1.42.78 Negative Split 800m - 24.6 last 200m!!!

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I fully agree.

It's the greatest vs best scenario. You can't go over Rudishas body of work and not give him the title of the greatest.

But best? Hmm, I would take Kipketer head to head in their primes. At his best, Kipketer was and still is the best 800m runner the world has ever seen. Races like the above I believe contribute to that point of view.

Rudisha is the current world record holder, a record that was set in both the fastest and deepest 800 race of all time. Those facts alone make him the greatest and the best, the goodest, the most amazing, most excellent and dare I say even the finest 800 runner ever.

There are zero grammatical errors in my sentence that you quoted. You are in over your head here. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Less than 0.2% better PB answers nothing, Kipketer's time was achieved with most crazy splits and was run 15 years earlier.

There are strong arguments that Kipketer at his best was better than Rudisha at his best. For sure this can't be proved.

Troothsayer wrote:

There are zero grammatical errors in my sentence that you quoted. You are in over your head here. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

""NONE of you who have ever posted here is capable of teaching me about the language, so check yourself"

Oh my god man - you really wanted this?

The way "none of you" is structured in the sentence, "you" is plural. You are referring to a group of people. Therefore the grammatically correct term following this was "are capable" and not "is capable", as you wrote.

It is not "none of you is capable", but rather "none of you are capable".

And with that, you can just disappear because nothing you come back with holds any credibility or interest to me you absolutely incapable muppet.

1 1:40.91 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1 London 09.08.2012

2 1:41.01 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1rA Rieti 29.08.2010

3 1:41.09 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1 Berlin 22.08.2010

4 1:41.11 Wilson Kipketer DEN 12.12.70 1 Köln 24.08.1997

5 1:41.24 Wilson Kipketer DEN 12.12.70 1rA Zürich 13.08.1997

6 1:41.33 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1rA Rieti 10.09.2011

7 1:41.51 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1rA Heusden-Zolder 10.07.2010

8 1:41.54 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1 Saint-Denis 06.07.2012

9 1:41.73 Sebastian Coe GBR 29.09.56 1 Firenze 10.06.1981

9 1:41.73 Wilson Kipketer DEN 12.12.70 1 Stockholm 07.07.1997

9 1:41.73 Nijel Amos BOT 15.03.94 2 London 09.08.2012

12 1:41.74 David Rudisha KEN 17.12.88 1 New York City 09.06.2012.

Looks like Rudisha t me

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Troothsayer wrote:

There are zero grammatical errors in my sentence that you quoted. You are in over your head here. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

""NONE of you who have ever posted here is capable of teaching me about the language, so check yourself"

Oh my god man - you really wanted this?

The way "none of you" is structured in the sentence, "you" is plural. You are referring to a group of people. Therefore the grammatically correct term following this was "are capable" and not "is capable", as you wrote.

It is not "none of you is capable", but rather "none of you are capable".

And with that, you can just disappear because nothing you come back with holds any credibility or interest to me you absolutely incapable muppet.

No you are as usual wrong. I am referring to each one of you singularly. None of you is singular in this case. Please educate yourself.

Troothsayer wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

""NONE of you who have ever posted here is capable of teaching me about the language, so check yourself"

Oh my god man - you really wanted this?

The way "none of you" is structured in the sentence, "you" is plural. You are referring to a group of people. Therefore the grammatically correct term following this was "are capable" and not "is capable", as you wrote.

It is not "none of you is capable", but rather "none of you are capable".

And with that, you can just disappear because nothing you come back with holds any credibility or interest to me you absolutely incapable muppet.

No you are as usual wrong. I am referring to each one of you singularly. None of you is singular in this case. Please educate yourself.

I'm trying to work out which of you guys is the "greatest" or just the "best".

It would be a photo finish - if they were both at their peaks.

Coe was in a different league in 81.

He didn't even intend to go for the WR at Florence, he was going to have a serious attempt a couple of weeks later at Oslo. Then when he got the record and Ovett took his mile WR, he decided to go for the Mile.

Even by the 90's tracks had improved markedly over what Coe raced on. Factor in improvements in competition, pacing etc. If the Golden League or Diamond Leacue had been around in the 70's, it's possible Coe would have stuck to 800m.

And Coe wasn't even at his athletic peak in 81. His 800m indoor WR between bouts of illness at the start of 83 shows he would have been at his peak in 82/83.

And of course it's hard to believe that Kipketer wasn't on the EPO train in the 90's. Even if you want to believe that Coe was blood doping, I doubt if it was as convenient or effective as the full throttling EPO of the 90's.

In summary - Coe was as naturally talented over 800m as Kipketer and Rudisha. In 81 he would have given either a great race, while also being able to break the mile WR the next week.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Troothsayer wrote:

No you are as usual wrong. I am referring to each one of you singularly. None of you is singular in this case. Please educate yourself.

I'm trying to work out which of you guys is the "greatest" or just the "best".

Now that is actually sort of an amusing comment, but it really does lay bare the absurd and preposterous premise of the entire thread, which is that the greatest and the best have such different meanings in the eyes of the dimwitted OP that he has created a thread predicated upon it.

