Is this the famous session of something 8x800m where Horwill warned Coe that should do this session with a bunch of fast 5000m guys?
I think Tim Hutchins might also have run it.
Is this the famous session of something 8x800m where Horwill warned Coe that should do this session with a bunch of fast 5000m guys?
I think Tim Hutchins might also have run it.
Coe destroyed that session comfortably.
Cavorty wrote:
Is this the famous session of something 8x800m where Horwill warned Coe that should do this session with a bunch of fast 5000m guys?
I think Tim Hutchins might also have run it.
Max Denbigh wrote:
May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
I had no idea that he was ever considered to have the best technique but I heard that Paula had a really crappy one yet due to her awesome ability to tolerate pain, she was able to break the world record in the marathon. I don't know what constitutes great technique but clearly Paula looks horrible running so the only way she could be so great was because of her ability to tolerate pain. Yeah, doesn't seem related but they were both white.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with great technique from many different countries today- we can easily study their technique and not have to resort to grainy low res videos on YouTube.
Max Denbigh wrote:
May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
An outside left field suggestion -
Juha Väätäinen's final 400m sprint in the 10,000m 1971 European Championships appeared to have great form.
Juha Vaatainen vs Jurgen Haase was an epic finish!
Cologna wrote:
Max Denbigh wrote:May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
An outside left field suggestion -
Juha Väätäinen's final 400m sprint in the 10,000m 1971 European Championships appeared to have great form.
Cause he's white wrote:
Max Denbigh wrote:May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
I had no idea that he was ever considered to have the best technique but I heard that Paula had a really crappy one yet due to her awesome ability to tolerate pain, she was able to break the world record in the marathon. I don't know what constitutes great technique but clearly Paula looks horrible running so the only way she could be so great was because of her ability to tolerate pain. Yeah, doesn't seem related but they were both white.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with great technique from many different countries today- we can easily study their technique and not have to resort to grainy low res videos on YouTube.
Paula was said to have the greatest running economy of any female marathoner ever.
Her head bobbing is irrelevant; her arms, legs, torso, hips all moved perfectly.
You heard wrong wrote:
Cause he's white wrote:I had no idea that he was ever considered to have the best technique but I heard that Paula had a really crappy one yet due to her awesome ability to tolerate pain, she was able to break the world record in the marathon. I don't know what constitutes great technique but clearly Paula looks horrible running so the only way she could be so great was because of her ability to tolerate pain. Yeah, doesn't seem related but they were both white.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with great technique from many different countries today- we can easily study their technique and not have to resort to grainy low res videos on YouTube.
Paula was said to have the greatest running economy of any female marathoner ever.
Her head bobbing is irrelevant; her arms, legs, torso, hips all moved perfectly.
The glorious "coming out party" of doping in the distances.
Montgomery Wolf wrote:
https://youtu.be/mwyA3sfEED4Juha Vaatainen vs Jurgen Haase was an epic finish!
Cologna wrote:[quote]Max Denbigh wrote:
May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
Vic66 wrote:This added a huge increase in stride length that was well over 7' which is outrageous for a man of only 5.9
it's not outrageous
it's a total joke !!!
explain how a questionable even 5'9, has 7' stride ???
Deanouk wrote:"Actually there is such an international track now - Helsinki! When it was renovated in 2010 they put in a "broken back" design with 24 - 48 - 24 metre radiuses in the bends. The straightaways became 98.52 m.
This created an outcry from the athletes in the first major event held there, the prestigeous traditional match between Finland and Sweden that autumn. The strongest criticism came from Finnish 200 m runner Jonathan Ã…strand, but even the female 400m runners at their 54ish pace had major problems with the changes in curvature.
However, it was argued by the people in charge that the design was not breaking any IAAF rules and that it would be too expensive to redesign the track to a standard configuration (also they would need to take some 4-5 metres from the stands in either end).
Then this year (2012) the arena hosted the European Championships and suddenly athletes (other than those from Finland and Sweden who already knew) from all over Europe were shocked to find themselves on a non-standard track design they never before had experienced. Probably not even as kids.
The consequences became immediately apparent with a flood of out-of-lane dq's in the first round of the men's 400m on the first day. In the first heat three out of seven were dq'd! And the simple reason was a track where you were forced to re-adjust your running not only going in and out of the bends but also twice within each bend.
The athletes (those not already dq'd ...) managed to accomodate for this as the competition went on - but of course it came at an expense performancewise. In the 200m it was obvious that no one dared to run all out on the bend. Instead they ran "carefully" to avoid any mis-stepping (or injury) and then tried to pour it on in the extralong finishing straight instead. But some athletes - like Ndure - immediately cancelled their 200m entries."
This was posted on another message board.
http://trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/showthread.php?137719-How-to-Easily-Determine-A-Track-s-Turn-quot-Tightness-quot/page2
is this a joke ?
what joke track is this ?
you expect Rudisha or Asbel or Mo to be running on such a track in WC in '19 or Tokyo in '20 ?
do we expect this track to replace 116 /84 in tokyo'20 ?
