Could Rudisha have done this?

otter wrote:

On his best day do you think Rudisha could have matched Seb Coe on his best day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0e1yaMIM08

Does anyone know the conditions of that track Coe ran on? I've always wondered that. It's hard to tell with the poor quality of the video. Also, it looked like it had tight turns and long straights.

Coe got bumped out in lane two with 300 to go but he had help for the first 400. Rudisha led his entire race.

I've always felt that Coe's 800 was the best middle distance performance of all time.

What do you think?

Rudisha's World Record was set in the Olympic Championship race while leading from start to finish. The stars were aligned so perfectly in that one that there is absolutely no other 800m performance that would even be considered comparable.

Yes he could have.

Rudisha HAD to run as fast as he did to win the race.

Coe was under no pressure at all.

Cue Ventolin hijacking this thread with "track was short!!!" statements and saying Coe was worth ~1:42 flat, despite the fact that he actually ran faster than that, whereas every other athlete he talks about was worth 1-10 seconds faster then what they actually ran.

In relation to the question posed - Yes, Rudisha could.

Performance list

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_800ok.htm

I removed Kipketer, Amos, Cruz et al

1 1:40.91 David Rudisha

2 1:41.01 David Rudisha

3 1:41.09 David Rudisha

6 1:41.33 David Rudisha

7 1:41.51 David Rudisha

8 1:41.54 David Rudisha

9 1:41.73 Sebastian Coe

12 1:41.74 David Rudisha

15 1:42.01 David Rudisha

16 1:42.04 David Rudisha

17 1:42.12A David Rudisha

24 1:42.33 Sebastian Coe

102 1:43.07 Sebastian Coe

There is almost no doubt that the 1:41.73 was Coe's best day. Rudisha ran faster than Coe's best 6 times. Pulling out his 1:40.91 alone at the Olympics.

Otter, as a long time LRC poster, I'm surprised you asked this.

I'd have to say, in my opinion, coe's 1000m record was probably his best. went through the 800m mark in 1.44.xx. he was truly ahead of his time.

otter wrote:

On his best day do you think Rudisha could have matched Seb Coe on his best day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0e1yaMIM08

Does anyone know the conditions of that track Coe ran on? I've always wondered that. It's hard to tell with the poor quality of the video. Also, it looked like it had tight turns and long straights.

Coe got bumped out in lane two with 300 to go but he had help for the first 400. Rudisha led his entire race.

I've always felt that Coe's 800 was the best middle distance performance of all time.

What do you think?

Rudisha has to be viewed as Goat because of his WR and Olympic title.

Having said that, I have no doubt had Rudisha been around in 1981, Coe would have run faster than his 1:41.7.

The tracks Rudisha run on now are better and faster than those in early 80's. Cram has said as much and he gets close to all the tracks on his commentary gig. Coe also ran a couple of extra meters wide passing the rabbit, which cost 0.2 at lest.

Coe was so far ahead of his peers in 81 and was really never stretched. He had to run a certain number of mickey mouse events in England to satisfy Andy Norman. As a result he wasted his peak form that year running a lot of meaningless domestic fixtures.

Worth noting that Coe ran his 1:41.7 in early June and then didn't chase the time anymore after that. In 2012 Rudisha ran almost exactly the same time in the same part of June. Where was he at by August?

In terms of when it was run and the fact that he was 1.7 secs faster than anyone else ever at the time, I'd say Coe's 800 WR is certainly one of the best middle distance runs of all time.

COKM,O9DFAVN wrote:

Performance list

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_800ok.htm

I removed Kipketer, Amos, Cruz et al

1 1:40.91 David Rudisha

2 1:41.01 David Rudisha

3 1:41.09 David Rudisha

6 1:41.33 David Rudisha

7 1:41.51 David Rudisha

8 1:41.54 David Rudisha

9 1:41.73 Sebastian Coe

12 1:41.74 David Rudisha

15 1:42.01 David Rudisha

16 1:42.04 David Rudisha

17 1:42.12A David Rudisha

24 1:42.33 Sebastian Coe

102 1:43.07 Sebastian Coe

There is almost no doubt that the 1:41.73 was Coe's best day. Rudisha ran faster than Coe's best 6 times. Pulling out his 1:40.91 alone at the Olympics.

Otter, as a long time LRC poster, I'm surprised you asked this.

Different times in the late 70's and early 80's. The circuit was mainly about winning then and not always time trials. There was no Diamond League with a race every week being taken out in 49, and there was no one else around in Coe's peak years running 1:43 let alone 1:41. There was also no financial incentive, or at least nothing like there is now, to run fast times so often. That came more in the mid and late 80's once trust funds were set up in 85.

