Your only argument is to say "he was a 1:44 runner because that's what he ran in his career" which is as poor as an argument as claiming Jim Ryun's potential in the 1,500m and the Mile were respectively 3:33 and 3:51 because that's what he ran. It doesn't make sense.
Wot?! There was no "potential"... everyone knows...
Your only argument is to say "he was a 1:44 runner because that's what he ran in his career" which is as poor as an argument as claiming Jim Ryun's potential in the 1,500m and the Mile were respectively 3:33 and 3:51 because that's what he ran. It doesn't make sense.
Wot?! There was no "potential"... everyone knows...
These threads that postulate what an athlete "could have run" dissolve into fantasy. It isn't necessary to dispute that Ovett might have run faster than 1:44 to put suggested times like 1:42 or even faster as being in Ventolin territory. Two seconds over that distance and at that level is actually another level of runner and, apart from the phenomenal achievement of Coe, is another era. Ovett was lucky the way the race was run in Moscow - it suited him tactically. He wasn't a lot faster timewise in any other race and I would bet that if he had been in the race where Coe ran his wr in '81 Ovett would have been nowhere near Coe. If he had been a 1:42 runner or better he would have run close to that time in his lengthy career - at least 1:43. Posters here typically forget that Ovett was running nearly half a century ago. Times like 1:42 were better than the wr in the mid and late seventies and Ovett's peak was basically over by the early '80's. Coe, Cram and then Aouita were all surpassing him, including over his best distance, the 1500/mile. Sure - he was a great runner and in optimum competitive conditions likely faster than his best times, including the 800. But it is simply dreaming to try to carve two or more seconds off the fastest he ever ran over that distance.
Well, the problem is that you have been presented with a lot of evidence from his career, the concrete reality that he never indeed run a 800m time trial, plus a whole lot of knowledgeable people here agreeing that a ~1:42.5 was quite realistic for him, and yet you fail to concede that you are wrong. The problem is that you also don't counter any of the arguments you have been provided with, neither you present plausible arguments to defende your case.
Your only argument is to say "he was a 1:44 runner because that's what he ran in his career" which is as poor as an argument as claiming Jim Ryun's potential in the 1,500m and the Mile were respectively 3:33 and 3:51 because that's what he ran. It doesn't make sense.
Coe broke 1:43 twice in his career and these were the two time trial races that Ovett never had, this alone coupled with the fact he ran 1:41.73 should be enough for a reasonable person to agree that 1:42 mid (at least) is very reasonable for Ovett in a time trial race.
You have to understand that many runners have personal bests that are significantly weaker than their respective potentials, and these claims are based on reasonable arguments by reasonable people analzying their careers. This is just the concrete reality, your denial just makes you look delusional.
Be humble, look at how Ovett ran and some stats of his best races, and just admit that you were wrong, and that is fine.
Firstly, I can't be "wrong" in this debate because Ovett never ran faster than 1:44. Nothing any of you claim changes that. Secondly, you have failed to understand what I really said. I didn't NOT say he was only capable of 1:44. I said that I am unconvinced that he had an extra two seconds up his sleeve and could run 1:42 or faster, as many confidently claim here. Given his performances and his career and the magnitude of difference for him between 1:44 and 1:42 it is simply too big a jump at that competitive level and is implausible. I therefore said that in the right circumstances he might have been capable of 1:43-1:43-mid. You can't prove me wrong because he remains at 1:44 in the books.
They are not "dreaming" because I disagree but that there is nothing that plausibly makes him that much faster. You guys simply don't get that an athlete who competed regularly over the distance throughout his career did not have that kind of margin up his sleeve or he would have been close to it. Let's take 2 seconds of Rudisha's best, shall we - or Kipketer, or Coe, or Snell or Juantorena or Cram (or even Mu). But of course they all ran "time-trials". Bollocks.
Address the point: when did Ovett run a time-trial over 800m?
Athletes don't necessarily have to run a "time-trial" to run a fast time. They often do it in a competitive race, and especially with a quick early pace. But sometimes even that isn't necessary, as Ryun showed when he ran a world record for the half mile in '66, with a negative split and no pacing.
