Nice reasoning trackhead, but to come back to Martin's point: on the strength of Coe's best times for 800m, 1500m and the mile (and his championship record) he deduces that modern runners have a lot to learn from the 'short mileage school'.
flamboyant - Martin didn't say that at all. What he said was that Coe's training worked for Coe. Martin also said that Coe would still be able to reach the finals of the 800m and 1500m at modern Championships. You disagreed with this and also stated that the quaifying at modern major games is harder than 20 years ago. That statistics do not bear this out. One easy example is at the 84 OG there were four rounds in the 800m while in the 2000 OG there were only three rounds in the 800m. The 800m at LA was quicker than at Sydney while the 1500m was only marginally slower. It is clear to 99% of those with any knowledge of the sport that the Coe of 84 would be extremely competitive in the modern era.
If you want to argue that EIG is a better 1500m runner than Coe, then you can make a pretty good case. In fact, I would agree with you. If you want to measure on just that distance, I'd give EIG the edge over Coe, despite EIG's lack of Olympic gold. However, IMHO Coe is the best middle distance (800/1500) runner of all time. (and Geb is the best long distance runner of all time.)
And back to your original point. It is is surely obvious by now that we can all agree Coe may or may not have done more or less than 60mpw.