Sebastian Coe: 1984 Olympic 1500m

I think the images speak for themselves

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ6JxIVh4YH2ZHN3anEzMl8zM2RtcWZkY2Z4&hl=en

There is no way it could have been as fast as 12.6

I don't recall any of my comments being "smart elecish".

Just when Ovet was at his best - perhaps in dusseldorf in 77.

oops Ovett I meant

middle distance wrote:

The 11.8 is a well known myth.

I get the feeling if Coe had run 3:29 and it was stated he ran the last 100 meters in 11.2, you'd take it as gospel. Not all tracks are marked the same, which is true. This is why your juggling of numbers and splits to try and attack a lot of the people posting here is silly. You can do no better than anyone else at trying to guess the proper splits. First you rail against the IAAF, then you accost someone stating that they are foolish for disagreeing with them. Just because Sebastian Coe didn't do something it doesn't mean someone else did not or could not do it. If the IAAF is always correct, then Coe finished up in Los Angeles with a 13 flat last 100 meters, a nice stretch run most would say. I don't know what Aouita's split over the homestretch was, I don't bother taking very old races apart like that. I have seen the race several times and that little Moroccan is running very fast. He's certainly running faster than 13.3.

So, basically Coe was the best, but Ovett was pretty damn good to and so was Cram.

bingo jim wrote:

So, basically Coe was the best, but Ovett was pretty damn good to and so was Cram.

I don't think Ovett was as a good a time-trial runner as Cram or Coe. The latter pair could still manage to run fast finishes when they were far ahead of the field. Ovett could rarely do that. He was just as talented, but seemed to have a pure racer's mentality. Not that is bad. He was simply geared to perform at the level of his competition while Coe was set to blast the competition whether they were right with him or 20 meters back. When he was in condition that is. Coe seemed to break down a lot here and there but luckily his form held through the Olympics. It would have been great to have had the World Championships every two years, starting back in 1981. Coe, Ovett and Cram would have a lot more medals in their collections and maybe would have set more records.

mid distance runner wrote:

I think the images speak for themselves

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ6JxIVh4YH2ZHN3anEzMl8zM2RtcWZkY2Z4&hl=en

There is no way it could have been as fast as 12.6

I don't recall any of my comments being "smart elecish".

Just when Ovet was at his best - perhaps in dusseldorf in 77.

Not to butt in but I will butt in. How do you know Coe is hitting the 100 meter mark in the first image on that page? Like you and other guys have said not all tracks are marked the same. In the US the turns are not as sweeping as they are in Europe at least most of the time. I noticed this the first time I ran in Europe and was surprised at how long the turns the seemed. They were not as sharp as they are in the US. This was back in the 1980's so maybe it's different now. I only run on trails these days. Ovett eased up in Dusseldorf but still ran 13.2 right? Ovett was never the same after being hurt even though he did run a 3:30 1500 in 83. Then after he was sick in LA his form was off period. Kind of like Jim Ryun not ever really being sharp or as strong after he contracted mono which I have seen happen to someone else. It did something to their system even though they regained full health. They just weren't as good a runner afterward. Doesn't happen to everyone but it can happen. How many record setting milers have reached their full potential? In the last 50 years I think El Guerrouj came closest.

Ah the eighties. Back when black people had not started running distances yet and only white people knew how to blood dope.

wake wrote:

Ah the eighties. Back when black people had not started running distances yet and only white people knew how to blood dope.

There were Africans back then. And in the seventies too oh brainwashed one. And given the propensity of blacks to use drugs, lets be straight up honest, I would bet we have more than a few E Africans today who are doped to their eyeballs. But PC thinking rules the day and helps keep them from being punished if and when caught. The PC brainwashing is why you have the silly ideas you have. One day you may wake up and be able to think for yourself. If you have a modicum of intelligence. And a pair of balls.

it's an opinion from a guy who watched everyone of his big races from '76 onwards

did you ??

