Cram closed that 3:46.32 in 53, so it is no stretch to think that he could have dropped a few seconds with better pacing. He had a ton left in the tank and he knew it at the time.
I wouldn't subtract a second for today's tracks compared to the 1980s.
Probably not. But even .25s is a lot. Same thing for the shoes. Maybe some better medicine to deal with injuries and so on. They were all fast enough that it is easy to project that they would be right there.
Guys like Herb Elliot and even Snell are slow enough that you need to make much bigger leaps. Someone like Paavo Nurmi? You are well beyond just guessing.
Look at Ovett's talent. Didn't he win the 800 national title at 17?
He was my fave racer, I loved his attitude.
He was a once in a generation (perhaps once in a century talent in GB) athlete. I think he was ranked in the top 5 at 400m for his age in the country when he won the national school xcountry title. This was when athletics was massively popular and shared front page headlines with football.
I love Wightman and Kerr and consider them all-time GB greats, but I find it hard to believe that both are intriniscally over 1.5 seconds faster than Ovett, even while admitting that Ovett certainly didn't realize his full potential time wise at 1500.
Anyone who thinks that even Jakob transported back in time into the line up of the Moscow or LA finals of 80 and 84 is going to just run away from them all and win with 2 seconds to spare is an absolute clown.
Look at Ovett's talent. Didn't he win the 800 national title at 17?
He was my fave racer, I loved his attitude.
Ovett was the Sussex County Schools LongJump record holder which I think was the Interboys (u17). This was in the program when I ran the event in the late 80's. I imagine this was simply because he had the speed.
The mans a legend and it was always exciting to see him turn up to train or race a UK club event.
Don't see how his results prove beyond any doubt he was incapable of running sub 3:30.
If his PR was 3:35 then sure.
But 3:30.77?
Rieti.
3:31.36 in absolute top shape perfectly paced up to 1400m - that's what he was capable of.
Koblenz was at the end of a long season and came after the post-Olympics comedown and a row with his family. In his book, he describes feeling exhausted after the preceding race where he narrowly beat Steve Scott. He describes the Koblenz race in a lot of detail in his book. The third lap pace dropped and in the end he was struggling to beat the West Germans. When he crossed the line he though he had run 3:37.
He was probably in the form of his life just before the Olympics and at the Olympics. Watch the Oslo race where he equals the world record - 3:32.1. I don't recall any middle distance runner looking so easy whilst breaking a WR.
Ovett, Cram and Coe were all as good as Ingebrigsten. Only Morceli and El Guerrouj from the past were clearly better.
FWIW, much as I love Ovett, I think Coe and Cram would have had the edge on him had they all raced at their peak. He had more raw talent than either but Cram was stronger mentally and Coe's training was far superior.
There is no such thing. I have a handbook in sports nutrition from 1970 and it could have been written today.
I don't think they were using Bi-Carb, doing a low-fibre pre-race diet or using caffeine in the way that they are today.
Also, as others have said, nutrition that specifically targets recovery, like protein shakes and bars for quick consumption (post-workout) were not used in the late-70s and early 80s.
Look at Ovett's talent. Didn't he win the 800 national title at 17?
He was my fave racer, I loved his attitude.
Ovett was the Sussex County Schools LongJump record holder which I think was the Interboys (u17). This was in the program when I ran the event in the late 80's. I imagine this was simply because he had the speed.
The mans a legend and it was always exciting to see him turn up to train or race a UK club event.
He ran 48.4 for 400 - a UK Youths (U17)record aged 16. Incidentally, Ben Pattison is 5th on that all-time list - 47.11.
I think this stuff abut nutrition and diet is a bit overstated. I grew up in the UK in the 70s and 80s and the food was pretty healthy. Meat and two veg were the staple and every kid was given milk at school. What we now call fast food was expensive and fish and chips were a once a week treat at the most.
Yes. Subtract 2 seconds from his 1500m and mile times and see how they stack up to today. That is roughly what the shoes are worth. Better tracks and training, subtract another second.
