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.
You are the one going in circles here because you are wrong and fail to admit. Once again you write: what either athlete could run over the 800 is not determined by what they ran in shorter or longer events.
What you actually deny is the actual reality not only for Elliott or for Ovett but for any runner, elite or amateur, around the planet.
As I said, we reach a dead end and there's no point to keep discussing.
What you don't understand is that sport is not mathematics and a runner's times in one event don't determine what they will do in another. Every runner is different; there is no rule that says what they are capable of.
In fact, theoretically, runners never reach 100% of their potentials at their respective careers. Some get very close to it of course, but it is hard to imagine a runner that had the following combination:
- being at the absolute prime of their fitness
- having a time trial race set up
- waking up on that day in the perfect mental state to break the record
- following a perfect pace maker for over half the distance
that is a theoretical race where we can say yes that runner achieved an optimal race and time.
Coe's 1:41.73 had a lot of those conditions but even at that race maybe the track could be better, pacing could've been slightly better, so yes, maybe in a 100% optimal race he could've run even a bit faster. Cruz 1:41.77 was also one of those races where lots of those conditions are met and he has run very close to the potential he had.
Of course some runners get a lot closer than others in regards to what they were truly capable, this is just reality.
As you indicate, that is an argument that could apply to any runner and certainly not just Ovett. But Ovett had enough opportunities in his lengthy career to run faster than his pr of 1:44. That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
I do remember Ovett getting press in the Boston Globe prior to the 800 in Montreal. Disappointment followed. Still, he owned John Walker, Oly Champ, over the mile and 1500 in '77, bashing out a 25 second last 200 at the season culmination World Cup meeting--and looking like he was in a completely different event than the other competitors.
And one man's blazing speed has torn this race asunder!
I’m laughing out loud at the person who said Ovett was not a speed based runner. He was a sprinter in his youth and into his teenage years. He’s an Olympic Champion at 800m and had the most feared kick of any middle distance perhaps ever.
You are the one going in circles here because you are wrong and fail to admit. Once again you write: what either athlete could run over the 800 is not determined by what they ran in shorter or longer events.
What you actually deny is the actual reality not only for Elliott or for Ovett but for any runner, elite or amateur, around the planet.
As I said, we reach a dead end and there's no point to keep discussing.
What you don't understand is that sport is not mathematics and a runner's times in one event don't determine what they will do in another. Every runner is different; there is no rule that says what they are capable of.
Again you are wrong. The sport is not mathematics but it is intrinsically related to it.
Runner's times in one event are directly and strongly co-related with what they can do in another event.
That is a fact of concrete reality that you are denying. The evidence for this claim is overwhelming.
And yes, you take an athlete that is faster than another at BOTH the 400m AND the 1,000m and that athlete will be faster as well at 800m from a POTENTIAL perspective.
This is a fact of concrete reality, but you insist to keep denying reality.
Coe’s coach would certainly agree to the mathematical nature of middle distance training and racing, so much so that his entire training system was based on paces of the race distances and those immediately shorter and longer.
I would also be willing to bet a large sum of money that Coe himself would scoff at the notion that Ovett maxed out his 800m potential at 1:44.
In fact, theoretically, runners never reach 100% of their potentials at their respective careers. Some get very close to it of course, but it is hard to imagine a runner that had the following combination:
- being at the absolute prime of their fitness
- having a time trial race set up
- waking up on that day in the perfect mental state to break the record
- following a perfect pace maker for over half the distance
that is a theoretical race where we can say yes that runner achieved an optimal race and time.
Coe's 1:41.73 had a lot of those conditions but even at that race maybe the track could be better, pacing could've been slightly better, so yes, maybe in a 100% optimal race he could've run even a bit faster. Cruz 1:41.77 was also one of those races where lots of those conditions are met and he has run very close to the potential he had.
Of course some runners get a lot closer than others in regards to what they were truly capable, this is just reality.
