epopians wrote:
Cram never got it right when it mattered the most.
Cram was 19 in his first Olympics and injured (again) in 84 and 88. That calf problem hounded him even in his best years. But Gold Medals in the WC, EC, CG must add up to something, as well as a silver in the OG while trying to recover from injury. I'd say you're a wee bit off. If we apply your logic, then Wilson Kipketer was complete shite.
One Mo Time fo Sho wrote:
epopians wrote:Cram never got it right when it mattered the most.
Cram was 19 in his first Olympics and injured (again) in 84 and 88. That calf problem hounded him even in his best years. But Gold Medals in the WC, EC, CG must add up to something, as well as a silver in the OG while trying to recover from injury. I'd say you're a wee bit off. If we apply your logic, then Wilson Kipketer was complete shite.
Of course he was a great runner and champion, but unfortunately it's Olympic golds that count the most.
As others have said, his injuries in 84 were exaggerated ( and both Ovett and Coe missed races in the run up due to injuries). In '88, he was his own worst enemy. You don't decide to try the double if you believe your injury is going to hamper your chances in your favourite event. You have to be in pretty good nick to even attempt to run both events. So, he was either being greedy to do both or he wasn't that injured. He didn't even get to the final of the 800.
The CoVette argument will rage (thankfully) until the end of time with no resolution. But I know of very, very few people who would claim Cram would be quite up there with Coe/Ovett if all three were healthy at their peaks.
One Mo Time fo Sho wrote:
epopians wrote:Cram never got it right when it mattered the most.
Cram was 19 in his first Olympics and injured (again) in 84 and 88. That calf problem hounded him even in his best years. But Gold Medals in the WC, EC, CG must add up to something, as well as a silver in the OG while trying to recover from injury. I'd say you're a wee bit off. If we apply your logic, then Wilson Kipketer was complete shite.
Yes & if I had (a lot) faster legs I could have won in 88. I knew this injury excuse would come up - athletics is a physical test & injury is a physical weakness. Either that or mistakes in training. You could argue that he was unlucky in when he had his best years - don't get me wrong Cram was a brilliant athlete (and I agree with you that he did get if right in several top comp's) but the Olympic Games is the pinnacle and Coe beats him hands down there
I was reading a book today - it had details and a description of every final in every sport at every olympic games.I hate to disappoint but it gave details of coe's last 200 - 26.1 with 13.04 last 100.
middle distance wrote:
Cram's was a one off race, Coe's was in a championship final after 7 races in 9 days. There's a big difference.
Coe's 3:32 was only 1.7 behind the WR and while his last lap was basically the same as Cram's (53.2), his last 800 was faster (1:49.8 to 1:51.3) and so was his last 100m (12.7 to 12.9). Their last 200m was similar (25.5 Cram to 25.7 Coe). So Cram wasn't any faster.
The guy also said he was there and has never seen anyone before or since run faster. That means live in the stadium. He probably wasn't in Oslo when Cram run and the sensation of watching speed on tv isn't the same.
If we really want to talk about moving fast, then Coe's 12.1 last 100m in Moscow is the fastest last 100 in any championship (before or since) and he also has the fastest last 100m in any international 800m race;- 11.3 in the Europa Cup semi of '81 (1:47.**)when he pulled a dozen metres clear of Olympic bronze medallist Kirov in the homestraight.
It's wrong!
As are a lot of split times in The IAAF's "Progression of World Records". The errors have been forwarded to Richard Hymans, the editor of previous publications.
Haven't got the book in front of me now, but I think it's Ovett's last 300m in Rieti that's about 2 secs out, and also several of Ryun's splits are wrong in there.
Aouita's last 100m in the Nice WR race was published in AW at the time and in various publications since as 11.8. This is wrong and has since been edited to 13.3.
I have a book called "The Milers" which is also wrong with the splits for this race. The official splits for the last 300 and 400 are correct, but those for last 100, 200 and 800, which were not officially taken, are not. Anyone with a copy of the race and a freeze frame button can clearly see this. Coe hit the 100m from home mark in 3:19.8. When he actually passes over the finish line the clock is at 3:32.4, as there is always a residual time delay of about 0.1, so if anything it might have been slightly faster. It certainly wasn't 13.04
The same book gives Coe's last 200m in his 84 Zurich race as 25.09 (they say the fastest ever recorded), but this is also wrong. It was 25.6.
Don't always believe what you see/read in books.
middle distance wrote:
It's wrong!
