Harry Wilson believed that Steve Ovett could run 1:40 800m.

rfmaioral wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rfmaioral wrote:

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.

rfmaioral wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Yes it is perfectly reasonable. We reach a dead end here because you fail to recognize an assumption that frankly shouldn't be that hard to see as it is so obvious. Yes every runner is different but a runner that is faster at both 400m and 1,000m than another has to be faster at 800m as well.

You fail to recognize how much faster a runner can go on a time trial race with solid pacing and no mental pushback of having to win the race. There's plenty of evidence for this. Just look at Coe, his WRs both outliers in terms of how fast he ran - this is evidence screaming at your face. There's plenty of other examples if you need.

You fail to analyze Ovett races; you completely ignore discussing his 50.5 last lap in Moscow - with all the pressure of an Olympic final and starting that lap boxed in.

You fail to recognize the greatness of what a 11.8 final 100m for a world class 1500m race - thrashing Walker in the process - represents as a 800m potential.

You fail to recognize that his 1:44.09 PR was a suboptimal race where he clearly started out too fast with a 49.7 first lap - give him 1 second slower at 50.7 and that race alone is worth a 1:43 low, and the idea he wouldn't run faster as a time trial attempt is just ridiculous.

You're simply wrong but as I imagined you will keep insisting that you are right. There's no point to keep discussing. You've been presented with overwhelming evidence and you fail to recognize it.

rfmaioral wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't buy that an athlete of his level and calibre tried (or trained) any less hard than any other.

Like Skuj mention this is a clear example of you trying to twist the discussion.

Guess what - you are wrong, because you are basically denying reality.

It is simply obvious that some runners are more driven to chase world records than others. Just as other runners are more suited to championship races than others.

Mentality is a big factor in elite running and the evidence for this is again overwhelming. You should know this.

Mo Farah is an example of a runner that was not bothered by chasing records and was a brilliant championship racer. Likewise - Wilson Kipketer is arguably the most talented 800m runner ever, setting two remarkable WR plus the indoor one that still remains, yet failed to win Olympic gold twice while competing with runners that were clearly inferior.

So yes... the evidence that Ovett was not exactly driven by World Records has been discussed, written about, said by Ovett himself, by his coach, by writters that knew him well - an example of Athletics Weekly has been provided to you here. But surely you know it better.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you have just conceded no runner is like any other you just remove your argument for trying to determine what Ovett was capable of based on what another runner did.

I would rarely come to your defense, but there is the case of Nick Willis. His 800/3000 PBs are frankly mediocre at 1:45.54/7:36.91. Meanwhile his 1500 PB is a still very good 3:29.61. There are so many athletes that can beat Willis’ surrounding PBs (yes both of them), but max out at 3:30.0-3:32.0. While it is often the case that better PBs on both sides = better maximal performance it is not a law of science or anything. I think you can speculate Ovett should max out at better in the 800 than Elliott, but it’s also possible that Elliott’s greater focus on the event made him a better 800m runner by 1990. Similar to how Willis was such a seasoned 1500m runner. So it becomes a semantics argument maybe to some degree because Ovett/Wilson clearly didn’t attack the 800 like Elliott did.

Cavorty wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I would rarely come to your defense, but there is the case of Nick Willis. His 800/3000 PBs are frankly mediocre at 1:45.54/7:36.91. Meanwhile his 1500 PB is a still very good 3:29.61. There are so many athletes that can beat Willis’ surrounding PBs (yes both of them), but max out at 3:30.0-3:32.0. While it is often the case that better PBs on both sides = better maximal performance it is not a law of science or anything. I think you can speculate Ovett should max out at better in the 800 than Elliott, but it’s also possible that Elliott’s greater focus on the event made him a better 800m runner by 1990. Similar to how Willis was such a seasoned 1500m runner. So it becomes a semantics argument maybe to some degree because Ovett/Wilson clearly didn’t attack the 800 like Elliott did.

"Elliott's greater focus..." Isn't that the point the discussion, what Ovett could have run if he had focused on a fast 800m at some stage?

