Nobody is claiming he could run 1:40 except his coach. But most agree that based on the actual evidence of his races and career it is very reasonable to think 1:42.5 was possible in a time trial and well paced race that he never ran for the 800m.
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.
Nobody is claiming he could run 1:40 except his coach. But most agree that based on the actual evidence of his races and career it is very reasonable to think 1:42.5 was possible in a time trial and well paced race that he never ran for the 800m.
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.
Nobody is claiming he could run 1:40 except his coach. But most agree that based on the actual evidence of his races and career it is very reasonable to think 1:42.5 was possible in a time trial and well paced race that he never ran for the 800m.
I understand. Anything is possible. Same for every other runner out there. Always a chance guys could have run faster. Of course, no one gets credit for marks they never ran.
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.
Great post and great example from Kipketer. In my opinion he would have the 800m WR up to this day if he had better pacing at his 1:41.24 WR. To think that he was able to run that fast following suicidal 23.0 first 200 and ~48.2-48.3 first lap is crazy. This is one of the most insane races I have ever seen.
Compare that with Amos similar first lap in Zurich (~48.3 though with a ~23.5 first 200m) and how he finished in that race (one of the most painful to watch races in history!) and we can get a sense of the caliber of a runner that Wilson Kipketer was -- and Amos was a 1:41.7 runner himself.
I've read also the biographies you mention. Ovett's one it has been a while and I need to review it soon.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Nobody is claiming he could run 1:40 except his coach. But most agree that based on the actual evidence of his races and career it is very reasonable to think 1:42.5 was possible in a time trial and well paced race that he never ran for the 800m.
I understand. Anything is possible. Same for every other runner out there. Always a chance guys could have run faster. Of course, no one gets credit for marks they never ran.
Yes, you are not wrong when you say every runner could theoretically have run faster than what they've actually run. I have a post about it in the previous page or so mentioning exactly this.
Discussing the "potential" of this and that runner is a common discussing over these boards. The case about Ovett is that, similarly to Jim Ryun, Peter Snell and some others, there's robust evidence from his races and career suggesting that he could have run significantly faster than what he did for the 800m; a bigger gap than the average elite runner between reality (what the runner have actually run) x potential (what the runner had the potential to achieve in an optimal race).
Of course, this topic is brought up by the claims of his coach, clearly exaggerating the potential of the athlete and suggesting a 1:40 potential that there's no evidence he could do it. This is his coach "opinion" that we don't find evidence to support (as I mentioned before, he would need to post at least detailed data about his training sessions to bring some evidence that we can't find in the reality of his races and career).
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.
Forget Armstrong.
Your argument is that Ovett is faster in both the 400m and 1000m than Elliott. Therefore he also must be faster than Elliott in the 800m.
Why do you know he is faster than Elliott in both the 400m and 1000m?
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.
Hold on a second - you start off by literally saying "you get credit for what you run. Not what people on a message board say you maybe could have run."
and then go on to say "I believe Coe could have run 1:41.00 and 3:27high."
Which of course he didn't - so you are contradicting yourself in the space of a sentences. So you are okay to believe that Coe could have run over a second and three quarters faster than he actually did over 1500m, but Ovett running just over a second faster than his 800m PR is so inconceivable?
This thread isn't about handing out credit, it's about making a logical and rational estimate as to what a guys potential might have been over 800m. Just sitting there and going "his potential was what he ran" - if that's the limit of your knowledge and scope on stuff like this then again, fine, cool. Except you've apparently made the exception with Coe and not Ovett for some reason.
Btw the only person that appears to have said he could run 1.40 is Harry Wilson - there is no way in hell Ovett was that fast. I'm not sure the majority are even debating this - most responses I am seeing, including my own, believe his ceiling was something in the high 1.42/low 1.43 range - still well behind Coe, but on a par with his equally as talented countrymen Cram and Ellliot, which is not even close to being an outlandish position.
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.
No, the '78 EC final is not worth at the very least 1:43.5. Slowed down? He hasn't. He could run freely inside the whole race and was paced until the finish line. Maybe the first lap was a little bit too fast for a perfect time and he maybe could have run sub 1:44 on this day. Anything faster is pure speculation.
I know, any defeat doesn't count. Not in '76. Not in '78. Not in '79. Not in '82. Not in '83. Not in '84.
In '77 and '81 his SBs were 1:48.31 and 1:46.40. I think the best 800m shape we have ever seen from Obett was in the Moscow final: 1:45.40. Could he have run a faster time on this day? Obviously. But not close to 1:43.00 - that's pure fantasy.