As you indicate, that is an argument that could apply to any runner and certainly not just Ovett. But Ovett had enough opportunities in his lengthy career to run faster than his pr of 1:44. That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
Wrong again, you simply lack knowledge of Steve Ovett's career.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win. Same reason why you'd never see Coe running faster than 1:43-1:44 in Championship races where it was obvious he was capable of running ~ 2 seconds faster if given the opportunity - the two time trial races that Ovett never had.
You've been provided with overwhelming evidence of the type of runner Ovett was -- more the Championship style racer than the WR beater -- and yet you deny it.
His loss in a fast race was the 1:44.09 after a 49.8 first lap (where he slowed down at the finish by the way, that race is easily a ~1:43.95) and perhaps if you want to include in 1979 he ran 1:44.9 losing to US Champ James Robinson (1:44.7) -- and 1979 was by far the weakest year he had in the 5 years stretch from 77-81.
That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
False. As false as saying Snell couldn't run significantly faster than 1:44.3 or Jim Ryun couldn't run significantly faster than 3:33.
As false as saying Coe could never go significantly faster than 1:43.07 because that is the fastest he ever ran in an actual competition 800m in his entire career (and he competed in the 800m way more often than Ovett, and by the way that was a race he lost).
Your reasoning is pure nonsense, but as I said you will keep denying because you've gone too far with it.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I’m laughing out loud at the person who said Ovett was not a speed based runner. He was a sprinter in his youth and into his teenage years. He’s an Olympic Champion at 800m and had the most feared kick of any middle distance perhaps ever.
He was a 400m runner in his youth, but also won the National Junior X-Country at 6 miles. A lot of his superiority at 400m at that age was down to early physical maturity.
He also won the Inter-Counties X-Country (a major race in England at that time) at 7 1/2 miles by 11 seconds from Steve Jones.
Then we have his easy win in the Dartford Half Marathon, beating an in-form Barry Watson (English Marathon Champion). That was just a week after the European Cup Final, and two weeks before the World Final, and he won the 1500m in both of those.
What 'speed-based' 800m runner could have achieved that? Coe, who was runner-up in AAA Championships 400m in (I think) 1979, is a 'seed-based' 800m runner.
In fact, theoretically, runners never reach 100% of their potentials at their respective careers. Some get very close to it of course, but it is hard to imagine a runner that had the following combination:
- being at the absolute prime of their fitness
- having a time trial race set up
- waking up on that day in the perfect mental state to break the record
- following a perfect pace maker for over half the distance
that is a theoretical race where we can say yes that runner achieved an optimal race and time.
Coe's 1:41.73 had a lot of those conditions but even at that race maybe the track could be better, pacing could've been slightly better, so yes, maybe in a 100% optimal race he could've run even a bit faster. Cruz 1:41.77 was also one of those races where lots of those conditions are met and he has run very close to the potential he had.
Of course some runners get a lot closer than others in regards to what they were truly capable, this is just reality.
100% agree.
Hypothetically you can make the case that no runner ever reaches their true potential - we just sit on a spectrum and if you are lucky enough (right place right time - all the factors you listed) you get as close as you can.
Wilson Kipketer - runs 1.41.24 going through in 23.0/48.3. 11 days later runs 1.41.11 going through in 23.7/49.2 - somewhere in the middle of that (splitting maybe 24.0/48.8) he runs 1.40.7 that night in Zurich. El Guerrouj, in all of his sub 3.27 races (6), never split in 2.45's at 1200m despite splitting under that number twice in Rieti (one time even imploding and running 3.29). But in his two fastest races he split over 2.46 - despite his sweet spot surely being in the low 2.45's with the ability to close in the low 40's.
You mentioned the Cruz race - when I was younger (early 20's) I remember hearing him talk in person about that post Olympic European trip in 84 and by the time he had run in Brussels he was just blown out and basically feeling sick. He'd run 2.14 for 1000m and then two low 1.42 races in Zurich and Brussels and just wanted to keep to his commitment of running in Koln. Of course he goes out and nearly breaks the WR.
It's one thing even getting to the start line at the right place at the time like the guys above - it's another thing not even being in that position which is exactly the case with Ovett.
