Funny how the two fastest men of all time in the 800m don't have Olympic gold medals at the distance. Snell, Wottle and Juanterena all had both, but are now several seconds off the world record. Cruz had gold and almost a world record as well. Hard to make a case for who is the greatest 800m runner of all time.
I would say the most dominant 800m runner of all time was Kipketer...at his best with decent tactics I just don't see him losing to anyone.
Juanterena never really reached his potential at 800.
With an Olympic gold medal also at 400 with the most relaxed 44.26 I’ve ever seen - just image what sort of time he might have run with a couple of seasons under his belt on the competitive, modern grand-prix circuit
I don't recall correcting YOU on anything! I stated that I corrected what SOME people had put on here; namely that Cram was pre selected for Seoul (he wasn't), that he had come 2nd in the 87 Worlds (he didn't, he was 8th), and I originally commented on the facts behind Coe's non-selection, which the poster of the thread had asked for information on. I also made it clear that Coe was ill at the Trials, which some people didn't seem to realise when reading what they had said.
Statistically Coe achieved more than Ovett or Cram, and I think an illness that can be life threatening and affected him on the track for 2 seasons is a set back that was at least as debilitating as anything that Cram or Ovett had to endure.
Athletic greatness is essentially measured in Olympic medals and World records; other Championships (e.g Worlds) were not available to all athletes from different eras and thus aren't as important. At the Olympics Coe won 2 golds and 2 silvers at 2 Olympics; more than Cram and Ovett put together in 3 Olympics! In terms of the record books, Coe's record is without rival from anyone in recent times. He broke 8 individual outdoors records (not to mention a relay and 3 indoor) again more than Ovett and Cram put together! Two of those marks stood for over 16 years and as we speak have only been marginally improved upon by 1 person in each event. Moreover, he is the only man to hold simultaneously the 800m, 1000m, 1500m and 1mile.
Of course Who is the greatest athlete of all time is an opinion and cannot be measured when comparing athletes from different eras and events. But I would suggest that Coe's record (as above) is enough to state that he was the greatest middle distance runner of all time, or at least one of. That is my opinion based on a thorough knowledge of the events. It is not a FACT.
Ovett is on record himself (and I think Ovett was another all time great and have said nothing derogatory about him on this thread) as saying "I have no hesitation in saying that he (Coe) was the greatest middle distance runner this country ever produced". If you read Pat Butcher's "The Perfect Distance", you can also read what their peers; Walker, Scott, Coghlan, etc; thought about them.
The "rumours" of Coe's blood doping are exactly that! There has never been a shred of evidence from any source to back up what sounds like a case of the green-eyed monster. With his condemnation of PED's and a call for a life ban when addressing the IAAF Congress in Baden Baden (along with Ed Moses) in '81, his work in getting Blood doping outlawed (it wasn't actually illegal) in 1986 and his subsequent political career, I can assure you that if there was even a hint of truth in the allegation, the British press would have got hold of it and published “something” by now.
It makes me laugh that people who clearly dislike Coe (for whatever reason) are happy to cite "rumours" to justify their stance on one hand, then wax lyrical about athletes on the other, who competed in the mid/late 90's, early '00's, when there was no detectable test for EPO (which, btw, wasn't even around in Coe's era, as someone else already made clear) until 2003/4, running for nations that didn't (and for the most part still do not) have out of season testing (to which Coe was subject to), and setting times that were exponentially in advance of previous rates of human progression!
The idea that Coe was fortunate in '84 is plain ridiculous! The claim that Cram was injured in LA is wrong! He had been injured earlier in the season, but was completely healthy by LA. He may not have had the best build up and was certainly in need of a race or two to sharpen up, but he wasn't running with an injury or illness. Cram had a very similar build up in '83 but that never stopped him winning the Worlds; but no one ever says that maybe Coe (the only big name missing in Helsinki) would have won there if fully healthy in '83! Furthermore, Coe’s build up to LA wasn’t exactly a good one. He only started training in February, after being unable to train for the previous 6 months due to toxoplasmosis.