As are a lot of split times in The IAAF's "Progression of World Records". The errors have been forwarded to Richard Hymans, the editor of previous publications.
Haven't got the book in front of me now, but I think it's Ovett's last 300m in Rieti that's about 2 secs out, and also several of Ryun's splits are wrong in there.
Aouita's last 100m in the Nice WR race was published in AW at the time and in various publications since as 11.8. This is wrong and has since been edited to 13.3.
I have a book called "The Milers" which is also wrong with the splits for this race. The official splits for the last 300 and 400 are correct, but those for last 100, 200 and 800, which were not officially taken, are not. Anyone with a copy of the race and a freeze frame button can clearly see this. Coe hit the 100m from home mark in 3:19.8. When he actually passes over the finish line the clock is at 3:32.4, as there is always a residual time delay of about 0.1, so if anything it might have been slightly faster. It certainly wasn't 13.04
The same book gives Coe's last 200m in his 84 Zurich race as 25.09 (they say the fastest ever recorded), but this is also wrong. It was 25.6.
Don't always believe what you see/read in books.
Yes, instead you should believe what some anonymous guy wrote on the internet. Because he can clearly see it, so it must be true.
There's enough books out there in schools preaching that we all evolved from Adam & Eve. Just coz its in a book, doesn't make it true either.
Ive looked at the race on Youtube and the time for the last 100 was clearly faster than 13 secs. The time with 2 laps to go and 300 to go for Coe on the running clock corresponds with the times given on Wiki. Why would they be on the money for these times and 4 tenths out for the last 200 and 100m?
He hits the 200m from home curve in 3:06.7/3:06.8, so its faster than 26secs.
12.7 and 25.7 look about right to me. The 13.04 is probably the curve time.
Different books often contradict each other.
The IAAF has Ovett's last 200m in Moscow as 24.3! and laps of 54.6/50.8, which are clearly wrong, and that's the IAAF! These are also published in "The All Time Greats of British Athletics" (by Mel Watman). Strangely at the time of Moscow he was editor of Athletics Weekly and those are very different to the split times he quoted then.
On video evidence Warren clearly stops the clock at 54.55 and Ovett is about 3m behind him. He couldn't have been any faster than 54.9, so his laps were more likely 54.9/50.5, as was quoted by Athletics Weekly at the time. His last 200m was 25.0 nowhere near 24.3.
The above site gives Coe's laps as 54.7/51.2. Which is also way off the mark. Coe was dead last at the bell in 55.2/55.3, at least 4m behind Warren and more than at least 2 tenths behind Ovett. You can't cover 4m+ in 0.15 secs.
Walker's closing splits in Montreal are given in "The Milers" ( a T&FN publication) as 1:51.0, 52.7, 37.9 and 25.4. Most of these would have been taken by hand timing and often calculated from the leader's time at those points. Closer inspection shows he was faster over 3 of those times:- 1:50.7 (last 800), 52.5 (400)and 25.2 last 200m.
Returning to Moscow, the last 300m split for Coe in the 1500 is often given as 38.9. But Straub went through 1200m in 2:59.44 (rounded to 2:59.5), and it is this time that has been used to equate Coe's last 300m (3:38.4 - 2:59.5= 38.9). In reality however, Coe was about 2-3m back in around 2:59.7/2:59.8, meaning his last 300 was 38.6. The same is true of the final 200m. Analysis with the 800m gives a last 200m of 25.0, the same as Ovett in the 800m.
Another anomaly is that of Ryun.
His 2nd Mile WR (3:51.1) is readily available on Youtube, and he clearly goes through the bell in 2:57.3, giving him a fast 53.8 last quarter. Yet the IAAF book of World Records still has it listed as 52.5! Quite some difference.
Reference books are littered with errors, and the best way of knowing which are right is to check them out for yourself if you have access to the race on film.
cool
really cool
There is less likely to be mistakes with Coe's splits in LA as he was in front.Yes, I am an anonymous guy on the internet but so is everyone else. I can give you the name of the book and the page - next time I am in the bookstore I will check.When I got home after reading the splits I tried to confirm on youtube but all I could find was the slow mo 16 days of glory footage with no running watch. I even checked Seb's "Coming Back" but could find no reference to times for the last 200I am happy to concede I am wrong if I can check the video with times - does anyone have a link.
epopians wrote:
Different books often contradict each other.
The IAAF has Ovett's last 200m in Moscow as 24.3! and laps of 54.6/50.8, which are clearly wrong, and that's the IAAF! These are also published in "The All Time Greats of British Athletics" (by Mel Watman). Strangely at the time of Moscow he was editor of Athletics Weekly and those are very different to the split times he quoted then.
