Track and Field News says that Solinsky ran his final 100m in 12.1?

heytheredelilah wrote:

Watch somebody run a 54 400, and watch somebody run a 47 400. You can tell a whole lot more of a difference than watching a 12.1 compared to a 13.7

Yes you can, the 'woooo' is 35 seconds longer.

brooks launch wearer wrote:

Why is that hard to believe?

His pentultimate lap was a 60,

His pentultimate lap was 66.2, wasn't it?

malmo wrote:

brooks launch wearer wrote:

Why is that hard to believe?

His pentultimate lap was a 60,

His pentultimate lap was 66.2, wasn't it?

No. It was about 60. Malmo, do you know what penultimate means?

Oh, I see you were joking due to his butchering the word...

hotter than hell wrote:

malmo wrote:

His pentultimate lap was 66.2, wasn't it?

No. It was about 60. Malmo, do you know what penultimate means?

The proper question is do YOU know what "penTultimate" (sic) means?

George Webbs wrote:

Seb Coe's last 100 in the 1984 1500 looked really fast but again it was 13.0. His previous 100 was faster-12.7.

Wrong. Using a freeze frame on video as Malmo suggests, it's clear that the finishing 200 and 100m times (again, reported in T&FN at the time as 26.1 and 13.0) are quite a bit out. They were 25.7 and 12.7, meaning he did speed up in the last 100m (13.0 round the curve, 12.7 in the straight).

Malmo is correct in saying that the point is, that 12.1 is so patently absurd and anyone with any understanding of the event should spot this a mile off. It's similar to when they said Aouita ran the last 100m in his 3:29 Nice run in 11.8!! That was his last 90m. His last 100m was 13.2. You don't run the fastest ever last 100m in a World record race. Perhaps he could have run this in a slow 3:46 1500, but not a 3:29/3:30.

It seems that there is a lot of inaccurate splits being given for last 100m recently. The other week it was reported on here that Wheating finished in 11.5 in his 3:59 Mile, when it was actually around 12.9. The problem seems to be coming from the clear line that appears on many new tracks at the beginning of the straight which represents 90m from the finish.

malmo wrote:

Heres more detailed information from the list you quoted.

50.8 Ovett 1980 Oly 27.2, 27.4, 26.5, 24.3 (54.6/50.8) 1:45.4

51.2 Coe 1980 Olympics 27.3, 27.4, 26.7, 24.5 (54.7/51.2)

Sorry, but have to point out that these stats for the Moscow 800m are also a bit out.

For a start there was only 0.45 between Ovett & Coe at the finish, so if Ovett was 0.4 (50.8 to 51.2) faster on the 2nd lap, they'd have had to have been beside each other at the bell. Any video of the race will show you Coe was at the back at least 3m behind Ovett.

Warren went through 400m in 54.55. Ovett was 2.5-3m behind in 54.9, with Coe at the back in around 55.2

That gives them second laps of 50.5 Ovett, 50.6/50.7 for Coe, who of course ran the whole 2nd lap in lane 2.

It's impossible Ovett ran the last 200m in 24.3 also. It's clear from video footage his last 100m is 12.7 (Coe's 12.6), so unless he ran the curve in 11.6! (meaning Kirov wouldn't have been far off either) then 24.3 is wrong.

The UK coverage of the race didn't show the 200m curve line on the track in the final. However it did in one of the heats. Using this and clear visual markers seen in both the heat and final nearby, you can work out that Ovett's last 200m was 25.0 (give or take 0.1), the time given by the AW statistician at the time, and Coe's 24.9.

The splits for the 800 in Moscow were: -

Ovett - 54.9/50.5 (26.3, 28.6, 25.5, 25.0) 1:45.40

Coe - 55.2/50.65 (26.3, 28.9, 25.7, 24.9) 1:45.85

You can use the same process to work out the closing splits for the 1500 too. Coe's last 200m was also 25.0 (not 25.4 quoted in T&FN at the time)and last 100m in 12.1. Still the fastest last 100m in a Championship 1500m race.

The idea that Solinsky ran his last 100m as fast as Coe's is obviously a far fetched one.

epopians wrote:

The UK coverage of the race didn't show the 200m curve line on the track in the final. However it did in one of the heats. Using this and clear visual markers seen in both the heat and final nearby, you can work out that Ovett's last 200m was 25.0 (give or take 0.1), the time given by the AW statistician at the time, and Coe's 24.9.

The splits for the 800 in Moscow were: -

Ovett - 54.9/50.5 (26.3, 28.6, 25.5, 25.0) 1:45.40

Coe - 55.2/50.65 (26.3, 28.9, 25.7, 24.9) 1:45.85

Good research. I can't find any video evidence other than this grainy video, but on first examination Track and Field News splits again look to be for 90m not 100m.

In this video Ovett crosses "a line" at 1:32.1, which puts him at 13.3 to the finishline. Again we see a pattern of taking splits at the end of the exchange zone and not the middle. For a Travel Agency that prints a Track and Field Fanzine on the side I suppose you really can't find fault in that. The least they could do for their dilettante timers is print out a detailed map of a track stadium, with explanations what the various markings on the track mean and where they are. Like this one of Stanford's track.

Cheers. That image of the track is very useful too. I've got a good example of track markings inside the dust jacket of an athletic book I have which also comes in handy. Unfortunately, not all tracks have the same markings. I often have to take split times for the last 100, by using the 90m and 110m marks that are clearly marked on the inside lane of some tracks, then splitting the difference.

