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

All 3 runners - Rudisha, Kipketer and Coe - were amazing at their best. Whether it would be decisive if they met, it is interesting to see that Rudisha probably has the edge in top-end speed, as he is a 45x runner over 400. Coe was around 46 and apparently Kipketer was in that region, too of 46-7. Coe would have had the best endurance, but I would give Kipketer the prize for form. Blanket finish.

I mentioned all this re Kipketer's Monaco run over a month ago on the thread about Murphy's negative splits at the US Trials.

As you can see from the link, I wrote this:

"Rudisha's splits as 51.6 and 51.2 (24.9 last 200m)

Other fast negative splits mentioned in the posts above are:

Kipketer in Monaco '97 - 52.0/50.7 (last 200m in 24.7!) in a 1:42.77

Tuka in Monaco '15 - 51.3/51.2 (last 200m in 25.3) in a 1:42.51 (though never got anywhere near this, in his breakout year with massive improvement, again!)

Cram in Edinburgh '86 - 51.7/51.5 (last 200m in 25.0) in a 1:43.22

Fastest 3rd 200m in a fast 800m that I know of was Coe's 24.8 split in his 1:42.33 WR"

I would say that Rudisha's 1:42.84 at 1700m altitude, in which he front run the entire race and closed with a 24.9 last 200m is at least as good as Kipketer's run in more condusive conditions, in which he was drafted by the pacer up to 550m.

In both Rudisha's and Kipketer's runs they ran no extra distance.

2 other performances in championship races that had fast last (sub 25 secs in essence) 200m, and which are of relative quality (i.e. around the 1:42 high/1:43 low) are the following, in which the athletes ran significant extra distance.

Cruz - LA 84 - actual splits of 51.3/51.7, but ran some 5m extra distance in a 1:43.0, so it was actually worth 1:42.4. And the last 200m, of 25.17, was more like a 24.9 had he run on the inside of lane 1 rather than wide of Koech.

Coe - Stuttgart 86 - actual splits of 52.8/51.7, but ran 11m extra distance (and c 8m of that on the 2nd lap) in a 1:44.5, so it was worth more like a 1:43.1/1:43.2. His last 200m was a 24.8, but he ran an extra 3m on last bend (on line with lane 2), so had he an inside run it was equivalent to a 24.4

Armstronglivs wrote:

So the "greatest" isn't really the greatest because it's slower than the "best".

Did you understand the point or not?

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.

I beg to differ! He most certainly is in the conversation. He was a trailblazer for the event and had the greatest margin of superiority over the next fastest athlete in history (1.71 secs) since Harbig in 1939. He was also the world record holder for longer than anyone else in history (18 years +) and is still the 3rd fastest man in history some 40 years after running 1:41 on an inferior track and with inferior spikes to what Rudisha was wearing earlier this decade.

The fact Coe only ran sub 1:43 twice would be relevant had he been competing in the same eras as Kipketer or Rudisha, but it isn't, because they never had the long series of top (Golden and Diamond League) meets where there was sub 50 secs pacing laid on each time back in the late 70's/early 80's. It was about winning and for UK athletes, it was about running a significant number of domestic races each season.

In any case, as of 1983, the average of Coe's best 5 performances (1:43.18) was still faster than any other athlete had run once. So it's all relative and has to be taken in the context of the period in which the athlete competed.

In the same way, Snell only ran under 1:46 twice and Ryun only ran sub 1:46 three times. They never seem to be denegraded for that.

Kicked at 100m to go wrote:

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.

No, Cruz had 3 attempts at the peak of the 84 season, his best year, with pacemakers taking him beyond 400m, and he didn't manage to break it, despite having Koskei breathing down his neck all the way in his fastest run in Cologne.

Konchellah was not a designated pacemaker in Coe's Florence run in early June 81. He was a young 400m runner attempting a move up to 800m. If he was a pacemaker he would have moved out of the way on the bend after the bell, but instead fought for the lead causing Coe to run half the bend wide, which cost him at least 0.2 secs.

