Harry Wilson believed that Steve Ovett could run 1:40 800m.

100 seconds Steve Project wrote:

8zihb wrote:

I

And, no, he could not have run a high 1:41 time. He is currently the 186th fastest ever. A 1:41 high is within the top 10. In 1978 or 1980 he maybe could have run slightly unter 1:44.00. With full concentration on the event, maybe a few tenths faster. He just was not close to Coe in the event.

Nothing you wrote there makes much sense.

In prague he did run 1:44.09 despite having to check his momentum twice (his own fault), and in his 3rd race in 3 days, and being taken round in a suicidaly fast first lap by Coe. He could clearly have run at least 3/10ths faster in a perfectly paced race with some rest before.

He beat Coe every time he raced him over 800m, being the underdog each time.

The fact that his pb was only 1:44.09 is irrelevant, or that it is 'only' the 186th best time. The Prague European Championships was the only time after Montreal (other than LA when he was very ill) he was in a fast 800m race, and it was far from 'ideal'. If he tried to shadow Coe in Oslo 79 or Florence 81, there is no way he would finish with only 1:43.9.

Can you point to any other 1:44 runner doing anything like Steve's second lap in Moscow 1980?

John Wesley Harding wrote:

1955 wrote:

I seriously doubt that Ovett could have ever run 1:40, but I have to remind people that early on he was pretty good in the 400m and even could run a pretty quick 200m. Had he focused on 800m, he might have given Coe's 1:41 a serious threat.

Still, though, given his XC and road abilities, I wish it would have been more lucrative for him to focus on the track 5k. We might have seen a sub 13:00 much sooner.

As great as his range was, and as great as he was at 1500, it likely has to be one or the other (either he could make a run at Coe’s 800 mark, or he could make a run at 13:00). We’ve seen guys with great range who could run 1:43 and elite 5k times, but never a 1:41/sub-13 guy, not even close.

At his best, he probably could have run 1:43.x and sub-13:10 in the same year. He may have had 1:42.9 and 12:59 potential, but (for his era, anyway) that’s becoming quite speculative and it would have had to have been one or the other—he couldn’t train for both.

100 seconds Steve Project wrote:

8zihb wrote:

I

And, no, he could not have run a high 1:41 time. He is currently the 186th fastest ever. A 1:41 high is within the top 10. In 1978 or 1980 he maybe could have run slightly unter 1:44.00. With full concentration on the event, maybe a few tenths faster. He just was not close to Coe in the event.

Nothing you wrote there makes much sense.

In prague he did run 1:44.09 despite having to check his momentum twice (his own fault), and in his 3rd race in 3 days, and being taken round in a suicidaly fast first lap by Coe. He could clearly have run at least 3/10ths faster in a perfectly paced race with some rest before.

He beat Coe every time he raced him over 800m, being the underdog each time.

The fact that his pb was only 1:44.09 is irrelevant, or that it is 'only' the 186th best time. The Prague European Championships was the only time after Montreal (other than LA when he was very ill) he was in a fast 800m race, and it was far from 'ideal'. If he tried to shadow Coe in Oslo 79 or Florence 81, there is no way he would finish with only 1:43.9.

Can you point to any other 1:44 runner doing anything like Steve's second lap in Moscow 1980?

childinthe80s wrote:

100 seconds Steve Project wrote:

Nothing you wrote there makes much sense.

In prague he did run 1:44.09 despite having to check his momentum twice (his own fault), and in his 3rd race in 3 days, and being taken round in a suicidaly fast first lap by Coe. He could clearly have run at least 3/10ths faster in a perfectly paced race with some rest before.

He beat Coe every time he raced him over 800m, being the underdog each time.

The fact that his pb was only 1:44.09 is irrelevant, or that it is 'only' the 186th best time. The Prague European Championships was the only time after Montreal (other than LA when he was very ill) he was in a fast 800m race, and it was far from 'ideal'. If he tried to shadow Coe in Oslo 79 or Florence 81, there is no way he would finish with only 1:43.9.

Can you point to any other 1:44 runner doing anything like Steve's second lap in Moscow 1980?

LA '84?

Whatever Boomer wrote:

John Wesley Harding wrote:

As great as his range was, and as great as he was at 1500, it likely has to be one or the other (either he could make a run at Coe’s 800 mark, or he could make a run at 13:00). We’ve seen guys with great range who could run 1:43 and elite 5k times, but never a 1:41/sub-13 guy, not even close.

At his best, he probably could have run 1:43.x and sub-13:10 in the same year. He may have had 1:42.9 and 12:59 potential, but (for his era, anyway) that’s becoming quite speculative and it would have had to have been one or the other—he couldn’t train for both.

This may not be popular but I feel Ovett's performance in Los Angeles was the finest of his career. Clearly sick as a dog and still makes two finals.

What you do when under the weather is far more telling of your running ability than when you are fit & feisty.

How say u?

8zihb wrote:

100 seconds Steve Project wrote:

Nothing you wrote there makes much sense.

In prague he did run 1:44.09 despite having to check his momentum twice (his own fault), and in his 3rd race in 3 days, and being taken round in a suicidaly fast first lap by Coe. He could clearly have run at least 3/10ths faster in a perfectly paced race with some rest before.

He beat Coe every time he raced him over 800m, being the underdog each time.

The fact that his pb was only 1:44.09 is irrelevant, or that it is 'only' the 186th best time. The Prague European Championships was the only time after Montreal (other than LA when he was very ill) he was in a fast 800m race, and it was far from 'ideal'. If he tried to shadow Coe in Oslo 79 or Florence 81, there is no way he would finish with only 1:43.9.

Can you point to any other 1:44 runner doing anything like Steve's second lap in Moscow 1980?

50 seconds at the bell in Prague was close to perfect, maybe 3-5 tenths too fast. He was pace almost the ehole race. 1:44.09 was what he could do. Maybe 2 to 3 tenths faster in a "perfect" race, so we almost agree here.

'only' the 1986th best time? So you actually agree that's where he should be placed?

He never "was" in a fast race? So in the races he contested it was not allowed to run fast? When someone has run reasonable fast, he was beaten (exception Moscow 80).

Maybe no other runner of 1:44.0 calibre was capable of such a last lap, I don't know. To conclude so much faster times for Ovett like you do, is nonsense.