Equivalence of 800 & 1500 times ?

drivel

he's running wide of the tall black guy at the time

he was never anywhere other than the 2nd lane the whole bend

nonsense

he hasn't changed his position in his lane at all

it happened exactly as i stated

your maths is complete nonsense

you complete & utter moron

this is nothing to do with stagger

it is to do with relative radii from an origin

only an imbecile coudn't understand this

moron

it was 25.0 & with 5m extra run it comes out as

24.4

imbecile

from 1'22.7 in race to 1'30.1 he ran the race in lane 1, or 7.4s or more than 1/2 the curve in lane 1

on top of that he is getting drafting from cram directly ahead

he ran nowhere close to the extra amount on the curve that kip did

either start talking sense or f*ck off

I think they ran rather similar races - except that Coe ran the ENTIRE penultimate bend in lane 2 (shortly lane 3!) and came out of the last curve having to run wider than Kipketer who ran wider before that in the curve. But with rather similar 400m splits Coe comes out with .5 faster time of the race. And that in the rain! Can you understand that Vent?

52.43 wrote:I think they ran rather similar races - except that Coe ran the ENTIRE penultimate bend in lane 2 (shortly lane 3!)

yes

& kip ran all of last curve in lane 2 which coe didn't

and came out of the last curve having to run wider than Kipketer

drivel

who ran wider before that in the curve

nonsense

coe is back in lane 1 by 1'22.3

But with rather similar 400m splits Coe comes out with .5 faster time of the race

so ?

kip ran last "200" in 25.0

coe took 25.8

And that in the rain! Can you understand that Vent?

moron

wettness reduces coefficient of friction between spikes & track

providing you are not running into a storm, a covering of rain makes a track faster

ventolin^3 wrote:

52.43 wrote:I think they ran rather similar races - except that Coe ran the ENTIRE penultimate bend in lane 2 (shortly lane 3!)

yes

& kip ran all of last curve in lane 2 which coe didn't

and came out of the last curve having to run wider than Kipketer

drivel

who ran wider before that in the curve

nonsense

coe is back in lane 1 by 1'22.3

But with rather similar 400m splits Coe comes out with .5 faster time of the race

so ?

kip ran last "200" in 25.0

coe took 25.8

And that in the rain! Can you understand that Vent?

moron

wettness reduces coefficient of friction between spikes & track

providing you are not running into a storm, a covering of rain makes a track faster

You definitely have got eyesight problems, as you seem to be having difficulty telling the difference between a 4 and a 5! Idiot.

Coe's last 200m was 24.8 not 25.8. And he ran far wider than Kipketer over the entire race.

Running in the rain does NOT make the track faster. Note Rudisha's poor performances in wet conditions.

It was cold and wet in Stuttgart that day and the conditions were pretty poor.

Of course running in lane 2 has got to do with the stagger. If you run the entire lap from the finish line to finish line in lane 2, then it's 407m. So if you time someone from the 200m mark (on lane 1) to the 100m from home mark running entirely in lane 2, they have run 103.5m. Kipketer was NOT in lane 2 for the entire bend, so an extra 3m is generous.

24.4 is a nonsense.

"Many so called 'standard' all-weather tracks are designed following these instructions which have an inside radius for the kerb of lane one as 36.5 metres. The actual part where 400 metres is measured is 30cm inside that, or a radius of 36.8 metres.

If you run in lane 2, the stagger is 7.036 metres; Lane 3, 14.702 metres; Lane 4, 22.367 metres; Lane 8, 53.029 metres."

http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=12442

Lane staggers in metres - measurement line distance 0.20m

All distances are measured in a clockwise direction from the edge of the finish line nearer to the start to the edge of the appropriate line farther from the finish. With the exception of Lane 1, all lanes are measured 20cm out from the outer edge of the inner line.

see table on

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/athleticstrackeventdimensions

NOWHERE IS 5m mentioned. Kip wasn't clearly in lane 2 for the duration and there was a definite swerve at 1:26.

Deanouk wrote:"Many so called 'standard' all-weather tracks are designed following these instructions which have an inside radius for the kerb of lane one as 36.5 metres. The actual part where 400 metres is measured is 30cm inside that, or a radius of 36.8 metres.

If you run in lane 2, the stagger is 7.036 metres; Lane 3, 14.702 metres; Lane 4, 22.367 metres; Lane 8, 53.029 metres."

http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=12442

moron

this is nothing to do with stagger

that is only relevant if you run all the way 30cm from lane 2

it is NOT relevant if you are running in the middle of the lane

NOWHERE IS 5m mentioned

imbecile

kip wasn't running 30cm from line, he was mid-lane

Kip wasn't clearly in lane 2 for the duration and there was a definite swerve at 1:26.

moron

he was in lane 2 the whole way & there is no swerve at 1'26

Kipketer in 95 WC and Coe in 86 EC ran almost the same amount of extra meters in the last bend. Realy pretty similar. At the beginning at the outside of lane 1; than on the inside/middle of lane 2. At the end Coe was little more wide. But really pretty similar at all.

Kipketer`s time for the last "200m" was around 25,2s, maybe 25,1. Not faster.

Coe`s time for the last "200m" was around 24,8s, Maybe 24,8. Not slower.

Coe definitely ran his last 200m faster than Kipketer. This is not a question at all. In a race with an better finishing time.

I was in the stadium in Stuttgart 86 for the whole championships, from morning until evening, full week. And I still remember the really bad/very(!) cold weather. Sometimes heavy rain. These weather conditions definitely were not in favour for running fast times.

So, from just comparing from the "stats", Coe`s finishing performance was superior to Kipketer`s.

And the way of communication here sometimes really is astonishing, especially from this guy(?) called ventolin^3.

