That is exactly what I said. There is no "foregone conclusion". The result is therefore unknown. Try to keep up.
It’s not unknown whether Coe would’ve beaten me just as it’s not unknown whether Coe would’ve won in this hypothetical matchup from the OP. Both are foregone conclusions. Good luck continuing to convince yourself otherwise.
It isn't a foregone conclusion except in your imagination.
Coe is 3rd - he was a great 800m time trailer but not the best tactician over 2 laps with his only major win being the Euro in 86. He's also over half a second behind Kipketer in his ceiling performance, and broke 1.42 once vs multiple times for DR and WK. It's no slight on him at all as he's the best 8-15 guy ever, but he doesn't win this.
So the way this hypothetical race is decided is can Rudisha outrun and hold off Kipketer? He doesn't win any other way because he never won any other way in his entire career other than front running. Might seem like a simple answer because Rudisha actually has the WR and ran 3 times faster than Kipketer ever did but I'm not so sure.
I think Rudisha ran to his max in London. People say "what about drafting and having a good pacemaker etc" but in the 800m and it this level of human performance this is only a benefit if the pacemaker is essentially a clone of the runner they are pacing at get's the rhythm, tempo and execution absolutely perfect. What I saw in London was Rudisha getting to run the 800m exactly how he needed to in perfect weather with the perfect incentive. No critical section of the race was too fast or too slow - there was no insane 23.5 opener, cooling down to 48.8 at the bell (which is still too fast), he got to execute the way that was best for him and he did it to perfection.
Kipketers WR in Zurich on the other hand is one of the best performances in running history ever not just for the fact that it smashed a superb WR and is still the 4th best time ever, but because it survived a suicidal opening 200/400m (23.1, 48.2 that wasn't even close to optimal. We know this because a week later Kipketer ran faster worse conditions and atmosphere in Cologne "despite" going through 400m almost a second slower. So really on this night in Zurich, Kipketer could have run somewhere in the 1.40.6/7 range had he hit the bell in 49.0. I mean Rudishas agent James Templeton even said this to me straight up once - they were happy Kipketer "messed it up" (somewhat tongue in cheek obviously) that night so David could break the record in London.
So I don't see Rudisha, with the threat of Kipketer on his shoulder, being able to run away from him and Kipketers slightly superior form and racing pedigree (watch the 99 WC final to see how tough he was) being enough to just get by and take the win.
Just an opinion.
Either Rudisha wins or else this is the alternative scenario. Indeed.
0.8sevs is a lot in the same era. It isn't over 30 years. The fact that Coe reduced the record by the degree he did speaks of a superior achievement.
Just as Jarmila Kratochvilova’s having held the women’s 800m record for 39 years and counting speaks of “superior achievement,” or is it superior chemicals?
You could ask the same of any record in the last 30 or so years.
Coe is 3rd - he was a great 800m time trailer but not the best tactician over 2 laps with his only major win being the Euro in 86. He's also over half a second behind Kipketer in his ceiling performance, and broke 1.42 once vs multiple times for DR and WK. It's no slight on him at all as he's the best 8-15 guy ever, but he doesn't win this.
So the way this hypothetical race is decided is can Rudisha outrun and hold off Kipketer? He doesn't win any other way because he never won any other way in his entire career other than front running. Might seem like a simple answer because Rudisha actually has the WR and ran 3 times faster than Kipketer ever did but I'm not so sure.
I think Rudisha ran to his max in London. People say "what about drafting and having a good pacemaker etc" but in the 800m and it this level of human performance this is only a benefit if the pacemaker is essentially a clone of the runner they are pacing at get's the rhythm, tempo and execution absolutely perfect. What I saw in London was Rudisha getting to run the 800m exactly how he needed to in perfect weather with the perfect incentive. No critical section of the race was too fast or too slow - there was no insane 23.5 opener, cooling down to 48.8 at the bell (which is still too fast), he got to execute the way that was best for him and he did it to perfection.