no

he coudn't do both

his 1'44.09 was mid-high 1'43 ability on gp circuit - he may have been capable of just under 1'44 in '80 or '81 or '83 but he wouda been likely shy of 1'43.50 - 1'43.75

the 8'13 is 7'36 ability for 3k with 1.08 - he never showed anywhere close to that level of over-distance endurance ever again after '78

the best he showed was 7'43 for 2nd in oslo in '82

he didn't have the same endurance after '78

barely dipping under '144, not mid-1'43 like '78

& he was capable of 3'29 in '78, his times over 1500 after '78 were poor & well shy of his '78 potential

why ?

endurance not as good as '78 is reason

hard numbers disagree - a 3'31.57 best that year was paltry compared to his '78 potential

Ventolin - what about Peter Elliott the forgotten man. When he ran his 1:42.97 early summer of 1990, he should have been in shape to demolish his 1500m PR yet only ran 3:32.69 in Sep 1990. He has said that he wished he could have found a fast 1500 after the 8. What time should Elliott have run?

You are correct. My point is he is hitting the 100 metre mark at the second image - consistent with my calculations. Ovett had a lot of bad luck in his career.lane 8 in 76 800, tripping in 76 1500, trouble with family between 800 and 1500 in 80, church railing, boxed in '83, sick in '84We never really saw him got for it at his best in my opinion.

I don't know about his last 100 but the last 200 (according to coach Harry Wilson) was in 25.1 and easing up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W7GogWlv7Q

Also, his was unfortunate with the way the 1500 was run in Moscow - it was essentially an 800. Had Bayi been running in the 1500 instead of the steeplechase, the race would likely have panned out differently.

I would think since that is the only mark close it makes sense.

I believe U.S. tracks are different than European tracks in that most of them in big stadiums like The Coliseum because they had to fit them around American football fields, which are longer than soccer fields.

calside wrote:Ventolin - what about Peter Elliott the forgotten man. When he ran his 1:42.97 early summer of 1990, he should have been in shape to demolish his 1500m PR yet only ran 3:32.69 in Sep 1990. He has said that he wished he could have found a fast 1500 after the 8. What time should Elliott have run?

virtually sky's the limit woud be my answer

remember - 1'42.9 is about what i'd have expected hicham to have run at his peak & elliot was not known as a "kicker", so it's likely he was running 1'42.9 off modest 400 ability ( compared to guys like kipketer/coe who musta been capable of sub-46 at their peaks )

i give hicham as having mid/high 47 ability at his peak & i can't imagine elliot being much quicker

i'm not saying 3'26-flat, but trying a few estimates from

with 1'42.90 ( round it up )

48.00 ->2'11.40 , 3'24.67 , 4'40.05 , 7'15.22

47.90 ->2'11.48 , 3'25.01 , 4'40.71 , 7'16.65

47.80 ->2'11.56 , 3'25.35 , 4'41.38 , 7'18.08

47.70 ->2'11.64 , 3'25.69 , 4'42.04 , 7'19.51 , 12'47.06

47.60 ->2'11.72 , 3'26.03 , 4'42.70 , 7'20.94

47.50 ->2'11.80 , 3'26.37 , 4'43.36 , 7'22.37

47.40 ->2'11.88 , 3'26.71 , 4'44.02 , 7'23.80

47.30 ->2'11.97 , 3'27.05 , 4'44.68 , 7'25.23

47.20 ->2'12.05 , 3'27.39 , 4'45.34 , 7'26.66

47.10 ->2'12.13 , 3'27.73 , 4'46.00 , 7'28.09

47.00 ->2'12.21 , 3'28.07 , 4'46.66 , 7'29.52

( i've always liked the 47.70 line for hicham & included a 5k time for his potential in '98 ( he probably wouda been fractionally quicker than 1'42.90 though, at say 1'42.80 ( but with same 47.70 ) but that's another discussion ( i'll post estimates if you ask ) ! ) )

as for elliot, pick a line - one of last 2 lines looks somewhere to start

one thing worth noting about elliot though is that his "carthorse" mantle deceptively implied he couda run distances further than 800 to his absolute potential - i don't think he coud

he was primarily a 800 guy & like coe in '81, i don't think his endurance lasted "perfectly" to 1500 ( if coe's 1'41.7 abilty had, it wouda meant high-3'26 in '81 )

above estimates assumes you last the distance chosen "perfectly" - i don't think elliot did - above saying 3'28-flat is a good starting point, but in reality he may not have gone much better than 3'30

difficult call - if we find a proper 400 time for him in '90, we'd have much better idea

I watched most of Ovett's races starting from when he won the silver at the 74 Europeans as a teen.

