Try to post also the graph the show the use of peds years 90's 00's, in those years before 1997 in cycling and other endurance sport it was common to have HCT near 60% and hemoglobin 18,5g/dl, plus strenght hormones let me tell you fly but also risk your health . Then compare the graph nowdays especially in track and field. You will have your answer.
Explain that in Bioenergetics terms. I know you can't, but I'd like to see you try.
El G is at the top, but it took a lot to surpass Morceli.
They both had 7 straight years ranked #1. They both lowered the records. They both had 1 Olympic Gold and a failure to win an Olympics when they were favored.
El G has 4 WC Golds to Morceli's 3.
Morceli dominated his competition when he was on. El G had to contend with Ngeny and Lagat. El G ran up on Morceli in 1996 and fell. It would have been interesting to see if El G would have pulled off the win if he didn't fall.
If the 92 Olympics were held later in the season, I think Morceli would have won and had two Olympic Golds. He broke the WR at the end of that season but was 7th at the Olympics which were held early August.
Your graph shows Morceli with 7 sub 3:30s when no one else had more than 2 during that era. That's some dominance.
There is a classic thread here from 7 years ago that asked why did Morceli faded so quickly, even immediately after his Olympic gold becoming almost instantly an also-ran (I wont link the thread in case the mods delete it). It's quite illuminating. One poster points out that there were strong rumours that Morceli never liked having to dope to stay at the top, and stopped immediately after winning gold. And not just the EPO, but things like the HGH which help prevent and treat injuries. The next year (1997) and Morceli had to be hospitalized because his body wasn't producing enough red blood cells, likely the result of coming off of the EPO after years of full throttle. He also started suffering tendon problems in 1997.
Who knows why Morceli didn't like doping? Maybe he had moral doubts but after Cacho's Barcelona triumph he realized that he had to get on the EPO to get an Olympic gold. Perhaps he was worried about the health risks as this was still early in the EPO era and there had been deaths in cycling and even athletics already.
Nobody has had such a run of dominance as Morceli and El G, and there has never been such a period of doping in middle-distance as their era. To claim that they are the greatest ever because of their times and because of their dominance (ie lack of injuries) is absurd. They were aided by a whole cocktail of peds that not only improved their 1500m times by seconds, but enabled them to train like madmen and yet not get injured. They also had weak competition (and yes even El G - all he had to beat were a couple of Kenyans who were similarly juiced out of their minds).
Imagine if Cram had been able to take full throttle EPO from the age of 18 (probably earlier in El G's case), and stacks of roids and hgh because there was zero testing in the UK (like North Africa)? Probably would have reigned as number 1 in 800, 1500 (and 5000 if he ran it every year) from 1983 to 1992, retiring after his 3rd successive Olympic double with pbs of 1:41.5, 3:23, 3,41, 12:45.
Training of the Mens 1500m World Record HolderHicham El Guerroujlook back over the training of the great Hicham El Guerrouj.Sources:http://run-down.com/guest...
You can't rank Morceli above Coe just because he had faster times (almost certainly EPO aided) and 'dominated' for more years. Coe won two golds, and had the Olympic record for decades. He was 1 or 2 in 1979 and his narrow defeat to Bile showed he was number 2 in 1989.
Coe has had not a single season where he was the dominant Miler. In 79 and 81 he set records but hasn't raced his main rival.
Morceli was dominant in 90, 91, 93, 94 and 95. In his two not dominant seasons during his prime, he set a 1500m WR and became Olympic champion. It's not a question that he has to be ranked ahead of Coe.
Morceli had a stretch where he won more then 40 consecutive 1500m/mile races.
Try to post also the graph the show the use of peds years 90's 00's, in those years before 1997 in cycling and other endurance sport it was common to have HCT near 60% and hemoglobin 18,5g/dl, plus strenght hormones let me tell you fly but also risk your health . Then compare the graph nowdays especially in track and field. You will have your answer.
Explain that in Bioenergetics terms. I know you can't, but I'd like to see you try.
Coe has had not a single season where he was the dominant Miler. In 79 and 81 he set records but hasn't raced his main rival.
Morceli was dominant in 90, 91, 93, 94 and 95. In his two not dominant seasons during his prime, he set a 1500m WR and became Olympic champion. It's not a question that he has to be ranked ahead of Coe.