There is nothing that Cram did before '85 that compares with Coe's performance in LA, in terms of statistical analysis. Coe won in '84 by about 8m, in his 7th race in 9 days; regarded by many as the most convincing SERIES of middle distance races ever.
As for EL G’s last 800m in Athens being faster than Coe’s in LA, yes it was (1:46.9 to 1:49.8) but the races were completely different in their component parts and LA was 2 seconds faster overall. If you compare the last 1200m then Coe’s is faster (2:49.0 to EL G’s 2:49.6), as he was over the last 200m (25.7 to 26.3) and 100m (12.7 to 13.3). Ryun’s last 800m (1:50.7) in his 3:33.1 WR was not as fast as Coe’s in LA, though his last 1200m was faster. Having said this, Ryun’s was a one off race, rather than a Championship final. Coe's run in LA is as impressive as either of Ryun's or EL G's runs.
There was nothing “dodgy” about Coe’s 1:41.73 run in Florence. Yes, there had been problems with the stadium clock that evening, but it was ratified by the IAAF at 1.41.73 from a photo-cell. It was hardly Coe's fault that the electronic time failed to work that night, and you could hardly ask him to run it again! If the IAAF were convinced of the time, then who are we to question them? The actual timekeepers at the stadium that night had an average of 1.41.7, which is intrinsically superior to 1.41.77. Yes of course there is very little between Cruz and Coe in terms of time, but I maintain that Coe's run; in early June, at a low key meeting with no real competition and running the entire last lap in a vacuum some 40 metres up on the rest of the field; is a superior run to Cruz's close race with Koskei in August in a talented Grand Prix meet. Coe's record was an incentive to Cruz, of course and he attacked in a dozen times or so in the next 2 years, but failed to beat it. By the time Cruz came to prominence in 84, Coe was coming back from 2 years of illness and interrupted training. Cruz was excellent and a worthy winner of LA 84, but the event had moved on in depth by then and he had guys like Koskei pushing him hard post Olympics.
When Coe ran his 1:41.73, he was 1.71 seconds faster than the next best guy (Juantorena), the biggest gap over the rest of the world in modern times. He was so far ahead of his contemporaries, so that once he broke 1.42, there was no real desire for him to break his own record further. He probably would have attempted to in ’82 or ’83, but he was ill and by the time he got back to his best in ’84, he was probably a little past his best at this event.
This thread has drifted a long way from the original posting, and I apologise for this long response, but I felt it necessary to comment on points others brought up.
One last thing; check your spelling of "relevant" and "perpetuated"! Yes, on this occasion I have corrected you. Apologies. ;0)
Thanks for the lengthy post, Dean.
This is a point I have, Dean. He made a massive breakthrough (yes 1.7 seconds is an amazing amount of space to be ahead of the rest) But he was ahead for 3 years not 16! That is my point. Cruz beat him and all but equaled his time.
And, Dean, I am sure you have read, Coe's times in training were as good as in '81 - in Coming Back.
He started training in Feb?? Not sure about that.
Mind you Ryun held the half mile, mile and two mile.
Kipketer, if you remember, when he equaled Coe's WR was a full 1.5 secs behind him at the 600 m mark. His third 200 was too slow. He ran sub 1.43 many times - on his own.
I have read "The Perfect Distance" - great book.
I have heard nothing to suggest that Coe was on PEDs.
Coe is an honest man. I do recall his mum saying that when he was a kid, he had to win, even if he was out in cricket he would refuse to go out. I am sure he matured. Win at all costs. Daddy Coe said first is everything, second is nowhere. Very similar to this "The most important thing is not to win but to take part!" when you think about it. That is why Seb is now so involved with the Olympic movement. He is in it for the right reasons - not ego driven at all. He is an impeccable guy. That is why he is universally loved.
Coe was fortunate in '84 (to be selected). Strong argument to select Elliott instead. As it turned out the correct decision was made as he was the best man that year. Cram's preparation was hindered by a calf injury even though he way have been fit in LA.
In '80 the race ran exactly as Coe would have liked - it was essentially another 800.
Ryun's was on a dirt track and did he lead for the last three laps. Sub 3.30 on today's tracks for sure - in 1967. Didn't he go through the first lap in over 60 seconds??? Can you believe that?? I will go out on a limb now and say it is the most impressive 1500/mile performance ever. What was his last 300?