Kipketers WR in Zurich on the other hand is one of the best performances in running history ever not just for the fact that it smashed a superb WR and is still the 4th best time ever, but because it survived a suicidal opening 200/400m (23.1, 48.2 that wasn't even close to optimal. We know this because a week later Kipketer ran faster worse conditions and atmosphere in Cologne "despite" going through 400m almost a second slower. So really on this night in Zurich, Kipketer could have run somewhere in the 1.40.6/7 range had he hit the bell in 49.0. I mean Rudishas agent James Templeton even said this to me straight up once - they were happy Kipketer "messed it up" (somewhat tongue in cheek obviously) that night so David could break the record in London.
So I don't see Rudisha, with the threat of Kipketer on his shoulder, being able to run away from him and Kipketers slightly superior form and racing pedigree (watch the 99 WC final to see how tough he was) being enough to just get by and take the win.
Just an opinion.
Agree with this. Rudisha would have to "break" Kipketer before the final 150/200 to beat him. Watching Rudisha is a thing of beauty, but Kipketer was simply a masterpiece for a few years.
Coe is 3rd - he was a great 800m time trailer but not the best tactician over 2 laps with his only major win being the Euro in 86. He's also over half a second behind Kipketer in his ceiling performance, and broke 1.42 once vs multiple times for DR and WK. It's no slight on him at all as he's the best 8-15 guy ever, but he doesn't win this.
So the way this hypothetical race is decided is can Rudisha outrun and hold off Kipketer? He doesn't win any other way because he never won any other way in his entire career other than front running. Might seem like a simple answer because Rudisha actually has the WR and ran 3 times faster than Kipketer ever did but I'm not so sure.
I think Rudisha ran to his max in London. People say "what about drafting and having a good pacemaker etc" but in the 800m and it this level of human performance this is only a benefit if the pacemaker is essentially a clone of the runner they are pacing at get's the rhythm, tempo and execution absolutely perfect. What I saw in London was Rudisha getting to run the 800m exactly how he needed to in perfect weather with the perfect incentive. No critical section of the race was too fast or too slow - there was no insane 23.5 opener, cooling down to 48.8 at the bell (which is still too fast), he got to execute the way that was best for him and he did it to perfection.
Kipketers WR in Zurich on the other hand is one of the best performances in running history ever not just for the fact that it smashed a superb WR and is still the 4th best time ever, but because it survived a suicidal opening 200/400m (23.1, 48.2 that wasn't even close to optimal. We know this because a week later Kipketer ran faster worse conditions and atmosphere in Cologne "despite" going through 400m almost a second slower. So really on this night in Zurich, Kipketer could have run somewhere in the 1.40.6/7 range had he hit the bell in 49.0. I mean Rudishas agent James Templeton even said this to me straight up once - they were happy Kipketer "messed it up" (somewhat tongue in cheek obviously) that night so David could break the record in London.
So I don't see Rudisha, with the threat of Kipketer on his shoulder, being able to run away from him and Kipketers slightly superior form and racing pedigree (watch the 99 WC final to see how tough he was) being enough to just get by and take the win.
Just an opinion.
Persuasive but the factor you are leaving out is that the decades of difference between these runners suggest that Rudisha and Kipketer wouldn't have been as fast in Coe's era and he would have been faster in theirs. If we don't take that into account then we must simply go with the difference in their best times as they actually ran them - which means, Rudisha, Kipketer, Coe. But to imagine they were contemporaries makes for a more interesting, and, I suggest, less conclusive contest.
Rudisha set his record on his 3rd 800 in 4 days with no pacer.
If they run this race 10 times, David wins 7 times, Wilson wins 3, Coe wins none.
If they run on 10 consecutive days, still no wins for Coe.
Coe couldn’t beat his contemporaries. Coe wasn’t best 800m runner of his era, just the record holder.
Lost 1980 Olympics.
Lost 1982 Olympics.
Lost 1984 Olympics.
Coe was a one hit wonder and most likely wouldn’t medal if you added other people to the race.
"Just" the record holder - who carved a phenomenal chunk off the previous record and far more than either Kipketer or Rudisha achieved years and even decades later? But you totally blew it when you said the "1982 Olympics". Held where?