I think its hard to say when he was at his best, but your argument isnt very logical. He ran 1:44.09 because Coe set a fast pace and he needed to run that to win. Of course he came second. He ran 8:13 because Rono went for it a long way out and he needed to to win. Thats what Ovett was about, winning not time trials.

He only ran more than a mile once in 79, a 5:20 2000m. That doesn't mean he couldn't run any faster. Thats all he needed to win.

In 80 he ran 2 x 5000m races, clocking 13:27 and 13:31. He was only concerned with winning these races not setting fast times. You have no idea what he was capable of with the necessary pace in these races.

He was v. good in 78, but he got beat twice. Beaten only once in 79 and twice in 80.

SJO wrote:

He was v. good in 78, but he got beat twice. Beaten only once in 79 and twice in 80.

Of course, his loss to John Treacy over 5000 in '80 was a comical example of relaxing too far before the line rather than a legit reflection of ability...

Ventolin is an idiot, of course.

calside wrote:

Ventolin - what about Peter Elliott the forgotten man. When he ran his 1:42.97 early summer of 1990, he should have been in shape to demolish his 1500m PR yet only ran 3:32.69 in Sep 1990. He has said that he wished he could have found a fast 1500 after the 8. What time should Elliott have run?

Elliot had a very long season in 1990 - he won Commonwealth Games 1500m in early February.

Steve Ovett at his best, don't forget the Olympic champion from the year before is in the race, well until he was blasted off the track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W7GogWlv7Q

Ovett was the No. 1 miler from 1977 and for a couple more years - before the Coe rivalry. Most runners only have a certain No of years at the top and most people would just look at the 80 1500m & see him being beat. He was top dog for a good few years

But he won the Gold in the Olympics and Pat Butcher hinted at this in his book, that he had really achieved his main; ambition to be Olympic Champion. He was never quite as obsessed as Coe, plus he was all about his change of pace, which was the best I've ever seen. (Coe had the slight edge in sustained fast pace). But, once he hit those railings he definitely lost a bit of that and I think training the winter in Austalia didn't do him any good later in his career - but what the hell do I know

One Ovett story. I was round the house of one of my former team-mates and mentor Len Mullen after one of his post race parties and and was nosing through his wedding album . In it a good luck wish from Ovett. I don't know if Len ever even ran against Ovett but someone had asked him to send it as a favour, and that to me summed up the guy

SJO wrote:I watched most of Ovett's races starting from when he won the silver at the 74 Europeans as a teen.

I think its hard to say when he was at his best, but your argument isnt very logical. He ran 1:44.09 because Coe set a fast pace and he needed to run that to win. Of course he came second. He ran 8:13 because Rono went for it a long way out and he needed to to win. Thats what Ovett was about, winning not time trials..

not logical ?!

your premise boils down to :

"runs what it takes to win"

learn some basic analysis ( something that has escaped you in supposed 35y of observation ) :

he ran 8'13.51wr in '78

with universally accepted 1.08 conversion =

7'36.96

watching race in stadium it was obvious he couda run much faster, but just wanted to shadow henry to last lap, hoping he woudn't have been blown away at 2k if henry had gone at 5'00 split

upper limit that day watching him was no doubt close as 8'10 =

7'33.71

fast forward to oslo '82 & the 3k :

that meet is always wr shot & he lined up against moscow silver 5k & biggest non-kicker who ever drew breathe

nyambui

result :

7'43.12

7'43.87

thrashed by 5m by a guy who kicked like your grandma

he was long gone finished over-distance...