Steve Scott the greatest american miler?

Yes it was 1986 Zurich when Steve Scott beat Coe coming from behind in a homestretch kick. I have an old VHS tape from ESPN with that race. The same meet where Aouita just missed Rono's 3000 WR and was so mad he looked like he tore some of his own hair off his scalp.

I also recall watching ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel in 1982 when they cut to show the finish of the Oslo mile where Scott ran 3:47 and won, just missing the WR. Imagine that happening today. Watching major network late-night TV and having them interrupt the program to show a mile race in Europe.

Overall 1979-1985 was the Golden era of the mile and Steve Scott was in the mix every time. So many mile stars that were close to the best.

But without a major global championship win Steve Scott never accomplished enough in an 11 year word class career to rank him over what Jim Ryun did in 1966 and 1967.

Grand Slam wrote:Scott didn't beat Coe in Zurich 85, it was in 86, when he nipped him on the line and won by 0.08sec. Coe had hit the front (in his first race since scratching from the Commonwealths with a chest infection) about 50m from the line and then eased up thinking he had the win and not knowing Scott was closing fast in the straight

that is nonsense

the vid shows coe flat out in the final sprint & even threw himself at the line when scott passed him

scott was in fantastic shape in '80 trials & wouda been huge threat in games over 1500, especially as coe/ovett wouda had the 800 races in their legs

unfortunately for scott his form tailed off in july/august presumably from lack of motivation engendered by boycott

the trials history archive says that in windy conditions, he ran 3'35.1, taking lead early ( somewhere in 1st lap ) passed in pedestrian 58.0, slowed up with ~ 60s, then speeded up with 55.4 finish

the former 5k bronze medallist bill dellinger ( co-coach to prefontaine & coach of sal/slaney amongst many more ) said that if not windy, scott wouda run 3'32+ !!!

that is a virtually solo 3'32+ !!!

only bayi has ever run a completely solo 3'32 & wr at the time was still only 3'32.0

if he'd kept that form in moscow, he wouda been huge threat for gold, but of course no games for poor scott

this is a tangent, but 1 i'm sure posters here wouda appreciate :

paige ran 1'44.53pb in trials & after games chased coe around europe trying to get a race & finally nailed him in italy with a 0.03s

i never understood how any 1'44.5 guy coud beat coe that year & trials account gives answer :

paige was helluva lot quicker than than an intrinsic 1'44.5 !!!

the first 5/7 of trials were ruined by rain & there were also swirling winds

prior to 800 final, the womens 100 semis were run with +1.5 & +1.3 & final after 800 into a 0.5

the field jogged the 1st lap with don in 52.3 then ran 2nd lap in 52.2

that's -ve splits in in a 1'44.5 !

that in itself woud -> 1'43- high off 2s +ve splits in a tt

however, that is only tip of the iceberg !

don did all his running in the last 200, taking lead in 1'18.8+ then blasting away to open up an 8y lead on robinson by the stretch which he maintained to end

robinson was the accepted best US runner prior to trials & don murdered him !

splits for don ~ 52.3 / 26.5+ / 25.6+ !!!

that's more like 1'43-flat if flat-out from gun with 2s +ve splits

factor in wind/rain, easily worth another 1/2s & i'd estimate don, on a warm, dry, windless day in zurich/brussels/berlin/etc was capable of

~ 1'42-mid !!!

don wouda been a huge threat for 800 gold in this shape if he'd gone to moscow

Do you ever wonder why none of your predictions ever came true? Specifically, why Steve Scott didn't run a 3:32.0 WR while leading from lap1? Or why, despite running tons of 800s even in 1980, Don Paige didn't run a mid-1:42 off faster pacing?

Or Jim Ryun didn't run sub-3:30?

Because none of them were able to do that under any circumstances. Pacing makes a difference, clearly, but not to the level that you always make it out to be.

I.E. Scott ran 136 sub-4 miles and probably almost as many sub-3:42 1500s (think about the heat, semi, final in at least 10 Olympic Trials and Olympic Games and nearly 12 National Championships outside of the OT) and wouldn't you think it would occur to him (He who had run 40 races a year at different distances) to set up a race to run a 3:32 WR or a 3:31 WR later or a 3:30 WR after that?

He did run in the Nice WR in 1985 and ran his fastest .... 3:31.76.

I love Scott, Paige, Coe, Ryun, all the athletes you make these crazy predictions about. But of all the athletes you could say ... "if only he had raced more often, or caught lightning in a bottle just that once in 1980, or had really taken advantage of his best form in 19XX ..."

It's NOT Scott, he had it all and did it all many, MANY years. By looking at his career over many years, you can see when he was maxed out ... pretty much every race, every year.. Even when Walker was 5 yrs past his list-leading best form Scott was always just ahead or just behind him. There was not wild fluctuation in form to say that he could have done it much better. And the thing about Steve Scott is YOU DON'T HAVE TO say that.

To say that he "should have" won the '83 WC is ignorant. Cram was ascendant even then and had shown great ability from 1980 when he mad the Olympic final at age 19. He also was the WR holder (eventually) at 1500, Mile and 2000m and had a near WR (2nd all-time) in the 1000m and 1:42.88.

Maybe you could say, "Steve should have won in '83 in a fast, fast race."

Cram's was a better collection of PRs than anyone over 800-2k after the 80s was over, even better than Aouita. He also has several 800s from 1:42-1:43-1:44. Steve Scott did not.

Steve could have run 1:44.0 I am sure if he had targeted it more, but Steve Cram DID run that ... every time ... and he ran 1:42.88 ... and he led the WORLD three times NOT IN YEARS THAT HE RAN THAT 1:42.88. And he ran 2:12 for 1000m.

