Coe's 1:41.73 seems underrated these days

Deanouk wrote:

Coe coe wrote:

Coe ran a 50r 400 a 51 open at age 18. This is with multiple attempts between age 16 & 18.

Then, at age 20. Runs a 1:44.

More nonsense.

He ran just 1 400m open (51.8) at 16, when focused on 3000/1500m in 1973.

He ran ZERO 400m in 1974, aged 17.

He ran just 1 400m relay in 1975, aged 18, when focusing almost solely on 1500m that year. He ran it an hour or so after running and winning his only 800m of the year.

So that's a total of 2 races over 1 lap in 3 seasons, yet you claim this was 'with multiple attempts between age 16 & 18.' An outright lie.

He was 20 when he ran a pb of 1:44.95 (which for record purposes at the time would have been listed as 1:45.0 at the time. At that time he had a 400m pb of 48.9, which is totally in line with what Cram did at 21, a year older than Coe's age, when his corresponding pbs were 1:44.45 and 49.1.

You're a troll peddling BS.

Coe coe wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

More nonsense.

He ran just 1 400m open (51.8) at 16, when focused on 3000/1500m in 1973.

He ran ZERO 400m in 1974, aged 17.

He ran just 1 400m relay in 1975, aged 18, when focusing almost solely on 1500m that year. He ran it an hour or so after running and winning his only 800m of the year.

So that's a total of 2 races over 1 lap in 3 seasons, yet you claim this was 'with multiple attempts between age 16 & 18.' An outright lie.

He was 20 when he ran a pb of 1:44.95 (which for record purposes at the time would have been listed as 1:45.0 at the time. At that time he had a 400m pb of 48.9, which is totally in line with what Cram did at 21, a year older than Coe's age, when his corresponding pbs were 1:44.45 and 49.1.

You're a troll peddling BS.

Did you really refute that he ran multiple races by listing the multiple races. Multiple means more than one. He ran a 400 open and a 400 relay. He also ran a 300m.

All of which indicated about a 51.0 open.

So yes - he went from 51 to 1:44.95 in 2 years.

Deanouk wrote:

Coe coe wrote:

Did you really refute that he ran multiple races by listing the multiple races. Multiple means more than one. He ran a 400 open and a 400 relay. He also ran a 300m.

All of which indicated about a 51.0 open.

So yes - he went from 51 to 1:44.95 in 2 years.

No, you said,
'Coe ran a 50r 400 a 51 open at age 18. This is with multiple attempts between age 16 & 18.'

After listing the only two 400m he ran over the space of 3 seasons, the addition of 'This is with multiple attempts' implies he ran several more (between 16 and 18) on top of those two runs, and that they were all inferior. Don't try and change the goal posts.

He ran 51.8 at 16 while concentrating on 3000m, and 50.5 relay at 18 when running mainly 1500m. You only nees 49 flat speed to run a 1:45 800m (Cram's 400pb was 49.1 in 82, when running a 1:44.45), so an improvement of 1.5 secs (even 2 secs) over 1 lap between 18 and 20, after incorporating gym work under George Gandy for 2 years and focusing on 800m, is very realistic.

Deanouk wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

However, blood doping was common in that era and toxoplasmosis was very rare among healthy young men, while much more common among blood dopers, and Loughborough University, where Coe trained, ran public advertisements, which I have seen, for volunteer test subjects for steroid research during the time that he was there. That was where Coe transformed from a run of the mill decent teenage runner who would not be competitive with any of the top fifty American high schoolers today to a world historical athlete whose legacy is still being debated forty years later.

What are you on about! Between 30% and 50% of the world's population have contracted toxoplasmosis, which hardly constitutes as being 'rare.' In the mid 80's the entire Royal Ballet that were touring the Far East went down with it and had to cancel the remaining tour and fly back to the UK as they were so ill. These were young, fit dancers. Or do you propose they felt the need to all blood dope!? Or perhaps it is more likely they caught it, as most do, by eating some dodgy under-cooked meat!

You state that "toxoplasmosis was.... much more common among blood dopers." Really!? Please give us some names of those dopers who had toxoplasmosis?

The idea that a teenage Coe wouldn't be competitive with the top 50 US athletes of the same age in that era is also patently ludicrous. He was English Schools champion over 3000m at 16 and European Junior bronze medalist over 1500m at 18, beating Flynn and Abascal. Please name even TEN US 18 year olds better than Coe at 18 in 1975.

beanous wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

What are you on about! Between 30% and 50% of the world's population have contracted toxoplasmosis, which hardly constitutes as being 'rare.' In the mid 80's the entire Royal Ballet that were touring the Far East went down with it and had to cancel the remaining tour and fly back to the UK as they were so ill. These were young, fit dancers. Or do you propose they felt the need to all blood dope!? Or perhaps it is more likely they caught it, as most do, by eating some dodgy under-cooked meat!

You state that "toxoplasmosis was.... much more common among blood dopers." Really!? Please give us some names of those dopers who had toxoplasmosis?

The idea that a teenage Coe wouldn't be competitive with the top 50 US athletes of the same age in that era is also patently ludicrous. He was English Schools champion over 3000m at 16 and European Junior bronze medalist over 1500m at 18, beating Flynn and Abascal. Please name even TEN US 18 year olds better than Coe at 18 in 1975.

