Daniel Radcliffe to play Sebastian Coe in movie "Gold"

is it a 'warts and all' movie with the doping included?

I'm thinking Cillian Murphy FTW

random idea wrote:

I'm thinking Cillian Murphy FTW

1.75...

from another thread wrote:Rono gave his grave consent. ''That was his breakthrough. He won the Schools 1,500 and 5,000 double three times. He's really a 5,000 man. He has no hope in a real sprint, but if everybody's tired, he can maintain his speed.''

Thus it was that in Seoul little Peter Rono led the last 800 meters of the Olympic 1,500 final and made everybody tired. In the stretch, with Steve Cram and Peter Elliott of Great Britain straining on his heels, Rono smoothly maintained his lead to the finish

this is all pretty consistent with a guy who was basically a poor man's sydney maree

( 13'01 actual but likely more like 12'55 in that aouita wr race if they had run it hard thruout, especially 3k - bell )

meaning running 1500 off mostly big endurance & little speed & he managed an unrested 3'29.7 with it & much poorer version of current day mo

( but i think rono may actually have had fractionally better basic speed than mo )

if maree was worth 12'55 in a perfect race in '85, i'd have to think rono was in potentially something like 13'00 - 13'05 back then if extrapolating his race distance ( similar to saying rudy's extrapolated 1500 in his 1'40-shape is 3'26/3'27 - but of course no one woud have expected anything better than an actual 3'35 on 1'40 day, but it's certain rono's "extrapolation" to 5k wouda been lot closer to the possible 13'00 - 13'05 than rudy's was to his potential 3'26/3'27 )

you have to look for lines of fit with something like expected sub-elite 1500 speed ( being a 5k guy dropping down ) of say 49.0 - 50.0 compared to elite primary 1500 guys' 47/48 ( with exceptions ), with a 5k of 13'00 - 13'05

with 50.0 :

50.0 / 1'47.0 ->3'32.6 , 7'31.4 , 13'04.5

50.0 / 1'46.8 ->3'31.9 , 7'29.2 , 12'59.9

with 49.5 :

49.5 / 1'46.3 ->3'31.8 , 7'30.9 , 13'05.0

49.5 / 1'46.1 ->3'31.1 , 7'28.7 , 13'00.5

with 49.0 :

49.0 / 1'45.6 ->3'31.0 , 7'30.4 , 13'05.6

49.0 / 1'45.4 ->3'30.3 , 7'28.2 , 13'01.1

49.0 / 1'45.3 ->3'29.9 , 7'27.1 , 12'58.8

here's when you have to use your experience

mine's telling me that the magnificent manner of his win, looking at above lines with that in mind, he was probably in shape of

3'31-flat +/- coupla tenths

Who says I'm finished? wrote:

I've only seen Radcliffe in Harry Potter movies but he doesn't seem to have Coe's cockiness and aggressiveness.

Maybe he'll "act" like he has Coe's cockiness and aggressivenes in the movie. I guess that's always possible.

is there a way to strip out ventolins posts when reading a thread?

eh ?

so the sum of human knowledge in this thread increases by

- 0.001 IQ

after eventually 100++ posts claiming that a 1/2-decent talent runt who is trying desperately to be taken seriously, despite no $ worries ever again, can play a total runt, requiring only supercilious affectation to stanislavski-esque is worth serious debate ?

Who says I'm finished? wrote:

I'm a big Seb Coe fan but I don't think there's enough there to make a good movie. His life would make a good 1-hour documentary for running nerds but what would the plot be for a regular movie?

I've only seen Radcliffe in Harry Potter movies but he doesn't seem to have Coe's cockiness and aggressiveness.

Are you serious? His career starts in like 1973 and there is the buildup in England, and the story of his father training him in his rise from child standout to trying for the Euro Champs. Then the 1:42 WR 800, and the 1:41 WR 800 when nobody else has run run 1:42. Then the WR mile where he is the first to break 3:49. Then the intense buildup and rivalry in the press leading up to the 1980 Olympics. More WRs in 1980 and 1981. Then his illness and lackluster 1982 and 1983 yrs. Rebounding for a huge Olympic double in 1984.

If any runner has enough material for a feature movie, it is Seb Coe. You know that they made a movie about Harold Abrahams and it was just for Britain and it won Academy Awards and was a huge hit in America? Sometimes Britain makes movies that are just for the purpose of excellence and just the British market and they still become hits. There are many examples of this.

Either you don't know much about his rise over the 1976 to 1984 time frame or you are just dumb about what makes a good story.

newname wrote:You know that they made a movie about Harold Abrahams and it was just for Britain and it won Academy Awards and was a huge hit in America? Sometimes Britain makes movies that are just for the purpose of excellence and just the British market and they still become hits. There are many examples of this

that was a decent film because it was post-war history/politics/etc

however it was long gone post-war by '24

why didn't fat-colin do the film about '20-antwerp of the triumphs/tribulations of

charlie paddock winning 100m & excruciatingly losing to al woodring in the 200 ???

They thought they were getting Paula Radcliffe - the fastest white Brit runner they had heard of.

What huge Olympic double in 84 are you talking about?

Joe Binks wrote:

What huge Olympic double in 84 are you talking about?

Umm! By winning in LA he achieved the 1500 double, the only man ever to do so. He also has the most Olympic medals of any British athlete/runner.

Most have a different interpretation of winning a ‘double’ at a specific Games.

