What if Mo Farah had gone for a WR 1500m

I think it is you, rather than Said88, whose comments echo those of Ventolin

1:42 was broken in 81, 3:30 was broken in 1985. They were both celebrated barriers during the same era, and thus historically there is a link. Other posters have stated that they are not meaningless to them.

If you want to be pedantic about the actual numbers you have a problem with, I could make the point clearer for you, by stating that Coe still has the best combined IAAF points for 800 and 1500m performances. And he was running 30 years ago.

If we compare similar top performers and performances from 1955 to 1985, I think we'll have trouble finding anyone from the former era who would have combined points at those 2 distances that would outstrip all athletes in 1985.

You could do the same for 1965 and 1995, or any 30 year gap. I think the point is made.

Coe's ability at 800 was certainly comparable to those of Kipketer and Rudisha. Kipketer moved the record on by 0.6 ( 2 strides), and Rudisha moved it on another 0.2 (less than a stride). And the Kenyans were running on faster tracks and benefitted from an era of consistently fast and good pacing. Yes, the Kenyans have won more medals, but in terms of the impact on the event and moving it on in a historical context, no one since WW2 has held the record for as long (18 years) or been so far ahead (1.71 sec) as Coe.

Snell may not have run as fast as Kip or Rudisha, but he is certainly in their class when all things considered.

As far as the 1500 goes, many consider Coe reached nowhere near his potential in terms of time. Certainly he had some pretty dire pacing in some of his attempts when in peak form. I think he could have run 3:27 high/3:28, which while not as fast as EL G, Kiprop, etc, would certainly put them in the same league. Again, you need to feed in the improvements in tracks and the length of time between the eras.

If you look at their Olympic record over 1500 and the number of WR's over 1500 and 1 mile, then Coe's CV is better than both. And he was an 800/1500 runner!

Had he been a pure 800 runner like Kip or Rudisha, or concentrated on 1500m, like El G and Kiprop, doubtless his times would have been faster still.

wtfunny wrote:

Sub 1:42 isn't an equitable time with sub 3:30. It's like saying how many people have run sub 19.7 and 44.5.

5 people have EVER run under 1.42.

25 have run under 3:30.

Fine, let's look at the IAAF scoring tables.

3:30.00 (or rather 3:30.01) is listed as worth 1245 points.

The 800m equivalent of that is 1:42.70.

Only one man has recorded a sub 3:30.00 1500m and it's 800m equivalent (1:42.70), and that is Coe.

The 1000m equivalent to those marks (1245) is 2:12.33. Only 2 men have ever run that time, Ngeny and Coe.

Coe is the only athlete to have run a performance over 800, 1000 and 1500 of equivalent 1245 points. Only 1 other man has achieved that in 2 of the 3.

So there is a more meaningful comparison for you rather than 2 arbitrary numbers.

You make some sound comment Dean, then you make the simply absurd remark (in context about Rudisha) "benefitted from .. good pacing." Perhaps you've forgotten London 2012 already?

Why cherry pick this statement? Because it reinforces my point .. you lose your credibility when you stand a decent point on such a stupid comment. Such as the arbitrary numbers or that somehow Rudisha benefitted from "good pacing".

Said88 was basing his projections on times never run, or approached. Much like Ventolin. I haven't done that other than in response to his comparisons with Kiprop.

That sub 1:42 and 3:30 took so long to be broken, and then one of those marks was obliterated and the other marginally improved upon says more about the marks than it does about the athletes. Nick Willis is sub 3:30.Do you honestly suggest a comparable 800m runner might be sub 1:42?

Maybe, maybe not. Neither of us know that so it's pointless to discuss it. And if you DO discuss it, then do the sam for Kiprop, grant that he's very likely capable of running sub 1:42, but with a 1500m likely 3-4 seconds faster than Coe.

Not even close. Rudisha didn't just run 3/4 sec faster, he has also run sub 1:42 SEVEN times. Coe broke 1:43 twice.

said88 wrote:

Maybe, but I generally think the level over 1500m is little bit higher than the level over 800m.

I'm not sure what this means.

Otto Peltzer has held both.

