Deanouk wrote:
said88 wrote:Deano, you are almost on a par with your letsrun friend^3, going even so far as to change facts to the complete contrary (see the TAFN board) to support your point, that Coe is the best ever in any part of middle distance running in history. I can't understand this.
I have no idea what you are referring to!???
Really?
http://trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/showthread.php?138451-m1500-Rank-this-could-be-a-first/page8&highlight=aouitasaid88 wrote:
Deanouk wrote:I have no idea what you are referring to!???
Really?
http://trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/showthread.php?138451-m1500-Rank-this-could-be-a-first/page8&highlight=aouita
Really!??
That was 18 months ago! Are you still dwelling on a disagreement from that far back?
I can see exactly why Aouita was ranked number 1, because he ran in more races on the circuit and was unbeaten. I just don't agree with their ranking system at times. I think the Olympic title is most important in deciding the World number 1 for a season and the next 'loaded' race (in the 1500m) was Zurich, which Coe also won. There was quite a bit made of the decision in AW at the time, so it's not like I'm alone in thinking this. BUT, T&FN have their own set of criteria and it is based on merit over the entire season, so with that in mind then Aouita has a stronger claim.
I'm voicing my opinion Said. I am not stating it as a fact! The fact is Aouita was ranked number 1 in 1984 and Coe won the Olympic title.
I certainly don't feel that I "change facts to the complete contrary" on that link you gave.
I've just checked it again and double checked alongside the list of races I have on Aouita. I wrote that he had 8 races over 1500/Mile that year and you pointed out that it was 9. Well I didn't include his indoor 1500 in Feb, as I don't believe indoor performances were taken into consideration in those days for ranking purposes outdoors! If that is not the case then please correct me.
I should have checked the location of his races more thoroughly before posting, as although he ran a lot of races in Italy in the early part of his season, only 2 over 1500m were actually in Italy. So that was misleading and a mistake on my part. I apologise for that. And he did indeed beat everyone else in the world bar Coe that year, although I never said otherwise.
I had completely forgotten about this particular thread on T&FN, and the fact that I didn't continue to "debate" it with you at the time, should tell you that I obviously took on board your comments and realised I was not totally accurate.
As a side issue, when I checked your splits for Aouita in your list of races for his Zurich Mile win that year ('84), I noticed you have his last 400 as 53.3 and last 300 as 39.3. Now I don't have this race on dvd, although it's one I would like to have, but I seem to remember at the time that his closing splits were a little disappointing for him and not as fast as you have posted! His last 300m of that mile was given as 41.8 in Athletics Weekly at the time, so perhaps you could double check that one please?
Regards,
Dean
Deanouk wrote:
I certainly don't feel that I "change facts to the complete contrary" on that link you gave.
You definitely have done this.
You want to compare two athletes on a specific distance in a specific year: Coe and Aouita in '84 over 1500m/Mile.
Sebastian Coe mainly has run in absolutely low key races in his home country (and not even won all of them), Said Aouita has ran mainly big international races all over Europe (and won the biggest title available to him outside the Olympics) spanning from June to September (and won all of them). (Not very important if we consider his indoor race or not - I for sure consider it, since it was over a distance of 1500m, can't see any reason not to do so. But since it was not a very important win, it will not change anything)
Your comment to these facts: Aouita has mainly run low key races in Italy. No comment to Coe at all. That's changing the facts to the contrary. In fact, you couldn't change the facts more extremely.
Also stating as an fact that Aouita choose not to race against Coe in LA and in Zürich is not very bright. You want it in this way and have stated this several times now. Like an fact. An German article (or sports illustrated or...) which I link if I find it states the contrary. Which sounds much more plausible to me. But we don't know what has happened and than we should not write this as facts. But you have done this several times now.
And we had not an discussion 18 months back about this. I just found it much later and really was astonished how far your Coe bias has grown.