On video evidence Warren clearly stops the clock at 54.55 and Ovett is about 3m behind him. He couldn't have been any faster than 54.9, so his laps were more likely 54.9/50.5, as was quoted by Athletics Weekly at the time. His last 200m was 25.0 nowhere near 24.3.
The above site gives Coe's laps as 54.7/51.2. Which is also way off the mark. Coe was dead last at the bell in 55.2/55.3, at least 4m behind Warren and more than at least 2 tenths behind Ovett. You can't cover 4m+ in 0.15 secs.
Walker's closing splits in Montreal are given in "The Milers" ( a T&FN publication) as 1:51.0, 52.7, 37.9 and 25.4. Most of these would have been taken by hand timing and often calculated from the leader's time at those points. Closer inspection shows he was faster over 3 of those times:- 1:50.7 (last 800), 52.5 (400)and 25.2 last 200m.
Returning to Moscow, the last 300m split for Coe in the 1500 is often given as 38.9. But Straub went through 1200m in 2:59.44 (rounded to 2:59.5), and it is this time that has been used to equate Coe's last 300m (3:38.4 - 2:59.5= 38.9). In reality however, Coe was about 2-3m back in around 2:59.7/2:59.8, meaning his last 300 was 38.6. The same is true of the final 200m. Analysis with the 800m gives a last 200m of 25.0, the same as Ovett in the 800m.
Another anomaly is that of Ryun.
His 2nd Mile WR (3:51.1) is readily available on Youtube, and he clearly goes through the bell in 2:57.3, giving him a fast 53.8 last quarter. Yet the IAAF book of World Records still has it listed as 52.5! Quite some difference.
Reference books are littered with errors, and the best way of knowing which are right is to check them out for yourself if you have access to the race on film.
Don't always believe what you see/read in books.[/quote]
Yes, instead you should believe what some anonymous guy wrote on the internet. Because he can clearly see it, so it must be true.[/quote]
Well, you should if the guy in question has seen every video and read every book ever written on Coe.
It's very unusual for official splits to be taken with 200 or 100m to go, even more unusual for such times to be published. It's mostly the last lap or 300m as they are on the finish and start lines where official time keepers are stationed.
Many last 200m splits that are given are either mentioned as the result of a hand held stopwatch or are taken from video images. That's why there are often conflicting versions. If one such time gets published, its taken as gospel and then gets reproduced everywhere. Before you know it all the statisticians refer to it.
Thats what happened with the Ryun split I mentioned earlier.
I have my own BBC version of the LA race (with slow mo after wards) which has Coe going through 200m from home in 3:06.7/3:06.8. Don't forget it's not when his foot touches the line but when his torso is above it. He goes through 100m from home in 3:19.8. If you slow it right down at the finish, the clock is actually just on 3:32.4, before flicking over to 3:32.53 as he crosses the line. On some stadium clocks it does this, while on others it seems the clock actually stops almost on the spot.
A reasonable, sensible and conservative estimate would be to take his time as his torso is above the line and add 0.1.
Thus 3:06.7 = 3:06.8 (25.7)
3:19.8 = 3:19.9 (12.6)
As 3:32.4 = 3:32.53.
There's a possible give or take of 0.1 either way.
The best version of the race on Youtube is:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkz8VLO3iE
You need to go about 6 mins in. It's obviously a small screen and not terribly clear. Shame you haven't got your own copy on dvd as it's quite clear what the times are on my large screen tv; and you can slow it right down and pause it.
Hope that helps.
Thanks.
My eyes say
3.06.7
3.19.7 (13.0)
3.32.5 (12.8)
What do others see?
For some reason as Seb crosses the line, there are two sebs.
I've never seen Ryun credited with a 52.5 in his WR mile. His last 440 was a very easy 53.7, attesting to his freakish talent. In the film bio about Ryun, he says it was the easiest race he ever ran. Just one of those days. Too bad the coaching and training was so off the wall and primitive.