Again: Ovett has never won a 800m race when someone has run faster than 1:45.85.
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.
Forget Armstrong.
Your argument is that Ovett is faster in both the 400m and 1000m than Elliott. Therefore he also must be faster than Elliott in the 800m.
Why do you know he is faster than Elliott in both the 400m and 1000m?
His PRs are all faster than Eliott's at all distances they both have recorded times. From the 400m (Eliott 48.2 x Ovett 47.5) through the 3,000m (Ovett 7:41.3 x Eliott 8:07.51). It is pretty obvious Ovett was also faster at 200m and 5,000m as well, but I don't have recorded times from Eliott on those ones. I doubt they'd be better than 21.7 and 13:20 though.
Within these distances we have of course the 1,000m (2:15.9 for Ovett x 2:16.3 for Eliott), 1,500m (3:30.77 for Ovett x 3:32.69 for Eliott), Mile (3:48.4 for Ovett x 3:49.2 for Eliott).
The only outlier here is the 800m where Eliott has a 1:42.97 x Ovett's 1:44.09.
Does that make sense to you or does that suggests Ovett could've run faster than 1:42.97 to make sense with all other distances?
But, of course, PRs alone don't prove my point - then we look for evidence of races. How they ran.
Does Eliott have any race suggesting he could've run faster than Ovett for the 400m or the 1,000m? Then if yes, where's that evidence? Ovett has a few remarkable ones: in Moscow he not only ran the last 400m in 50.5 but also ran the last 300m in ~ 37.5 that is pretty much 50.0 pace (he was boxed in at the start of that final lap). Coe had a similar last lap and last ~300m (probably even more impressive as he had to move to lane 2, but yes, Coe was a better 800m than Ovett, that's not into discussion here). Do you know any faster last lap and faster last 300m in a 1:45 race in the history of the 800m than these two have done in Moscow? If yes please provide. I am not familiar with the splits of the 1:41 races from the past two years, you might come up with an example from Arop or Sedjati, so if you have them please bring them and also any example from the pre-super shoes era.
Then we have the 11.8 for the 100m segment at the 77 World Cup thrashing John Walker in the process (who stepped off the track overwhelmed with 100m to go), and ~24.9 last 200m (doing some waving!). This suggests he was fast, "blazing fast" as a famous broadcaster suggested - does Eliott have any race that is at least similar in his career as evidence to defend an argument he could be faster than Ovett at 400m or 1,000m? I know, I know, different races of course, but that's what we have to look for as evidence - splits, displays of speed, changes of pace, remarkable achievements.
In 78 in Crystal Palace Ovett won a 3:57 mile race with a blazing 24.4 last 200m; in that same year he also destroyed Henry Rono in a 2 miles race with a 55 final lap in a 8:13 race (a prime Henry Rono, let's be clear).
In the same competition he set his PR for the 800m - the 1:44.09 at the 78' European champs, which was poorly run - he won a few days later the 1,500m title with a 24.8 final 200m split in a 3:35 race.
Are these examples enough to rationally defend that idea that Ovett had faster PRs than Eliott at all distances because he was indeed a faster runner from 200m to 5,000m? (and even longer as Ovett has recorded even a 65 min half marathon). If yes the 800m has to be an outlier and Ovett has to have been capable of at least running faster than 1:42.97, it would be impossible for a runner to be faster than another at all distances from 200m and 5,000m and magically be slower at the 800m.
If this post is not enough evidence, please provide evidence from his races that Eliott was capable of faster than 21.7 200m; 47.5 400m, 2:15.9 1,000m, 3:30.77 1,500m, and so on.
Bonus:
this 1,000m is from 1983, theoretically Eliott was as fast as he's ever been here from a pure speed perspective at just 20 years of age and Ovett is past his prime. In fact, Eliott's 400m PR is from the following year, 1984. Does this race suggests he was faster at 400m or 1,000m than Ovett, or is it the other way around...? Please don't come with the "this is just one race", discuss then all the other points mentioned in my post and ignore the race, focus on providing evidence to support Eliott's case. As I said this is just a bonus.
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.
No, the '78 EC final is not worth at the very least 1:43.5. Slowed down? He hasn't. He could run freely inside the whole race and was paced until the finish line. Maybe the first lap was a little bit too fast for a perfect time and he maybe could have run sub 1:44 on this day. Anything faster is pure speculation.
I know, any defeat doesn't count. Not in '76. Not in '78. Not in '79. Not in '82. Not in '83. Not in '84.