I can try to look for Aouita's Mile splits from Zürich '84, but not at the moment.
said88 wrote:
For the 800m you have Maria Mutola with this wonderful longevity (how many times has she won the Weltklasse Zürich meeting in a row? 10? Or even 11? But others - like Pamela Chelimo - have run faster.
She actually has won 12 times in Zürich!!
Blimey, you really have got a bee in your bonnet.
I looked at the last post of yours and the date read 12-02-2013 01:33 PM
That to me means 12th February 2013, which is indeed 18 months ago.
Now you have responded again I can see what has happened. We write the date in the UK with the day first, then month, then year (dd/mm/yy), meaning I would write today's date as 21.8.14.
Well T&FN is an American website and they write the month first then the day, so 12-02-13 is the 2nd of December 2013. My mistake, and I apologise for making such a catastrophic error!
And I still take issue with you stating that I, "change facts to the complete contrary". In english this means to lie. If I said that Aouita had been beaten over 1500 in 84, that would be 'changing facts to the complete contrary'.
I posted a comment on T&FN about 20 mins ago apologising that I was wrong about 'most of his races were in Italy' and have also said that they were not all low key. Perhaps you should read that first before continuing to accuse me of things.
It remains a fact however, that for whatever reason, Aouita chose not to run the 1500m in LA. Again, that is not changing facts to the contrary. There are conflicting accounts about Zurich which I can't be bothered to regurgitate again.
I have apologised several times now, but you seem to want a pound of flesh!
Deanouk wrote:
Blimey, you really have got a bee in your bonnet.
I looked at the last post of yours and the date read 12-02-2013 01:33 PM
That to me means 12th February 2013, which is indeed 18 months ago.
Now you have responded again I can see what has happened. We write the date in the UK with the day first, then month, then year (dd/mm/yy), meaning I would write today's date as 21.8.14.
Well T&FN is an American website and they write the month first then the day, so 12-02-13 is the 2nd of December 2013. My mistake, and I apologise for making such a catastrophic error!
Oh my god, what are you talking about at all?
My point only was that we didn't had a discussion about the subject in the TAFN board (nothing about the 18 months at all, maybe my mistake). You had a disussion with others, not with me. I came much later and made an comment to the totally wrong things which you have written. Maybe my comment here today with the 18 months was misleading. And for sure have you changed the facts totally on this issue. Only this was my point here.
I and several others now have tried to show you how biased you are when Sebastian Coe is in the discussion. With no impact.
I don't want a fight at all. But this is an discussion board. And when I see someone is changing the facts so rigorously on a subject I'm very much interested in, then I give a comment. That's the sense of a discussion board.
There is no need to apologies for anything (you didn't have attacked me in any way like many others here have done often).
said88 wrote:
GoldenMiles wrote:Who's your picks for the other women's distance events?
I would say it's also just not possible to make a ultimate choice, in any distance event.
For the 800m you have Maria Mutola with this wonderful longevity (how many times has she won the Weltklasse Zürich meeting in a row? 10? Or even 11? But others - like Pamela Chelimo - have run faster.
For the 1500m I would opt firstly for Tatyana Kazankina. But there was this doping issue in Paris 1984. And Yunxia Qu has run significantly faster. Again, how should we handle this?
In the 3k, we have the best single mark in womens distance running history: 8:06,11. This mark is so far ahead of everything all the "western" runners could do, that any choice for someone else would sound stupid. But what else has wang on her side?
In the 5k there are Tirunesh Dibaba and Meseret Defar. I'm a little bit of a Defar fan - but this should not be the argument... Have not checked both of there careers to detailed that I could decide. At least they are very close.
Similar situation than in some other events also in the Marathon. Wonderful single mark by Paula Radcliffe, but others have better championship record.
I really can't give any claim for GOAT in the womens distace events.
