Blah, blah, blah!
The only joke on these boards is you.
You say Aouita had "zero chance of winning a medal" in the 800 final in Seoul.
But he did win a bronze! So how could he have had zero chance?
He was ranked no 1 in world in 88 based on his races prior to the Olympics, so clearly he was one of the favourites.
You added 3 caveats to Aouita being in 1:42 flat form (which you have now brought down to 1:41 high! Lol) in Seoul: if not for rounds tiring him out, the injury and running wide. You then calculated a 1:42.8 based on the extra distance run on bends and only on that.
He did not run 4.8m wide in last bend. That would entail running the entire bend in the middle of lane 2. He was nowhere close to running that. It was 8.5-9.0m
His first lap was 50.8 not 50.5.
You claim Coe was in 1:42 high form in LA, slower than what you give as Aouita's potential in Seoul. How are you able to deduce such nonsense when Coe ran faster, ran further extra distance wide, and finished his race faster over last 200 and 100m?
Coe ran more even splits, whereas Aouita ran close to a 2 sec positive split, which you are always harping on about being the best option for fast times!
Coe ran 1:43.6 and ran at least 10m extra on bends, certainly more distance than Aouita. 103.64/810 x 800 = 1:42.36
He was in 1:42.3 form not 1:42 high. Your analysis is biased and your maths remedial.
And that is without any adjustment for it being 4th race in 4 days, which you would always claim would tire athletes. I personally think it would be negligible, but if YOU are going to adjust half a second or whatever figure you choose to use this week for 1 athlete, then you have to apply same for all others.
The1:42.3 for Coe also doesn't take into account the 2 clashes of elbows on the home straight with Jones.
The 36.14 last 300m for Aouita in a 3:34 is not corroborated with any video evidence. I have seen several races from Italy and France, where they have stopped the clock in the wrong position for split times, sometimes to the extent of improving last 300m split times by over a second. Considering that you were convinced the Marsaille 1500 the other year started from the correct line, and was proved wrong, then I can imagine you'd have difficulty finding a 300 split time anyway.
I repeat, Aouita never ran a 46.8 relay leg as you claim. Go fetch a link or even offer a date and venue! Otherwise, it didn't happen, so stop making things up.
I never said Coe had an injury in LA. Learn to read and comprehend English.
It never came into my calculations, but it has no baring on the extra distance run, which is what you were basing Aouita's 1:44.06 being worth 1:42.8.
Coe was known to be carrying a foot injury in Zurich 84, as he had outlined in a Times interview the day before. He had said that there was a strong chance the race in Zurich would put further stress on it and could cause him to end his season. It was heavily strapped for the race and it was aggravated by the race, forcing him to end his season early.
I stand by the comment that you cannot equate the amount or size of strapping to a specific time. Aouita did not 'run and n 1 leg' as you claim. By the semi and final he had both legs strapped, so surely that means he was running legless, according to your way of thinking!?
Coe ran with a pelvic tilt and one leg longer than the other In Moscow 80. You can't see that! How is that any worse or better than running with a strapped leg? These things cannot be measured in time.