And LetsRun wonders why people stop reading and contributing. Such a great topic and thread totally taken over by two idiots having a personal argument and name calling.
What do we feel is the best ever combination of 800m races was?
Both Cruz and Coe's 1984 probably never to be eclipsed. 4 days of races; 3/4/5/6th August
Cruz - 1:45.66, 1:44.84, 1:43.82 and 1:43.00
Coe 1:46.75, 1:45.71, 1:45.51 and 1:43.64
Coe then ran 3:45, 3:35 & 3:32 (Olympic Record) on 9/10/11th August.
Rudisha London 6/7/9th Aug 2012
1:45.9, 1:44.3, 1:40.9
Rudisha Rio 12/13/15th Aug 2016
1:45.0, 1:43.8, 1:42.1
Beijing WC 22/23/25 Aug 2015
1:48, 1:47, 1:45... has anyone every ran a 'slower' series of races and still won?!
Yeah the 1984 Olympic program/path will just always be the most legendary because of 4 races in 4 days and the overall quality of the races and who was running. Seoul was also 4 races in 4 days and Ereng went 1.46.14, 1.46.38, 1.44.55 and 1.43.55 which is insane but when you look at Cruz in '84 it isn't even close.
Cruz in '84 won't ever be topped - even Rudisha in 2012 doesn't beat it (IMO) - yes the final result is much better but basically on that day Rudisha was recovering before the final, Cruz was in a bus to the stadium, warming up, running a sub 1.44 800m - going through the full package of emotional buildup and stress etc etc. Those are the intangibles that are tough to comprehend. Those days of the 4 rounds in 4 days really stretched the band on an element of 800m running that isn't exposed as much these days - straight up toughness both physical and mental.
Like you said, it puts these guys who used to double back then in a different light. That Coe comes back to win the 1500m after that in 3.32 which was earth-shattering at the time for a championship 1500, is astonishing. Peter Elliot in 88 ran 1.44.1 in the final then was beaten out of nowhere by Rono by 0.2 in the 1500.
As for the slowest series to win I guess it's all relative to the era right but the other one that I immediately thought of was Yego in '07 who I knew had won in 1.47 something and had beaten Gary Reed by some insanely small amount (it was 1.47.09 to 1.47.10) - he had at least gone 1.45.5, 1.44.5 in his heat and semi so that Beijing series is a real weird one for how tactical it was.
And LetsRun wonders why people stop reading and contributing. Such a great topic and thread totally taken over by two idiots having a personal argument and name calling.
who was it? I have a lot of these guys blocked so I don't even see the nonsense.
I haven't. I know better what I think than a moron like you. Now **** off.
Obviously you don't know what you have written - several times now. Just two days ago you wrote that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. You can deny it as often as you want - you have written it. This for you makes Coe a doper without any question.
But since you are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking, your word is mud, I know.
Yeah the 1984 Olympic program/path will just always be the most legendary because of 4 races in 4 days and the overall quality of the races and who was running. Seoul was also 4 races in 4 days and Ereng went 1.46.14, 1.46.38, 1.44.55 and 1.43.55 which is insane but when you look at Cruz in '84 it isn't even close.
Cruz in '84 won't ever be topped - even Rudisha in 2012 doesn't beat it (IMO) - yes the final result is much better but basically on that day Rudisha was recovering before the final, Cruz was in a bus to the stadium, warming up, running a sub 1.44 800m - going through the full package of emotional buildup and stress etc etc. Those are the intangibles that are tough to comprehend. Those days of the 4 rounds in 4 days really stretched the band on an element of 800m running that isn't exposed as much these days - straight up toughness both physical and mental.
Like you said, it puts these guys who used to double back then in a different light. That Coe comes back to win the 1500m after that in 3.32 which was earth-shattering at the time for a championship 1500, is astonishing. Peter Elliot in 88 ran 1.44.1 in the final then was beaten out of nowhere by Rono by 0.2 in the 1500.
As for the slowest series to win I guess it's all relative to the era right but the other one that I immediately thought of was Yego in '07 who I knew had won in 1.47 something and had beaten Gary Reed by some insanely small amount (it was 1.47.09 to 1.47.10) - he had at least gone 1.45.5, 1.44.5 in his heat and semi so that Beijing series is a real weird one for how tactical it was.
Well Rudisha was the alpha. He was surpremely confident in his sprinting abilities with the head start of being in the lead. That year, he was less confident in his maximal ability in a fast race from the gun, so doing that wasn't to his benefit. The other heats and semis weren't abnormally slow. Rudisha just took the lead and dictated he'd go as slow as possible in each of his rounds, and executed. That is why I think he's the GOAT over Kipketer. Sure he didn't win in as many ways, but that's because he was able to control the event in a way nobody else could. Jakob is trying it in the 1500 and finding it very hard without a pacemaker of course.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
An interest tangent question is the debate on who is the #1 all-time American 800 runner.