Peter Snell has held the 800m, 1000m and Mile and was 2nd fastes ever over 1500m (which he almost never ran)

Jim Ryun has held the 1500m and Mile and his 880y at least was even to the 800m WR.

Thanks.

So we can say four people, for arguments' sake?

I think it's a fair and reasoned comment to claim holding both WRs puts anyone in a truly elite field. Splitting hairs about points tables and arbitrary numbers to delineate whatever we would like to delineate is rather pointless, imo.

Metric Miler wrote:

1:42 is an arbitrary time correct. All marks are arbitrary. But the discussion here (despite the thread title lol) was about whether Kiprop could break 1:42. And following that someone pointed out that only Coe has gone sub 3:30 out of the sub 1:42 guys. This shows that it is difficult to have both the speed required to break 1:42 and the endurance required to break even 3:30. They are related, I'm not saying only one man has broken 1:42 and can solve a Rubik's cube in under a minute, we are talking about middle distance running here.

That's a fair comment. So can Kiprop break 1:42? Well, he's so much faster over 1500m than guys who are 1:42 runners (including Coe) that I think it's quite reasonable to suggest he very probably could. Whether he will or not depends much more on whether he strives for that (he doesn't seem to care) than whether he's physically capable.

IMO.

B]wtfunny wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

1:42 is an arbitrary time correct. All marks are arbitrary. But the discussion here (despite the thread title lol) was about whether Kiprop could break 1:42. And following that someone pointed out that only Coe has gone sub 3:30 out of the sub 1:42 guys. This shows that it is difficult to have both the speed required to break 1:42 and the endurance required to break even 3:30. They are related, I'm not saying only one man has broken 1:42 and can solve a Rubik's cube in under a minute, we are talking about middle distance running here.

That's a fair comment. So can Kiprop break 1:42? Well, he's so much faster over 1500m than guys who are 1:42 runners (including Coe) that I think it's quite reasonable to suggest he very probably could. Whether he will or not depends much more on whether he strives for that (he doesn't seem to care) than whether he's physically capable.

IMO.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Personally I'd like to see him go sub 1:43 before we talk about 1:41s, but not all the sub 1:42 guys took the gradual improvement path I guess (Amos lol).

You make some sound comment Dean, then you make the simply absurd remark (in context about Rudisha) "benefitted from .. good pacing." Perhaps you've forgotten London 2012 already?

[/quote]

Not at all. Rather, you have cherry picked 1 example of Rudisha front running a sub 1:42.0. In almost all his other 1:42 or faster performances he was paced to 400m in sub 50 by his own personal, travelling pacemaker! A luxury certainly afforded to very few athletes I have ever seen.

Kipketer had a couple of seasons trying to break Coe's record, and had rabbits taking him to 400 on more than a dozen occasions.

Coe was taken to 400m in under 50.0 sec just twice in his career.

It is a fact that the latest mondo tracks are faster than they were 35 years ago. Or are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

It actually says a lot more about the contrasting effects of the drugs used in the last 20 years on the 2 events!

No, but see above response. I also know that Willis isn't as good a miler as Coe (or others from that era), which suggests that Coe was capable of much faster then and even faster on modern tracks chasing 3:26-3:28 runners.

So it is pointless to discuss 'random' but real times actually run, even those I have now changed, put into context and equalised? Yet it is also pointless to discuss possible times that an athlete could have run? So what is the point of discussing anything on here?

Kiprop has been in more 800m races where the rabbit went through in sub 50 than Coe did. He has had many opportunities to run a sub 1:42 and the fastest he managed was 1:43.1. In an ideal world he should go faster, but not a second imo.

Kiprop has been in many well paced 1500s with 3:28 guys for company.

Coe's efforts had dreadful pacing - 25.9/54.3, followed by a 58.9 and the last 800 solo in his WR.

A 52.4, 56.7 opening 2 laps in another with no drafting after 200m, and a 54.0/58.0 opening in his 3:29.7 pb when past his best.

Put an '81 Coe in a 1500 race in Monaco against the current top 1500 men, there is no way Kiprop beats him by 3 or 4 secs.

