Coe 81 vs Kipketer 97 vs Rudisha 2012 - Who wins in a perfectly paced race?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

xczvzxcv wrote:

Kipketer was very probably doping and he did very little at the Olympics, so if they were testing for EPO at this match race and the stakes were this high, he would lose. The lack of rounds, however, would help him. Cruz would be a contender as well. But Coe did close faster than anyone in history in the 800m, and he would have run sub-1:42 a lot more frequently had he specialized in the 800m, instead of spreading himself out to 1k, 1500, and mile as much as he did. Coe might have been blood doping--given his bout of a disease rarely bad for anyone other than those sharing blood--or using steroids--given that Loughborough was testing steroids on volunteers at that time, but of course there's no proof of his use. Rudisha paced himself to 1:40.91, albeit on a faster track than Firenze 1981, and ran more fast races than anyone, so I give him the crown. Of course, who's to say he was clean either?

I guess I don’t understand the point of the doping discussion. This is who wins in a match race, not who you guess is doping - sorry ArmstrongLivs we know where you lie.

Acting like Kipketer “folds” under pressure is strange considering he won 3 straight global titles and got a close 2nd at the Olympics in a subpar season for him. He didn’t get a distant 2nd against a substandard field in the biggest 800m race of his career unlike another in this discussion.

Nor does it matter who closes faster in a slow 800 when the OP has specified it’s a fast pace and Rudisha/Kipketer love a hot pace. So I think we’re just going in circles here with Coe fans who project he’d run great and super fast in the 800 against the best competition when we never quite saw it. I think I’d like to know how he’d even run because from what we’ve seen he likes to hang at the back. So is the idea he is running 1:41-1:42 going by Rudisha and Kipketer in the last 100? Alrighty then, quite a projection when we’ve Rudisha win every which way from the front, and Kipketer has won Worlds from front and behind as well. Coe’s 1986 triumph is the one blueprint and as stated before it was narrow not convincing in a slower race.

Armstronglivs wrote:

We can consider who would win without going down the doping path but given the nature of track in the '90's and after it is quite likely to have been a factor and so distorts the data that this debate relies on.

That said, it appears the debate about who would win is strongly influenced by tactical considerations as much as athletic talent. I would put Coe's talent equal to anyone, as his extraordinary record in 1981 shows, but he may not have run the event as consistently and for such a long period as Rudisha was able to do and maybe not Kipketer at his peak either. But if the outcome depends less on tactical choices than "perfect pacing", as the thread suggests, then it is incredibly hard to separate these athletes. Rudisha might just come out on top but if he was a contemporary of Coe's in 1981 that might not be so. We will never know. It remains the subject of debate amongst the buffs.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We can consider who would win without going down the doping path but given the nature of track in the '90's and after it is quite likely to have been a factor and so distorts the data that this debate relies on.

That said, it appears the debate about who would win is strongly influenced by tactical considerations as much as athletic talent. I would put Coe's talent equal to anyone, as his extraordinary record in 1981 shows, but he may not have run the event as consistently and for such a long period as Rudisha was able to do and maybe not Kipketer at his peak either. But if the outcome depends less on tactical choices than "perfect pacing", as the thread suggests, then it is incredibly hard to separate these athletes. Rudisha might just come out on top but if he was a contemporary of Coe's in 1981 that might not be so. We will never know. It remains the subject of debate amongst the buffs.

Your mistake is not thinking there are tactical choices and strategic considerations in a fast-paced race. After the first 400 or 500 there are numerous decisions to be made. Even before that, positioning and pacing behind the rabbit factor. We know that Rudisha and Kipketer can survive and thrive off a lightning fast first 200 and 400. We have less of an idea for Coe. We also know that Rudisha has a track record of winning 1:41 and 1:42 races in these scenarios, and also thrived at not letting others pass and outsprinting them the last 100. So with his skill set he is well positioned. Kipketer meanwhile has the fast times and pedigrees of kicking down runners in the last 100. Ultimate Coe’s inexperience and tough record vs top competitors makes him the biggest question mark which you finally seem to be acknowledging.