Great analysis. I actually picked Kazankina for the 1500M, because she was the first woman under 4 minutes, lowered the WR by something like 9 seconds, won many championship medals, and has a time comparable to the fastest Chinese women.
Agreed that it's hard to argue with Wang's and Radcliffe's WRs. They got my vote purely for the times.
I think Defar has won a few more 5,000 medals/golds than Dibaba (although Dibaba is superior at the 10). Defar is a good pick, but doesn't have the WR (but is so close it's almost negligible).
Women's 800 I know less about. For what it's worth, I picked Mutola as my 1K GOAT, mostly as a consolation prize for not being picked 800 GOAT. I do agree there are few women's events (outside of pole vault) where you can pick a GOAT in the vein of MJ, Bolt, El Guerrouj, or Edwin Moses.
said88 wrote:
said88 wrote:For the 800m you have Maria Mutola with this wonderful longevity (how many times has she won the Weltklasse Zürich meeting in a row? 10? Or even 11? But others - like Pamela Chelimo - have run faster.
She actually has won 12 times in Zürich!!
She also won something like 7 World Indoor golds in the 800, which I have to assume is a record!
You guys shouldn't fight, I know we all get passionate when it comes to track history. You both have contributed a ton to this thread, which i really appreciate.
Let's all get along!
Thanks GoldenMiles!
It's really nice to see such an respectful person on this board - unfortunately an absolute rarity.
said88 wrote:
Deanouk wrote:I certainly don't feel that I "change facts to the complete contrary" on that link you gave.
You definitely have done this.
You want to compare two athletes on a specific distance in a specific year: Coe and Aouita in '84 over 1500m/Mile.
Sebastian Coe mainly has run in absolutely low key races in his home country (and not even won all of them), Said Aouita has ran mainly big international races all over Europe (and won the biggest title available to him outside the Olympics) spanning from June to September (and won all of them). (Not very important if we consider his indoor race or not - I for sure consider it, since it was over a distance of 1500m, can't see any reason not to do so. But since it was not a very important win, it will not change anything)
Your comment to these facts: Aouita has mainly run low key races in Italy. No comment to Coe at all. That's changing the facts to the contrary. In fact, you couldn't change the facts more extremely.
Also stating as an fact that Aouita choose not to race against Coe in LA and in Zürich is not very bright. You want it in this way and have stated this several times now. Like an fact. An German article (or sports illustrated or...) which I link if I find it states the contrary. Which sounds much more plausible to me. But we don't know what has happened and than we should not write this as facts. But you have done this several times now.
And we had not an discussion 18 months back about this. I just found it much later and really was astonished how far your Coe bias has grown.
I can try to look for Aouita's Mile splits from Zürich '84, but not at the moment.
Aouita was very vocal about being not allowed to race Coe in Zurich in 1984. Coe definitely was the first track star that started the trend of avoiding competition after his WR in the mile in 1979.
Unless he was forced to for the Olympic Games.
All his races were set up time trials after his first mile WR.
But as a double Gold winner that only validates him as not only a time trialer but also a competitor, but it would not be so if he didn't win in LA. Despite all his world records that race nailed it and shut down any questions that he is in the conversation even today as one of the best ever and always will be.
Before 1979 Ovett was the man. surpassing John Walker who had many injuries, and raced everyone on the circuit as the top miler. Coe was never a runner like that. One that raced everybody, every meet, and beat them.
The big appearance money came into track in Europe around 1981. Thanks to Coe, Ovett, and Carl Lewis. Before that there was no incentive to duck anyone. People weren't worried about 40k appearance fees that they might risk from losing a race.
World records alone can't define a runner as being the all time best.
As has been mentioned concerning the 10,000 meters, the World Record holders since 1973 include Dave Bedford, Fernando Mamede, Arturo Barrios, and Yobes Ondieki.
Only Ondieki after being the first runner to break 27:00 and win a World Championship title might have at the time been thought of as "the greatest ever" briefly.
