Benjamin Nushmutt wrote:
I can't believe this is even a question. Might as well say, rank the following objects in circumference:
The sun
The earth
A basketball
A marble
Anyway, I'll spell it out here for the truly braindead:
400 - Pre
800 - Pre
1500 - Pre
3K - Pre
5K - Pre
10K - Pre
I am the only person here who even watched Without Limits?
+10,000
Peer Mediator:
This is an excellent and thorough analysis. You were patient enough to bring up (and type out!) what others were not.
Other than his name being Mike MCLEOD, you got it all spot on!!
newname wrote:
Dixie Gnormose wrote:Come on! What a waste of time.
What I tell fans of football, etc, is that one of the beautiful things about track and field is it's objectivity.
There is no place for the LeBron vs MJ vs Magic nonsense.
We know - yes KNOW - to the 1/100th of a second, EXACTLY who beats whom. Speculation has no place, unlike in subjectively judged non-sports like figure skating!
I can't believe that nobody understands that HGH and EPO were not available (and therefore not routinely used) during THREE of these athletes time.
Pre ran in the early '70s - when 13:15 would have been a WR or a yearly best every year. Coe and Ovett ran during the '70s and '80s - during the 80s just one man ran under 13:00 and he did it just once, in all of the '80s and ALL OF HISTORY.
During Rupp's era, though he has struggled to break 13:00, it is done routinely, sometimes by 5 people in a race. In the '90s it was even worse.
Ovett and Coe were clearly 800/1500 specialists. Ovett once won 45 1500m races in a row. He had better range than Coe and would have beaten him in a serious race at 2k, 3k, 2M, and 5k. AT 800/1500 it could go either way.
They both would have run under 13:00, perhaps even in THEIR era if they had run it seriously at their peak. If they were running now, they would run 12:40-12:50. Something Rupp has not done, even though he has had every advantage available in America for the last 16 yrs.
Pre would also break 13:00 and would be a 3:47 miler with all the PEDs that are on offer now.
Rupp's indoor times don't count because they are on tuned, banked tracks. With plenty of attempts at it, Rupp has run what outdoors? 3:34, 3:52 and 7:43? You don't think that Pre could run those times with the same advantages that Rupp has enjoyed?
You realize that he ACTUALLY DID run 3:38 (11th place finish), 3:54 (2nd to Wottle after rabbiting for him) and 7:42.
His best times for 3k, 2M, 3M, 5k, 6M, and 10k were all ARs and were all set in 1974. His last complete season. His AR at 2k was set just before he died. His 1500 and Mile bests were run in 1973. Do you not think he would have gotten better than the 23-year-old version of himself? The 1974 version that set PRs and ARs at 3k, 2M, 3M, 5k, 6M, and 10k? He was 5 seconds off the WR for 10k for Christ's sake in a race in the SPRING he ran by himself?!?
What were Rupp's PRs at age 23?
Rupp is great, no doubt, his consistency is amazing. But so was the guy who ran 8:41.6y 45 yrs ago (this is still the third fastest HS performance ever is it not? After Fernandez and Virgin?) and then went on to win 4 NCAA titles and 3 in XC.
With the drugs (and TUEs) of today, Pre would be running well under 13:00 and well under 27:00. Would he beat Rupp? Who knows? But I do know that his times (across the board) and his kick would improve if he had the benefits that today's runners do.
This guy has a good post--at least to some degree. The reason this whole thread is a joke is because you CAN'T predict what great runners of the past would have done were they raised, trained, and perhaps doped like more recent runners. No one on this thread (unless I missed something) is taking into account mental barriers. As the saying goes, "Records are meant to be broken." Once they're broken, MANY people soon break the old record. I strongly believe that if Pre were born the same year as Rupp and had all the advantages that Rupp has had (and I'm not going to list them for anyone too dumb to see it), Pre would have been every bit as good as Rupp. Take it a bit further: If Coe and Ovett were Rudisha's contemporaries, they would be running right there with Rudisha. And take it further than that: If Ryun or Snell were Guerrouj's contemporaries, they would have been competing very strongly against him. The best runners of today aren't tougher than the best runners of the past. Pre, Coe, Ovett, Ryun, Snell--ALL of these guys would raise their mental game, and all would compete with the best of today. I can't prove it, of course, just as some of you can't prove that Rupp would be better than Pre if both were in their prime today (and it's beside the point that Pre never reached his peak).