Coe's 1500m PR at 18 was 3:45, comparable to a 4:03 mile. So, let's see.

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American...

Cavorty wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I think what is so interesting about the event and the world record is beginning to really understand how fine the line is and how little margin for error there is when trying to run the perfect race. And I know this exists in all events but the 800m just seems different because there is an element of pace management involved but at the same time it's pace management at basically the anaerobic threshold limit which means any portion of the race (even say 150m of it) run inefficiently massively compromises you.

The concept of pacemaking in the 800m is an interesting one - especially when you start getting into sub 1.42 running. We roughly understand the benefits of pacemaking right - a energy saving due to some form of drafting and some kind of mental effect of being able to "watch a shoulder" for some portion of a race - though obviously in the 800m, being the shortest distance that has pacemakers, the question is how much is that benefit worth? Especially going back to my earlier point about how fine that line is with pace judgement and you start to understand that a pacemaker would basically have to be able to run 5-600m at splits perfectly tailored to the athletes physiology in order to really see what guys can run.

The best case in point is Kipketer in 97 - 1.41.24 in Zurich at an evening meet with absolutely perfect conditions, except the pacemaking - while impressive - was actually bad, with Tengelei splitting around 23.5 at 200m and 48.10 at the bell with Kipketer right on him (so maybe 48.3ht). 11 days laters at an afternoon meet in Koln with some breeze in the stadium, Kiptoo hits 49.00 with Kipketer right on him (maybe 49.2ht) and of course runs marginally faster than he did in Zurich. There is no doubt the pacing cost him there - had the splits been 48.6 for Tangui and 48.8 for Kipketer it's very plausible the WR could have been in the 1.40.8X range before Rudisha even laced up his first pair of spikes.

Rudisha in London is the interesting one for me - no he didn't have a pacemaker but he had a number of things in his favor. 1) Incentive/Motivation - the Olympic final which there of course is no greater incentive or motivation in the sport. 2) Perfect conditions - as close to no wind as possible and an optimum temperature (around 20 degrees celsius) and 3) Rudisha was able to completely dictate the pace and run it exactly as he wanted to. There was not a segment of the race he didn't control or feel "obliged" to alter based on someone running in front of him. No 200m split is stupid - 24.3 at 200m, 49.28 at the bell (24.9), 1.14.30 at 600m (25.0) and 26.5 to close.

So of course it's interesting. Put a pacemaker in London and there is a benefit for Rudisha of some drafting for maybe 500m but on a still night this is minimized. Possibly a mental/focus benefit but with an Olympic title on the line this is also minimized. On the flip side he can judge his pace perfectly and never has to temper or cut his stride worrying about clipping someone in front.

I honestly believe that in these upper human limit 800m races (under 1.42) the race is so short the net benefit is greater without a pacemaker than with. For the the net benefit to be greater with a pacemaker they would have to in essence almost be a clone of the athlete and so incredibly in tune with the pace, down to half second increments per 200m. I just don't think that's possible or plausible.

I think Coe without Konchellah in his way in Firenze runs 1.41.3X. I think Kipketer without Tengelei in Zurich runs 1.40.8X. I think (and this is no respect to Rudisha he's the greatest ever) Rudishas WR from London is not bettered with a pacemaker (seriously go watch some races with his "preferred" pacemaker just running idiotic 450m "jobs" where he gets out 6-7m ahead of Rudisha and actually slows down so Rudisha can get to him before dropping out - that's not pacemaking).

The one thing I would disagree with you here on is that as much as I love Ovett (my favorite miler ever), there is simply no way he would ever sniff running under 1.42 - he just wasn't that athlete. I think he could have run 3.28.8 at his prime - but not in the 41's :)

Agree re Ovett. Guys who run 28:16 for 10k on the roads (when the official best at that point was 28:00) as did Ovett, don't run 1:41 for 800m. While his speed was excellent, it was his acceleration that was devastating over 1500m/mile, and that made him effective in a slow 800m (like the Moscow final). I wouldn't be surprised if he might have even better at 3000m had that been an Olympic/World Championship event.

Coe coe wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

No, you said,
'Coe ran a 50r 400 a 51 open at age 18. This is with multiple attempts between age 16 & 18.'

After listing the only two 400m he ran over the space of 3 seasons, the addition of 'This is with multiple attempts' implies he ran several more (between 16 and 18) on top of those two runs, and that they were all inferior. Don't try and change the goal posts.

He ran 51.8 at 16 while concentrating on 3000m, and 50.5 relay at 18 when running mainly 1500m. You only nees 49 flat speed to run a 1:45 800m (Cram's 400pb was 49.1 in 82, when running a 1:44.45), so an improvement of 1.5 secs (even 2 secs) over 1 lap between 18 and 20, after incorporating gym work under George Gandy for 2 years and focusing on 800m, is very realistic.

Did he go from 51 to 1:44 or not?

I think the main takeaway is that you think that its realistic.

How about this one? How many 50r / 51 open 18 year old 400m runners ever go on to split 46?

A 4-5 improvement in the 400m in adulthood is wild.