Think about how many guys like him of that era were true dual event guys over 800/1500m that wanted to run both events somewhat evenly in a season? More relevantly how many 800 guys these days do we see split their time evenly with the 1500 and vice versa? For example Jakob is (obviously) a true world class 15/5000 guy and how many 5000m times has he chased in the last 3 years in Europe? ZERO! What if this achilles injury is really bad and he had to retire tomorrow with a 12.48 PR - do we really believe that was the limit of his talent and ability? Not even something in the low 12.40's? We then have the same discussion with him as we do with Ovett right now.
Again, Ovetts window for maximizing his 800m potential was no different to any other great in history - it was probably 4-5 seasons. In 78 he ran fast (1.44.09), but a combination of lack of opportunity, splitting time chasing a 1500/mile time, a bad decision here or there based on whatever emotion/factor, and bad luck just didn't see that line up over the next 3,4 years. Maybe if you asked Ovett today if he regretted not really maxing out his 800m ability he might say he does - I honestly doubt he would care as an Olympic Champion over the distance.
You've been provided with overwhelming evidence of the type of runner Ovett was -- more the Championship style racer than the WR beater
And also agree with this.
In my opinion Ovett was the original great tactician and racer of the 800/1500m. Coe, along with Bayi were the original great and fearless time triallers/front runners (but certainly Coe alone over 800m).
That doesn't mean they weren't also incredible at the opposite - this is why they are on the list of the all time greats. Ovett, despite being the OG great racer/tactician could still time trial WR's. Coe, despite being the OG great time trial/front runner could still win tactical championship races.
But if you read the Ovett autobiography (from 84) and Coe "Running Free" (written end of 81) these themes come through clearly. I literally have both books in front of me as I'm writing this. As for the guy who keeps engaging you with non-sensical circular gibberish, if you want my advice, don't engage. Block him and forget. There are plenty of people on these boards who actually want to have good discussions on awesome and fun topics like this one. It's not worth the time or energy.
This is laughable. Ovett ran a best of 1:44.09 and was never a killer at 800m. More of a miler/2miler (held WR at 2miles for a bit). Never a very speedy guy. More of a strength guy with great racing acumen. Not in Coe's class overall, but still a truly great runner.
This is laughable. Ovett ran a best of 1:44.09 and was never a killer at 800m. More of a miler/2miler (held WR at 2miles for a bit). Never a very speedy guy. More of a strength guy with great racing acumen. Not in Coe's class overall, but still a truly great runner.
What exactly is "laughable" - the discussion about Ovetts 800m ceiling?
"Never a very speedy guy" - He ran 47.5 out of blocks when he was 18. Ran a 12.5 100m split from 1300-1400 to break open a world class field in a 3.34 1500m race. That counts as a fairly good indicator of basic speed. No he's not David Rudisha but that's pretty good for an 18 year old in 1974.
I don't get your point - you're saying that 1.44.09 was his limit? But he was a strength guy right? As you said held the world 2 mile famously beating Rono - and yet he was faster than both Cram and Elliot (nowhere near sub 48 seconds out of blocks) but didn't have the potential to match those guys over 2 laps?
As you indicate, that is an argument that could apply to any runner and certainly not just Ovett. But Ovett had enough opportunities in his lengthy career to run faster than his pr of 1:44. That he didn't leads to the reasonable conclusion he wasn't a lot faster.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win.
Let's see.
1977 - SB: 1:48.31
1978 - someone runs 1:43.84: Ovett is beaten
1979 - someone runs 1:44.70: Ovett is beaten
1981 - SB: 1:46.40
1982 - someone runs 1:45.90: Ovett is beaten
1983 - someone runs 1:44.90: Ovett is beaten
1984 - someone runs 1:46.11: Ovett is beaten
In fact, in an 800m race which Ovett has won, what's the fastest time achieved by some of his competitors? 1:45.85
Or, looking at this from another perspective: in an 800m race with Steve Ovett, if someone has run faster than 1:45.85, Ovett has not won that race.
In Moscow '80, Ovett probably was capable of sub 1:44, maybe close to 1:43.50. I don't think that he could have run faster than that at any point during his career.