Ok, I've said my piece. I do have to point out to the poster of the excellent above quote that Pre, Virgin and Fernandez were all outdone by Lukas Verzbicas (8:29.46) in the high school two-mile. (Don't anybody bring up that bullsh_t about Verzbicas' being too old or not really an American, either.) Other than that, great post.
Peer Mediator wrote:Coe proved in 81 with his WR and solo 1:44.0 (12.3 last 100m)
utter drivel
coe did not finish in 12.3 in his 1'44.06
try more like 13-flat
there is no clear 100m-out mark on track & no wide shot of him running last bend
he ran last 51.9/26.1/26.0
he did not run a faster last 200 than preceding one & 12.3 finish is nonsense
Peer Mediator wrote:Ovett in 78-80 could probably have run close to 47.0 (46.8 relay in 79)
yes
something 46-high/47-flat for ovett but you are so fuuckin dumb to believe cram who ran 1'42/3'29/3'46 was vastly slower at 400 ???
Well the first clash in 78, Ovett was probably at his prime (I tend to think he maintained a pretty equivalent peak from 78-80)
no
ovett wouda aimed to peak for '80
'77 was just a move up to 1500 seriously as no chance caballo at 800, but he found all the oppo had basically died at 1500
bayi finished, & walker looked like a 5k runner on last lap v ovett
his wc win was impressive, maybe an intrinsic 1'43-low / 3'30/3'31 guy
no way much below 3'31 in '77
in '78 1'43-low / 3'29-low/mid
he was winning so much at 1500 back then i doubt he cared about '79 much other than keeping healthy for moscow next year
unfortunately for him, coe smashed lotta wrs & i doubt ovett was in shape to challenge albeit tied 1500wr
ovett got caught with his pants down in '79, short of huge wr busting shape of '78 & coe humilated his rep
Coe proved in 81 with his WR and solo 1:44.0 (12.3 last 100m) that he would have beaten Ovett most of the time, barring accidents, in his prime
12.3 is nonsense
Having blown it in Moscow, I find it very hard to even consider he'd run like that again over Ovett, as seen a week later in the 1500. So, Coe 1st, Ovett 2nd, Rupp 3rd and Pre 4th
ovett was hungover for 1500 & not that motivated
he'd got gold at his original event, so 1500 wouda been huge bonus
only a fool coud believe straub coud ever beat a 100% ovett ???
At 1500 I'd plump for Coe again. He showed in his practically solo Stockholm run of 3:31 in 81, that he was capable of running and winning from the front in a 3.75 lap race, even off a suicidally fast opening 2 laps
good for
~ 3'29-flat
a peak ovett, of fully motivated/sober couda definitely run close to this in '78 & even more likely in '80 when aiming for career peak
the only caveat is that ovett may have run himself into the ground in '77/'78 & after were past peak
i see '81 coe having fractional advantage over '78 ovett over 1500 but seeing as coe ran long way solo, he deserves nod
At 3000m it gets a lot closer and more interesting. If there is a rabbit and/or a fast race with a field more than just the 4 of them, then on paper it looks as if Rupp would be capable of running the fastest. If it is slower (7:37 -7:45) then Ovett's kick could get him past Rupp in the closing stages
quit it
outta depth
i said mo was capable of 7'19 on his 3'28-day
rupp wouda been 7'20/7'21
Ovett looked very easy when beating Rono & setting the then 2 mile WR of 8:13.5 in 78
utter clueless
henry wasn't 1/2-dead
he was 9/10-dead
he'd run criminal number of races by then, ~ 50 , so i doubt he coud even move much by then & had to jog most of it, but ovett limpetted him...