If I remember correctly, just after the 1978 European Championship, at the same IAC/Coca-Cola Meeting Ovett defeated Henry Rono in a new world best for 2 miles, and Coe set a new British record of 1:43.97. Those pretty much defined (in broad terms at least) what kind of runner each would be - Ovett a strength based 1500m (sometimes running 2x10miles in a day) runner and Coe a speed-based 800m/1500m runner.

That state was confirmed the following May when Coe ran a world record 1:42.33. Ovett, as far as I can see didn't even run an 800m between the European Championships and an invitational event in Dublin in 1979. He only ran four more, all low key, between then and the Moscow Olympics. In the meantime he'd been dominant at 1500m/mile with (I think) something like 42 straight wins.

I'd say any chance of Ovett trying to set up a paced 800m went out of the window when Coe ran that 1:42.33. Why set up an attempt where there would be a good chance all he would demonstrate that he wasn't as fast as Coe at the distance, whereas his strength and acceleration still gave him a shot in a tactical race, or the Olympics with heats and final? And in the meantime, he remained completely dominant at 1500m.

I think 1:40 is nonsense, but I think on his ability at 400m, 1000m and 1500m, a Steve Ovett training for an 800m and running under time trial conditions running 1:42.5 is a very fair estimate, and it is hard to imagine why, if targeting a good 800m, he would be slower than Peter Elliott.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you have just conceded no runner is like any other you just remove your argument for trying to determine what Ovett was capable of based on what another runner did.

I would rarely come to your defense, but there is the case of Nick Willis. His 800/3000 PBs are frankly mediocre at 1:45.54/7:36.91. Meanwhile his 1500 PB is a still very good 3:29.61. There are so many athletes that can beat Willis’ surrounding PBs (yes both of them), but max out at 3:30.0-3:32.0. While it is often the case that better PBs on both sides = better maximal performance it is not a law of science or anything. I think you can speculate Ovett should max out at better in the 800 than Elliott, but it’s also possible that Elliott’s greater focus on the event made him a better 800m runner by 1990. Similar to how Willis was such a seasoned 1500m runner. So it becomes a semantics argument maybe to some degree because Ovett/Wilson clearly didn’t attack the 800 like Elliott did.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rfmaioral wrote:

Yes it is perfectly reasonable. We reach a dead end here because you fail to recognize an assumption that frankly shouldn't be that hard to see as it is so obvious. Yes every runner is different but a runner that is faster at both 400m and 1,000m than another has to be faster at 800m as well.

You fail to recognize how much faster a runner can go on a time trial race with solid pacing and no mental pushback of having to win the race. There's plenty of evidence for this. Just look at Coe, his WRs both outliers in terms of how fast he ran - this is evidence screaming at your face. There's plenty of other examples if you need.

You fail to analyze Ovett races; you completely ignore discussing his 50.5 last lap in Moscow - with all the pressure of an Olympic final and starting that lap boxed in.

You fail to recognize the greatness of what a 11.8 final 100m for a world class 1500m race - thrashing Walker in the process - represents as a 800m potential.

You fail to recognize that his 1:44.09 PR was a suboptimal race where he clearly started out too fast with a 49.7 first lap - give him 1 second slower at 50.7 and that race alone is worth a 1:43 low, and the idea he wouldn't run faster as a time trial attempt is just ridiculous.

You're simply wrong but as I imagined you will keep insisting that you are right. There's no point to keep discussing. You've been presented with overwhelming evidence and you fail to recognize it.

You keep going around in circles. Elliott is not proof the Ovett was faster than him over the 800 and especially capable of 1:42 or better. What either athlete could run over the 800 is not determined by what they ran in shorter or longer events. I have suggested that Ovett was capable of 1:43 or 1:43-low. That is in the same ball-park that Salvatore estimated above - and he is at least as well informed as you are. You mistake your speculation as fact and base it on what cannot determine the issue, which is the performance of another runner.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you have just conceded no runner is like any other you just remove your argument for trying to determine what Ovett was capable of based on what another runner did.