The shoes aren't worth that. The world records for those distances, set over a quarter of a century ago and still standing, were run in old shoes. There are women's records set in the 80's, in old shoes, still on the books. If modern shoes add anything it will be in fractions of a second, not seconds, or all the old records would have been eclipsed. Of course, today's athletes in their modern shoes may not be as good as the best in the past ..
Cram closed that 3:46.32 in 53, so it is no stretch to think that he could have dropped a few seconds with better pacing. He had a ton left in the tank and he knew it at the time.
A few seconds? You guys talk as if that was nothing. A few seconds faster is El G's records, which no one has surpassed in over quarter of a century. On Letsrun everyone is "a few seconds faster" with better pacing. However the real world with real times shows they were no faster than they were, despite countless races over the distance.
Yes. Subtract 2 seconds from his 1500m and mile times and see how they stack up to today. That is roughly what the shoes are worth. Better tracks and training, subtract another second.
The shoes aren't worth that. The world records for those distances, set over a quarter of a century ago and still standing, were run in old shoes. There are women's records set in the 80's, in old shoes, still on the books. If modern shoes add anything it will be in fractions of a second, not seconds, or all the old records would have been eclipsed. Of course, today's athletes in their modern shoes may not be as good as the best in the past ..
Nick Willis disagrees with you. I will go with Nick's opinion.
There is no such thing. I have a handbook in sports nutrition from 1970 and it could have been written today.
I don't think they were using Bi-Carb, doing a low-fibre pre-race diet or using caffeine in the way that they are today.
Also, as others have said, nutrition that specifically targets recovery, like protein shakes and bars for quick consumption (post-workout) were not used in the late-70s and early 80s.
It may surprise you to know but in the 70's we had muesli and low fibre diets (which is what fruit is) and coffee. We also used energy bars and protein shakes. Runners diets haven't changed significantly in over half a century.
Cram closed that 3:46.32 in 53, so it is no stretch to think that he could have dropped a few seconds with better pacing. He had a ton left in the tank and he knew it at the time.
A few seconds? You guys talk as if that was nothing. A few seconds faster is El G's records, which no one has surpassed in over quarter of a century. On Letsrun everyone is "a few seconds faster" with better pacing. However the real world with real times shows they were no faster than they were, despite countless races over the distance.
If Cram closed in 53, which is 3:33 mile pace, he could have certainly have run at least 1 second faster with better pacing.
On Letsrun everyone is "a few seconds faster" with better pacing because there are many knowledgeable people on Letsrun who understand pacing differences in a racing scenario.
The shoes aren't worth that. The world records for those distances, set over a quarter of a century ago and still standing, were run in old shoes. There are women's records set in the 80's, in old shoes, still on the books. If modern shoes add anything it will be in fractions of a second, not seconds, or all the old records would have been eclipsed. Of course, today's athletes in their modern shoes may not be as good as the best in the past ..
Nick Willis disagrees with you. I will go with Nick's opinion.
Nick Willis made a comment without much apparent reflection. I would be interested to know how he explains the fact that the records for his distances (and others still standing) were set in old shoes if the modern shoes offer a such an advantage. I assume you can think of yourself - how do you explain it?
I don't think they were using Bi-Carb, doing a low-fibre pre-race diet or using caffeine in the way that they are today.
Also, as others have said, nutrition that specifically targets recovery, like protein shakes and bars for quick consumption (post-workout) were not used in the late-70s and early 80s.
It may surprise you to know but in the 70's we had muesli and low fibre diets (which is what fruit is) and coffee. We also used energy bars and protein shakes. Runners diets haven't changed significantly in over half a century.
Pro runners' diets have changed a lot. Not in what goes on the table but in term of supplements, timing of intake, precise amounts for optimized recovery/performance.
Just because things existed in the 70s, it doesn't mean they were used as they are today.
Why don't you see pros drinking gatorade or isostar anymore?
Nick Willis disagrees with you. I will go with Nick's opinion.
Nick Willis made a comment without much apparent reflection. I would be interested to know how he explains the fact that the records for his distances (and others still standing) were set in old shoes if the modern shoes offer a such an advantage. I assume you can think of yourself - how do you explain it?
The records have been falling. And don't you claim that all records are dirty? Then maybe the shoes are making athletes approach or beat doped up times.
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.