The track in Florence was old, faded and pot marked, certainly not as fast as the newly laid, top of the range Mondo track used for the 2012 Olympics.

Jim Ryun's 880 world record seems worth mentioning (perhaps the fastest negative split in the 880?)

The splits were 26.2, 53.3, 1:19.4 and 1:44.9 (25.5 last 220 - equivalent to 25.3/25.4 200m?) according to The Jim Ryun Story (p203)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTPCspfwCI

Then I sincerely apologize for starting a post on a topic you had already genuinely and clearly bought up prior. My bad, the credit is yours.

Just thought it was a cool race. What's maybe cooler are the 4 races that he ran in that 12 day period which I believe to be all-round the best 800m running ever seen.

1.41.24 surviving a 48.3 first lap. I think this race is somewhat underrated and it's because of this fact. The only other elite guy that ever dared taking on that kind of pace was Amos - himself of course a sub 1.42 guy (even in that season when he ran 1.41.89) and he absolutely capitulated in the final 100m, ending up just scraping home under 1.43. So Kipketer running 1.41.24 off that suicidal pace is the ultimate example of speed endurance.

3 days later he then runs the 1.42.77 running 24.6 for the last 200m. Some people have given examples of sub 25 second closes in fast races but nobody closes either faster than 24.6 or runs a faster 800m time so me to me this is just the ultimate in terms of a world class time with a simply unbeatable kick.

6 days after this another sub 1.43 in Brussels. This time 1.42.21 off 50.6 and again he destroys the field in the one race that if anyone was going to be close, it was this one. But again no - it's his least astonishing performance of the 12 days and it's a time that still only 6 men in history have ever beaten.

Caps it off with another WR in the least exciting atmosphere of the period in an afternoon meet in Köln which almost seems like it was just an afterthought meet after he closed out winning his share of the 20 gold bars during the Golden League. 49.2 at the bell, 1.14.5 and closes out in 26.6 for the WR.

I want to add one more point looking at his 97 season. He ran 18 races. EIGHTEEN. Didn't lose a single race, broke 2 WR's indoors and 2 WR's outdoors (plus one WR equaling run) and won a world title which was also the last world champs where they still ran 4 rounds in the 800m. He ran 3 races under 1.42 and 8 under 1.43. The average time of his 18 races both indoors and out was 1.43.97 but this includes 3 prelims at the worlds and the European 2nd league 800m he ran for Denmark. The average of his top 10 times that incredible season - 1.42.48

I believe this is the single best season of 800m runner ever seen and I believe he is the best over 2 laps - marginally and I mean by the smallest of margins ahead of Rudisha. The only reason? Slightly more versatility in terms of how he could win races vs Rudisha who is the best front runner ever.

You can't be in the GOAT discussion without an Olympic title. A silver and bronze are very good - but can't beat 2 Golds. For that reason Rudisha is the more prestigious of the two and the greatest ever.

Wilson number uno wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So the "greatest" isn't really the greatest because it's slower than the "best".

Did you understand the point or not?

I understand when terms are used in a way that is contradictory. Speculating about who might be the faster at their peak doesn't require either term.

From what you describe, Kipketer's '97 season was an incredible feat. However it also occurred during a period when we know EPO was was prevalent in track, as there was then no test for it - and his feat was contemporaneous with other untouchable performances from the likes of Komen and El G. For that reason, unfortunately there will be a substantial asterisk over it for me, as with much of the standout performances of the late 80's through to the early 2000's. Pre-microdosing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wilson number uno wrote:

Did you understand the point or not?

I understand when terms are used in a way that is contradictory. Speculating about who might be the faster at their peak doesn't require either term.

Do you understand the distinction they want to make between "best" and "greatest"?