Not only does it prove that a non equal quadrant (IAAF standard) track isn't illegal and is indeed used for 'international competition'
is this a joke ?
what on earth abomination is this track ?
it's worse than ridiculous '70s/'80s 6-laners !
it also underlines the adverse effects it had on competitors, including elite women 400m runners, who generally are running at a speed slower than what the men's 800m at 1:42 pace is run at
is this a joke ?
offer some conversions ?
All evidence suggests that even if the Oslo track in the 70's and 80's did have shorter, tighter curves and longer straights
it did
it was
travesty
illegal for track
never legit for international championships
only legit for ice-skating
it would have been a disadvantage to optimal performance in a 2 lap race in lane 1 (the tightest curve, obviously), where the athlete was running at 25 sec 200m pace
is this a joke ?
Big-Man wouda been licking his lips if he'd run '12 on that with huge long straights
the WR wouda been
1'40.41
2 Laps wrote:Are you Egyptian Calculo?
no
is this a joke ?!
Because this guff you posted shows that you're certainly 'in denial'
more "in da truth"
does that make me a detroitian ??
You are merely cherry picking the odd quote from the IAAF
is this a joke ?
here is only pertinent rule :
Radii other than between 35.00m and 38.00m should not be used for tracks for international competition
that's all that counts
and ignoring the overall context and vast majority of their rule book
is this a joke ?
we are talking math, hard numbers & only hard numbers involved are 35.00 - 38.00m
what context or blurb do you want to deny that iaaf woud never allow a WC or OG currently on track not at least 35.00m radius ???
it means oslo-'70s/'80s configuration woud never be legit for a WC or OG today
the greatest achievement possible is to run a WR in a OG or WC, which means oslo-'70s/'80s woud never be legit track to do so on
Big-Man from london-gold shape on that track time-travelled back to '79 wouda likely run
~ 1'40.41
but wouda not counted as illegal dimensions
which clearly states that the radius has to be bigger than 24 m
is this a joke ?
24m radius ?
and the straights can be as long as 98m
is this a joke ?
apart from absurdity, math doesn't add up
it means track of ( 24*pi*2 ) + ( 98*2 ) = 346m ???!!!
This is what the rule book states
is this a joke ?
Just as it states the track can be 6 lanes
not for a serious meet nowdays
8 lanes minimum & little deviation from 116 / 84
The reason why tracks in recent years are all 8 lanes is to increase the number of competitors not because 6 lanes are illegal
no
6 lanes indicate either/&
- after-thought track stuck around a kicka-ball track
- after-thought track stuck on a speed-skating track
neither indicates enough thought/diligence to have been a stand-alone athletics track
iaaf have ruled out such abominations thankfully
There aren't 8 lanes in indoor meets
wow !
So maybe all them are illegal too
wow !
is this best you can offer ?
they certainly are illegal for outdoor 200 / 400 because of banking, but until someone runs 19.18 or 43.02 indoors, that argument won't be tested
indoors is another sport for 200 / 400, but slightly more comparable for 800 & above & legit conversions can be made
And the bends indoors are tighter
wow !
something you've often argued slows down times when comparing to outdoor 400 performances
is this a joke ?
mj ran 44.63i then a WR & same season, a 43.39 after rounds !!!
you think i am only person in universe who thinks ~ twice as tight bends don't hugely slow down indoor 400 compared to outdoors ???
You've been asked to provide proof of the dimensions and radius of the old Oslo track
is this a joke ?
oslo-'70s/'80s was joke track, hugely favored for 800 & above, now long illegal configuration
here shows travesty it was, illegal for any sport except speed-skating, illegal for kicka-ball pitch in that era & now out to 37+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bislett_StadiumWe are still waiting
see above & previous
please explain to world why coe's '79 run coudn't finish at end of straight but at ridiculous markings dropped down from the bend !!!
the finish line looks ~ 4m onto the bend !!!
https://youtu.be/dQlQBngr6Og?t=110i'd luv to see whole vid of race & the start, but that seems extinct on youtube nowdays & i got a video recorder just after
someone can dig up coe's start on vid from somewhere
it woud be hugely interesting to see track markings !!!
Your entire raisin d'etre on these boards is to exaggerate the performances of almost every athlete with the exception of 1
is this a joke ?
i search for truth only
According to you every elite 800 runner since Ryun was capable of at least 1:42
in
~ 1'39-low - 1'42.0
range for Ryun et al
Yet you go out of your way to claim Coe, the first man to break 1:43 and 1:42, was never capable of running as fast as he did, twice, because of short, illegal tracks
eh ?
didn't you see tv that night or coupla days later ???
both mickey-mouse 6 lane tracks, neither with running clock & confusion until a time announced, 1-track a complete unknown mickey-mouser which disappeared after '84 !!!