The thing with these claims that confuses me is his coach, Harry Wilson, basically admitting he botched the coaching job for the athlete? If Ovett was really a 1:40 talent, getting just one magical performance (Olympics 800m) out of the athlete at the event seems like a huge missed opportunity. Yes, he did switch focus to the 1500, but even there a 1:40-caliber athlete with endurance should've been rewriting the record books at 1500 and surely not gone Bronze, 4th, SF in 1980, 1983, and 1984 respectively. I do understand that much of his prime was during non-championship years and maybe his approach wasn't best for time trials.
Still, I'm not sure what Wilson is playing at. It sure seems like Ovett was a 1:42 (low) - 1:43-mid (high) 800 guy maximally. That's why it would make sense to go more in on the 1500.
this is correct, saying that Ovett wasn't as fast as the great Peter Elliot isn't creditable. Ovett after all ran 145, after an opening 55 ... beating prime Coe
just sayin your 142 isnt a stretch.
Wilson was saying if Ovett was a 400 to 800m man, 140 was in play.
i put words in his mouth cure
correctly
Moscow was tactically one of the worst races of Coe's career - as he admitted. Ovett was lucky that day, with a slow race and plenty of barging. It suited him. Put the two runners together off a 49x first lap as in Coe's 1981 record and there's little doubt who would finish in front - and by a margin.
This post was edited 42 seconds after it was posted.
Well, the problem is that you have been presented with a lot of evidence from his career, the concrete reality that he never indeed run a 800m time trial, plus a whole lot of knowledgeable people here agreeing that a ~1:42.5 was quite realistic for him, and yet you fail to concede that you are wrong. The problem is that you also don't counter any of the arguments you have been provided with, neither you present plausible arguments to defende your case.
Your only argument is to say "he was a 1:44 runner because that's what he ran in his career" which is as poor as an argument as claiming Jim Ryun's potential in the 1,500m and the Mile were respectively 3:33 and 3:51 because that's what he ran. It doesn't make sense.
Coe broke 1:43 twice in his career and these were the two time trial races that Ovett never had, this alone coupled with the fact he ran 1:41.73 should be enough for a reasonable person to agree that 1:42 mid (at least) is very reasonable for Ovett in a time trial race.
You have to understand that many runners have personal bests that are significantly weaker than their respective potentials, and these claims are based on reasonable arguments by reasonable people analzying their careers. This is just the concrete reality, your denial just makes you look delusional.
Be humble, look at how Ovett ran and some stats of his best races, and just admit that you were wrong, and that is fine.
Firstly, I can't be "wrong" in this debate because Ovett never ran faster than 1:44. Nothing any of you claim changes that. Secondly, you have failed to understand what I really said. I didn't NOT say he was only capable of 1:44. I said that I am unconvinced that he had an extra two seconds up his sleeve and could run 1:42 or faster, as many confidently claim here. Given his performances and his career and the magnitude of difference for him between 1:44 and 1:42 it is simply too big a jump at that competitive level and is implausible. I therefore said that in the right circumstances he might have been capable of 1:43-1:43-mid. You can't prove me wrong because he remains at 1:44 in the books.
Again Peter Eliott ran 1:42.97 and he was slower than Ovett in all distances from 200m to 5000m. This argument alone kills the idea Ovett couldn't run 1:42
An athlete that is faster at both 400m AND 1,000m as Ovett was compared to Eliott (we don't even need to go to 200m or any other distance over 1,000m) has to be faster at 800m as well, this from a potential perspective which is what we are talking about here. If you disagree with this assumption with all due respect you are simply not qualified to talk about elite track & field.
And if you agree with the assumption which is obvious, then yes, you are simply wrong.
this is correct, saying that Ovett wasn't as fast as the great Peter Elliot isn't creditable. Ovett after all ran 145, after an opening 55 ... beating prime Coe
just sayin your 142 isnt a stretch.