In '77 and '81 his SBs were 1:48.31 and 1:46.40. I think the best 800m shape we have ever seen from Obett was in the Moscow final: 1:45.40. Could he have run a faster time on this day? Obviously. But not close to 1:43.00 - that's pure fantasy.
Again: Ovett has never won a 800m race when someone has run faster than 1:45.85.
He has totally slowed down close to the finish line when he realized he was not winning. Please at least see the video before posting this. He ran 1:44.09 giving up before the finish line otherwise he would've run ~1:43.95.
And with all due respect you need to be familiar with elite 800m race to understand that it is totally reasonable to infer that an athlete running ~1:43.95 (or use the official 1:44.09 if you prefer) off a ~49.7-49.8 first lap is totally capable of ~1:43.5 in the same race with more even splits. There's no question about it.
I agree with you that this is not the best we've seen from Ovett, I too agree that his best shape was from ~1980 (though sometimes I question if it could have been 77 instead).
~1:43.5 was totally in his realms of possibility in the 78' race as we've seen (you are delusional if you believe it was not and/or you don't understand the impact that running 1 full second slower at that first lap makes at that level).
then you take a better version of that runner, the version from Moscow 1980 - and imagine a pace maker bringing Ovett to the bell at ~50.5 -- which is the lap he ran his last lap in Moscow - but wait, here there's no competition, there's no pressure to win, there's no tactical involved, he's not tired from the heats !! it is basically a time trial set up for him.
It is very reasonable and sensible to think that Ovett could run the last lap in ~52.0 and finish with a 1:42.5.
Just look at his career, stats, and etc, if you still don't believe it was possible, ok, there's not much more I can do honestly.
Read his book and study the 800m in more detail.. all that is left to say.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
Yeah there is no reason to think/reason that Ovett was not the equal of Cram over two laps and Cram of course ran 1.42.8.
A couple of things just worked against those guys back in that era. Firstly, the chances to really run fast times were not like they are now or have been for the last 30 years. Now if you go to a Diamond League (or as far back as the Golden League, Golden Four etc), you are pretty much guaranteed to be a race which is fast and you'll run a time if you are good enough. In that late 70's early 80's era even though the guys obviously had the ability to run those types of performances, they ran far more races in the 1.45/6 range than they do today which I'm sure was a function of less depth of talent in races (which also means less good pacemakers around as anyone good enough was actually in the race) and a greater focus on race craft and just winning it.
When you look at say 78-82 which really would have been the prime years for Ovett over 800m, he ran his 1.44.09 PR in 78, in 79 he (stupidly) doesn't race Coe in Oslo which was by far the fastest 800m of the year (1.42.33 and the WR) - the second fastest race was in Zurich at 1.44.24.
1980 was dominated by the Olympics - the world leading time was actually run in Eugene by Don Paige at 1.44.53 and in 1981 Coe runs his second WR - the legendary 1.41.73 with the next fastest race being 1.44.31. Again, Ovett not in that race but in fairness somehow Coe ran that on the 10th of June and Ovett had only run one mile in Gateshead by that date. 1982? Well that was a total bust thanks to the infamous church railing incident late in 81.
Looking at Cram in 1985, he was lucky that Cruz had come along who was a fearless front runner that basically paced him perfectly in that race - and there wasn't anything "extra curricula" going on like there was with the Coe-Ovett rivalry where no matter what either guy says, they absolutely ducked each other in those prime years with Ovett not wanting to face Coe over 800m and conversely Coe not wanting to face Ovett over 1500m/mile.
Sadly Ovett paid for it the most - especially with his 800m PR which, bless Harry Wilson, was not going to ever be close to the 1.40's, but should have been right at or just under 1.43.0 for a guy with his speed, strength and talent over 2 laps.
Great post. Missed opportunities.
As for me, I think Ovett was capable of 51-51.7, something like that in an almost perfect setup.
No, the '78 EC final is not worth at the very least 1:43.5. Slowed down? He hasn't. He could run freely inside the whole race and was paced until the finish line. Maybe the first lap was a little bit too fast for a perfect time and he maybe could have run sub 1:44 on this day. Anything faster is pure speculation.
I know, any defeat doesn't count. Not in '76. Not in '78. Not in '79. Not in '82. Not in '83. Not in '84.
In '77 and '81 his SBs were 1:48.31 and 1:46.40. I think the best 800m shape we have ever seen from Obett was in the Moscow final: 1:45.40. Could he have run a faster time on this day? Obviously. But not close to 1:43.00 - that's pure fantasy.