Ventolin argues that Ngeny has the 1st and 3rd fastest times ever for the 1000m and Coe has the 2nd and 5th, therefore Ngeny has to be better then Coe.
"since when did 2nd/5th outweigh 1st/3rd ???"
"rubbish
1st/3rd is far superior to 2nd/5th"
ISBN wrote:Re 1000m. A rarely run event so the Goat for this event is likely not discussed often, but I would suggest Coe has a better claim than Ngeny.
"utter drivel
noah even prima facia has 1st/3rd all-time, coe 2nd/5th"
Yet it's funny when one tries to make the same argument about El Guerrouj having the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and Jim Ryun not even between the top #800 (!!!) and he says it's 'nonsense'.
rfmaioral wrote:
Ventolin argues that Ngeny has the 1st and 3rd fastest times ever for the 1000m and Coe has the 2nd and 5th, therefore Ngeny has to be better then Coe.
No, you're misrepresenting his argument.
That is not why he says Ngeny is better than Coe.
Someone else said that because Coe had 2 times in the top 6, plus broke the world record twice, that Coe was the GOAT at 1000m.
Ventolin was simply pointing out that Ngeny has the 1st & 3rd fastest times at the distance, which was superior to Coe's 2nd & 5th.
That is not an: "If A then B, A, therefore B" ultimate argument determining GOAT status. He was simply responding to a point someone else raised. And he was correct.
rfmaioral wrote:
Yet it's funny when one tries to make the same argument about El Guerrouj having the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and Jim Ryun not even between the top #800 (!!!) and he says it's 'nonsense'.
It is nonsense because it is comparing marks run under completely different circumstances.
The Coe & Ngeny comparison is fair because they both ran the distance at their peak, during which, they ran on the same type of surface, and had rabbits.
The same cannot be said about El Guerrouj's marks and Jim Ryun's marks.
said88 wrote:
Thanks GoldenMiles!
It's really nice to see such an respectful person on this board - unfortunately an absolute rarity.
You're welcome, and unfortunately I agree. It gets to me sometimes.
George Atlas wrote:
said88 wrote:You definitely have done this.
You want to compare two athletes on a specific distance in a specific year: Coe and Aouita in '84 over 1500m/Mile.
Sebastian Coe mainly has run in absolutely low key races in his home country (and not even won all of them), Said Aouita has ran mainly big international races all over Europe (and won the biggest title available to him outside the Olympics) spanning from June to September (and won all of them). (Not very important if we consider his indoor race or not - I for sure consider it, since it was over a distance of 1500m, can't see any reason not to do so. But since it was not a very important win, it will not change anything)
Your comment to these facts: Aouita has mainly run low key races in Italy. No comment to Coe at all. That's changing the facts to the contrary. In fact, you couldn't change the facts more extremely.
Also stating as an fact that Aouita choose not to race against Coe in LA and in Zürich is not very bright. You want it in this way and have stated this several times now. Like an fact. An German article (or sports illustrated or...) which I link if I find it states the contrary. Which sounds much more plausible to me. But we don't know what has happened and than we should not write this as facts. But you have done this several times now.
And we had not an discussion 18 months back about this. I just found it much later and really was astonished how far your Coe bias has grown.
I can try to look for Aouita's Mile splits from Zürich '84, but not at the moment.
Aouita was very vocal about being not allowed to race Coe in Zurich in 1984. Coe definitely was the first track star that started the trend of avoiding competition after his WR in the mile in 1979.
Unless he was forced to for the Olympic Games.
All his races were set up time trials after his first mile WR.
But as a double Gold winner that only validates him as not only a time trialer but also a competitor, but it would not be so if he didn't win in LA. Despite all his world records that race nailed it and shut down any questions that he is in the conversation even today as one of the best ever and always will be.
Before 1979 Ovett was the man. surpassing John Walker who had many injuries, and raced everyone on the circuit as the top miler. Coe was never a runner like that. One that raced everybody, every meet, and beat them.