henry was quantum leap above ovett at 3k
That was equivalent to c. 7:41 for 3k
drivel
8'13.5 with 1.08 is
7'36+
and I'd say he could have run 4-6 secs faster that night
no
3 or 4s faster for
~ 7'32 / 7'33
henry ran his 7'32.1 in proper meet - oslo , off jog to 1500
he was worth 7'29 that night
ovett wouda had no chance if henry was in rested shape in that 2 miles
He ran a handful of indoor 3000m on the appalling wooden 200m track at Cosford as training runs. When he ran that 7:54 in March the last km was 2:30, and it was probably worth a good 5 secs faster on a decent 400 track
utter drivel
it was a synthetic track in '81
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C5C1mIIJPMCoe also beat Coghlan (83 World 5000m Champion) and McCloud (10000m Olympic silver medalist) in a 4 Mile road race (17:55) in Ireland at the end of '78; beating the then World record holder at 3000m and 2 miles, Brendan Foster's course record by 9 seconds; off a season running only 800m races! Both Coghlan & Mcloud had run 13.20 that previous season
even your peabain wouda comprehended that 17'54 was bogus
he won by 1s in a likely hugely wind-aided course
400 / 4 miles
of say, peak shape of 46.4 in '78 ->
46.4 / 17'54 ->
1'42.95
3'30.28
7'38.6
13'31.1
which is nonsense
coe was never in 1'42.9/3'30.3 shape in '78
the 1'42.9+ for '78 kills it dead instantly
Coe also won the famous Vigevano road race twice (7.5km) in 1980 & 1983, recording 18.28 for the 6.7km; 27:33 pace for 10,000m). In the former he easily beat Cova
cova was a nobody in '80
it was mickey-mouse race in '83 with hardly any history !
http://www.arrs.net/HP_Scarp8.htmovett crushed coe's '80 inugural win in '85 by 52s
20'07 v 20'59 !!!
So in a 7:30 race I think Rupp would edge it, but if it drifted to 7:36 or slower, the I think Coe or Ovett could have a chance of winning
coe wouda died if any pace below 7'40
ovett wouda impressed rupp with his doggedgness in his crushing
Over 5000m then Rupp should win in a fast race, but again if it drifts to 13:10 - 13:30 then Pre comes into contention as well as the 2 Brits
so probably woud yifter, who crushed ovett over 5k
Ovett was capable of 13:10 in 86, when way past his prime
yifter crushed him in '77
ovett had no interest in 5k unless african-absent
Back in 80 I think he could have run faster in the right race
not on track race evidence
I think Coe's potential at 5000 was equally as good as Ovett's
nonsense
see italian road race above
ovett was hugely faster over 7.5k
ovett's 20'07 over 7.5k in '85 shows such nonsense
it indicates ovett was in '85
~ 7'32+ / 12'59+ !!!
and Frank Horwill (the chief National middle distance coach in UK during the 80's)...
horwill talks utter drivel
the moron was bent on ratios same like canova who believes his kemboi in ~ 26'20 shape in '03 only ran it off 13'00+, when i told canova the 5k-zurich was jog to bell ???
it is shocking how fuuckin dumb horwill is/was & canova
mark b wrote:400 - Coe no debate. Made the finals of the AAA championships one year running just over 46 seconds
800 - a toss up between Coe and Ovett. Coe ran much faster but in major championships Ovett beat Coe 2-1
15oo/mile - again atoss up betwen coe and Ovett. the other two aren't even close in either a fast or slow race.
3000 - here thing get a bit more interesting. At his peaf Ovett set a WR 2 mile jogging past Rono in the straight and waving to the crowd. would have to go with him unless the race was super fast then Rupp might have a chance. But at no distance would rupp out kick Coe or Ovett unless the pace was pretty fast from the gun. I don't know where this notion of Rupp having a tremendous kick comes from. I haven't seen any evidence of it!
5000 - give this to Rupp (with the provisos already mentioned) Ovett's pb is faster than Pre's? And Ovett only seriously took up the distance in 1986 when it was obvious that he simply wasn't the same runner as before the LA games in 1984. His illness at LA clearly hampered him for the rest of his career.
i hope you are not
butler
even he shouda been not dumb enough to know henry was utterly finished in '78 by london ???
rojo wrote:I'll have to ask John Kellogg about it. I mean asking a 1:41 guy to run a 3k is tough . Next time I talk to John Kellogg I'll ask him this, if I walked up to Coe and said, "In 6 months you are having a match race with Galen Rupp at 3000, with no rabbits. The loser will be executed."
