 reps in under 22. Before the 86 European 800m, where Cram was a hot favorite (after running 1:43 in poor conditions in Edinburgh), Mickey McFarland, the British Olympic sprinter, was so impressed by Coe's speed that he made a few thousand from the bookies from this race. Kipketer v Coe when both at their peak would always be close. Remember in Coe's prime (79,81) there was no-one close to him. Kipketer had much better competition in his era.
I'm sorry; as great as he was I just don't think Snell is really a contender for the title of greatest 800m runner of all time. Short career, without a tremendous depth of competition (certainly compared to the incredibly deep eras of Coe, Cruz, and later Kipketer). Roger Moens is the only serious competition I can think of Snell encountering. Obviously Snell was very strong runner, but I doubt he would have had the wheels to live with the event's later champions.
Also, I have trouble placing Cruz ahead of Coe. For the title GOAT, it is important to consider championship record, times, competition, records, longevity and consistency. Here's how Cruz and Coe match up over 800m:
Champion Medals
Cruz - 1 OG, 1 OS, 1 WC bronze
Coe - 2 OS, 1 ECG, 1 ECS, 1 ECB
World Records
Cruz - None
Coe - 2 (1:42.33 in 1979 and 1:41.73 in 1981); Coe held the 800m WR for a total of 18 years, over two incredibly deep running eras.
Times
Cruz - 6 sub-1:43 performances
Coe - 2 sub-1:43 performances (both WR's)
Longevity (Years from first major championship medal to last)
Cruz - 4
Coe - 9
It is certainly a tough call; Cruz takes Coe in Olympic performances and number of fast times, but Coe was the world's fastest 800m runner for 18 years, was consistently competitive for much longer, and had his own impressive championship medal haul (I include Europeans because Cruz contended in the Pan-American games, even winning a 1500m gold in '87). Ultimately, if you were to match up Coe in his prime ('81) against Cruz in his prime, I think Coe would win 9 times out of 10.
1. Kipketer (there should really be no debate here)
2. Coe
3. Cruz
4. Snell