This thread was about running technique, yet as usual, you hijack some intelligent conversation and take it off at a tangent in order to discredit Coe
eh ?
open thread
i already said hicham's is best because slight forward lean of maybe 5 degrees asks him to train faster turnover to prevent falling flat on his face from constantly re-equilibrising his centre of mass, probably helped him by
~ 1.5s
apply cos5 *cos5 as quicker speed factor
best technique is slight lean of 5 - 15 degrees as that forces quicker turnover to prevent flat-on-face, but few can do it
Everyone can see what you're doing
i analyse
and how petty and unreliable
no
objective
not to mention distorted
no
objective
your pets are
no
objective
Ryun only broke 1:45 once
off huge number of handicaps that day
- semi-hard asphalt track, extinct by rubber-track era within handful of years
where was asphalt track in '70s ???
- prelim 1'51 just coupla hours before !!!
no one in history has run a 2-lap WR with run earlier !!!
he even ran suicidally sapping sprint from last-~ lead on 1st 1/4 !!!
- no pacing with nonsense 53+
he threw away ~ 1.5s there !!!
- lack of drafting !!!
so wide most of race to 660y, he got negligible drafting !!!
- huge amount wide on bends, likely ~ 6m !!!
- he ran all this when severley ill & any physician wouda told him not to even run the prelim !!!
ran 1:44.3 on a synthetic track once
a run likely
~ 1'40-flat
if ideal 1-off, fully rested, healthy & drafted to bell in 49-flat on '70s track :
http://video.lib.ku.edu/items/show/1525Coe ran under 1:45 dozens of times
so have numerous
Including on a dirt track
he ran a 1'44.98 on dirt with lotta rest, worth probably 1'42.98 on synthetic with likely pacing/drafting
he broke marginally snell's dirt wr of 1'45.2, which was run unrested, after rounds with no pacer, to win gold in '62
there is no comparison
He could run sub 1:45 in his sleep
so couda coupla + dozen guys to today
just no funny-tracks like oslo/firenze around
Deal with it
i did
it is a joke
coe never broke 1'43 on anything resembling a standard 116 / 84 with 8 lanes
Btw, if the Oslo track slowed times down for 200 and 400 and miraculously speeded up times over 800 to the tune of 0.5
there is nothing miracalous
it is basic physics
the huge handicap at 200, lessens to be still big handicap at 400 but the analysis gives big help at 800 by ~ 0.5s
how many times do you have to be told :
mj :
19.85-oslo v 19.32
43.86-oslo v 43.39
hugely handicapping for 200 & less for 400 but still huge but if distance is long enough, it reaches neutral, which was probably ~ 550 - 600 & by 800 swings out to 0.5s help
then surely your argument goes that the benefit over a mile would be at least 1.0sec
yes
You seem to be arguing that the longer the distance the more of a benefit the short end track was
yes
it is physics for energy required for force exerted
it is relative :
V^3/R
forcing a hard V on stoopid oslo bends wrecked 200 & lesser amount 400, but by ~ 550 - 600m race, it shouda been neutral & by 800, hugely the other way
Based on that, then Cram's 3:46.32 would be more than 1 sec slower, and thus outside Coe's then existing mile record
yes
on clockings, cram's 3'46.3 shouda been 3'47-mid on a zurich, albeit hugely better intrinsic run with intrinsic last 400 of ~ 52-mid/high & with tight curves, at worst 52-mid
Are you going to ask Mr Hymans to put an asterisk next to that time too?
yes
it woud require such
all it means is that coe's mile wr wouda lasted coupla years more before aouita smashed it in cold, helsinki in '87 :
off slow, inadequate, pacing, gone by 100m from bell :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWk_agnXLzIIs this a joke?
The Joker wrote:
Is this a joke?
eh ?
about wrote:
The Joker wrote:Is this a joke?
eh ?
Pity them they've been through a rough divorce.
LOL. How long did that take?
This is the same nonsense that has been deleted numerous times from these boards.
The idea that the Oslo track slowed down competitors racing over 400m, running c. 45 secs, by 0.5 secs, yet it aided men averaging 51 secs per lap over 800m at the rate of 0.3 per lap is nonsenses. Numbers you've just plucked from your ....
At what speed then, or time over 400m, does this transfer from assistance to detriment happen? 47 secs? 49 secs? 50.5? Please inform.
How certain are you that Coe, Ovett and Cram did dope themselves?!!!
Wild Dominion wrote:
The glorious "coming out party" of doping in the distances.
Montgomery Wolf wrote:https://youtu.be/mwyA3sfEED4Juha Vaatainen vs Jurgen Haase was an epic finish!
Max Denbigh wrote:
May someone elaborate on why Coe's running technique considered by many (not all) to be the best/smoothest?
How does it compare/differ to Ovett, El Guerrouj or Morceli?
Michel Jazy was an elegant runner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0tL5kDXEwWild Dominion wrote:
The glorious "coming out party" of doping in the distances.
[quote]Montgomery Wolf wrote:
https://youtu.be/mwyA3sfEED4Juha Vaatainen vs Jurgen Haase was an epic finish!
[quote]Cologna wrote:
A very appropriate call.
Is this not perfection? So smooth!