Coe's 3:29.77 on Youtube, finally!

Deano, many thanks!

Does this mean that your life is now complete and that you can die a happy man?

P.S. I feel a bit like Ahab myself. Now what do I do?

doped.

W. Mitty wrote:

Deano, many thanks!

Does this mean that your life is now complete and that you can die a happy man?

Lol. No, there are still a few races I've not seen that I want to. Another one to tick off the list though.

Cheers.

That is the most appalling performance by a "pacer" I've ever seen. I wonder if Aouita paid off Cheshire for that.

main consideration is lack of drafting for about a lap - ~3/4 lap upto 800 & from 1000 - 1100m

that gets him 3'28.7

the swerving around cheshire after the bell is trivial - barely a tenth if you do the maths of arc length

if he says cheshire slowed him upto the bell, fair enough, but it woud re-offer him some drafting - maybe a tenth to compensate his claimed 0.3s lost

other thing is uneven pace

54.0/58.0/42.5/13.6/41.6 ->

400*(400/54.0)^3 = 162577u

400*(400/58.0)^3 = 131207u

300*(300/42.5)^3 = 105516u

100*(100/13.6)^3 = 39755u

300*(300/41.6)^3 = 112514u

= 551569u

-> speed of (551569/1500)^1/3 = 7.1642m/s ->

3'29.37

or loss of ~ 0.40 for uneven pacing

overall :

3'29.77 - 1.0 + 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.4 =

3'28.17

Think of this sequence:

1980- Coe wins Olympic 1500m

1984- Coe wins Olympic 1500m

1988- Peter Rono wins Olympic 1500m, injured Coe doesn't make team

1989- Coe runs lifetime best at 1500m

Obviously capable of three 1500m Olympic Golds

Your assumptions about the effects of drafting and even pacing are incorrect.

Was the pacer James Mays of Texas Tech with the Tech covered by the bib, or a Texas runner?

you are smokin poor shitcoe ran no

1989- Coe runs lifetime best at 1500m

the '88 race had far too many "if what ?" to be re-imagined

in the end, rono looked to be in 3'31 shape that day which is pretty good & worthy of at least a bronze with all the "if what"

dsrunner has the day off wrote:Your assumptions about the effects of drafting and even pacing are incorrect.

your moniker & lack of researching archives obviously indicates the "monkey" is posting on behalf of your seemingly, permanently lackadaisically bereftly absent "organ grinder" on a substantially dismal & incarcareable capacity

ventolin^3 wrote:

main consideration is lack of drafting for about a lap - ~3/4 lap upto 800 & from 1000 - 1100m

that gets him 3'28.7

the swerving around cheshire after the bell is trivial - barely a tenth if you do the maths of arc length

if he says cheshire slowed him upto the bell, fair enough, but it woud re-offer him some drafting - maybe a tenth to compensate his claimed 0.3s lost

other thing is uneven pace

54.0/58.0/42.5/13.6/41.6 ->

400*(400/54.0)^3 = 162577u

400*(400/58.0)^3 = 131207u

300*(300/42.5)^3 = 105516u

100*(100/13.6)^3 = 39755u

300*(300/41.6)^3 = 112514u

= 551569u

-> speed of (551569/1500)^1/3 = 7.1642m/s ->

3'29.37

or loss of ~ 0.40 for uneven pacing

overall :

3'29.77 - 1.0 + 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.4 =

3'28.17

Check your numbers again...I have it as a 3:28.18.

ventolin^3 wrote:

your moniker & lack of researching archives obviously indicates the "monkey" is posting on behalf of your seemingly, permanently lackadaisically bereftly absent "organ grinder" on a substantially dismal & incarcareable capacity

I don't know, dude, you're the one busting out the calc formulas trying to make it seem as though Coe ran faster than he did. It's simple, really. He ran 3:29.77.

When someone asks about pr's, you're the kind of guy who always answers something like, "Well, I technically ran 4:15, but I SHOULD have run 4:13, so that's REALLY my pr."

Lame. Put the formulas away and enjoy the performance for what it was.

he didn't get a lot of drafting in that race and the pace was ridiculously fast early, so 3:28's reasonable. I had forgotten that he ran his pr at this distance as late as 1986. Real shame that his health was poor so often after 1981.

kid

i saw that run live on satellite 24y ago

Seb Coe has lego hair.

ventolin^3 wrote:

kid

i saw that run live on satellite 24y ago

Congrats. Am I supposed to genuflect now?

Who cares. I was offering some feedback on your need to apply a 3:29.18 "rating" - as if that's what the effort was worth, given various hindrances - to a performance that was actually only 3:29.77.

Doing that is just ridiculous, regardless of you watching it on satellite, which has no bearing here.

Absolute drivel.

ventolin^3 wrote:

kid

i saw that run live on satellite 24y ago

ventolin^3 wrote:

main consideration is lack of drafting for about a lap - ~3/4 lap upto 800 & from 1000 - 1100m

that gets him 3'28.7

the swerving around cheshire after the bell is trivial - barely a tenth if you do the maths of arc length

if he says cheshire slowed him upto the bell, fair enough, but it woud re-offer him some drafting - maybe a tenth to compensate his claimed 0.3s lost

other thing is uneven pace

54.0/58.0/42.5/13.6/41.6 ->

400*(400/54.0)^3 = 162577u

400*(400/58.0)^3 = 131207u

300*(300/42.5)^3 = 105516u

100*(100/13.6)^3 = 39755u

300*(300/41.6)^3 = 112514u

= 551569u

-> speed of (551569/1500)^1/3 = 7.1642m/s ->

3'29.37

or loss of ~ 0.40 for uneven pacing

overall :

3'29.77 - 1.0 + 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.4 =

3'28.17

Thanks for that Ventolin, saves me the job.

I think he could certainly have run 3:28 something that day with better pacing and without the incident at the bell.

I don't think some people appreciate what a difference a second can make either way with the pace on the first 2 laps. If the first lap is 54.0 and the second 58.0, that's a 4 second differential, which has a large effect on distribution of effort. I think this differential in the first 2 laps is the most important, though I'm sure it has an effect at whatever point it happens in a race!?

Of course there are those that can argue it was what it was, 3:29.7, but it's quite clear that with more favourable pacing he would have been faster and broken the WR.