We know Coe is 3rd at 800m. We know Coe wins at 1500m. The $1 Million Question is who wins at 1000m? Now Coe has a chance. It is an almost impossible call now.
Cruz should probably be in this conversation as well, if you’re doing a Mount Rushmore of 800m runners. Will leave him out for now. If there’s a pacer, you have to figure Rudisha is glued to him and takes over after a 49-flat 800. Most importantly Rudisha is willing to blast the first 200 to ensure he has the pole. Kipketer behind him and then Coe. The problem for Coe is Kipketer will likely begin his move to pass Rudisha at 150 after 1:15 high/1:16 low for 600. Rudisha is a strong finisher and while Kipketer may draw even a la Keely vs Mu I like Rudisha to edge him in the end. Coe gives away too much as he often did in competitive races and is a few meters behind after a tough last 30 meters.
1:42.01 to 1:42.09 to 1:42.43
If the race is perfectly paced - as the thread suggests - then Coe is on Rudisha's shoulder throughout and fends off Kipketer's attempt to pass. With his famous "double kick" he takes Rudisha in the last 30m. All three beat the wr.
Again, if you want to argue that Coe could run faster than his 1981 PR in a time trial in time trial in 2012, we all would agree.
But if the argument is who would win a race, Coe couldn’t even win against his 1980, 1982, and 1984 contemporaries. Coe was not a winner. Rudisha is/was.
If the race is perfectly paced - as the thread suggests - then Coe is on Rudisha's shoulder throughout and fends off Kipketer's attempt to pass. With his famous "double kick" he takes Rudisha in the last 30m. All three beat the wr.
Again, if you want to argue that Coe could run faster than his 1981 PR in a time trial in time trial in 2012, we all would agree.
But if the argument is who would win a race, Coe couldn’t even win against his 1980, 1982, and 1984 contemporaries. Coe was not a winner. Rudisha is/was.
Not a winner? Two 1500 golds suggest otherwise. Rudisha might win their head to head but not because Coe didn't know how to win. With a pacer like Rudisha that could have been ideal for him.
If the race is perfectly paced - as the thread suggests - then Coe is on Rudisha's shoulder throughout and fends off Kipketer's attempt to pass. With his famous "double kick" he takes Rudisha in the last 30m. All three beat the wr.
Again, if you want to argue that Coe could run faster than his 1981 PR in a time trial in time trial in 2012, we all would agree.
But if the argument is who would win a race, Coe couldn’t even win against his 1980, 1982, and 1984 contemporaries. Coe was not a winner. Rudisha is/was.
We're talking about Coe 81. Coe unfortunately had a short prime at 800 (79-81), and had one global championships in those 3 years, which he blew due to nerves. In a WR paced race with these two in it, he would likely have no problems tucking himself in behind Rudisha or both of them.. If he's still with them in the last 100m, he outkicks them both in the home straight.
If the race is perfectly paced - as the thread suggests - then Coe is on Rudisha's shoulder throughout and fends off Kipketer's attempt to pass. With his famous "double kick" he takes Rudisha in the last 30m. All three beat the wr.
It might be "perfectly" paced for 400 or 500, but then it's in the racers' hands.
People are underestimating how good a racer Rudisha was. He could win every which way as a frontrunner (slow race, WR race, moderate race, fast race). In this scenario, I don't foresee him trying to run away from Coe and Kipketer by blasting it from 400-650 and then holding on a la London. He knows how good those guys are, but he also knows he has the best sprint speed of the bunch and if he holds something in return both struggle with running the shortest line and having a strong last 50 in championship races.
So what does he do? He slows it a touch from 450- 600. At 150, he is OK with them making their move to pull up to him, and run extra distance. But in the the last 100, he methodically holds them at bay and then has something in reserve (with his strong mechanics) for the last 30 as the extra effort to pass him hits them and they run out of gas.
Watch Kipketer in 1995 where he runs far too much extra even to win Worlds. Coe in 1980 and 1984 where he looks clueless in coming from behind (Kipketer with similar flaws in 2000). Kipketer in 1999, just barely judging his effort well enough. Kipketer in 1997 was dominant, but Rudisha can control it over him and would do so.