Morceli had a stretch where he won more then 40 consecutive 1500m/mile races.
Most ever
Morceli lost these two races:
21st August 92 in Berlin against William Kemei in the Mile
7th September 96 in the Grand Prix final against El G in the 1500m.
In between these two, he has won all his 45 high quality 1500m/Mile races which included three world records, two world and one Olympic title.
The poor standards from Seoul 88 to Barcelona says a lot about the competition that Morceli faced. A few of them, probably starting with Cacho, went on the new sauce in 92-94, and the times started tumbling down.
Between 1990 - 1993 (four years) Morceli had the top 7 times, and the next best was Simon Doyle 3:31.96. Peter Elliott looked like breaking through to the level of the greats he was following, but got injured after that fantastic spell he had in the first half of 1990, and then got old.
Morceli had no competition until El G, other than a juiced Cacho at Barcelona. Even leaving aside EPO suspicions, any of the great 80's runners would have dominated that era just as much as Morceli did. Up until his sudden improvement after Barcelona, Morceli hadn't broken 3:31.
You can't rank Morceli above Coe just because he had faster times (almost certainly EPO aided) and 'dominated' for more years. Coe won two golds, and had the Olympic record for decades. He was 1 or 2 in 1979 and his narrow defeat to Bile showed he was number 2 in 1989.
Are you not supposed to be mourning your queen? Another Brit on this site saying Brits didn't take P.E.D.s but Africans took P.E.D.s. It is logical to assume S. Coe was on The Clear or steroids more powerful than The Clear. For S. Coe to have been able to defeat north Africans from 1990's, S. Coe would have to have been allowed to continue most likely using The Clear or more powerful steroids.
You can't rank Morceli above Coe just because he had faster times (almost certainly EPO aided) and 'dominated' for more years. Coe won two golds, and had the Olympic record for decades. He was 1 or 2 in 1979 and his narrow defeat to Bile showed he was number 2 in 1989.
Coe has had not a single season where he was the dominant Miler. In 79 and 81 he set records but hasn't raced his main rival.
Morceli was dominant in 90, 91, 93, 94 and 95. In his two not dominant seasons during his prime, he set a 1500m WR and became Olympic champion. It's not a question that he has to be ranked ahead of Coe.
Nonsense. He was unbeaten in both 79 and 81 (over all distances) and World ranked #1 for 1500m (and 800m) in both those seasons. Ovett chose not to run in the 79 Dream Mile, famously saying that it would be "a hollow victory for whoever won". Ovett also stopped Coe running in the 81 Dream mile, promising he would run the Golden Mile in Brussels the following month. Surprise, surprise, he pulled out of that race a few days before. So, not Coe's fault Ovett ducked him. Coe beat all the rest of the world's top milers in 2 races in 79 (both world records) and in 3 races in 81 (2 world records and a near miss by 0.59secs).
Coe was as dominant as any miler had been during those 2 years despite running very few races over the distance. He was arguably as dominant in 80 and 84 too, winning both the top 2 races in each year (Olympics and Zurich) convincingly. However, he was not ranked #1 those 2 seasons by T&FN due to the small number of races he ran over the distance. Running a series of victories over a long season is seen by some as more important than winning the only race that everyone aims for and wants to win!
Morceli was certainly more dominant over the course of a season in more seasons than Coe, but that is helped by the fact he was predominantly a 1500 specialist, whereas Coe was a combined 800/1500 runner. In terms of Olympic medals and number of world records , Coe has the upper hand.
The poor standards from Seoul 88 to Barcelona says a lot about the competition that Morceli faced. A few of them, probably starting with Cacho, went on the new sauce in 92-94, and the times started tumbling down.
Between 1990 - 1993 (four years) Morceli had the top 7 times, and the next best was Simon Doyle 3:31.96. Peter Elliott looked like breaking through to the level of the greats he was following, but got injured after that fantastic spell he had in the first half of 1990, and then got old.
Morceli had no competition until El G, other than a juiced Cacho at Barcelona. Even leaving aside EPO suspicions, any of the great 80's runners would have dominated that era just as much as Morceli did. Up until his sudden improvement after Barcelona, Morceli hadn't broken 3:31.