"Coe won in '84 by about 8m, in his 7th race in 9 days; regarded by many as the most convincing SERIES of middle distance races ever."
Snell may argue with that. Was Cruz's series part of Coe's series?
Maybe you are right about the timing. I am just reporting what Cruz's coach said. He said the timing was suspect.
deanouk wrote:
Yes of course there is very little between Cruz and Coe in terms of time, but I maintain that Coe's run; in early June, at a low key meeting with no real competition and running the entire last lap in a vacuum some 40 metres up on the rest of the field; is a superior run to Cruz's close race with Koskei in August in a talented Grand Prix meet.
I see we agree on most points. However on this (albeit minor) point I am not so sure. Coe's "race" was a little more than a time trial. He sits on --- I think it was Billy Konchellah --- for a lap or so and then blows by him uncontested. I don't think there was any question, even at the starting line, that he was going to win that night in Florence. Cruz, on the other hand, had to worry about an actual race.
I have no problem putting Cruz up there with Coe but then that just leaves me saying that they were BOTH light years ahead of everyone for 16-some-odd years.
Still, in a match race between those two my money would have to be on Coe.
Elliot didn't exactly tank in 1988 though-4th in the 800m in 1:43 missing out on silver or bronze by about a tenth isn't a bad performance.
Ryun's 1500 record was incredible-he jogged the first 300 in 46.5 and then accelerated to the tune of running the last 1200 in 2:46ish, just about wr record pace today, on a dirt track!
Last 1200 meters 2:46.6.
Last 800 meters 1:51.3
Last 400 meters 53.5
95+ degrees and LA smog.
Makes you wonder how fast he could have gone.
Do you think Cruz would have stood a chance if he had lined up for the 1500m as he was supposed to? I think maybe he was an outside pick for a medal.
One last thing; check your spelling of "relevant" and "perpetuated"! Yes, on this occasion I have corrected you. Apologies. ;0)
And why don't you check your use of semi-colons?
;0
one of Coe's most impressive performances was in 85 when he ran a 1.44.0 solo in the Middlesex County Championships at Enfield. This was only in May, so just think what he might have been running in July/August. It was his fastest-ever early season run and .06 second faster than his June run before setting the WR in 81. Unfortunately, he lost weeks of training after this through injury and was well beaten by Cram in the Bislet Mile. It could have been a great summer with Coe pushing Aouita and Cram. I don't think he ever raced against Aouita. By the end of August 85 he was running 1:43.07, but based on his May run, barring injury he may have been in WR shape.
'85 was also the only year of his career where Coe rocked the mullet. You can probably find pictures somewhere. Imagine what could have been. The mullet is worth 3 extra seconds of speed in peak form.
Thanks for your reply and the questions you raised.
I have a few points I'd like to add to yours, nacf, and a few others.
First, I never said that Coe was 1.7 secs ahead of the rest of the world for 16 years. He was when he first set the record and as you say, for the next 3 years. But at the time of his 2nd record he was further ahead of the rest of the worldthan anyone else had been since Rudolf Harbig was in the '30's. And Coe's record, despite Cruz getting close, wasn't bettered until 1997.
It is clear that Coe in the 800m final in LA was not the same athlete of '81. How could he be having suffered serious illness problems the previous year (some have suggested that the toxoplasmosis virus could have been in his system since '82) and being several months behind with his training in '84. What you have said about his training times being "as good as in '81" is a little misleading and slightly out of context. Basically Coe was short of training and race sharpening as the LA Olympics began, and he used the preliminary rounds to "bring him to a peak" for defending his 1500m title. It wasn't until a few weeks after LA, when he ran a 3:32 1500m in Zurich (last lap 53.0, 200m in 25.5, 100m in 12.5) that he was probably back to his '81 form. Unfortunately he further tore fibres in his foot during the race and had to end his season there. His intention was to run a few 800's and there is little doubt he would have gone sub 1:43 with the right pace.
