It seems clear that Coe could have broken the 2000 meter record with the fitness he showed here. At the time, Cram held the record at 4:51.39. There is no doubt that Coe could have run 4:51.00 or slightly faster...
It seems clear that Coe could have broken the 2000 meter record with the fitness he showed here. At the time, Cram held the record at 4:51.39. There is no doubt that Coe could have run 4:51.00 or slightly faster...
sohcahtoa wrote:
Amazing. It's not that those pacers were particularly awful--Just that Seb Coe was too fantastic for them!
That's true the last pacer was stuggling to get ahead of Coe only just managed it and you could see he was all out. Probably why his positioning went as well because its hard to think clearly when you are at the limit
Even though that was Coe's fastest 1500m he did not look at his absolute best to me, but not many people can pr in their 30's
On Maree's inconsistency its probably down to racing too much (for him) and all the travelling
silly old fossil wrote:
Vento, WEAK SAUCE.
First off, Coe was not impeded any during that race.
2nd there was no wind that day...perfect for running.
3rd Rieti is a notoriously "suspect" track...similar to Stanford in that respect.
4th Coe failed to use correct starting technique for distance runners, thereby losing .5 second just on the start alone.
I've had my differences with Ventolin over the years more than most, and sometimes he gets carried away with the abstract science of calculating the true "worth" of a performance. However, there is no doubt that even pacing and some form of drafting do help. You might not agree with the exact figures, but clearly Coe would have run faster that day had the first 2 laps been 56 apiece, and he had drafting to the bell. It could have been 0.5 faster or more likely a bit more.
This applies to any top runner with a great differential in the pace.
With regards to your points:-
1) Coe was slowed down at the bell by Chesire's surge and then slowing. That's from the horses mouth.
2)I don't think anyone said there was any wind!? The conditions looked perfect, I agree.
3)Rieti being a suspect track is hogwash. It would have been measured and re-measured many times. Otherwise we can discount Komen's 3k WR, Ngeny's 1k, etc. Yes, it seems to attract good performances, but this is due to other factors dealt with on here before. E.g. trees, time of year, etc.
4) I don't even know what you mean by this!
Rieti as a suspect track: short course/fast timing/lower gravity/down hill
All of the above?
Link me to Bekele's 5000m world record and I'll be impressed.
I'm pretty sure that is James Mays.
downhillracer wrote:
Rieti as a suspect track: short course/fast timing/lower gravity/down hill
All of the above?
Is that a joke?
If it's a circuit and was downhill, then the other half would have to be uphill! The only way a downhill course would be of any benefit, was if it started at point A and finished at point B, like the NYC Mile; not if it went "round" in a circuit.
As for fast timing, just use a stopwatch while the vid is running!
This was run in 1986, not 1886. Everything would have been bona fide
deanouk wrote: 1) Coe was slowed down at the bell by Chesire's surge and then slowing. That's from the horses mouth.
To be fair, when someone narrowly misses a world record and then says "I coulda gone faster but X slowed me down," that's hardly the most objective form of evidence. In fact, claims of this nature "from the horse's mouth" are the least reliable claims imaginable.
On another note, I now use saucers to provide all the light in my dining room. They're very energy efficient and really brighten the room when they're lit up.
why doesnt texas instruments sponsor major races anymore?! how awesome is that!?
deanouk wrote:
I've had my differences with Ventolin over the years more than most, and sometimes he gets carried away with the abstract science of calculating the true "worth" of a performance.!
I actually like some of his analysis, I just don't get why he has to insult people and call them morons and imbeciles when they disagree by a few tenths. Though that is pretty funny from somebody who can't spell rabbit correctly.
He also tends to go overboard in not appreciating the performances that were actually run, IMHO.
Aouita, the next year:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
deanouk wrote:I've had my differences with Ventolin over the years more than most, and sometimes he gets carried away with the abstract science of calculating the true "worth" of a performance.!
I actually like some of his analysis, I just don't get why he has to insult people and call them morons and imbeciles when they disagree by a few tenths. Though that is pretty funny from somebody who can't spell rabbit correctly.
He also tends to go overboard in not appreciating the performances that were actually run, IMHO.
Yes, I agree.
galean wrote:
deanouk wrote: 1) Coe was slowed down at the bell by Chesire's surge and then slowing. That's from the horses mouth.To be fair, when someone narrowly misses a world record and then says "I coulda gone faster but X slowed me down," that's hardly the most objective form of evidence. In fact, claims of this nature "from the horse's mouth" are the least reliable claims imaginable.
It was also reported as such by T&FN at the time. A reporter at track side said the incident, hard to see from the angle of the video (camera is behind), probably cost him the record.
agreed - he was not impeded. deano u see what u want to seei have picture of someone i believe was u - if i get some time I will scan it and provide a linkwhy did cram beat him the week before
silly old fossil wrote:
Vento, WEAK SAUCE.
First off, Coe was not impeded any during that race.
2nd there was no wind that day...perfect for running.
3rd Rieti is a notoriously "suspect" track...similar to Stanford in that respect.
4th Coe failed to use correct starting technique for distance runners, thereby losing .5 second just on the start alone.
Following your "twisted" logic, why have a race at all...just do WR attempts on a treadmill, where all the negatives like wind, and pacing, etc are eliminated.
Nobody promised Coe perfect conditions....although Rieti was as close to perfect as you can get...PACING included.
deano's mate wrote:
agreed - he was not impeded. deano u see what u want to see
i have picture of someone i believe was u - if i get some time I will scan it and provide a link
why did cram beat him the week before
No, I go on what 2 separate reports of people who were there in the stadium on the day said.
If you go to the Youtube link, others (i.e. not me) also comment on why Chesire ran to the front and then slowed down!? It doesn't take a genius to work out that this would have slowed the person behind him down. Regardless of whether or not it "impeded" him, it certainly broke his rhythm and having to run wide on the bend to get past the rabbit would have cost at least 0.2. Of course the record books will say that he failed to break the WR, but IMO his run was hindered by a couple of factors.
In the same way Ovett's 3:30.77 on the same track 3 years earlier would have been faster had the wind not been blowing so strong, as commented by journalists at the time. This is just common sense. Of course he ran 3:30.77 on the day, and suggestions he should have run faster are hypothetical, but sometimes some athletes get more luck than others. It's called discussion and are the sort of debates these boards were partly designed for.
slowest LOOKING 1:51 i've ever seen
the race was in 1986, not 89...
toro wrote:
Think of this sequence:
1980- Coe wins Olympic 1500m
1984- Coe wins Olympic 1500m
1988- Peter Rono wins Olympic 1500m, injured Coe doesn't make team
1989- Coe runs lifetime best at 1500m
Obviously capable of three 1500m Olympic Golds
good pickup, johnny utah
deano
what happened when cram beat seb the week before?
So was Coe sponsored by Texas Instruments?