Again: Ovett has never won a 800m race when someone has run faster than 1:45.85.
He has totally slowed down close to the finish line when he realized he was not winning. Please at least see the video before posting this. He ran 1:44.09 giving up before the finish line otherwise he would've run ~1:43.95.
And with all due respect you need to be familiar with elite 800m race to understand that it is totally reasonable to infer that an athlete running ~1:43.95 (or use the official 1:44.09 if you prefer) off a ~49.7-49.8 first lap is totally capable of ~1:43.5 in the same race with more even splits. There's no question about it.
I agree with you that this is not the best we've seen from Ovett, I too agree that his best shape was from ~1980 (though sometimes I question if it could have been 77 instead).
~1:43.5 was totally in his realms of possibility in the 78' race as we've seen (you are delusional if you believe it was not and/or you don't understand the impact that running 1 full second slower at that first lap makes at that level).
then you take a better version of that runner, the version from Moscow 1980 - and imagine a pace maker bringing Ovett to the bell at ~50.5 -- which is the lap he ran his last lap in Moscow - but wait, here there's no competition, there's no pressure to win, there's no tactical involved, he's not tired from the heats !! it is basically a time trial set up for him.
It is very reasonable and sensible to think that Ovett could run the last lap in ~52.0 and finish with a 1:42.5.
Just look at his career, stats, and etc, if you still don't believe it was possible, ok, there's not much more I can do honestly.
Read his book and study the 800m in more detail.. all that is left to say.
If you "see" that Ovett has lost over a meter in the last few steps in the '78 EC final, than you just show that you are extremely biased. Beyer just finished way faster (for what ever reason) than Ovett. From 1:32 to 1:39 Beyer made up 1.5 meters, then from 1:39 to 1:43 another meter - because he was running faster. In the last step, Ovett maybe lost 1/100, at most 2/100. That's it, if you like it or not. 14/100 or over 1 meter is laughable.
Give him a 0.5 seconds slower 1st lap, and he might have finished 2/10 faster - but that's speculation. It was a great race for him with pacing all the way, running always close to the curb apart from the finish. It was by far his fastest time during his career. He might hjave been stronger in Moscow '80 and I estimate a 1:43.5 (around the WR at his prime without the outlier Coe) as his best he could do in his career. He just wasn't a 800m time trialist.
Your argument is that Ovett is faster in both the 400m and 1000m than Elliott. Therefore he also must be faster than Elliott in the 800m.
Why do you know he is faster than Elliott in both the 400m and 1000m?
His PRs are all faster than Eliott's at all distances they both have recorded times. From the 400m (Eliott 48.2 x Ovett 47.5) through the 3,000m (Ovett 7:41.3 x Eliott 8:07.51). It is pretty obvious Ovett was also faster at 200m and 5,000m as well, but I don't have recorded times from Eliott on those ones. I doubt they'd be better than 21.7 and 13:20 though.
Within these distances we have of course the 1,000m (2:15.9 for Ovett x 2:16.3 for Eliott), 1,500m (3:30.77 for Ovett x 3:32.69 for Eliott), Mile (3:48.4 for Ovett x 3:49.2 for Eliott).
The only outlier here is the 800m where Eliott has a 1:42.97 x Ovett's 1:44.09.
Does that make sense to you or does that suggests Ovett could've run faster than 1:42.97 to make sense with all other distances?
But, of course, PRs alone don't prove my point - then we look for evidence of races. How they ran.
Does Eliott have any race suggesting he could've run faster than Ovett for the 400m or the 1,000m? Then if yes, where's that evidence? Ovett has a few remarkable ones: in Moscow he not only ran the last 400m in 50.5 but also ran the last 300m in ~ 37.5 that is pretty much 50.0 pace (he was boxed in at the start of that final lap). Coe had a similar last lap and last ~300m (probably even more impressive as he had to move to lane 2, but yes, Coe was a better 800m than Ovett, that's not into discussion here). Do you know any faster last lap and faster last 300m in a 1:45 race in the history of the 800m than these two have done in Moscow? If yes please provide. I am not familiar with the splits of the 1:41 races from the past two years, you might come up with an example from Arop or Sedjati, so if you have them please bring them and also any example from the pre-super shoes era.
In the 2024 Olympic final Arop has run 51.2/50.0 for 1:41.20 while running both curbs in the 2nd lap in lane 2 (or on the line), that's easily 5 extra meters. That's worth around 49.4 for 400m.