In "Coming Back" Coe says:
"Since the start of the year (1984) I'd always been effectively one stage or so behind what I would have wished, not having run from July to Christmas....I was low-key until March, and didn't get on the track until June. The hard works on hills was done in April rather than February." He continues, (p.93) "I went off to Chicago....After I'd been there a week,....I had the first indication that things were going well, with a series of 20x200, the first ten with 25secs recovery, the second ten with 35 to 40 seconds recovery. The times were mainly around 26 secs, but the last one was 22.5, against a personal best ever of 21.7. I'd not been able to produce such quality at the end of a series SINCE 1981."
In one aspect of his training he was running better than he had since 1981, not better than in '81 itself. Moreover, it doesn't mean he was in the same shape "overall" in 84 as he had been in 81.
Ryun never held the 2 Mile WR, he held the 880, 1500m and 1 Mile simultaneosly.
You said: "Kipketer, if you remember, when he equaled Coe's WR was a full 1.5 secs behind him at the 600 m mark. His third 200 was too slow. He ran sub 1.43 many times - on his own."
When they ran 1:41.73, both went through 400m in a similar time, Kip 49.6, Coe 49.9. Kipketer covered the next 200m in 26.7 (1:16.3 at 600m) and then 25.5 for the final 200m. Coe's were 25.1 and then 26.7. Had Kipketer covered the penultimate 200m faster, lets say as fast as Coe, it is ludicrous to think he would still have covered the last 200m in 25.5. He too would have slowed down.
Yes Kipketer did run many sub 1:43's on his own and was miles ahead of his contemporaries, but the athletic world was a different landscape in '97 than it had been in '81. Kipketer was given rabbits at almost every grand prix (which didn't exist in '81) in an effort to beat Coe's record. Of the twelve 800m Coe ran in '81, six of them were international "matches" representing England or the UK against other countries. How many times did Kip have to turn out and run for Denmark in '97? By the late '90's athletes at the top could basically run wherever and whenever in top quality fields for themselves. This was not the case in the early 80's, especially in the UK, where the AAA dictated much of the time as to how many invitation meetings athletes could run in.
I agree with your comments on "The Perfect Distance" and PED's completely.
Ryun's performance in LA '67 was phenomenal and ahead of its time, but "dirt track" is a bit misleading. It says in "The Milers" (T&FNews) that the "track had been resurfaced and it seemed fast" (P.329). He didn't lead for the first 3 laps, but only went past Keino AFTER the 1200m point. ("At this point, going into the last backstretch, Ryun was alongside Keino, ready for his drive")
His last 300m was 39.6, last 800m 1:50.7! I have seen several different claims for his last 3 laps, The Milers book says the last 3/4 was 2:48.7, which is 2:47.8 for 1200m, but I haven't seen the race and wouldn't like to state that is for certain. Whatever it was, it was certainly bloody fast!
I can see exactly why you suggest Snell as having the best series ever, in that he won 2 golds to Coe's gold and silver, but the standard of his runs in terms of time was not as intense as Coe's were 20 years later, but that is only my opinion.
Snell ran 6 races in 8 days with: 1:49.0, 1:46.9, 1:45.1, 3:46.8, 3:38.8 and 3:38.1. Coe ran 7 in 9: 1:45.71, 1:46.75, 1:45.51, 1:43.64, 3:45.3, 3:35.81 and 3:32,53.
I agree with Harry Ramsden's comments on Coe's '85 season. If he hadn't suffered with a recurring injury through July and August he would have run a lot faster than the 1:43.07 he ran in late August. When he ran 1:44.0 in May, followed up with a victory over Cram at 800m in June, this had been off a winter training for a move up to 5000m. The following year, '86, Coe was in better shape, but his fastest time was only 1:44.10, though he won the European title and was ranked No 1. If he could run 1:43.07 in a bad year, then of course he had the ability to run faster than this in '84 and '86, but they just didn't happen.
Well, I know this is an old post, but hey it's 2015 and I'm just now reading it. I think Deano did an excellent job at answering the initial question. Gave sound reasons and it makes sense. And for it, he had a few people give him all kinds of insults. What kind of person does that? Certainly not a respectable person who loves the sport of track. Good debate involves real questions and real answers. Not the ridiculous attacks on Deano. In the end, it is Deano who proved himself to be accurate, intelligent, and worth reading. Can't say that for a lot of the rest of you. So if you're not a respectable person who can be decent and follow reason, why don't you just go back to Facebook please...