This would be up for considerable debate.
The OP has the Dave Wottle as the top ranked American and one can definitely make a case for him.
I would have to give the edge though to Johnny Gray and his 8 times #1 American ranking and 11 time top 10 World Ranking including 2 times at #2. While he doesn't have the big World/Olympic Championship win he was so strong for so long. He was a permanent fixture at the front to top 800 meter races around the world for a decade or more.
If Ryun had focused on the 800 more maybe he could be in the running. His 1966 year and times was amazing, he just didn't run enough 800's to be #1 in my eyes.
I haven't. I know better what I think than a moron like you. Now **** off.
Obviously you don't know what you have written - several times now. Just two days ago you wrote that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. You can deny it as often as you want - you have written it. This for you makes Coe a doper without any question.
But since you are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking, your word is mud, I know.
I haven't said I think Coe is a doper. But you can't follow an argument that isn't the one in your own head. In any case, you aren't interested in whether Coe was doping or not but are obsessed with what I say. You need to find another interest in life.
However, on the actual point of whether Coe was doping, I am inclined to believe he wasn't. If he had doped I would think he would have been far better than 3.29-30 for the 1500.
Obviously you don't know what you have written - several times now. Just two days ago you wrote that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. You can deny it as often as you want - you have written it. This for you makes Coe a doper without any question.
But since you are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking, your word is mud, I know.
I haven't said I think Coe is a doper. But you can't follow an argument that isn't the one in your own head. In any case, you aren't interested in whether Coe was doping or not but are obsessed with what I say. You need to find another interest in life.
However, on the actual point of whether Coe was doping, I am inclined to believe he wasn't. If he had doped I would think he would have been far better than 3.29-30 for the 1500.
You have said it isn't possible to come close to a current WR without doping (several times, also a few days ago). This makes Coe a doper FOR YOU. It's a 100% conclusion from your initial point.
Yes, I'm not interested in the question whether Coe was doping or not - because we never will know.
The only thing you can do again and again when proved to be wrong is to change the subject. As you do also here again and again.
You are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking - good to see in this sad eppisode.
I haven't said I think Coe is a doper. But you can't follow an argument that isn't the one in your own head. In any case, you aren't interested in whether Coe was doping or not but are obsessed with what I say. You need to find another interest in life.
However, on the actual point of whether Coe was doping, I am inclined to believe he wasn't. If he had doped I would think he would have been far better than 3.29-30 for the 1500.
You have said it isn't possible to come close to a current WR without doping (several times, also a few days ago). This makes Coe a doper FOR YOU. It's a 100% conclusion from your initial point.
Yes, I'm not interested in the question whether Coe was doping or not - because we never will know.
The only thing you can do again and again when proved to be wrong is to change the subject. As you do also here again and again.
You are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking - good to see in this sad eppisode.
I've just explained why I don't think Coe is a doper and yet you keep insisting I think he is a doper. You really need to see someone about your problem.
Furthermore, as always, you have nothing to say on the subject of the thread.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You have said it isn't possible to come close to a current WR without doping (several times, also a few days ago). This makes Coe a doper FOR YOU. It's a 100% conclusion from your initial point.
Yes, I'm not interested in the question whether Coe was doping or not - because we never will know.
The only thing you can do again and again when proved to be wrong is to change the subject. As you do also here again and again.
You are a liar and incapable of any rational thinking - good to see in this sad eppisode.
I've just explained why I don't think Coe is a doper and yet you keep insisting I think he is a doper. You really need to see someone about your problem.
Furthermore, as always, you have nothing to say on the subject of the thread.
I have never said that you think he is a doper.
For you he IS a doper - it's a 100% conclusion from your view that it is not possible to come close to a current WR without doping.
If you don't think Coe is a doper, than you can't keep your other point, that it's not possible to come close to a current WR without being doped.
But you still remain on both points - which contradict each other. It's because you are both a liar and stupid.
I've just explained why I don't think Coe is a doper and yet you keep insisting I think he is a doper. You really need to see someone about your problem.
Furthermore, as always, you have nothing to say on the subject of the thread.
I have never said that you think he is a doper.
For you he IS a doper - it's a 100% conclusion from your view that it is not possible to come close to a current WR without doping.
If you don't think Coe is a doper, than you can't keep your other point, that it's not possible to come close to a current WR without being doped.
But you still remain on both points - which contradict each other. It's because you are both a liar and stupid.
For me he likely isn't a doper. But you know better what I think. I suppose that's because you think you are me. That's quite a complex you have.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.