I would rarely come to your defense, but there is the case of Nick Willis. His 800/3000 PBs are frankly mediocre at 1:45.54/7:36.91. Meanwhile his 1500 PB is a still very good 3:29.61. There are so many athletes that can beat Willis’ surrounding PBs (yes both of them), but max out at 3:30.0-3:32.0. While it is often the case that better PBs on both sides = better maximal performance it is not a law of science or anything. I think you can speculate Ovett should max out at better in the 800 than Elliott, but it’s also possible that Elliott’s greater focus on the event made him a better 800m runner by 1990. Similar to how Willis was such a seasoned 1500m runner. So it becomes a semantics argument maybe to some degree because Ovett/Wilson clearly didn’t attack the 800 like Elliott did.

Cavorty wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I would rarely come to your defense, but there is the case of Nick Willis. His 800/3000 PBs are frankly mediocre at 1:45.54/7:36.91. Meanwhile his 1500 PB is a still very good 3:29.61. There are so many athletes that can beat Willis’ surrounding PBs (yes both of them), but max out at 3:30.0-3:32.0. While it is often the case that better PBs on both sides = better maximal performance it is not a law of science or anything. I think you can speculate Ovett should max out at better in the 800 than Elliott, but it’s also possible that Elliott’s greater focus on the event made him a better 800m runner by 1990. Similar to how Willis was such a seasoned 1500m runner. So it becomes a semantics argument maybe to some degree because Ovett/Wilson clearly didn’t attack the 800 like Elliott did.

"Elliott's greater focus..." Isn't that the point the discussion, what Ovett could have run if he had focused on a fast 800m at some stage?

If I remember correctly, just after the 1978 European Championship, at the same IAC/Coca-Cola Meeting Ovett defeated Henry Rono in a new world best for 2 miles, and Coe set a new British record of 1:43.97. Those pretty much defined (in broad terms at least) what kind of runner each would be - Ovett a strength based 1500m (sometimes running 2x10miles in a day) runner and Coe a speed-based 800m/1500m runner.

That state was confirmed the following May when Coe ran a world record 1:42.33. Ovett, as far as I can see didn't even run an 800m between the European Championships and an invitational event in Dublin in 1979. He only ran four more, all low key, between then and the Moscow Olympics. In the meantime he'd been dominant at 1500m/mile with (I think) something like 42 straight wins.

I'd say any chance of Ovett trying to set up a paced 800m went out of the window when Coe ran that 1:42.33. Why set up an attempt where there would be a good chance all he would demonstrate that he wasn't as fast as Coe at the distance, whereas his strength and acceleration still gave him a shot in a tactical race, or the Olympics with heats and final? And in the meantime, he remained completely dominant at 1500m.

I think 1:40 is nonsense, but I think on his ability at 400m, 1000m and 1500m, a Steve Ovett training for an 800m and running under time trial conditions running 1:42.5 is a very fair estimate, and it is hard to imagine why, if targeting a good 800m, he would be slower than Peter Elliott.

Skuj wrote:

Cavorty wrote:

"Elliott's greater focus..." Isn't that the point the discussion, what Ovett could have run if he had focused on a fast 800m at some stage?

If I remember correctly, just after the 1978 European Championship, at the same IAC/Coca-Cola Meeting Ovett defeated Henry Rono in a new world best for 2 miles, and Coe set a new British record of 1:43.97. Those pretty much defined (in broad terms at least) what kind of runner each would be - Ovett a strength based 1500m (sometimes running 2x10miles in a day) runner and Coe a speed-based 800m/1500m runner.

That state was confirmed the following May when Coe ran a world record 1:42.33. Ovett, as far as I can see didn't even run an 800m between the European Championships and an invitational event in Dublin in 1979. He only ran four more, all low key, between then and the Moscow Olympics. In the meantime he'd been dominant at 1500m/mile with (I think) something like 42 straight wins.

I'd say any chance of Ovett trying to set up a paced 800m went out of the window when Coe ran that 1:42.33. Why set up an attempt where there would be a good chance all he would demonstrate that he wasn't as fast as Coe at the distance, whereas his strength and acceleration still gave him a shot in a tactical race, or the Olympics with heats and final? And in the meantime, he remained completely dominant at 1500m.

I think 1:40 is nonsense, but I think on his ability at 400m, 1000m and 1500m, a Steve Ovett training for an 800m and running under time trial conditions running 1:42.5 is a very fair estimate, and it is hard to imagine why, if targeting a good 800m, he would be slower than Peter Elliott.

This.

End thread.