It was about as big of a fluke as you get in this sport though. He was good but not that good. Nobody thought he was the best then. They don’t now for sure. If it was Alan Webb I would argue you were onto something. Maybe centro moves up and surprises me. Right now he’s losing to Australian teenagers though.
If it's Centro and Steve Ovett neck in neck in the last 100m, then, yes, the smart money is on Centro.
Steve Ovett was an Olympic 800m champion. He had more speed than Centro, while also being a world record holder over the 1500 and the mile. So the smart money is on Ovett.
How about running a lot faster than 3.50 - and winning the gold - as every 1500 champion has done since 1932?
That’s a ridiculous analysis of his win. It would have taken at least a 3:30 guy to out kick him in that race.
You should just accept reality. He won a gold medal and you didn’t.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
That’s a ridiculous analysis of his win. It would have taken at least a 3:30 guy to out kick him in that race.
You should just accept reality. He won a gold medal and you didn’t.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
He beat the best in the world. I consider it to be the most brilliant 1500m Gold Medal in my lifetime. It was a loaded field and he won. There were guys in position to pass him but they couldn’t.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
He beat the best in the world. I consider it to be the most brilliant 1500m Gold Medal in my lifetime. It was a loaded field and he won. There were guys in position to pass him but they couldn’t.
He beat the best in the world. I consider it to be the most brilliant 1500m Gold Medal in my lifetime. It was a loaded field and he won. There were guys in position to pass him but they couldn’t.
If it's Centro and Steve Ovett neck in neck in the last 100m, then, yes, the smart money is on Centro.
Steve Ovett was an Olympic 800m champion. He had more speed than Centro, while also being a world record holder over the 1500 and the mile. So the smart money is on Ovett.
I should have learned not to attempt a joke on this forum long ago. The joke is that Ovett is 68 years old, and while Centro is, what, 34, he might as well be 68 come Paris. It's actually interesting how close their PRs are: Ovett 1:44.09/Centro 1:44.62; 3:30.77/3:30.40; 3:48.40/3:49.26.
Steve Ovett was an Olympic 800m champion. He had more speed than Centro, while also being a world record holder over the 1500 and the mile. So the smart money is on Ovett.
I should have learned not to attempt a joke on this forum long ago. The joke is that Ovett is 68 years old, and while Centro is, what, 34, he might as well be 68 come Paris. It's actually interesting how close their PRs are: Ovett 1:44.09/Centro 1:44.62; 3:30.77/3:30.40; 3:48.40/3:49.26.
Ovett had some serious wheels and could have run 1:42.
That’s a ridiculous analysis of his win. It would have taken at least a 3:30 guy to out kick him in that race.
You should just accept reality. He won a gold medal and you didn’t.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
is reading comprehension a skill that eludes you for some reason? The entire argument started over someone saying Centro's win wasn't one of the best AMERICAN mile/1500 performances ever. So you go on in post after post about how the other olympic wins (NONE by an american) were more impressive than Centro's, because they were faster. either pipe up with some american examples or stfu bozo
Steve Ovett was an Olympic 800m champion. He had more speed than Centro, while also being a world record holder over the 1500 and the mile. So the smart money is on Ovett.
I should have learned not to attempt a joke on this forum long ago. The joke is that Ovett is 68 years old, and while Centro is, what, 34, he might as well be 68 come Paris. It's actually interesting how close their PRs are: Ovett 1:44.09/Centro 1:44.62; 3:30.77/3:30.40; 3:48.40/3:49.26.
When over 40 years separate them that shows how much better Ovett was.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
is reading comprehension a skill that eludes you for some reason? The entire argument started over someone saying Centro's win wasn't one of the best AMERICAN mile/1500 performances ever. So you go on in post after post about how the other olympic wins (NONE by an american) were more impressive than Centro's, because they were faster. either pipe up with some american examples or stfu bozo
Reading comprehension appears to be your difficulty. I had earlier said there were better American performances than Centro's, and gave examples. But I realise I am responding to a post by a child.
The point was made, could he do better than a gold medal? It wasn't whether anyone could beat him (and quite a few today could). The question is easily answered: what is better than a gold medal won in the slowest championship final since 1932 is a gold medal achieved in a much faster race. If he had won in over 4 minutes would you and your like say "so what, he won" when there are winners who set world records or at least run a race worthy of the distance and not a 400m scramble? Frankly, it was the lamest 1500 final in my lifetime.
He beat the best in the world. I consider it to be the most brilliant 1500m Gold Medal in my lifetime. It was a loaded field and he won. There were guys in position to pass him but they couldn’t.
You either haven't been alive very long or your standards aren't very high.
is reading comprehension a skill that eludes you for some reason? The entire argument started over someone saying Centro's win wasn't one of the best AMERICAN mile/1500 performances ever. So you go on in post after post about how the other olympic wins (NONE by an american) were more impressive than Centro's, because they were faster. either pipe up with some american examples or stfu bozo
Reading comprehension appears to be your difficulty. I had earlier said there were better American performances than Centro's, and gave examples. But I realise I am responding to a post by a child.
ah sorry i didn't scroll through each of your 50 posts in this thread, my mistake.
I should have learned not to attempt a joke on this forum long ago. The joke is that Ovett is 68 years old, and while Centro is, what, 34, he might as well be 68 come Paris. It's actually interesting how close their PRs are: Ovett 1:44.09/Centro 1:44.62; 3:30.77/3:30.40; 3:48.40/3:49.26.
When over 40 years separate them that shows how much better Ovett was.
Or likely how much more drugged up he was. Armstrong missed the joke because he has no humor. He hasn’t been laid in like 50 years.