You can't rank Morceli above Coe just because he had faster times (almost certainly EPO aided) and 'dominated' for more years. Coe won two golds, and had the Olympic record for decades. He was 1 or 2 in 1979 and his narrow defeat to Bile showed he was number 2 in 1989.
Are you not supposed to be mourning your queen? Another Brit on this site saying Brits didn't take P.E.D.s but Africans took P.E.D.s. It is logical to assume S. Coe was on The Clear or steroids more powerful than The Clear. For S. Coe to have been able to defeat north Africans from 1990's, S. Coe would have to have been allowed to continue most likely using The Clear or more powerful steroids.
The Clear didn't exist in the 1980's. It was only developed in the 21st century.
21st August 92 in Berlin against William Kemei in the Mile
7th September 96 in the Grand Prix final against El G in the 1500m.
In between these two, he has won all his 45 high quality 1500m/Mile races which included three world records, two world and one Olympic title.
Pretty sure Ovett has the 2nd highest number of consecutive wins in the 1500m/mile -- somewhere in the 30s.
Coe never had any kind of run like that.
That's because Coe wasn't predominantly running 1500/1 mile. He was a classic middle distance runner combining 800s, 1000s, 1500 and a mile. Nevertheless, he wasn't beaten over 1500 or 1 mile between 1976 and 1983, which is still a pretty impressive stat. And he only lost 2 races at any of those distances between Aug 78 and September 82. He was just as dominant in his own way.
Coe has had not a single season where he was the dominant Miler. In 79 and 81 he set records but hasn't raced his main rival.
Morceli was dominant in 90, 91, 93, 94 and 95. In his two not dominant seasons during his prime, he set a 1500m WR and became Olympic champion. It's not a question that he has to be ranked ahead of Coe.
Nonsense. He was unbeaten in both 79 and 81 (over all distances) and World ranked #1 for 1500m (and 800m) in both those seasons. Ovett chose not to run in the 79 Dream Mile, famously saying that it would be "a hollow victory for whoever won". Ovett also stopped Coe running in the 81 Dream mile, promising he would run the Golden Mile in Brussels the following month. Surprise, surprise, he pulled out of that race a few days before. So, not Coe's fault Ovett ducked him. Coe beat all the rest of the world's top milers in 2 races in 79 (both world records) and in 3 races in 81 (2 world records and a near miss by 0.59secs).
Coe was as dominant as any miler had been during those 2 years despite running very few races over the distance. He was arguably as dominant in 80 and 84 too, winning both the top 2 races in each year (Olympics and Zurich) convincingly. However, he was not ranked #1 those 2 seasons by T&FN due to the small number of races he ran over the distance. Running a series of victories over a long season is seen by some as more important than winning the only race that everyone aims for and wants to win!
Morceli was certainly more dominant over the course of a season in more seasons than Coe, but that is helped by the fact he was predominantly a 1500 specialist, whereas Coe was a combined 800/1500 runner. In terms of Olympic medals and number of world records , Coe has the upper hand.
Coe was as dominant as any miler had been during those 2 years despite running very few races over the distance. You cannot be called dominant if you run very few races and also fail to face the co #1, Ovett.
I would probably give him the 1500m/mile GOAT, and, gosh, his running is lovely to watch. But the two Olympic losses count against him, and I do suspect he was doping.
Coe has had not a single season where he was the dominant Miler. In 79 and 81 he set records but hasn't raced his main rival.
Morceli was dominant in 90, 91, 93, 94 and 95. In his two not dominant seasons during his prime, he set a 1500m WR and became Olympic champion. It's not a question that he has to be ranked ahead of Coe.
Nonsense. He was unbeaten in both 79 and 81 (over all distances) and World ranked #1 for 1500m (and 800m) in both those seasons. Ovett chose not to run in the 79 Dream Mile, famously saying that it would be "a hollow victory for whoever won". Ovett also stopped Coe running in the 81 Dream mile, promising he would run the Golden Mile in Brussels the following month. Surprise, surprise, he pulled out of that race a few days before. So, not Coe's fault Ovett ducked him. Coe beat all the rest of the world's top milers in 2 races in 79 (both world records) and in 3 races in 81 (2 world records and a near miss by 0.59secs).