Wilson was saying if Ovett was a 400 to 800m man, 140 was in play.
i put words in his mouth cure
correctly
Moscow was tactically one of the worst races of Coe's career - as he admitted. Ovett was lucky that day, with a slow race and plenty of barging. It suited him. Put the two runners together off a 49x first lap as in Coe's 1981 record and there's little doubt who would finish in front - and by a margin.
Yep we saw in 1978 when Coe runs like that Ovett just destroys him..
Moscow was THE worst race of Coe's career - as he admitted. Ovett was lucky that day, with a slow race and plenty of barging. It suited him. Put the two runners together off a 49x first lap as in Coe's 1981 record and there's little doubt who would finish in front - and by a margin.
Yep we saw in 1978 when Coe runs like that Ovett just destroys him..
Armstrong - fixed your comment for you.
In '78 Coe had not reached his peak/plateau yet. Ovett had. The thing that will keep times-obsessed LRC arguing is that Ovett really did not care about times - just wins - until later, when (I think) the magic had faded just a bit, possibly because of his injuries but mainly because, yes, he was lazy relative to his competitors. Just another What-If...
Firstly, I can't be "wrong" in this debate because Ovett never ran faster than 1:44. Nothing any of you claim changes that. Secondly, you have failed to understand what I really said. I didn't NOT say he was only capable of 1:44. I said that I am unconvinced that he had an extra two seconds up his sleeve and could run 1:42 or faster, as many confidently claim here. Given his performances and his career and the magnitude of difference for him between 1:44 and 1:42 it is simply too big a jump at that competitive level and is implausible. I therefore said that in the right circumstances he might have been capable of 1:43-1:43-mid. You can't prove me wrong because he remains at 1:44 in the books.
Again Peter Eliott ran 1:42.97 and he was slower than Ovett in all distances from 200m to 5000m. This argument alone kills the idea Ovett couldn't run 1:42
An athlete that is faster at both 400m AND 1,000m as Ovett was compared to Eliott (we don't even need to go to 200m or any other distance over 1,000m) has to be faster at 800m as well, this from a potential perspective which is what we are talking about here. If you disagree with this assumption with all due respect you are simply not qualified to talk about elite track & field.
And if you agree with the assumption which is obvious, then yes, you are simply wrong.
Elliott was an 800m specialist so comparing him with Ovett over other distances is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant because what one runner achieves says NOTHING about what another runner might do. Elliott is not proof or even evidence of what Ovett could do - just as Ryun, Juantorena, Coe, Kipketer or Rudisha aren't. Ovett spent his career running slower than 1:44 - and often a lot slower. It is quite possible he could have run faster - as any runner might, in ideal circumstances - but there is nothing to show he was a full two seconds or more faster than his best. That is another level of runner over that distance. To suggest he could run 1:42 or even better is mere conjecture and doesn't approach fact.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
Same day Snell ran 1:42. And yet you are happy to claim he could.
I didn't claim it; Lydiard did. He was also comparing grass with modern tracks and modern shoes. Neither of those are part of this debate. It is simply claimed Ovett could have carved two seconds or more off his best in the early '80's.
This post was edited 52 seconds after it was posted.
Yep we saw in 1978 when Coe runs like that Ovett just destroys him..
Armstrong - fixed your comment for you.
In '78 Coe had not reached his peak/plateau yet. Ovett had. The thing that will keep times-obsessed LRC arguing is that Ovett really did not care about times - just wins - until later, when (I think) the magic had faded just a bit, possibly because of his injuries but mainly because, yes, he was lazy relative to his competitors. Just another What-If...
The debate is about what Ovett could do at his best. It was never better than 1:44. Coe's best, we know, was far faster than anything Ovett showed.
Ovett did care about times - when it suited. He didn't break 1500 and mile world records by accident.
So you really believe the 1980 Olympic 800m is the only Olympic 800m in the last 50 years to be won by a guy who couldn’t break 1:44?
The point is not that he couldn't run faster than 1:44 - he likely could - but the claim that he was far faster - 1:42 or better. There's no evidence for it. In 1980 that time would have been better than the wr. He wasn't a wr athlete in the 800. He won at Moscow because of the way the race was run - not because he was the fastest in the field. He wasn't.
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.