What you don't understand is that sport is not mathematics and a runner's times in one event don't determine what they will do in another. Every runner is different; there is no rule that says what they are capable of.
And yes, you take an athlete that is faster than another at BOTH the 400m AND the 1,000m and that athlete will be faster as well at 800m from a POTENTIAL perspective.
Why do you know this athlete is faster than the other in both the 400m and the 1000m?
This is laughable. Ovett ran a best of 1:44.09 and was never a killer at 800m. More of a miler/2miler (held WR at 2miles for a bit). Never a very speedy guy. More of a strength guy with great racing acumen. Not in Coe's class overall, but still a truly great runner.
What exactly is "laughable" - the discussion about Ovetts 800m ceiling?
"Never a very speedy guy" - He ran 47.5 out of blocks when he was 18. Ran a 12.5 100m split from 1300-1400 to break open a world class field in a 3.34 1500m race. That counts as a fairly good indicator of basic speed. No he's not David Rudisha but that's pretty good for an 18 year old in 1974.
I don't get your point - you're saying that 1.44.09 was his limit? But he was a strength guy right? As you said held the world 2 mile famously beating Rono - and yet he was faster than both Cram and Elliot (nowhere near sub 48 seconds out of blocks) but didn't have the potential to match those guys over 2 laps?
Yeah okay.
You get credit for what you run. Not what people on a Message board say you maybe could have run. He ran 1:44.09 and 2:15.91. Those were marks he actually ran.
If you want to throw numbers out there that guys could have run, then everyone gets faster. They become runners that they never were on the track. Potential is a guess and has no value. I believe Coe could have run 1:41.00 and 3:27high. Peter Coe also felt that way. These are opinions, nothing more. I watched almost Ovett's entire career, and I never thought for a split second that he could run 1:40. Never. I never heard anyone else say anything like this.
During his prime years - 1977 - 1981 he won the vast majority of the 800m races he joined running ~ 1:45 because running faster was not necessary to win.
Let's see.
1977 - SB: 1:48.31
1978 - someone runs 1:43.84: Ovett is beaten
1979 - someone runs 1:44.70: Ovett is beaten
1981 - SB: 1:46.40
1982 - someone runs 1:45.90: Ovett is beaten
1983 - someone runs 1:44.90: Ovett is beaten
1984 - someone runs 1:46.11: Ovett is beaten
In fact, in an 800m race which Ovett has won, what's the fastest time achieved by some of his competitors? 1:45.85
Or, looking at this from another perspective: in an 800m race with Steve Ovett, if someone has run faster than 1:45.85, Ovett has not won that race.
In Moscow '80, Ovett probably was capable of sub 1:44, maybe close to 1:43.50. I don't think that he could have run faster than that at any point during his career.
Well you proved my point in a way : the two first races that you have provided are the two races I mentioned - the first one the race he set his PR after a ~49.7 - 49.8 first lap; the second a race in his sub-par 1979 year, then the next race you provide is from 1982 when he was clearly past his prime.
As it has been pointed along the thread, Ovett rarely run the 800m after 78.
You say "probably capable" of sub 1.44, this is irrelevant because he ran 1.44.09 slowing down before the finish line after a a ~49.7-49.8 first lap. That race alone with a 1 second slower first lap in ~50.8 is worth at least, at the very least, the 1:43.5 you mentioned as a "maybe".
That was not his best race or his prime by the way.
And yes, you take an athlete that is faster than another at BOTH the 400m AND the 1,000m and that athlete will be faster as well at 800m from a POTENTIAL perspective.
Why do you know this athlete is faster than the other in both the 400m and the 1000m?
Because if you've been following the thread you know there's someone here claiming that "if runners could have run faster, they would have". To that point, Ovett is faster than Elliott at both the 400m and the 1,000m, that is a fact of reality. And if that argument is true as this poster claims (i actually don't think it is), then he is wrong by claiming Ovett couldn't run 1:42, as Eliott ran 1.42.9 and if Ovett is faster at 400m and 1,000m (reality) then it has to be faster at 800m by definition.
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.