Also have to remember you are comparing someone's times from today with someone competing more than 30 years ago. That's like comparing Coe's times with Whitfield or Moens. How many times did any of their performances rank alongside Coe's top 10?

There is a much clearer version of the race here.

Serenity wrote:

Coe also ran a couple of extra meters wide passing the rabbit, which cost 0.2 at lest.

Everyone exaggerates the effect of running wide. Coe spent about 30 meters of turn 3 in the outside of lane 1, well inside the line of running in lane 2. That's only about 1 meter wide. Even on a standard track, the extra distance for the entire turn would be pi * delta r ~ 3.14 meters, and for that 30 meter stretch, 3.14 * 30/100 = about 1 meter. At 50 second pace, or 8 m/s, that costs an extra .12 seconds.

If it costs anything, that is. Running at that speed in lane 1 is hard, as turning requires centripetal acceleration proportional to the square of your speed. The extra force required to stay on the rail is nearly twice as great at 8 m/s as it is at 6 m/s. Applying that to forward speed can make up some or all of that .12 seconds, particularly if you do it going into a straight where you can maintain the effect.

Run a 26 second 200 in lane 1 or lane 2, all else being equal it's likely the lane 2 rep will be 0.1 seconds faster just because it's lane 2.

Bad Wigins wrote:

and for that 30 meter stretch, 3.14 * 30/100 = about 1 meter. At 50 second pace, or 8 m/s, that costs an extra .12 seconds.

for a short (100m) turn track, actually. On a standard track it would be .82 meters and 0.1 seconds.

I don't want to answer the question of the OP. And it's very hard to argue against a WR set at the Olympic Games while leading from gun to tape. But I probably still would opt for Coe's 1:41,73 as the "best" middle distance WR of all time.

Before the internet and before contacts to some other collectors, to see this race was one of my main targets regarding international athletics. When I finally got (just the 2nd lap) from german TV in 1993 I told this to my only trading partner (an older man from finland) at the time. I will never forget his reaction on the phone (while beeing exited): "You have IT?". This reflects exactly the general thinking: probably THE middle distance performance ever.

And it could have been faster. And what a difference to follow such a race (even after watching it dozens of times) than to see a race after around 1995, when even an expert has some problems to see who is who from 8 athletes wearing the same running kit. What an unbelievanle nonsense. But that's another story...

The number of Rudisha's top performances compared to Coe's doesn't says a lot who is better at both there prime. Totally different running eras. I think the Coe from '81 is the best middle distance athlete we have seen so far and even over 800m I think he would beat the best Rudisha more often than the opposite.

COKM,O9DFAVN wrote:

Otter, as a long time LRC poster, I\'m surprised you asked this.

Yeah, you\'re probably right.

I just watch that sometimes thinking he could have run faster on a better track with someone pushing him. But again, it might be the poor video tht makes that track seem substandard.

It\'s kind of like Snell\'s 1:44. Slow by today\'s standard but then you consider him on a grass track with those horrible leather spikes they wore.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys were in their prime now what they would be capable of.

Then again, I\'m probably wrong.

Serenity wrote:

Worth noting that Coe ran his 1:41.7 in early June and then didn't chase the time anymore after that. In 2012 Rudisha ran almost exactly the same time in the same part of June. Where was he at by August?

The only thing worth nothing there is that Coe ran eight more 800m races after his 1:41 world record. Despite this, the best he could produce was 1:45.41.

Does that track look weird? Does that thing still exist?

dumb question

mickey-mouse sized track

no one had even heard of firenze for track & i'd been following sport for 10y by then

if that is the case, you might have hit an answer to firenze apart from a short track

( the meet mysteriously disappeared in mid-'80s

did they measure it, find it short & finished it until reappearing in '00s in a new stadium ???!!! )

standard tracks are 116/84

oslo, being most prolific middle/distance wr track had 105/95 which was worth probably worth 0.2s for 800 & 0.3s for 1k

the more straight you have to run on the faster your time at 800 & up

the disadvantage of tighter bends at sub-maximal speed doesn't counteract for 800 & up, the advantage gained on running longer straights

if firenze was veering towards oslo dimensions, you have a significant advantage for 800 & + races compared to 116/84 tracks

only because of impact at the time

mathematical tables i have devised indicate :

9.84

= 19.68

= 43.86

= 101.72

= 131.17

= 207.73

= 284.53

= 441.06

= 760.00

= 1576.57

it is no better than a 3'27-high, which morceli demolished in '95 & now it's down to 3'26.00 !!!