Lassie Viren won a huge double in both 72 and 76.

Peter Snell won a huge double in 64.

El Guerrouj won a huge double in 04.

Mo Farah won a huge double in 12.

Just to name a few.

Coe simply retained his 1500mt title in 84, he was not able to match the feat of his fellow countryman, Albert Hill who won both 800 and 1500 at the 1920 Olympics.

Deanouk wrote:Umm! By winning in LA he achieved the 1500 double, the only man ever to do so. He also has the most Olympic medals of any British athlete/runner.

the fact he won 1500 golds in 2 boycott olympics adds an * to his achievements

the 1500 was severely depleted in '80 by lack of americans & west germans

( ending '80 as only 4th fastest on alltime 1500 list )

& less so in '84 with many east europeans missings, mainly east germans who wouda made some effort to peak for it like they did in '80 & also aouita, who by far was fastest 1500 runner of the year with 3'31.5 running the 5k

his 1500 double is severely devalued in historical terms because of the boycotts but that is no detriment to him but just the stark truth

Rubbish. He beat the only man he needed to beat in Moscow and that was Ovett, the 1500 and mile record holder, who was also WR no. 1 that year. He easily beat the rested Americans like Scott, not to mention Walker, Bayi, Coghlan etc, a week later in Zurich.

As for LA, the only one absent was Aouita who purposely chose the 5000 as the easier option. Aouita had the fastest time that year in an early season time trial but Coe won the 2 most important races of the Year, LA & Zurich, in the 2nd & 3rd fastest times of the year. The only East German of any note that year was Busse, who again was well beaten by Coe a week later in Zurich. No established or respected officianado of the sport would put an asterisk next to his double.

idiot

only a kid with a peabrain at the time wouda thought that moscow race was a proper field once koblenz had been run

the alltime list after that was

ovett - 3'31.36

thomas - 3'31.58

harald - 3'31.96

coe - 3'32.03 ( from '79 )

only an utter fool woud believe those 2 germans woudn't have made a difference

on top of that, they wouda been fresh for the 1500 not having run the 800 before

on top of that some more, they may have even run it as a team with willi who ran 3'33.7 in koblenz as the designated pacer, to make it a hard race to see how much exertion the 800 took outta the brits & for thomas especially to use his strength - he was in similar shape to rono in '88 & we saw what happened there

there is no way the 1-2-3 of the 1500 wouda been the same with the west germans there

as for the americans, they were demoralised having no games to go to & likely stopped their serious training & there was noticeable lack of poor form in most american elites in '80

the sprinters ran poor as evidence for this

no american ran any notable performance from 100 - 5k that year, apart from moses, but he already had a gold from '76

even the legendary skeets coud run nothing better than 13.21 when he had 13.00wr from '79

get a clue, lot of boycott athletes gave up that year

& there was a huge difference in times :

aouita - 3'31.54

coe - 3'32.39

the times weren't even close & then the question of aouita wanting to run the 1500 in zurich v coe but mysteriously forced into a specially arranged mile race

only a complete idiot coud make that statement

only 4th best on all-time list in '80 with number 2 & 3 missing & in '84 the number 3 on alltime list missing & coe only 5th at time means they were hugely devalued races & need more like a double * next to his double

aouita's 1500 ability in '84 wouda been awesome at time of games

he didn't run a serious 800 that year but had a 1'44.38pb from year before when he was nowhere near as good as '84

he tuned up for games with that low-key 3'31.54 just over 1/12 before games so his speed was damn good & his 13'04.78 was 1/12 before that

he looked to be fine-tuning speed with plenty of endurance banked : 5k then 1500

it's pretty damn obvious he had good speed in games & shouda run the 1500 for the epic field

his 13'05 win was barely out of 3rd gear

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

a 55.0 finish & only kicked hard last 200 & waving in stretch

pretty damn obvious he couda gone 13-flat that day if pace had been better & probably on circuit in cool weather, something like 12'55 - 12'57.5 with perfect pace

the only question is his basic 800 speed

with a 1'44.38pb, you have to offer something in region of 1'44.0 - 1'45.0 at games

so his 1500 potential at games was

13'04 with

1'45.0 ->3'30.02

1'44.5 ->3'29.41

1'44.0 ->3'28.79

13'00 with

1'45.0 ->3'29.61

1'44.5 ->3'28.99

1'44.0 ->3'28.38

12'57.5 with

1'45.0 ->3'29.35

1'44.5 ->3'28.74

1'44.0 ->3'28.12

12'55 with

1'45.0 ->3'29.10

1'44.5 ->3'28.48

1'44.0 ->3'27.86

this is similar scenario to mo running 3'28 off massive endurance once in a fast 1500 race & forced to run fast to stand any chance of winning

the above is fractionally inferior to his '85 estimated 1500 form, when he almost certainly had better 800 speed

( he had to have something around 1'43-flat to have run a 52.8 in a 3'29.7 to almost catch cram )

the 12'57.5 & 12'55 lines have to be ones to go to as there was little doubt he was capable of that in games

his shape has to considered something like

3'29-flat

& perhaps few tenths under

he wouda been a big favorite if he'd entered the 1500...

will they show the doping in the movie?

just sayin wrote:

is there a way to strip out ventolins posts when reading a thread?

Yes I agree. He ruins all threads he comments on.

They are off target, off point, childish and offensive.

He thinks he's some kind of expert when in fact he is out of touch with any semblance of reality.