The big appearance money came into track in Europe around 1981. Thanks to Coe, Ovett, and Carl Lewis. Before that there was no incentive to duck anyone. People weren't worried about 40k appearance fees that they might risk from losing a race.
World records alone can't define a runner as being the all time best.
As has been mentioned concerning the 10,000 meters, the World Record holders since 1973 include Dave Bedford, Fernando Mamede, Arturo Barrios, and Yobes Ondieki.
Only Ondieki after being the first runner to break 27:00 and win a World Championship title might have at the time been thought of as "the greatest ever" briefly.
Thanks for the info. I always love learning new things about the legends of the sport.
Deanouk wrote:Another 'stuck record' post. I.e, same drivel regurgitated
more rubbish
Ngeny never ran 7m extra. 2.5m at most, agreed upon by everyone on a recent thread about extra distance run, apart from you living in your little fantasy bubble
drivel
no one apart from me offered any detailed calculation
anyone who says 2.5m is a fool
any guy who starts in outer lane 4 & doesn’t actually get into just inside lane 1 until 13s & near end of bend has run helluva lot more 2.5m
i estimated 8+ but reduced this by ~ 1.25m for waterfall start, which yields
~ 7m
Ngeny had planned an attack on the 1000m WR for weeks. It was known in advance. Surely someone (even a deluded someone) who watched '90% of all elite 800....since 1970....crap" would have known that!
rubbish
clearly you have no clue about the era, as with all others
there was no plan to attack the wr after his 2'12.6
as I have told you fool, if he had serious intentions on the 1k, he wouda asked the meet promoter to swap the meaningless 2k in Stockholm to a 1k
you must be a real idiot to think that a promoter woudn’t have agreed to a realistic shot at the 1k wr which is far more prestigious than the 2k
noah showed no interest in 1k again until as an after-thought in rieti & didn’t even prepare properly for it with a 3’29.1 in his legs from just 44 hours earlier
The IAAF may have put a 'maximum' level on energy returned, but that doesn't mean all were at the maximum level
more nonsense
are you dumb enough to believe meet promoters don’t purchase the fastest possible legal track available ???
the 65% limit was put in because all the renowned tracks were bordering on limit & something had to be done
Anyone with a clue would know that the mondo Rieti track in 99 was faster than the Oslo track of 81
utter drivel
that rieti track of '99 dated back to the '80s
fool
it was changed after '01 meet showing it was already near the end of it’s life expectancy in '99
Just like the London 2012 and Zurich 2014 tracks are faster still
more nonsense
what part of 65% legal limit your peabrain not comprehend ???
then explain why solomon & symmonds ran so slow on london '13 compared to '12 ???
did they replace London '13 with a “slow” track ???
Read recent article on Zurich track being fastest ever. Moron
idiot
fetch it & show me the energy return figures
What part of Ramzi being busted for EPO don't you comprehend?
in '08 you fool not '06
you cannot just assume he was doping in '06
He was able to run 3:29 off 52.4 because he was doped to the gills and also had Komen running with him
more rubbish
how come he didn't test +ve in '06 when one of most tested guys on circuit
Also he would have had large screen in stadium and splits given to him during race. Coe ran in a vacuum with no screen and no splits given. Completely different circumstances. Fool
& idiot
final times were 3'29.1 v 3'31.9 which shows coe wasn't in same league as ramzi
Ngeny ran 3:43.4 being rabbited for 1500m by EL G off the most even splits of any mile WR in the middle of the EPO era
again utterly clueless
the final time was 3'43.4
get it into you peabrain that to run that fast necessitates some fairly even splits
& as for epo, this was just a follow on from the blood-transfusion era of '70s/'80s
Coe never got pacing beyond 1000m in any of his records. In his Zurich 81 Mile he ran wide of Byers throughout, got no drafting and ran about 12m wide on bends. It was worth 3:44 at least
utter rubbish
coe was either fully drafted or ½ outside byer’s shoulder, which he was for majority, getting ½ drafting
coe was worth no better than 3'46-low that day
Coe was originally due to run an 800 in Oslo, but he told the promoter that he wouldn't have recovered enough from Stockholm to have a serious attack on the WR
utter total drivel
his latest prononouncements is that meet promoter told him to run something other than 800 as he wanted a wr
the implication being that the promoter knew coe had no chance of repeating firenze 800 on his track
He asked to run in the Dream Mile against Ovett instead, and it was blocked by Norman
nonsense
no mention of dream mile at all by coe
The promoter then suggested he have a go at the 1000m WR
rubbish
the 1k was 1st & only option promoter offered
and a poor field was hastily assembled
what does this rubbish imply ???