no

kip wouda run

~ 1'40.6

in zurich if not offered suicidal 23.0/48.3 but 23-high/49-low

he was unallowed to run atlanta which he wouda won easily as his 1'41.83 in rieti looked worth 1'41.4 shape if no extra distance & ideal drafting

that wouda given him the gold he lacked

nonsense

he had nothing left in his 1'41.7 & on an unknown/questionable track with busted timing

not according to iaaf rules

learn 65% energy return

cram is no bright spark

the fool was probably in 1'41-low/mid shape in '86 edinburgh if 1-off paced race on a warm day in zurich/brussels/rome & he doesn't even realise it

on a probable 796m distance

utter drivel

he was completely finished end of firenze race

there was nothing more to give

nonsense

he had 8 more 800s that year

the best he ran in an actual 800 was 1'45.4 !!!

he couda run 1'42+ solo to back up his firenze run, like Rudy has run 1'40.9 solo & a 1'42 in nairobi & kip 1'42.6i solo

coe never broke 1'44 solo !!!

coe offered nothing over 800 after firenze & he had plenty of 800 only races - 8 !!!

drivel

he had 8 more 800 only races after firenze but didn't crack 1'45.4 !!!

you have been told so many times

- new york was beat-up track even with holes on it, testimony to it being a track open to local school-kids

it was replaced year or 2 after

- it was windy day with jumps recorded at over 3m/s !!!

- it was cool day, not 70/75F ideal for 800

- he didn't run absolutey flat-out as only using this as prep race for london

he had to stay injury-free for trials as only top-3 were likely to go

kenyan trials take no prisoners :

no moses in '92 when he wouda whupped the field over 5k or 3ksc

no komen in '96 when he wouda destroyed the field in the 7'20 shape he showed that year

he likely put in 1'41-flat effort that day on a warm/windless day on a track not beaten up & needing replacing soon after

& that is without considering lack of flat-out

Rudy was in as good shape new york as london

no different shape

no

he was in top-shape already in june

certainly for 800

certainly for year

in absolute terms, anyone who has run faster than

3'27.7

for 1500 has a better performance in "mathematical" terms

are you serious ???

i'd easily rate kip's zurich 1'41.24 off uttery suicidal 23.0/48.3 as best synthetic track run

next is hicham's 3'26wr

err...

did you not see cruz's 1'41.77 live on tv when running 1/2-dead from 3 monumental/killing clockings in past 6 days ???

not on a proper "known" track - zurich/brussels/berlin/rome/stockholm

it didn't even have proper timing

that is your racist nonsense

i have a good idea of who the individual "same running kit guys" are since '95

why can't you ?

nonsense

1'40.9 solo after rounds & solo indicate at least coupla tenths quicker without rounds & 0.4s for lack of drafting

-> for rested, paced ideally to bell of

~ 1'40.4

no

nijel ran 1'41.7 as a raw 18 ole

there is very little sophistication in training of sub-saharan africans, just more participation

canova has been on record as saying there woud be 1/2 dozen+ 1'40/1'41 africans currently if in a top western camp with full weight-training/nutrition/physio/physiologist/etc back-up

see mo

utter drivel

nijel matched that time at 18y off 1y serious training & now back off still injury-afflicted training & partying most '13 ran

~ 8m extra in his 1'42.5

you spent all that $ on Ryun vid & learnt nothing !!!

souly runs 3'48.9 with 36.8 finish & has 1'43.6/3'29.5 this year, probably worth ~ 1'43-flat if in monaco 800

you think bosse/fergie at 1'42.5/1'42.8 are far superior 800 talents to souly ?

& 3'29-flat if he'd not followed asbel so closely in the 1500 - you think ronnie kwemoi is a currently faster 1500 guy ??

so, a 1'43.0 / 3'29-flat guy who is likely in close to this shape in cup

( he looks = good at 800/1500

see mathematical tables i showed you )

runs 36.8 in a 3'48.9

&

Ryun runs 36.5 in a 3'38.2

including an

11.6

on a chewed-up dirt track after an earlier 10k on it, & your logic can't comprehend that Ryun was a

exponential level

better than

1'43.0 / 3'29.0

???!!!

'mickey-mouse sized track'

He would still have finished more than 20m ahead of Ryun on that track

+1

I always scroll past his posts. He is ... well.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'mickey-mouse sized track'

He would still have finished more than 20m ahead of Ryun on that track

1:39 > 1:41