I said ABILITY not number of fast times run, which is a completely different index. Rudisha has run a lot more fast times, yes, but as stated before, not only is he a pure 800m runner, but he has his own personal rabbit he trains with who gives him sub 50 sec 400 splits on a regular basis. Rudisha competes in a different era where there are more elite meets with more in depth talent to compete against and when fast times seem to be the main motivating force. Coe's was a different era, when victory was most important, and running in domestic matches against other European countries was a compulsory requirement. Moreover, when someone is 1.71 secs faster than anyone else in history during his peak years, there is little incentive to keep churning out sub 1:43's, especially when they are also trying to win and set records in other events.

I believe Rudisha's record shows him to be the GOAT at 800m, but to suggest Coe isn't 'in the same class' as him or Kipketer is nonsense.

It isn't unreasonable to suggest that Coe would have run 1:41.5 in Firenze had he not run wide for much of the 3rd bend. This was in early June, so he would have likely been a couple of tenths faster by August. Had he run on the latest mondo surface, you can knock another couple of tenths off. He was certainly capable of running 1:41.0 - 1:41.2, which he himself believes, and this is in the same class as someone who has run 1:40.9 imo. Particularly when we are talking about this being done 35 years ago.

'Different class' is comparing someone capable of 1:41 high with someone around 2 secs slower, not 0.8 in a 2 lap race.

wtfunny wrote:

[quote]said88 wrote:

Maybe, but I generally think the level over 1500m is little bit higher than the level over 800m.

I'm not sure what this means.

[s/quote]

What's that difficult to understand in this quote?

Not all events are on the same level. This is most obvious when looking at the long jump. The Jesse Owens from 1935 could easily compete with the 2nd group of the top athletes. Same goes for Ashton Eaton as well as other decathletes. You often see athletes struggling to break 7.80m in big meets! While trying to reach the podest!

And the same holds true for the 800m compared to the 1500m. Also to a much lesser degree. For whatever reason. Doping might be one of them. The 1500m attracts more of the top talents another one.

For sure I can't prove this. But to me it looks relatively obvious. Starting with that 3:26.00 is still ahead of 1:40.91 (again, I think so).

You can totally differ on this one, but that's what my statement means.

It's hardly cherry picking when he ran arguably the greatest 800m race of all time.

if that's cherry picking, what do you call resting your entire position on the one and only time Coe ever ran sub 1:42, and only one of TWO times he EVER ran sub 1:43?

He also ran considerably faster than Coe.

No, but I don't think that's an issue in the discussion. i've read your arguments with Vent on this over way too many times for a conversation like that to be warranted.

Unless you're saying Kiprop and Rudisha are both on drugs, ^this is simply meaningless gibberish.

Either way it's conjecture.

if you want to bring drugs into the discussion, then why bother talking about it at all?

How do you know Willis isn't as good a miler as Coe or others from that era? He certainly has ran faster than many of them did.

Whether Coe was capable or not ....

a) he never ran faster

b) is just as valid a statement as saying Willis can run faster. Maybe he could. Maybe not.

c) are you suggesting Willis is on drugs? Because if not, then your "above response" is completely irrelevant.

d) insinuating about drug use is a slippery slope. Seb Coe ran a WR that obliterated anything else anyone else ran at the time, anything else HE ever ran, and stood for nearly 20 years, right through what many people, including yourself, seem to think of as an era of unprecedented drug use by the most amazing elite athletes in the world. Careful where you tread.

Conjecture. And, imo, quite likely wrong.

I think it's fair to say that "ability" DOES affect the number of fast times run. A guy who has run sub 1:42 seven times has a very different ability than a guy who only twice EVER ran sub 1:43.

Rudisha also competes in an era where the standard is higher. Hence he's a "pure 800m runner". I think we see much more "pure XYZm" runners today because the competitive level is higher. And, with the way the DL meets work, why would anyone switch between various events? The motivation is to win, repeatedly, at one event, no?

Don't start with your knocking off time from his Firenze run. I've seen that argument you and Vent seem to obsess on (I'm just glad he hasn't entered this discussion again) ... repeating that yet again doesn't make it so.

Coe could NEVER have run what Rudisha did in London. Period.

said88 wrote:

What's that difficult to understand in this quote?