Most of the reports I've read on the 1984 1500 final have Coe at 13 flat over the last 100 meters. Getting splits off DVD's / television isn't as reliable as some claim. This is why it's so hard to get final 100/200 splits. For instance, Ryun ran a 36.4 last 300 meters in a 3:38.2 race in 1967. There's no argument over his last 300 (or 400 - 50.6) split, in fact, it turns out the timing was electric in Germany, as it had been in some large meets (Olys and EC's) in Europe (and the Melbourne Games in Australia) since the 50's. The quibbling is over his splits for the 100 meters down the backstretch, the last 200 on its own. It's only been broken down by witnesses with stopwatches and / or guesses. Much the same with Coe over the last 300 in '84. We know his exact final 300. The rest is everyone stopping and starting DVD's, VCR's, Youtube, you name it. Coe could have hung with most of the kickers through history, unless they really opened up over the last 300, which would dent anyone's speed over the final 100. Morceli would have run the legs of most kickers over a full last lap at his peak. Far too strong for someone like Coe who liked to sit and wait until the final 100, as fast as some of his long finishes seemed. It was Coe's sit and wait approach that had the Moroccans train El G to employ the tactic of always going for it over the last 600. I remember an interview in which El G's main coach talked about this, and they felt that 9 out of 10 times it would drain those who relied merely on speed over the last 100 - 300. Most of the time it worked.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Don't always believe what you see/read in books.
Yes, instead you should believe what some anonymous guy wrote on the internet. Because he can clearly see it, so it must be true.[/quote]
Well, you should if the guy in question has seen every video and read every book ever written on Coe.[/quote]
I've seen and read most of them myself. That doesn't give me any more credibility than him.
epopians wrote:If Ovett had been healthy, maybe the race would have been slightly different over the last lap. With the positions they were in with a lap to go, I think Ovett would have got by Cram in the last 100, but he sure as hell wouldn't have beaten Coe that day, even at his absolute best of 1980.
ovett was NOT at his absolute best in '80
anyone who watched his career from '76 onwards knows the best form of his life was in '78 when he ran 1'44.09 in a tactical & overly fast 1st lap 800 & 8'13.51 when just shadowing rono & kicking off him - couda gone at least a coupla secs faster if rono had had the energy that late in the season ( 8'13.5 is =~ 7'37.0 with 1.08 conversion & rono ran a -ve split 7'32.1wr earlier )
trying
http://www.jundo.co.uk/1'44.09 / 8'13.51 ->
2'13.83
3'30.89
3'48.15
4'50.78
all of which wouda been wrs
& as stated, his 800 & 2 mile times weren't absolutely best flat-out gun-to-tape & ideally wabbited
he was capable of 1'43.50 - 1'43.75 that day off a ~ 50.5 & as stated, his 2 mile was certainly upto about 8'10.0 - 8'11.50 if rono had run harder
some estimates :
1'43.75 / 8'11.50 ->
2'13.38
3'30.12
3'47.31
4'49.67
1'43.50 / 8'11.50 ->
2'13.11
3'29.86
3'47.06
4'49.46
1'43.75 / 8'10.00 ->
2'13.30
3'29.80
3'46.93
4'49.06
& finally
1'43.50 / 8'10.00 ->
2'13.04
3'29.55
3'46.68
4'48.84
he was certainly capable of high-3'29 in '78, but of course, it wouda needed perfect wabbiting & almost certainly a big push from 500 - 600m out ( trying to do it on last 400 won't do it - he'd have been likely at 2'35/2'36 there if following a fading wabbit & 3'29 ain't coming off that ) as wabbit usually falters at about 900m - ovett was obviously capable of the big push from long way out ( 8'13.51wr shows that ) but he didn't do it in his wr races - essentially leaving it to the last lap
The we have this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W7GogWlv7Q
25.1 last 200 off a fast pace
and that is jogging down the straight
Sebastian Coalminer wrote:
I've never seen Ryun credited with a 52.5 in his WR mile. His last 440 was a very easy 53.7, attesting to his freakish talent. In the film bio about Ryun, he says it was the easiest race he ever ran. Just one of those days. Too bad the coaching and training was so off the wall and primitive.
Well I've seen 52.5 bandied about on here and other message boards. It's also in the "IAAF's World Progression of World Records: 2007 edition" for all to see, if you'd care to take a look. If the IAAF can't get it right then I think caution is needed whenever so called "official stats" are published. The same book also has Ovett's last 300m in Rieti as 39.7, when it was 2 seconds slower. Aouita's 11.8 last 100 is another case in point. It was only with dvd/video recording after the fact that someone with an ounce of knowledge realised that split was taken from the 90m mark and that his last 100m was c. 13.2/13.3.
Sebastian Coalminer wrote:
Most of the reports I've read on the 1984 1500 final have Coe at 13 flat over the last 100 meters. Getting splits off DVD's / television isn't as reliable as some claim.