If you look at the race on the link you gave (Youtube) again, you'll see he crosses that line at 1:32.7 not 1:32.1.

It's a small screen and the figures aren't that clear (it looks a bit like 1:32.1) but if you keep stopping and starting, you'll see it then clicks on to 1:33.0. Coe is above the line at 1:33.2, giving him a 12.6/12.65.

Interestingly, Coe was slightly faster over the last 200m (24.9) even though he ran at least 3.5m further (all the curve in lane 2). Had he a clear run on the inside as Ovett, he'd have run 24.4/24.5, meaning that his wide curve run of 12.3 was probably worth nearer 11.8/11.9!

I'm reluctant to believe most splits I see, as I've come across inaccurate ones in T&FN, AW, and even in the IAAF's "Progression of World Records" books. I much prefer to see the races for myself on videos.

epopians wrote:

Interestingly, Coe was slightly faster over the last 200m (24.9) even though he ran at least 3.5m further (all the curve in lane 2)

Ostensibly true, but when you look closer it's never the case. Tracks are measured 20cm from the curb for a reason. Aslo if you rerun the video you'll find that Ovet had to run in the middle/outside of lane one and, what you can see of Coe shows him always inside of lane 2. Most probably he was running in the middle for a significant portion of the turn as well.

malmo wrote:

epopians wrote:

Interestingly, Coe was slightly faster over the last 200m (24.9) even though he ran at least 3.5m further (all the curve in lane 2)

Ostensibly true, but when you look closer it's never the case. Tracks are measured 20cm from the curb for a reason. Aslo if you rerun the video you'll find that Ovet had to run in the middle/outside of lane one and, what you can see of Coe shows him always inside of lane 2. Most probably he was running in the middle for a significant portion of the turn as well.

I'd say from what I can see, Coe ran most of that curve in lane 2. With the head on shot with 200 to go he's very wide (almost lane 3), he is then in line with Warren & Marajo as the camera cuts to the long angle. I doubt both those runners were able to share lane 1 with Coe. He then has Guimares and Wagenknecht in front of him; side by side for a bit, before Wagenknecht drops back on the Brazilian's shoulder. I don't think Coe would have swung in much into lane 1 only to come out again to pass these two! As he enters the home straight, it's true he is pretty much over the line separating lane 1 from 2. He's certainly not fully running all in lane 1

Ovett falls in behind Kirov at the 200m to go point, runs the curve on the inside of lane 1, and only moves into the middle/outer part of the lane as the straight starts. The increment stagger from lane 1 to 2 is 3.5m. Coe would have run at least 3m more than Ovett, in my opinion anyway.

My point here, epopians, is that when you have an actual view of where athletes run on the track, you will find that most of them actually run in the middle of the first lane on the turns and that there is more side-by-side room than you think. This phenomena is on display if you continue the video through other races.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkz8VLO3iE&feature=related

As far as your theory that Coe woudn'nt have swung into towards the rail then back out to pass -- that's exactly what happens in races. Athletes end up filling the available space.

Start with the video of the 1980 800m, then go to other competitions in the same video. Now click and and/or of the other videos of races in the ribbon to the right. The dynamics of racing tend to be quite different than what many imagine it is. You'll see Coe himslf running alone in the middle of the lane on turns, but you'll also see runners three abreast in lane one. And also lane one almost empty and runners abreast out in lane three. Runners quite often run out in lane three on the straights and in lane two on the turns. On the otherhand you will be surprised at how runners can stack up in lane one on the turns.

To say that Coe ran 3m longer than Ovett is an oversimpification on what the probable paths actually taken -- which cannot be determined. My guess it might be a meter to a meter and a half.

Reviewing these videos causes me to go back to the inane thread a few weeks about started by a pious pinhead who was convinced that 1) there is proper staring technique, and the 2) that technique can make the difference in the outcome of races, and 3) world class athletes were ignorant for not using 'proper starting technique(sic)". When I asked that knucklehead to show me an example of any race that might have been affected by the start (I even gave him 0.2) he, of course couldn't, and wouldn't even bother to look. Races unfold how they unfold, and the only thing that matters is the relative positioning at the end of the race.

Coe made a habit of running wide, especially on bends, even when he didn't need to (e.g first 2 laps of Zurich Mile Wr in 81, when he runs on outside of Byers' shoulder, wide in lane 1).

If you look at the whole of the 800m final in Moscow, you'll see that he clearly runs the curve after the bell wide in lane 2 also. I have my own clear copy of the race on dvd, and the link below is quite grainy, but it's clear how wide he runs on all 3 curves. Ovett is mainly in lane 1 on all 3 bends. That is a pretty big advantage to give away. Of course it's the end result that counts and it's Coe's own fault, but there is no denying he would have run several metres further.

(http://video.mail.ru/mail/fastwitch10/301/307.html)

You can see how wide he ran (in lane 2) here also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3POxQG_K70

and here: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z2timGYvA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAwQJArTNS8

In the last one, the European 1500m in 86, he runs practically every curve in lane 2.

[quote]malmo wrote:

Tracks are measured 20cm from the curb for a reason.

Is it not 30cm (1 foot) from the curb?

An admission from the editor that T&FNews splits are unreliable, and moreso, they have a long history faulty splits. At least they're consistently getting a split with 90m to go.