I also already had the pleasure to get some "stupid", "moron" and so on for just writing my own opinions to some subjects. Even for re-asking something!! It`s very disappointing when you just want to share a common hobby/interest. The administrators of this board should do something here in my opinion. This sort of communication destroys so many good subjects. Very bad.

said88 wrote:

Coe`s time for the last "200m" was around 24,8s, Maybe 24,8. Not slower.

This should be: 24,9. Not slower.

imbecile

he reaches the start mark for the 200m race in lane 2 at 1'18.7

he runs remainder of race in 25.8s

no it was 25.8

idiot

not for the last curve

moron

what part of "reduced coefficient of friction" does your peabrain not comprehend ??

idiot

he blamed it on a poor warm up

wet but not poor for distance runners

imbecile

if it is run on lane line it is 406.2m

if it is run in middle of lane 2 it is 410.1m

can't your peabrain understand basic maths ???

it is 103.1m if run on the line

moron

yes he was

are you blind as well as stoopid ??

idiot

it is huge under-estimate

it was 5m

imbecile can't you again not do basic maths ?

205m in 25.0

200m in 24.4

said88 wrote:Kipketer in 95 WC and Coe in 86 EC ran almost the same amount of extra meters in the last bend

nonsense

coe was in lane 1 for 1/2 the bend

Realy pretty similar. At the beginning at the outside of lane 1; than on the inside/middle of lane 2. At the end Coe was little more wide. But really pretty similar at all

you have visual problems

their 2 bends were nowhere similar

Kipketer`s time for the last "200m" was around 25,2s, maybe 25,1. Not faster

you have no official splits - so whatever your belief is yours

i get 25.0

So, from just comparing from the "stats", Coe`s finishing performance was superior to Kipketer`s

they didn't run same distance from "200m" to home

check your vision

I also already had the pleasure to get some "stupid", "moron" and so on for just writing my own opinions to some subjects.

& i have had the misfortune to read some of the illogical rubbish you have posted

you aren't going to get praise for drivel

ventolin^3 wrote:

he reaches the start mark for the 200m race in lane 2 at 1'18.7

he runs remainder of race in 25.8s

Coe's last 200m was 24.8 not 25.8

no it was 25.8

You know this is not true, but still you are writing this!? OK, that`s up to you.

If you don`t like my comments, than don`t read them anymore. But normaly I try to back up my points with arguments. What I`m definitely not doing is writing stupid things. In some points someone can have an different opinion, or I can be wrong in something. That`s for sure. But I`m not writing stupid, unlogical things.

It was 1:19.7 Ventolin!!!!?????

1:44.5 - 1:19.7 is 24.8!

If you can't calculate or see that, then maybe YOU should go back to Year 5 Maths class?

You really are the most arrogant poster on these boards, as you never admist defeat and are even prepared to post absolute lies (see split above) to support an argument that most others DO NOT agree with.

Grow up!

I make it 1:19.6 but there is no way its what Ventolin says. When you freeze it at 1:19 the leaders are not even at the 200m to go curve. Ventolin why do you continue to argue this when you are totally wrong? Man up and admit it, otherwise go away you offer nothing.

mike george wrote:

I make it 1:19.6 but there is no way its what Ventolin says. When you freeze it at 1:19 the leaders are not even at the 200m to go curve. Ventolin why do you continue to argue this when you are totally wrong? Man up and admit it, otherwise go away you offer nothing.

Yes, the clock on screen has a residual error of about 0.1

If you freeze frame Coe on the finish line it's 1:44.4. So that's where the 24.8 comes from.

In fact at the time the "official" split quoted in the press and athletic magazines was 24.7! From experience they don't always get it right though, and it's always worth checking it out oneself to be sure. For me I'm confident 24.8 is the closest call.

Sometimes the residual follow on is out by 0.3 or 0.4, and then you have to take this into account also. Nowadays it's usually bang on or perhaps 0.1 slow at most.

Red Arrow wrote:to support an argument that most others DO NOT agree with

moron

which "most others" are you naming who back against :

low-24 finish in a lane 1 run in a 1'45.0 can't be run by a 1'43.0/46+ guy

ventolin^3 wrote:

Red Arrow wrote:to support an argument that most others DO NOT agree with

moron

which "most others" are you naming who back against :

low-24 finish in a lane 1 run in a 1'45.0 can't be run by a 1'43.0/46+ guy

LOL.

Now that you have been proved wrong you choose to ignore all the inaccurate points you have made and aren't man enough to admit being wrong about Coe's last 20om being 25.8.

You now employ typical distraction tactics by changing the goal posts completely.

None of the other posters on here agree with your comments that Coe's last 200 was 25.8 or that Kipketer's last 200 was worth 24.4. That's what I was referring to when stating "Most others don't agree with you"

A poster challenged you to find an example of a 1:43 guy who has run a 12.0 or faster in a 1:46 or faster.

And you have failed to offer one name who actually has done that, whether they were a 1:43 runner or not.

Finding a "low 24 last 200m in a 1:45" was never a question asked!? Regardless, you still haven't come up with anyone who fits your own question. No one has agreed that Kip's 25.2 was worth anything faster than 24.8 in a 1:45.1.

Coe produced a 24.5 in a 1:45.4 in 79 and a 24.8 in a 1:44.5 in 86. This was worth 24.5 had he run entirely on the inside of lane 1, and then the finishing time would have been 1:44.1.

We are still waiting for the names of all those athletes you claim could run 12.0 in a 1:46??

He will tell you Usain Bolt could, if he was allowed to jog 600m!

*700m of course

52.43 wrote:

*700m of course

Lol. Yes, probably!

I agreed with almost everything you have written.