Ovett could run the full 2nd lap in Moscow unhindered and had not to run extra meters, his 50.5 is exactly this: 50.5 (maybe 50.4, but your 50.0 again is just the result of your bias).
Your argument is that Ovett is faster in both the 400m and 1000m than Elliott. Therefore he also must be faster than Elliott in the 800m.
Why do you know he is faster than Elliott in both the 400m and 1000m?
His PRs are all faster than Eliott's at all distances they both have recorded times. From the 400m (Eliott 48.2 x Ovett 47.5) through the 3,000m (Ovett 7:41.3 x Eliott 8:07.51). It is pretty obvious Ovett was also faster at 200m and 5,000m as well, but I don't have recorded times from Eliott on those ones. I doubt they'd be better than 21.7 and 13:20 though.
Within these distances we have of course the 1,000m (2:15.9 for Ovett x 2:16.3 for Eliott), 1,500m (3:30.77 for Ovett x 3:32.69 for Eliott), Mile (3:48.4 for Ovett x 3:49.2 for Eliott).
The only outlier here is the 800m where Eliott has a 1:42.97 x Ovett's 1:44.09.
Elliot just wasn’t in fast races. He would have run 47/3:29/3:46 given that 800m PR. Clearly with a 1:43 he would be much faster than Ovett if he didn’t get injuries in 1990.
There is absolutely no way that on the day of his 1:42.97 (3 days after a 3:51.80 Mile) he was not capable of sub 2:15 for 1000m, probably very close to 2:14 or under.
It's really funny that you people take an obviously non-represantative 2:16.3 as fact to prove your already fixed opinion.
There is absolutely no way that on the day of his 1:42.97 (3 days after a 3:51.80 Mile) he was not capable of sub 2:15 for 1000m, probably very close to 2:14 or under.
It's really funny that you people take an obviously non-represantative 2:16.3 as fact to prove your already fixed opinion.
So was Eliott slower at 200m/400m and slower at 1,500m, but magically faster at 800m/1000m as you suggest? How's that even possible?
His PRs are all faster than Eliott's at all distances they both have recorded times. From the 400m (Eliott 48.2 x Ovett 47.5) through the 3,000m (Ovett 7:41.3 x Eliott 8:07.51). It is pretty obvious Ovett was also faster at 200m and 5,000m as well, but I don't have recorded times from Eliott on those ones. I doubt they'd be better than 21.7 and 13:20 though.
Within these distances we have of course the 1,000m (2:15.9 for Ovett x 2:16.3 for Eliott), 1,500m (3:30.77 for Ovett x 3:32.69 for Eliott), Mile (3:48.4 for Ovett x 3:49.2 for Eliott).
The only outlier here is the 800m where Eliott has a 1:42.97 x Ovett's 1:44.09.
Does that make sense to you or does that suggests Ovett could've run faster than 1:42.97 to make sense with all other distances?
But, of course, PRs alone don't prove my point - then we look for evidence of races. How they ran.
Does Eliott have any race suggesting he could've run faster than Ovett for the 400m or the 1,000m? Then if yes, where's that evidence? Ovett has a few remarkable ones: in Moscow he not only ran the last 400m in 50.5 but also ran the last 300m in ~ 37.5 that is pretty much 50.0 pace (he was boxed in at the start of that final lap). Coe had a similar last lap and last ~300m (probably even more impressive as he had to move to lane 2, but yes, Coe was a better 800m than Ovett, that's not into discussion here). Do you know any faster last lap and faster last 300m in a 1:45 race in the history of the 800m than these two have done in Moscow? If yes please provide. I am not familiar with the splits of the 1:41 races from the past two years, you might come up with an example from Arop or Sedjati, so if you have them please bring them and also any example from the pre-super shoes era.
In the 2024 Olympic final Arop has run 51.2/50.0 for 1:41.20 while running both curbs in the 2nd lap in lane 2 (or on the line), that's easily 5 extra meters. That's worth around 49.4 for 400m.
Ovett could run the full 2nd lap in Moscow unhindered and had not to run extra meters, his 50.5 is exactly this: 50.5 (maybe 50.4, but your 50.0 again is just the result of your bias).
Ok, as I imagined there would be an example of the recent 1:41 races.
Any examples before the super-shoes era?
Outside Coe, Rudisha or Kipketer - clearly all-time greats at the distance - I don't think you'll find anyone with robust evidence of such displays of speed. There's a clear disconnection between that evidence suggesting a significantly faster time and his actual PR.
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.