Coe was as dominant as any miler had been during those 2 years despite running very few races over the distance. He was arguably as dominant in 80 and 84 too, winning both the top 2 races in each year (Olympics and Zurich) convincingly. However, he was not ranked #1 those 2 seasons by T&FN due to the small number of races he ran over the distance. Running a series of victories over a long season is seen by some as more important than winning the only race that everyone aims for and wants to win!
Morceli was certainly more dominant over the course of a season in more seasons than Coe, but that is helped by the fact he was predominantly a 1500 specialist, whereas Coe was a combined 800/1500 runner. In terms of Olympic medals and number of world records , Coe has the upper hand.
Calling it nonsense doesn't change the fact.
Morceli was the undisputed king of the Mile in 91, 93 and 95. He run full seasons, was unbeaten, clearly dominated also the ranking lists in both 1500m and Mile and he destroyed the fields of all the best at the world champs. In 90 and 94 he was not as dominant, but still clearly the world no. 1. In 92 and 96 he was not dominant but still was able to set a wr and to win at the Olympics. Even in 97 he run almost as fast in the Mile as Coe's 2nd wr.
Coe without any doubt was not dominant in 80 and 84, even you want it to be like that. But he wasn't.
4th fastest in 80, 2nd fastest in 84. No serious Mile races. Ovett was in great shape in 80. The fastest of 84 went undefeated in a long season, but didn't compete at the Olympics. Impossible to call Coe dominant in these two years.
In 79 Coe was 0.08 seconds faster than Ovett in the 1500 (0.62 in the Mile), and Ovett just jogged in these years. They didn't race each other, so also here it's impossible to say Coe was dominant. In 81, in his best Mile-shape in the season, Coe probably was clearly better than Ovett. But since they havn't raced and Ovett has had an full season, was unbeaten and has run several super fast times, it's also strange to say Coe dominated the season. The best of Coe was better than the best of Ovett, yes.
And, no, even if you want it like this, Coe can't be ranked ahead of Morceli in an all-time ranking for the 1500m and Mile. The facts clearly say something different (Morceli's 25th fastest 1500 is faster than Coe's 2nd fastest, and so on...).
Coe throughout his career raced over both 800 and 1500/Mile, Morceli mostly concentrated on the 1500 (but sparingly also has had great success on longer events).
Coe clearly is the best complete middle distance runner in history. Looking only on the 1500/Mile, he is way behind Morceli and El Guerrouj. This is obvious and not debatable for objective observers.
Who's the greatest? Is he the best 1500m of all time? Well, Seb Coe won the Olympic title twice, and Noureddine Morceli was a hell of an athlete.
He released himself from the ghosts of the past But given El Guerrouj's world championship record, his world record and the fact that he has been the world number one for eight years, it's hard to think of anyone who can top him.
He missed out on what seemed like certain 1500m gold in Atlanta in 1996 when he tripped, and then ran a poor tactical race in Sydney as Noah Ngeny stole gold.
Kada say that Hicham the last 400m of Athen in 53 sec, while Benzriguinat say here that the last 800m of Athen was run on 1:44:87.
-On the circuit with a pacemaker, you'd have to say it's El Guerrouj's title easily -When you add in championship racing, the pick maybe goes to a tie with Morceli -The fact that El Guerrouj felt like he needed a personal pacemaker in championship races (for a chunk of his career), detracts a little from his dominance -I'm a big Tim Cheruiyot fan, but there's no question from 2018-2020 he faced inferior competition, so despite the record I wouldn't put him in the same category
In 79 Coe was 0.08 seconds faster than Ovett in the 1500 (0.62 in the Mile), and Ovett just jogged in these years. They didn't race each other, so also here it's impossible to say Coe was dominant. In 81, in his best Mile-shape in the season, Coe probably was clearly better than Ovett. But since they havn't raced and Ovett has had an full season, was unbeaten and has run several super fast times, it's also strange to say Coe dominated the season. The best of Coe was better than the best of Ovett, yes.
Faithful to his principles El G. is quite the opposite of Aouita. He know only his region and nothing else. In 18 years I don't remember seeing him doing something outside his region Berkane.
La 4ème édition du semi-marathon international de Berkane (SMIB), organisée par l’Association Beni Snassen (ABS), sous le Haut patronage de SM le Roi Mohammed VI, se tiendra le 1er avril 2018. Outre le semi-marathon (21,097 k...