Who would win. That's the way I think these hypotheticals should work. NOt time trials, we're talking mano v mano.
Ask Kellogg to look at this race :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvUH3X0Wv2cHe started out in outer lane 4 & never got close to lane 1 for helluva long time
What was route-1 time ?
Compare to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIZT-htcplQWhat was route-1 time ?
Soooooomeone is off his meds...
newname wrote:
Pre would also break 13:00 and would be a 3:47 miler with all the PEDs that are on offer now.
Today's PED's are no better than the amphetamines, steroids and blood transfusions available in the 70's, except when it comes to beating tests which did not exist back then except in olympic competition.
unrestricted out-of-competition PED use >>>>> today's PED's
It's easy to see in progressions like the mile and 1500 WR, which plummeted more than 13 seconds between the mid 1950's and mid 1980's but only about 3 seconds in the 30 years since then. It's funny how people think EPO had such a big effect. The only reason the 90's progression looked remarkable was because progression had halted in the mid-80's when anti-doping started to grow teeth. EPO merely returned it to around the relatively slow 1975-1985 progression rate.
The mile world record dropped only 11 seconds between 1885 and the end of world war 2. The wikipedia succinctly describes what happened next:
The widespread use of amphetamines began in postwar Japan and quickly spread to other countries. Modified ("designer") amphetamines gained popularity since the 1960s, such as MDA and PMA.[5] MDMA was rediscovered and popularized by the American chemist Alexander Shulgin in 1965, after which it was used for some time in psychotherapy sessions.[4] In 1970, the United States adopted "the Controlled Substances Act" that limited non-medical use of amphetamines.
The record blitz of the 50's and 60's makes perfect sense in this context. So do the very short careers of most of the record setters. And the IOC testing first for speed and opiates in 1968, not bothering with steroids until 1976.
'there is no clear 100m-out mark on track '
There was no clear 300m mark for Ryun that did not stop you spouting your spurious 36 secs
said88 owns the video and said 36.54 for the last 300m after timing it many times
ventolin^3 wrote:
Peer Mediator wrote:Coe proved in 81 with his WR and solo 1:44.0 (12.3 last 100m)utter drivel
coe did not finish in 12.3 in his 1'44.06
try more like 13-flat
there is no clear 100m-out mark on track & no wide shot of him running last bend
he ran last 51.9/26.1/26.0
he did not run a faster last 200 than preceding one & 12.3 finish is nonsense
No moron, completely wrong again.
I have the race on dvd and on it you can see the 200m mark (which was published in AW at the time anyway ~ 25.6) and also the 110m & 90m mark, from which you can get a last 100m.
Anyone who can't see that Coe doesn't kick with 100 to go and thus fathom that his last 100m must have been considerably quicker than the penultimate one (not to mention he pulls about 15m clear of Cook) is either blind or needs their eyes testing. So I recommend a trip to Specsavers old man.
He ran 25.6 (13.3/12.3)
ukathleticscoach wrote:
'there is no clear 100m-out mark on track '
There was no clear 300m mark for Ryun that did not stop you spouting your spurious 36 secs
Yes, exactly.
On the first lap of Coe's 1:44.0 you clearly see the 110m line (2 strides before a flag)and the 100m line (at the end of 3 hurdles on the infield). Using these 2 markers as a guide, he passes the same spots at 1:30.4 with 110m to go & 1:31.6 with 100m to go. You can also see him crossing the 80m from home line in 1:34.1. These are all much easier to read on my own version of the race. The transfer of the race posted on Youtube probably lost clarity.
Working with the above numbers ~
Last 110m = 13.6 (1:44.0 - 1:30.4) - which = 12.3 pace for 100m
Last 100m = 12.4
Last 80m = 9.9 - which = 12.3 pace for 100m.
So his last 100m was 12.3/12.4.