Well, I know this is an old post, but hey it's 2015 and I'm just now reading it. I think Deano did an excellent job at answering the initial question. Gave sound reasons and it makes sense. And for it, he had a few people give him all kinds of insults. What kind of person does that? Certainly not a respectable person who loves the sport of track. Good debate involves real questions and real answers. Not the ridiculous attacks on Deano. In the end, it is Deano who proved himself to be accurate, intelligent, and worth reading. Can't say that for a lot of the rest of you. So if you're not a respectable person who can be decent and follow reason, why don't you just go back to Facebook please...
Conconi
It was too bad that Seb didnt run that '88 1500 because the race was totally suited to his tempo - would've medalled or possibly won his third straight. Esp is he didn't double up like the previous 2 games
deanouk wrote:
What nobody seems to point out is that Coe was ill with a chest infection at the time of the trials, something that UK Athletics doctors confirmed afterwards. He struggled to run 3:45 in a heat, despite running a 3:37 solo 1500m the previous week while in Switzerland doing Altitude training!
Why did he run in the trials if he was ill, you might ask?
Well, the selectors and the AAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided to change the policy for selection that year. Previously, it had been the first past the post in the trials, plus 2 chosen at the discretion of the selectors. In 1988, they decided that the first 2 in the trials would go, while only the last remaining place would be "selected". Coe, among others, had been openly critical of this policy in the months running up to the trials, citing that while it might make sense for some countries, it was far from ideal in the UK where there was less "in depth" talent, and would thus enable some athletes to get "lucky" in the Trials and deprive an established competitor (who may under perform or be injured 7 weeks prior to the Olympics) of a place on the team.
There were NO pre selected athletes in '88. Cram won the 800m at the trials, with McKean second, and after Coe not making the final due to illness (not because of poor form;...he hadn't been beaten by any other British athlete that season to this point in 5 races, and had beaten Ereng, who went on to win the Olympic title, twice at 800m) the way was left open for Elliot to win the 1500m trial and Crabb to come second.
The selectors then had to chose between Elliott & Coe for the discretionary last place over 800m and Cram and Coe for the last place over 1500m.
Coe was the reigning European Champion at 800m and was faster than Elliott that year (1988), while Elliott had won the silver at the previous year's world champs. Coe, on the other hand, had only run once in '87 in May, before a foot injury ruled him out for the rest of the season. The claim of some on here that Coe had several "bad" season at this time is just not true! He had simply been unable to run in 87 due to injury and then ruled out of the '88 Olympics.
In the end the selectors chose Cram for the 1500m spot, despite already having been beaten by other UK athletes that year (Sharpe and Morrell over 1000m) and coming way down the field in the '87 World final, on account of early season fast times.
Over 800m the selection committee chose Coe over Elliott (which wasn't common knowledge at the time), but their decision was then overruled by the full Board meeting of the AAA Council the next day by one vote!! There was a "botch up" over the allocation of votes and the final decision caused a lot of controversy in the press and media. Moreover, it is a strongly held belief that the AAA Council's decision was politically motivated. Firstly, he had criticised their selection policy vociferously and second, he had been the head of the Sports Council when a decision was made in 1986 that Athletics would get less funding for the Olympics, in order to give more money to less established sports like hockey, gymnastics, etc. It is believed that they wanted to take him down a peg or two!
Interestingly, 3 weeks later, having still not fully recovered from what developed into bronchitis, Coe ran 1:43.93, faster than any Britain was to run in Seoul and faster than Elliott managed to win all season. 3 days later he ran a 3:35 1500m. This was still a month before the Games, where Coe had always said he was peaking for. By this time Cram was injured, but still insisting he wanted to run both events in Seoul.
In Seoul, neither Cram nor Mckean even reached the semi finals in the 800m, and Crabb failed to make the final of the 1500m.
