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..
Coe wasn't at his peak in '78. He was in '81. There is no way that Ovett could have matched him in a 1:41x race.
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.
You are absolutely wrong. "could". He "could" run faster than he ever did had he run a time-trial with good pacing.
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.
There is "evidence": "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"
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.
Elliott's biggest accomplishments in track & field were in the 1,500m - Olympic Silver Medal and Commonwealth Gold. He was a world class athlete in the distance and held a personal record of 3:32.69 as well as 3:49.20 for the Mile.
So your remark that "Elliott was an 800m specialist" is false. Rudisha and Kipketer are examples of 800m specialists, do you reckon to see the difference?
Elliott just as Ovett and Coe which we are discussing extensively here was world class in both distances - 800m and 1,500m, and that is another fact of reality that apparently you fail to admit.
In fact as a career he was the closest comparison to Ovett because both started very young setting records at the 800m and progressively ran the 1,500m more often and the 800m less often.
His best year was probably 1990 were he set his 800m (1:42.97), 1000m (2:16.30) and 1,500m (3:32.69) personal records all a few months from each other.
And you are wrong when you say a runner can't be use as evidence to estimate what another runner can do. You absolutely can especially when one runner is clearly faster over multiple distances; if a runner is faster at 400m AND 1,000m it has to be faster over 800m too. Using your own argument:
"Elliott was a 48.2 400m runner, a 1:42.97 800m, a 2:16.3 1000m and a 3:32.69 1,500m, maybe he could have run these a bit faster but not by much, after all he raced extensively in his career, chasing wins and records, if he could run significantly faster he would have done it.
Likewise, Ovett was a 47.5 400m runner, a 2:15.9 1000m and a 3:30.77 1,500m, therefore it is simply impossible by basic track & field knowledge that he couldn't have run within the 1:42 range, as he had to be faster than Elliott at 800m with these PRs".
You won't admit because you've gone too far with your argument, but yes, it is perfectly reasonable that Ovett could have run ~1:42.5 for the 800m and you're just wrong when you say there's no evidence for that claim. It is just that you can't see it, or you don't have enough knowledge in the elite level of the sport to look at the stats of his races and make the rational conjecture that 1:42.5 was perfectly reasonable.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
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.
This bizzare fellow writes post after post all in a row. What is wrong with him?
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.
This bizzare fellow writes post after post all in a row. What is wrong with him?
Look at any thread about Jakob and you can literally see him posting five, six, ten times in a row. Totally obsessed OCD mess.
The debate is about what Ovett could do at his best. It was never better than 1:44.
You are absolutely wrong. "could". He "could" run faster than he ever did had he run a time-trial with good pacing.
I didn't say he could run no faster than 1:44. Are you unable to read a full post? I suggested I consider he possibly could have run 1:43 or 1:43-mid. I don't buy 1:42 or faster.
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.
There is "evidence": "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"
No, it doesn't. What one runner was capable of has no relationship with what any other could do.
It isn't "perfectly reasonable", it is merely a rationalisation for what you wish to believe. You persist in using Elliott to sustain your argument. It is completely irrelevant. What one runner can achieve has no direct bearing on what another is able to do. They are not like cars, with the same motors and performance parts; they are all different and uniquely so. You can make comparisons with other athletes if you wish but what one achieves will NOT determine what another is capable of.
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.
Elliott's biggest accomplishments in track & field were in the 1,500m - Olympic Silver Medal and Commonwealth Gold. He was a world class athlete in the distance and held a personal record of 3:32.69 as well as 3:49.20 for the Mile.
So your remark that "Elliott was an 800m specialist" is false. Rudisha and Kipketer are examples of 800m specialists, do you reckon to see the difference?
Elliott just as Ovett and Coe which we are discussing extensively here was world class in both distances - 800m and 1,500m, and that is another fact of reality that apparently you fail to admit.
In fact as a career he was the closest comparison to Ovett because both started very young setting records at the 800m and progressively ran the 1,500m more often and the 800m less often.
His best year was probably 1990 were he set his 800m (1:42.97), 1000m (2:16.30) and 1,500m (3:32.69) personal records all a few months from each other.
And you are wrong when you say a runner can't be use as evidence to estimate what another runner can do. You absolutely can especially when one runner is clearly faster over multiple distances; if a runner is faster at 400m AND 1,000m it has to be faster over 800m too. Using your own argument:
"Elliott was a 48.2 400m runner, a 1:42.97 800m, a 2:16.3 1000m and a 3:32.69 1,500m, maybe he could have run these a bit faster but not by much, after all he raced extensively in his career, chasing wins and records, if he could run significantly faster he would have done it.
Likewise, Ovett was a 47.5 400m runner, a 2:15.9 1000m and a 3:30.77 1,500m, therefore it is simply impossible by basic track & field knowledge that he couldn't have run within the 1:42 range, as he had to be faster than Elliott at 800m with these PRs".
You won't admit because you've gone too far with your argument, but yes, it is perfectly reasonable that Ovett could have run ~1:42.5 for the 800m and you're just wrong when you say there's no evidence for that claim. It is just that you can't see it, or you don't have enough knowledge in the elite level of the sport to look at the stats of his races and make the rational conjecture that 1:42.5 was perfectly reasonable.
It isn't "perfectly reasonable", it is merely a rationalisation for what you wish to believe. You persist in using Elliott to sustain your argument. It is completely irrelevant. What one runner can achieve has no direct bearing on what another is able to do. They are not like cars, with the same motors and performance parts; they are all different and uniquely so. You can make comparisons with other athletes if you wish but what one achieves will NOT determine what another is capable of.
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.
This bizzare fellow writes post after post all in a row. What is wrong with him?
So you don't see that each post is a response to another poster debating the same subject. Discussion must be a novel practice to you.
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.