Peer Mediator wrote:No moron, completely wrong again
more drivel
I have the race on dvd and on it you can see the 200m mark
utter rubbish
the live shot shows head-on as he is going into last bend
there is NO wide shot of this with running clock
(which was published in AW at the time anyway ~ 25.6)
utter nonsense again
their timings are wrong
the head-on shot shows his 1st turn of head/body at 1'18.0
that makes his last 200 no better than 26.0
and also the 110m & 90m mark, from which you can get a last 100m
nonsense
there is no clear wide shot when going ~ 110m out & no 110m marking
there is no 90m mark either
Anyone who can't see that Coe doesn't kick with 100 to go and thus fathom that his last 100m must have been considerably quicker than the penultimate one (not to mention he pulls about 15m clear of Cook) is either blind or needs their eyes testing. So I recommend a trip to Specsavers old man
again totally clueless
the gap increased because he was running against nobodies in that race & they faded bady in stretch
that's where most of the gap came from
He ran 25.6 (13.3/12.3)
rubbish
26.0 for last 200 & unknown last 100 although likely to be fractionally faster than 13.0/13.0
Peer Mediator wrote:On the first lap of Coe's 1:44.0 you clearly see the 110m line (2 strides before a flag)
drivel
there is no horizontal line at this point & youtube vid is good enough quality
no clear 110m line
and the 100m line (at the end of 3 hurdles on the infield)
more rubbish
no horizontal line at this point
Using these 2 markers as a guide, he passes the same spots at 1:30.4 with 110m to go & 1:31.6 with 100m to go
nonsense
there are no markings at 110 or 100
You can also see him crossing the 80m from home line in 1:34.1
utter drivel
that line is either the hurdle line for 100h or 110h
there is NO 80m line on a track
if :
a) 100h line, that distance on standard iaaf track is from finish :
( 10.50 + ( 8 * 8.50 ) ) = 78.50m
meaning ~ 9.90+s for 78.50m ->12.62s
a) 110h line, that distance on standard iaaf track is from finish :
( 14.02 + ( 7 * 9.14 ) ) = 78.00m
meaning ~ 9.90+s for 78.00m ->12.70s
the only solid horizontal marking on stretch immediately after bend ->
12.6 / 12.7
These are all much easier to read on my own version of the race. The transfer of the race posted on Youtube probably lost clarity
the quality is good enough
Working with the above numbers ~
Last 110m = 13.6 (1:44.0 - 1:30.4) - which = 12.3 pace for 100m
Last 100m = 12.4
Last 80m = 9.9 - which = 12.3 pace for 100m.
So his last 100m was 12.3/12.4
uttter drivel
no clear 110/100 markings
there is NO 80m out marking :
it is either 78.00 or 78.50m out & that gives
12.6 / 12.7
ukathleticscoach wrote:'there is no clear 100m-out mark on track '
There was no clear 300m mark for Ryun that did not stop you spouting your spurious 36 secs
it is incredible how dumb you really are
the dvd-owner says race has running clock
all he has to do is compare the freeze-frame start of race with same freeze-frame point on last lap to get time at 1200m & i'm sure he has burned copy of dvd & has at least 2 dvd players at home - i have 4 dvd players inbuilt on tv or stand-alone & that doesn't include lots of laptops with dvd-drives
how can you be so dumb as to not comprehend how simple a task this is with a running clock ???
Bump. This was a great LetsRun thread. It had a little bit of everything.
no one wrote:
3k = Ovett - sit ande kick, every time. I would even consider the 5k iffy for Rupp w Ovett having some chance. Same tactic
Pretty hard for a 13:20 runner to sit and kick on a 12:59 one. Same thing in the 3k where when Rupp is off finishing his 7:30, Ovett will be 75m back.
The 800m/1500m in their prime is going to be a coe/ovett dual and we don't really have much of a sample size to go on. Coe was never a great 800m championship runner (lost in 1978,80, 82, 84) so it is pretty easy to imagine him losing. And over 1500m it wasn't like we had a large sample size of races between the two of them from 1978-1983 to know who was going to win most of them.
Does Ovett get to take some of Sleazy Sal's injections and patches?