The next year, Coe's 33rd, he would record the fastest times by a Britain over both 800 and 1500m, run the second fastest 800m in the world (1:43.38) and come a very close second to Bile in the World Cup 1500m, despite being fouled by the African at the start of the home straight. He would also beat the best the UK had to offer in the AAA 1500m final, despite falling over with a lap to go and being 15m behind the leaders at the bell.
Coe had always doubled up successfully in his career (80, 84 and 86) and he was building up gradually to be at a peak in Seoul. The evidence is that it was more likely he would have been successful again than not!
Excellent summary.
Interesting that people ask the question then criticise someone for having the knowledge to provide a correct and detailed answer
UK Top performers 1988
800m
1. Steve Cram 1:43.42
2. Seb Coe 1:43.93
3. Peter Elliot 1:44.12
1500m
1. Steve Cram 3:30.95
2. Peter Elliot 3:32.94
3. Steve Crabb 3:33.95
Coe's quickest 1500m that year was 3:35.72
Bazza wrote:
UK Top performers 1988
800m
1. Steve Cram 1:43.42
2. Seb Coe 1:43.93
3. Peter Elliot 1:44.12
1500m
1. Steve Cram 3:30.95
2. Peter Elliot 3:32.94
3. Steve Crabb 3:33.95
UK Top performers 2015
800m
1. Michael Rimmer 1:45.67
2. Kyle Langford 1:45.78
3. Theo Blundell 1:46.43
1500m
1. Mohamed Farah 3:28.93
2. Chris O'Hare 3:34.83
3. Charlie Grice 3:35.29
The 1500m selection was fairly straight forward.
Top two at their Trials were in.
Peter Elliot and Steve Crabb raced their way to the Olympics.
Elliot went on to get Silver so he seemed be a good choice anyway.
Crabb lucked out by not having Cram or Coe to compete with.
So it came down to picking Seb Coe or Steve Cram - each who once held the 1500 WR, each had either an Olympic or WC Gold medal.
Coe hadn't put up any times in 1987 or done much early in 1988.
Cram had a faster PR (2nd fastest ever after Aouita broke Cram's WR).
And Cram ran faster than Coe in 1987 and 1988.
It seemed to make sense to pick Cram - who went on to get 4th at the Olympics.
The key for Coe to make the team was to beat Crabb at their Trials - and he didn't manage that.
Or, had Cram ran their Trials and beaten Crabb, then Coe would have been selected.
Star wrote:
The 1500m selection was fairly straight forward.
The key for Coe to make the team was to beat Crabb at their Trials - and he didn't manage that.
Or, had Cram ran their Trials and beaten Crabb, then Coe would have been selected.
Yes, that is obvious. The point is, one made prior to the trials by several athletes, that in certain events (e.g 800 & 1500) the selection policy of first 2 past the post was a ridiculous one, as it could (and indeed did) lead to the selectors having to choose between the Olympic Champion and ex WR holder!
Secondly Coe didn't manage to win or even make it to the finals in the Trials because he was ILL with a chest infection. It wasn't a case of him having poor form, he just had the bad luck of being ill on the day of the trials. He could have chosen not to run, but then he'd been very vocal about the selection policy and the board could have argued he was trying to make a point. He was basically in a Catch -22 situation.
The selection policy didn't take such possibilities (of someone being ill or injured on day of trials) into consideration. It was a nonsense selection policy and it wasn't a case of Coe not being fit enough. On the day, 7 weeks before the Olympics he was ill. This resulted in Crabb going instead of Coe. No one in their right mind would choose the former over the latter.
Coe was actually chosen to have the 3rd spot over 800m by the selectors, but they were over-ruled the next day by a meeting of the AAA board, where the likes of a third string discus thrower and second rate heptathlete voted for Elliott over Coe, 12-11.
Coe should have gone at 800m. He'd already beaten Ereng (who went on to win the Olympic gold) twice, had a faster season's best than Elliott going in to the Olympics and was the reigning European Champion.
Both Elliott and Cram over raced in the lead up to Seoul, both picked up niggling injuries and then both tried to attempt possibly the most demanding double at any games. They overstretched themselves and the UK ended up with just 1 silver medal from the 2 events.