Not all events are on the same level. This is most obvious when looking at the long jump. The Jesse Owens from 1935 could easily compete with the 2nd group of the top athletes. Same goes for Ashton Eaton as well as other decathletes. You often see athletes struggling to break 7.80m in big meets! While trying to reach the podest!

And the same holds true for the 800m compared to the 1500m. Also to a much lesser degree. For whatever reason. Doping might be one of them. The 1500m attracts more of the top talents another one.

For sure I can't prove this. But to me it looks relatively obvious. Starting with that 3:26.00 is still ahead of 1:40.91 (again, I think so).

You can totally differ on this one, but that's what my statement means.

But isn't that arbitrarily making up a number of what people MIGHT be able to run. The fastest 800m even run is 1:40.91. How is that "weaker" than 3:26? It's not like we're talking about a 2-mile race, we're talking about a standard international race that has forever been a part of the sport, and has attracted some of the greatest athletes in history. Don't you think that if a bunch of these more talented 1500m runners though they were faster than the weak 800m field, they walk in and crush it?

The analogy of long jump isn't the same argument. You're suggesting there that the current crop of athletes are weaker compared to historical distances (and certainly, Jesse Owens is an anomaly, not the norm). But that's not the same thing as saying the world record is somehow weak. The field from London 2012 blew away any other 800m field in history. HO wis that "weak"?

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the era of 1970's/ early 80's and today.

The Diamond League circuit is designed to have fast times and invariably has rabbits laying on very fast pace. Of course sometimes the main protagonists don't follow it. Radish, about 90% of the time, has either his own pacemaker or another set up by the meet directors, run a sub 50 first half. This is partly due to the current culture of modern day middle distance running and partly due to the fact that Rudisha probably doesn't have the best 'kick' or turn of speed on the circuit. If he didn't follow the fast pace and sat back in the pack to run tactically, he wouldn't have won so many races. So his best bet for winning is to run at a fast pace in every race. On top of that, Kenyan trials apart, Rudisha runs in whichever European circuit race he wants.

In 81 Coe ran 10 international races over 800m. Of those 4 were run for the GB team, and 3 run at Crystal Palace. If you knew anything about the set up in UK athletics at the time, then you'd know that every athlete had to run a set amount of these types of races in order to run in the big European meets under the Andy Norman regime. A good example of this was the 1982 4x 800 relay at Crystal Palace, where Coe was threatened with not going to the Europeans if he didn't run.

Previous eras were far more concerned with victories rather than fast times. You criticise Coe for only breaking 1:43 twice, as well as insinuate this is due to some sort of illegal or immoral activity ( a typical Ventolin comment) but as I wrote previously, and which you chose to ignore in your response, where was the incentive to run a slew of 1:42's in 79 or 81 after breaking the world records?

Where would be the incentive or need to run 1:42's during those seasons when no one else had ever run below 1:43.4? When no one else ran below 1:43.9 in 79 or below 1:44.3 in 81?

He had no need to run 1:43's let alone 1:42's in those seasons as he could win easily in 1:44's or 1:45's. He said he thought he might have to run sub 1:43 to win the World Cup in 81, but none of the other runners were prepared to take him on and push the pace.

In 81 he front run a 1:44.06, a time which no one else beat that year. Indeed only 1 or 2 athletes ran faster over 800 than the time he went through 800 in during his 1000m WR. He also ran about 10m extra in the LA final which made his run worth around 1:42 low. So the suggestion that his performance in Firenze was somehow way beyond his ability shown on other occasions is a weak one. His 1000m WR lasted longer, 18 years, and this is someone who broke 8 outdoor and 3 indoor world records. Hardly a one hit wonder or flash in the pan athlete.

He also lost out on 2 seasons when he should have been at a peak, due to injury and illness.

Do you question Ryun's ability in running 3:33.1 when he never broke 3:36 in any other race, including his split times in his mile WR's? And only broke 3:37 on those 2 occasions during his mile WRs!

Or dismiss his ability over 800m when he only broke 1:46 on 1 other occasion and only broke 1:47 four times in his entire career.

Yet we have posters on here claiming and supporting the idea he was capable of 1:39 and 3:24!? Lol.

Or Snell's 1:44.3 when he only ran sub 1:46 on 1 other occasion!