Wilson number uno wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I understand when terms are used in a way that is contradictory. Speculating about who might be the faster at their peak doesn't require either term.

Do you understand the distinction they want to make between "best" and "greatest"?

I understand that words can often be misused - even by those who thing they know what they are trying to say. As I said - to answer the question of who of Kipketer or Rudisha had the capacity of being the faster at their peak - which is a very specific question - doesn't require either term above, especially when used in a way that is patently contradictory. To use interchangeable terms like "greatest" and "best" is to invoke discussion of a career and a wide selection of criteria. That isn't the question being posed, which is narrow, specific, speculative and ultimately unprovable.

In the end, none of it really matters very much because it is all only opinion - as interesting as it may be.

Do you just understand the distinction they WANT to make ? Regardless the words they are using for it?

For them Mike Powell might be the "best" long jumper ever, since he has done one jump no one else could match, but Carl Lewis probably is the "greatest" for them.

Wilson number uno wrote:

Do you just understand the distinction they WANT to make ? Regardless the words they are using for it?

For them Mike Powell might be the "best" long jumper ever, since he has done one jump no one else could match, but Carl Lewis probably is the "greatest" for them.

I understand the distinction they "want" but have failed to make. I guess that's the part you are unable to grasp.

Once someone is said to be the "greatest" then they are therefore also the "best" - if English means anything. You cannot be the greatest - or the best - if someone is superior to you.

Kipketer is only superior to Rudisha if he ran faster than Rudisha. He didn't. But it can be fairly debated as to whether he was capable of that.

I wonder what times Coe would have ran in 81 if he had 18 paced 800m races in a Golden League circuit with quality opposition and some better tracks?

Number 33 wrote:

I wonder what times Coe would have ran in 81 if he had 18 paced 800m races in a Golden League circuit with quality opposition and some better tracks?

He would have attended 3 of them with times of 1:43.4 - 1:43.9 - 1:45.2

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wilson number uno wrote:

Do you just understand the distinction they WANT to make ? Regardless the words they are using for it?

For them Mike Powell might be the "best" long jumper ever, since he has done one jump no one else could match, but Carl Lewis probably is the "greatest" for them.

I understand the distinction they "want" but have failed to make. I guess that's the part you are unable to grasp.

Once someone is said to be the "greatest" then they are therefore also the "best" - if English means anything. You cannot be the greatest - or the best - if someone is superior to you.

Kipketer is only superior to Rudisha if he ran faster than Rudisha. He didn't. But it can be fairly debated as to whether he was capable of that.

There was no part I was unable to grasp.

Hi

I never said Kipketer was faster than Rudisha, just if you line the all time best up in a race, I think Kipketer would win, regardless of how the race was won. I suppose that means, as Salvatore suggested, I consider him the best. I'd pick him first if we were having a 4 x 800 race.

Best = highest possible ability/ceiling at the given sport, event.

Greatest = measure of the entire body of work in the event. Includes ability (see above), longevity, dominance, accolades, achievements.

Sometimes the best ever at an sport/event is the also the greatest. Best examples of that are Wayne Gretzky, Serena Williams.

Examples in sport where best and greatest maybe different:

- Tennis: Federer (greatest) vs Djokovic (best)

- Golf: Nicklaus (greatest) vs Woods (best)

- QB: Brady (greatest) vs Montana (best)

- 5000m: Bekele (greatest) vs Komen (best)

- 800m: you've read the opinion by now....

No need to apologise. You make some very salient points, many of which I agree with.

I still think Rudisha's front running 1:42.84 at 1700 feet with a 24.9 last 200m (also with negative splits - 51.6/51.2) is as impressive. And Coe's 3rd 200m of 24.8 after a previous 200m of 26.0 in a 1:42.33 is also pretty special.

I do agree with another poster however about the somewhat suspicious era in which Kipketer ran. I think his 48.3 split in his 1:41.24 800m WR was a bit of a give away.