it was only going to be coe v clock & the only thing that mattered was 2 good pacers not the field
Coe told the press after Stockholm that there was "no chance" of a record in Stockholm, which is referred to in the ITV coverage of the Oslo race, which you clearly haven't seen
if that’s true it only applies to if he had been running a 800 in oslo
the 1k wr was p!ss-weak at 2'13.4 which is only worth ~ 1'43-mid for 800
he woud have to crumble badly to not break 2'13.4
On the day he decided to have a go, and the blister he acquired in Stockholm, burst during the race. Yes, it was a 'proper' blister and it stopped him running and training properly for next 3 weeks
utter drivel
he raced again 6 days later & then 2 days after that
utter total lies
he did not stop racing for 3 weeks
"It would have been faster but for Stockholm" Peter Coe, P.152, "Running Free"
"What he didn't know at that moment was that a major problem had overtaken Seb. The blister which had formed in Stockholm had now burst, slicing off a thick lump of hardened skin on the point of maximum pressure. He would have to withdraw from a race in Dublin the following week, and all track work in training would have to be suspended." P.153
" this was the most frustrating part of the season. I returned home, had the foot well strapped, and for the next few days went for gentle runs on grass. Peter's view was that, with 5 and a half weeks to Zurich, I should do little or nothing for the next 3 weeks other than just tick over up in the hills......So now I kept in shape by easy running in the Peaks, by going to the gym for body-work, by doing a few 'strides', but keeping off the track and giving the skin a chance to reform." Seb Coe, P.154
It was then further damaged at the AAA's and he was advised not to run for the rest of the season, but he was determined to run for UK at European Cup final, even if that meant he'd have to scratch races in Zurich, Brussels and Rome.
He managed only one session of 300's with Mike Boit at Macolin in the week he was there prior to Zagreb.
err…
this did not stop coe running at all
he ran a 800 just 6 days after Stockholm & a 1k a further 2 days later
Deanouk wrote:LOL. Reverting to even more vitriolic abuse than normal only goes to show that you are frustrated and have no cogent argument
unfortunately the exent of your drivel knows no bounds
Those 3 sprinters cited ran nowhere near 1.5% quicker over synthetic than they did on dirt, even with wind and altitude taken into consideration
again your peabrain fails to think
epstein has stated 1.5% for assumed pristine, dry tracks
therefore, logic dictates that all dirt times have to be quickened by this factor at least
any differences in synthetic track performances from this theoretical have to be examined in light of race circumstances
something your peabrain can't seem to comprehend
And the synthetic examples were all later at peak of season in more important races. The minimal advances made could easily be just down to improvements over a season which 90% of elite athletes acquire
again nonsense without considering full altitude effects & the gold-standard wind/altitude calculator takes into no account the hypoxia affecting aerobic metabolism
Hypoxia adjustments are not needed for events lasting less than a minute!
utter drivel
even the 100m has a 5% aerobic component & 200 & 400 significantly more
use your peabrain :
if we have 10.00 or 20.00 or 44.50 sea-level guys & they run their 100, 200 or 400 respectively in a 100% nitrogen atmosphere pressuised to = normal atmospheric pressure, do you expect them to run 10.00 or 20.00 or 44.50 ???