They are just 2 examples of athletes (rightly) judged on a few v fast times as having great ability and being amongst the greatest of all time.

Yet Coe, who has a greater number of fast times and great performances over a longer period to back up his best times, is constantly criticised as having outlying ability. The hypocrisy is laughable.

So no, you are wrong, ABILITY DOES NOT AFFECT THE NUMBER OF FAST TIMES RUN. True ability is based on your absolute best. The number of fast times produced is based on circumstances, chief amongst this being the era in which you competed.

Kipketer ran 0.62 secs or about 4m or 2 strides faster than Coe, 16 years later, with more drafting and on a faster track. I do not consider this to be "considerably faster" or in "a different class" to Coe.

The irony is obviously lost on you, when you dismiss the difference in tracks as being irrelevant to the discussion, when you are arguing that an athlete who ran on a slower track is not in the same class as an athlete competing on faster tracks.

When the extra distance Coe ran and the slower surface he ran on are taken into consideration when comparing to Kipketer, the difference is a couple of tenths at most.

I divided the 1500m WR by the 800m WR.

I started in 1920 and went on in 5 year steps (with the records at the end of the year). That's the numbers I got:

1920: 2.097

1925: 2.077

1930: 2.072

1935: 2.084

1940: 2.137

1945: 2.092

1950: 2.092

1955: 2.089

1960: 2.040

1965: 2.067

1970: 2.043

1975: 2.046

1980: 2.065

1985: 2.059

1990: 2.059

1995: 2.038

2000: 2.037

2005: 2.037

2010: 2.039

2015: 2.040

The by far highest ratio is from 1940, which clearly reflects tha fact how far "ahead of his time" Rudolf Harbig's 800m WR of 1:46.6 from 1939 was. Even after some reduction of the 1500m WR in the next decade, the ratio still is very high (Harbig's record stood until 1955).

The lowest ratio is from 2000, after El Guerrouj set his (still standing) WR in 1998. Through the (small) improvements of the 800m WR from Rudisha, the ration went little bit up again, but still is very low at the moment.

The averages of the values from 1920 to 2010 are: 2.0668 (arithmetic) and 2.0667 (geometric). Which ever of those two reflects the situation better - not important, they are almost the same.

So, I used the (arithmetic) average of those two values.

3:26.00 then would give you 1:39.67 for 800m

1:40.91 then would give you 3:28.56 for 1500m.

Definitely not a "proof", but a very strong indication that really the 1500m mark seems to be the "stronger" one.

How many athletes (incl. the WR holder himself) have come within 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5% and 3% of the WR?

1%

800m: 5

1500m: 5

1.5%

800m: 9

1500m: 13

2%

800m: 29

1500m: 34

2.5%

800m: 60

1500m: 64

3%

800m: 116

1500m: 113 (incl. indoor)

So, also some small advantage here for the 1500m. Little bit more athletes have come close to the WR over 1500m than over 800m (and this despite the fact that the 1500m WR probably is the "better" mark).

The LJ WR is not weak at all, the level of competition is. How many athletes (incl. indoor) have come within 3% of the WR? 11

The mentioning of the London 2012 800m result doesn't contradict my statement at all. "blew away any other 800m field in history" - and so what? Have I called this to be "weak"? For sure not.

I stay with my point, the level over 1500m is little bit higher then the level over 800m. For whatever reason.

Great analysis Said88.

I already thought the 1500WR is stronger, and your legwork reinforces that.

Wow.

Just as a reminder to everyone:

You might not want to argue about race times with Deanouk.

Because you will lose.

said88 .. do you really think athletic performance is such a simple linear equation? I don't, I suspect it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

At the same time, i don't see those numbers as saying one is weaker than the other. They're relatively similar.

The point of mentioning the 2012 OG race was simply to reply to your comment about the LJ .. currently, those people maybe far from the WR .. that might simply say the LJ has had a few outstanding athletes (it has) and it's also more likely to have those "perfect moments" where an athlete puts together a phenomenal performance. Look at Beamon, for example. But the fact that right now people aren't competing close to the WR is a different thing from saying the event itself is historically weaker. I don't think any equation will ever support that .. we can clearly make that call about events that are not typically competed in. Mo's indoor 2 mile WR as an example. But that's because we can compare it to very similar and more frequently raced events.