The closest comparison we can make between Coe and Kipketer is when the latter attempted to break Coe's 800m WR at the end of 1996 on the same track on Rieti.

Kipketer was practically the same age as Coe, coming into his absolute peak, and motivated like never before to finally break Coe's record after missing the Olympics. He failed and ran 1:41.8.

Kipketer had over a dozen attempts on Coe's WR before succeeding. Coe ran two 800m time trials in his entire career - 1:42.3 and 1:41.7, while training equally for the 1500m.

Troothsayer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm trying to work out which of you guys is the "greatest" or just the "best".

Now that is actually sort of an amusing comment, but it really does lay bare the absurd and preposterous premise of the entire thread, which is that the greatest and the best have such different meanings in the eyes of the dimwitted OP that he has created a thread predicated upon it.

Is it really that hard to understand?

With "greatest" they mean Nr.1 in a ranking sytem which values all factors like longevity, honors one, head to head record, times achieved...

With "best" they mean who was better in the moment of their top shape.

You can critisice those designations - but the point they want to make is not that hard to understand.

Number 33 wrote:

In summary - Coe was as naturally talented over 800m as Kipketer and Rudisha. In 81 he would have given either a great race, while also being able to break the mile WR the next week.

LOL no.

Coe ran TWICE under 1:43

He was incredibly good but he doesn't belong in this conversation about best/greatest 800 m runner.

34tterh wrote:

Number 33 wrote:

In summary - Coe was as naturally talented over 800m as Kipketer and Rudisha. In 81 he would have given either a great race, while also being able to break the mile WR the next week.

LOL no.

Coe ran TWICE under 1:43

He was incredibly good but he doesn't belong in this conversation about best/greatest 800 m runner.

Yes he does. You didn't read my post did you? Coe had two time trials in his entire career. Kipketer had probably over 30. In 79 - 81, Coe could have ran sub 1:43 twice a week given a pacer taking him through in sub 51.

In 81 he had I think 3 800m races, one of which was some stupid GB vs Romania or some such that he was obliged to run. The other was a Cup final which was a slow race. In 1997 when Kipketer finally broke Coe's record, he was in close to a dozen fast 800m races.

If Ovett hadn't taken his mile record, Coe likely would have run close to 1:41 flat in Oslo. In 82 or 83 without health problems he surely would have gone under 1:41.

Hi

Number 33 wrote:

Coe was in a different league in 81.

Three years later Cruz ran as fast. Coe's time may have been dodgy too

He didn't even intend to go for the WR at Florence, he was going to have a serious attempt a couple of weeks later at Oslo. Then when he got the record and Ovett took his mile WR, he decided to go for the Mile.

Yeah, he had a pacemaker going through in 49

Even by the 90's tracks had improved markedly over what Coe raced on. Factor in improvements in competition, pacing etc. If the Golden League or Diamond Leacue had been around in the 70's, it's possible Coe would have stuck to 800m.

He had a pacemaker, then a free run. Tracks were similar. Change from cinders and grass was significant.

Number 33

And Coe wasn't even at his athletic peak in 81. His 800m indoor WR between bouts of illness at the start of 83 shows he would have been at his peak in 82/83.

How is that logical?

And of course it's hard to believe that Kipketer wasn't on the EPO train in the 90's. Even if you want to believe that Coe was blood doping, I doubt if it was as convenient or effective as the full throttling EPO of the 90's.

Kipketer and Rudisha in same boat. Kiprop.

In summary - Coe was as naturally talented over 800m as Kipketer and Rudisha. In 81 he would have given either a great race, while also being able to break the mile WR the next week.

How do you measure talent? For the most part Coe was a 1.43.5 runner

Troothsayer wrote:

""NONE of you who have ever posted here is capable of teaching me about the language, so check yourself"

No you are as usual wrong. I am referring to each one of you singularly. None of you is singular in this case. Please educate yourself.

Then you would have used "Nobody that has posted here is capable".

Sigh. Listen dude I was once 6 years old and learning the ins and outs of this language - its okay. And obviously you are not a native English speaker, which is also completely okay and your English is actually not bad - but it's also why the concept of best versus greatest you can't grasp (like 90% of people here can), it's just down to nuances in speaking and understanding of the language.

So let's leave it at that. This thread isn't about your lack of grammar and comprehension - and it's not even about Kipketer vs Rudisha. It was actually about the magnificence of a sub 1.43 800m with a 24.6 last 200m. So let's throw it back out to the audience if we can find something comparable from other greats of the two-lapper (Coe mentioned already).

Good argument.

34tterh wrote:

Number 33 wrote:

In summary - Coe was as naturally talented over 800m as Kipketer and Rudisha. In 81 he would have given either a great race, while also being able to break the mile WR the next week.

LOL no.

Coe ran TWICE under 1:43

He was incredibly good but he doesn't belong in this conversation about best/greatest 800 m runner.

What?! He was only 0.6 of a sec slower than Kipketer while accomplishing that 15 years earlier on a slower track. And without the likely benefit of EPO, which was everywhere in the 90's. He is still only 0.8 secs slower than Rudisha's wr, set more than 30 years later. Of course he's in the conversation.