It's far and away the most reliable for finding 100 and 200m splits for the reason you give. Namely that such times are seldom taken. If the dvd pause button gives splits which correspond with known and uncontested times, then why should they not be as reliable in other instances during the same race!? In some older televised races the clock didn't always stop (as it usually does now)at the 400 and 300m from home points, yet I have found that pausing an image at such points gives identical split times as those quoted in books. I'm not saying that all splits given in reference books are wrong, just that there are always going to be misatkes made. E.g. Coe clearly ran much faster than 13.0 for the last 100 in LA, and Aouita clearly didn't run 11.8 for the last 100 in Nice 85.
How do you think tv commentators and statisticians are able to tell the viewer almost immediately what so and so ran for the last Xmetres? Because they have someone infront of a monitor playing it back.
Sebastian Coalminer wrote:
This is why it's so hard to get final 100/200 splits. For instance, Ryun ran a 36.4 last 300 meters in a 3:38.2 race in 1967. There's no argument over his last 300 (or 400 - 50.6) split, in fact, it turns out the timing was electric in Germany, as it had been in some large meets (Olys and EC's) in Europe (and the Melbourne Games in Australia) since the 50's. The quibbling is over his splits for the 100 meters down the backstretch, the last 200 on its own. It's only been broken down by witnesses with stopwatches and / or guesses.
Why do you know there is no argument over his last 300 and 400m times? Have you seen a video of this race? I certainly haven't. At least with some of the other races discussed on here there is access to the races.
I have seen wrong times (electronically) given at 1200m even in recent Major Championships. I can't remember off hand which (I'll look later), but one was in a World Champ final that involved EL G or Morceli, and the display on screen came up for the interval time at the line which appears about 6m before the 1500 start line. I can also remember a similar thing happened when EL G was running one of his 3:26 clockings. Again, I will find out which precisely later. In Moscow Straub went through 1200m in 2:59.44 (on screen) with Coe 3m back. Yet his (Coe's)1200m interval time is usually given as 2:59.5. That is impossible. Even if one argues that the time of Straub in an Olympics final was unreliable, then how can one say with confidence that one given in a less important meeting in the '60's, (with a timing to 1dp rather than to the nearest hundredth) which doesn't seem to have been televised, is 100% reliable. Most people will say, "because it's been written in books ever since". I've already shown that books aren't always entirely accurate.
Moreover, you even say yourself that some splits are broken down with stopwatches and guesses. I'm not saying he didn't run those times because I wasn't there and don't know, but excuse me for having some doubts just because a book states it as fact. Doesn't fill me with much confidence!
Sebastian Coalminer wrote:
Much the same with Coe over the last 300 in '84. We know his exact final 300.
Coe could have hung with most of the kickers through history, unless they really opened up over the last 300, which would dent anyone's speed over the final 100. Morceli would have run the legs of most kickers over a full last lap at his peak. Far too strong for someone like Coe who liked to sit and wait until the final 100, as fast as some of his long finishes seemed.
I disagree that he was "far too strong". Morceli was running 3:27 more than 10 years after Coe's peak. There is a lot of evidence to suggest Coe was also capable of 3:27/28 given the improvements in pacing and had he actually bothered to run enough of them. A 3:31 solo and 3:29 in his twilight, both off dreadful pacing back this up.
Of course at this stage, Ventolin (who has been conspicuous with his absence this last week;...I was hoping he'd got washed up on a desert island or something)will but in, call me a moron, quote his predictor and go on about Coe never being capable of this. No matter, I think otherwise.
On top of that, major finals, until the likes of EL G had his own rabbits setting WR pace for him, seldom went below 3:33. Straub tried to run the finish out of him in Moscow, with Coe running 1:46 pace for the last 700 (when Straub upped the tempo). Yet he was still able to increase his speed twice in the last 200 to cover the last 100 in 12.1.Morceli never displayed that sort of closing speed in any of his championship wins.
Of course, with Morceli (rather than Straub)going from 400 out, it would have been faster still and Coe would have less left, but then he was the 1000m record holder. I doubt Morceli (with an inferior 1000m) would have got rid of Coe in a championship race, and I think it would have been close in the final sprint. Certainly Coe's basic speed was superior.
Sebastian Coalminer wrote:
It was Coe's sit and wait approach that had the Moroccans train El G to employ the tactic of always going for it over the last 600. I remember an interview in which El G's main coach talked about this, and they felt that 9 out of 10 times it would drain those who relied merely on speed over the last 100 - 300. Most of the time it worked.
Why would the Moroccans be training to employ tactics to beat Coe when he had long since retired?