Even up to 800m the effects of altitude are beneficial to overall time
utter drivel
ncaa altitude calculator combined with the wind/aitude calculator gives 800 times over 1000m as significantly faster at sea-level
Ever heard of Ralph Doubell? Equalled the WR at Mexico at height of 2250m
fool
i have already posted in past that using above method that doubell was worth at sea-level
~ 1'43-low/mid
Never broke 1:46 ever again, or before for that matter, at sea level. Where was his hypoxia??
utterly clueless
he was in shape of his life & got a suicidal kenyan who offered him degree of drafting upto nearly 700m
he never got a race like that ever before or after mexico
Welsh Wizard wrote:How can you claim he was "definitely" in 1:41 shape that day.You can't
again your peabrain doesn't think
he broke the 1k wr of a guy who ran 1'41.7 in firenze earlier
what do you think noah wouda run for 800 in firenze ???
You can claim that Coe definitely ran 1:41 for 800m and Ngeny definitely ran 1:44 for 800m
i can claim noah split 1'44.6 on tired legs with a 3'29.1 from 44hours before off a suicidal 49.8 openng lap where he ran ~ 7m extra, meaning he split more like 48.9+ if route 1 !!!
These are called facts, because they actually happened
if facts are all you can comprehend then you are a waste of time on forums where thinking is required
What you claim as definite is merely a point of view. Do you see the difference?
based on solid facts & observation
something you never seem capable of offering
ventolin^3 wrote:
Deanouk wrote:Another 'stuck record' post. I.e, same drivel regurgitatedmore rubbish
Ngeny never ran 7m extra. 2.5m at most, agreed upon by everyone on a recent thread about extra distance run, apart from you living in your little fantasy bubble
drivel
no one apart from me offered any detailed calculation
anyone who says 2.5m is a fool
any guy who starts in outer lane 4 & doesn’t actually get into just inside lane 1 until 13s & near end of bend has run helluva lot more 2.5m
i estimated 8+ but reduced this by ~ 1.25m for waterfall start, which yields
~ 7m
You want to get from A to B. How much extra distance do you ran if you ran on a straight line? What do you think? I give you a hint: it's less than 4.5m.
Ngeny ran no more than 2m extra on the first bend in the Rieti 1k. Everyone else gets the idea that the curved line on the bend takes into consideration those running higher up the curve. 7m is laughable.
You say here, "the 1k wr which is far more prestigious than the 2k". This contradicts your normal response to Coe's record at this distance, when you normally refer to it as a nothing event that no one bothers with.
I was following the sport very closely at the time, and it was quite well known that Ngeny had targeted the 1000m that season. He knew he couldn't get the 800 or 1500.
The idea that all tracks around the world since the late 70's are of equal quality, allowing all athletes to run the same speed (all other conditions being equal) is a nonsense. The athletes know it, the commentators know it, most sane followers of the sport know it. I suspect even you do, but can't bring yourself to admit it as it doesn't support your "arguments".
The upgraded 'mondo' tracks of the 90's were faster than the ones of the 80's. Otherwise they would have replaced them less often and with the same material. Do you really think technological advances have taken place in all areas of sport apart from track surfaces?
When the athletes from 40+ years ago say many years later that the cinder tracks were slower by half a second you ignore them. When they say 1 sec a lap you hang on their every word. But when athletes regularly say that such and such a track are 'particularly fast', you ignore them. No consistency in the way you try to support your opinions with 'evidence'.
The meet director of Zurich claims the new track there is faster (certainly than the previous one, or was that a 2nd rate one which wasn't already at the max level? I mean Zurich is a piddly little meet historically, so there would be no reason for the previous surface to be up to maximum levels, would there? ;) ), and gives more energy return.