For example, I think comparing the mile and the 1500m WRs is reasonable. Suggesting that the 800m event is historically 'weaker' doesn't mean much at all, imo.

One could just as reasonably make the argument that with more athletes closer to a WR, the WR is weaker than it should be, no?

DeanCoe was a phenomenal athlete. I make no pretenses otherwise. you, on other hand, seem to have an almost tony the tiger-esque obsession with making excuses to "defend" one of the greatest athletes in T&F. Coe's legacy doesn't hinge on these kinds of "well, people didn't run as fast then if they didn't have to" conversations.Example

I didn't "criticize" him at all. WTF is wrong with you. He broke 1:43 twice. That's a grand achievement. Why do you see my observation of that as a "criticism" at all? That's simply bizarre.

No.

YOU did precisely that about other athletes when you brought up drugs. Why, I have no idea. All I did was say that and of questioning either works both directions, or it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Its pointless.

I disagree completely with this. if an athlete consistently runs 1:43, and another drops a single 1:43 in their entire career, I'd say it's quite clear the first athlete had a higher ability than the other. Nobody ever has a time that equates to "their absolute best", you know that as well as I do. If they did, you wouldn't twist yourself into circles writing endless paragraphs trying to bring Coe's WR down to over a second faster than any other time he ever ran in his life, and nearly two seconds faster than ever that he consistently performed at. you'd simply say "he ran 1:41.73". An absolutely awesome time.

No .. but I do see that as suggesting, strongly, that he wasn't capable of running 3:24 .. because dropping seconds off what is already an extreme outlier performance doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, you and Ventolin seem to thrive on it.

Someone who was genuinely capable of lowering their own PB and WR by nearly a second, as you seem want to suggest, would, imo, has plenty of incentive to do so. Or at least run something close to that time. You can make excuses as long as you want to, but Coe never approached that time, and only twice in his life ran sub 1:43. To then give him 2 further seconds off that seems, to me, to be done more so at the behest of an obsessive fan than is reasonable. It's Ventolin-esque.

Just my 0.1c.

Without getting too far down this ugly rabbit hole, I think if you wish to make the point about Coe's awesome greatness, you can (and occasionally do) make a much stronger case for it than using some arbitrary numbers that don't seem (to me) to bear any real relationship.

That's all.

Said, you have misunderstood the data you have presented there. Also some of your figures seem slightly off. I have added a data point and fixed yours.

0.5%

800m: 2

1500m: 3 (you could certainly add Ngeny who ran 3:43.4 for the mile - converts to 3:26.8)

1%

800m: 4

1500m: 5

1.5%

800m: 9

1500m: 13

2%

800m: 29

1500m: 34

2.5%

800m: 60

1500m: 64

This is evidence of the 800m world record being the stronger one. More people have run closer to the 1500m record showing it is less of an outlier.

Another piece of evidence I would put forward is the incremental improvements on the 800m world record since 1981 (Coe). This shows that the 800m is incredibly difficult to best and only tenths have been removed in 35 years.

The 1500m and 800m records as they stand now are both very challenging records and it is safe to say they are about equal in reality.

Kiprop will surely soon best 3:26. Then it suddenly appears the 1500m record wasn't so impossible after all. Just like Rudisha showed that sub 1:41 was possible.

It is all relative to the current competition though. I cannot see anyone besting 1:40.9 for a long, long time. It seems sub 1:42 is beyond the current 800m guys.

3:26, however, is on thin ice.

I can't "prove" anything with such numbers, that's for sure. But the (historically) very low ratio 1500m/800m at the moment really is a very strong indication that the 1500m mark at the moment is the stronger one.

Your last point surely could be true. But I have not argued against this at all.

So, the slow Powell and the also-sprinter Lewis are just outliers? Beamon was an outlier. In 1968. Not Powell and Lewis. Lewis jumped many times over 8.70m and over 8.50m something like 15 years apart. The current jumpers are so far behind, that it's safe to state that the event at all is at an very low level. The reason? Probably because the event is just not very attractive to compete in. Or you can say: the fun-factor in the Pole Vault is much higher.