Contrast this with Rudisha's winning efforts in 2011 (moderate), 2012 (lightning quick), 2015 (slow/tactical) and 2016 (quick). He knew how to outfox his competition, and had the talent to execute it.
Again, if you want to argue that Coe could run faster than his 1981 PR in a time trial in time trial in 2012, we all would agree.
But if the argument is who would win a race, Coe couldn’t even win against his 1980, 1982, and 1984 contemporaries. Coe was not a winner. Rudisha is/was.
Not a winner? Two 1500 golds suggest otherwise. Rudisha might win their head to head but not because Coe didn't know how to win. With a pacer like Rudisha that could have been ideal for him.
If you were smarter you would know that Rudisha doesn’t have to lead to win. Rudisha could sit on Coe and beat him. So could Kipketer.
Not a winner? Two 1500 golds suggest otherwise. Rudisha might win their head to head but not because Coe didn't know how to win. With a pacer like Rudisha that could have been ideal for him.
If you were smarter you would know that Rudisha doesn’t have to lead to win. Rudisha could sit on Coe and beat him. So could Kipketer.
Coe had one of the best kicks of any md runner. If he is in front in the home straight, neither can get past him. They have to be in front and with a significant lead. In his 1981 form he wouldn't let them. He could stay with both.
Again, if you want to argue that Coe could run faster than his 1981 PR in a time trial in time trial in 2012, we all would agree.
But if the argument is who would win a race, Coe couldn’t even win against his 1980, 1982, and 1984 contemporaries. Coe was not a winner. Rudisha is/was.
We're talking about Coe 81. Coe unfortunately had a short prime at 800 (79-81), and had one global championships in those 3 years, which he blew due to nerves. In a WR paced race with these two in it, he would likely have no problems tucking himself in behind Rudisha or both of them.. If he's still with them in the last 100m, he outkicks them both in the home straight.
This is where your white worship is blinding you. You say Coe is superior at 1500m. The evidence tends to back you up there. You also seem to say Coe is faster at 400m so he can outkick them. IF he is faster at 400m AND 1500m why is he slower at 800m? You make no sense due to your white worship.
We're talking about Coe 81. Coe unfortunately had a short prime at 800 (79-81), and had one global championships in those 3 years, which he blew due to nerves. In a WR paced race with these two in it, he would likely have no problems tucking himself in behind Rudisha or both of them.. If he's still with them in the last 100m, he outkicks them both in the home straight.
You like the others are making the mistake of thinking that Rudisha knew only one way to win (running balls out the whole way). Or that Coe or Kipketer were good at "tucking in" within a high-level 800. Tucking in is extremely hard to execute in the 800, as is timing the final kick vs. a frontrunner who is on paper as good/better than you and knows how to manage their effort.
The evidence from their careers suggests, Coe and Kipketer would waste energy getting up to Rudisha, and would have an inferior last 50.
Coe ran 1:43.0 on the Cologne track in 85 when he was a shadow of his best (due to a back injury). There is no way he was almost within a second of his peak 81 form then.
The Cologne and Zurich tracks were much faster than the Firenze track, which was one of the worst in Europe at the time. Probably a second faster. The super mondo track of London 2012 probably 2 seconds faster.
We know Coe is 3rd at 800m. We know Coe wins at 1500m. The $1 Million Question is who wins at 1000m? Now Coe has a chance. It is an almost impossible call now.
Well we just saw that Korir couldn't get near Wightman (or 10 others) in the 1000m at Zurich. Kipketer and Rudisha wouldn't get within 1 second of 81 Coe over 1000m.
We know Coe is 3rd at 800m. We know Coe wins at 1500m. The $1 Million Question is who wins at 1000m? Now Coe has a chance. It is an almost impossible call now.
Well we just saw that Korir couldn't get near Wightman (or 10 others) in the 1000m at Zurich. Kipketer and Rudisha wouldn't get within 1 second of 81 Coe over 1000m.
The Korir race has NOTHING to do with this unless you assume all Africans are the same. Please…