So you think Ramzi was doping in 2008 but not in 2006? Really? Are you on record as saying that Ramzi was clean in 2006?
To run 3:29.1 in 2006 off a 52.4 first lap and with little drafting meant he was capable of 3:25/3:26 (or a WR) with even pacing and drafting to bell.
And he was clean?
The fastest 1500m he ran after 2006 was 3:35.0 in 2007 and then 3:32.86 for 2nd in Zurich in 2008, behind Keitany. Yet you want us to believe he was on drugs when he was running 3:32, yet was clean as a whistle when running 3:29 and capable of more like 3:26!? You really are deluded.
____________________________________________________________________________
"coe was either fully drafted or ½ outside byer’s shoulder, which he was for majority, getting ½ drafting"
____________________________________________________________________________
Nope. To be fully drafted, as you have told us on numerous occasions, you have to be directly behind the runner in front and within 2m of him. That means that when your front foot places down on each stride, you must be about half a meter behind the back foot of the rabbit. This never happens in the Zurich mile WR. Coe's stride overlaps Byer's in front, making it impossible for him to be either directly behind him or getting full drafting. Even for half drafting, i.e, getting half the rabbit's torso (on the right) overlapping the left half torso of the runner behind, you have to be a full stride behind. In other words their stride cannot overlap. Again, this hardly (if at all) happens in this race. Coe spends the vast majority of the first 2 and a half laps outside of Byer's shoulder, running wide in lane 1, and at no time is directly behind him. This includes the first 5 bends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lL0T6iVwAM
Coe did indeed ask to run in the Dream Mile in Oslo in 81, but was refused to do so by Andy Norman. Coe was due to run an 800m, originally a WR attempt. After the draining effort of Stockholm, knowing he would have no chance of breaking his own WR, and stating such to tv interviewers, the Oslo meet director, wanting a WR at his meet, asked him to have a go at the 1000m WR.
Coe agreed, but was in 2 minds after Stockholm whether he could manage that. When he got there, seeing how weak the field was for the 1000m, he asked to run in the Mile instead.
This is all recorded fact, you just haven't seen or read enough about it to be fully in the picture. Probably because you spend so much of your time watching 'all the fastest 800 and 1500s on satellite tv at such great expense'.
"On arrival, however, it became apparent there was a thin field for the 1000, and Coe requested a switch to the mile, in which Ovett was running. The answer was "no". Allegedly, Norman had said, on behalf of Ovett, that a promise had been made to the IAAF not to pre-empt the Golden Mile in Brussels, to which both Ovett and Coe were invited. A quick check with the IAAF contradicted this." P.93, 'Seb Coe: Born to Run'
Re injury in 81 - Coe only trained on hills for the next few weeks after Oslo, not on the track. I never said he stopped running or racing. He pulled out of his next race in Dublin, but raced on a track only twice in next 3 weeks (both slow) to keep his hand in. It's called damage limitation.
"When I took off my right shoe (after the AAA 800m final) I found blood coming through the sock. The new skin on the blister from Oslo had ruptured, and this time it was right through to the flesh which was cracked and bleeding. I knew in an instant that all my plans and ambitions for the climax of the season were jeopardised,...
....Obviously I would not be able to train properly in the week ahead on the sped sessions I had planned - as much in preparation for the mile in Zurich as the 800 in Zagreb.....
I had my foot 'heavily strapped, before flying off to the Swiss mountains at Macolin...I received some marvellous treatment on the way from a Swiss doctor, who gave me a protective layer of plastic skin and made sure there was no infection. Even so, the foot was still sore and I had to wind down again, managing only one track session of some 300s with Mike (Boit) before I flew on to Zagreb" P. 156/157 Running Free.
He was still running with a layer of plastic skin over a chunk off the ball of his foot in Zagreb European Cup final. This injury would also explain the lack of any serious attempts at fast 800m after Oslo.