He beat Aouita in '83 and again in Nice in 1985. How many people beat Aouita in ALL OF THE '80s? Much less twice?

I know you are very knowledgeable about T and F, or at least track, but really you should stop making speculations unless it is based on your "calculator" and ACTUAL times made by people.

I think we would all appreciate those kinds of guesses, or we could at least stomach it.

In a similar race in 1986 (at the ECs), Coe ran the last 200 about a second faster. Will the poster above claim Coe was in 1:41 shape?

logician wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

That mentality is precisely the advantage conferred by amphetamines and opiates.

No testing, no comparison. Scott and Webb were tested and passed.

No proof or evidence, no reason to believe what you suggest.

How many of you are gonna invoke that straw man? It doesn't matter if he's proven dirty. What matters is he's NOT proven CLEAN.

When a record is run today, does it get approved without a test? Nope. It's nothing until the testing is done. Likewise, you can't compare performances from a no-testing era to later performances. NOBODY from the 50's or 60's is above suspicion. Nobody. No testing = might be dirty.

I don't think you know what this term means. You're not using it properly. I didn't misrepresent anything you wrote and argue against that thing instead.

No one is proven clean.

You cannot prove a negative, i.e., you cannot prove that you did not take drugs.

That he is not proven clean is meaningless as it relates to your claim comparing those of that era to those who are tested because no one is proven clean.

The rules in place today have no relevance on records that were set in the past.

Using this logic, people in the future could look back on records run today and say there were not legitimate because they did not perform certain procedures post-race that runners then are required to meet.

To think this is to be mistaken.

Passing a drug test does not mean that you are proven clean. All it means is that you passed a test.

No one is proven clean. Ever.

This begs the question.

What you're doing isn't saying that they are not above suspicion. It is assuming guilt.

And you're assuming guilt based on zero evidence.

Not being tested, especially when there was no requirement at the time to be tested, is not evidence that one might have taken drugs.

You have once again failed to offer any evidence that implicates anyone, or even suggests that anyone might be guilty of using drugs.

So again, no evidence or proof, no reason to believe what you suggest is the case.

The burden of proof is on you.

People that are tested might be dirty too.

reality cheque wrote:In a similar race in 1986 (at the ECs), Coe ran the last 200 about a second faster

no

on a windless day, off much slower pace, coe went 52-high, 1'19.6 with a finish of 24.9

he was drafted by cram most of the bend making it more like 25-low

to put it into context, mckean, no world-beater v clock ran a 25.2 with no drafting

don had to contend with lot of wind & rain

Will the poster above claim Coe was in 1:41 shape?

no

he looked in 1'42-mid shape, same as don probably was in trials

eh ??

the biggest guess-what time of last few years was mo's 1500

i said he coud go as fast as 3'28...

learn to read

that narrative is the official trials report

dellinger said "strong winds cost scott a sub-3'33"

nothing about 3'32.0

i assumed 3'32-high

the 3'32.0 comment by me was to show how slow the wr was at the time

ehh ???

those were were mostly unpaced college races aiming to peak for trials

because clearly his peak was for trials but still managed to beat coe

don ran stockholm/zurich/berlin/brussels that year & won all bar 1 & won in zurich

all races likely unmotivated

learn peaking :

rodahl won gold in 1'42.58 & his next best was 1'42.95 chasing kip & rodahl ran a lot of races

eh ???

he wouda run at worst 3'30 if there had been anything other than a jog on the 1st lap of his wr race & all that on a chewed-up dirt track in 95F !!!

nonsense

you clearly didn't read trials report nor examined circumstances of Ryun's wr

clearly the concept of over-racing is alien to you

when he targeted a race & prepared for it he was damn good as trials report shows

you clearly don't read

he wanted to break wr in '83 oslo & ran 3'49.4 in a wild race with a huge bump sideways at start, pedestrian pacing & a conservative 15m extra on bends

that was worth ~ 3'46-low in ideal race

that's 3'29-mid with 1.08

if concepts such as resting/peaking/ideal pacing/route-1 in lane 1/etc, are all beyond you, why bother to post on topics requiring their consideration ???!!!

over-racing chasing $, but clearly '80 trials/'82/'83 were his peaks & '83 his career peak form

over-racing chasing $

over-racing chasing $

scott was no glamour boy like coe/ovett receiving big under the table appearance fees

he was a blue-collar trojan who only earnt thru prize-money thru actual results for those trusts back then

nonsense

he had an awesome peak in oslo '83 worth 3'46-low

nonsense

every guy has a career peak & scott's was an awesome one in oslo '83

when the hell did i say he shouda won it ???

cram was in very, very good shape

he ran 3'31.66 which i estimate.as 3'30-low if even pace/drafting to bell/tight in lane 1

he ran 1'43.6 in his 1st ever serious 800tt in elite meet

he probably couda claimed few tenths off that for inexperience of fast 800s

scott probably had something like 1'44-low/mid, which was no way quick enough to outsprint cram in a slow race

in a fast race, their 1500 difference was probably ~ 2/3s, not enough for scott to run away with it if cram tucked in behind thruout & kicked off him coupla 100m out

scott wouda needed to have been in 3'28+ shape to run away from cram with long, long drive from very early

scott had little chance of winning even in 3'29-mid shape that meet

who are you telling this to ??

i saw everyone of these live on tv

no i didn't

err...

yeah

i said probably 1'44-low/mid

probably 1'43-mid/high if he'd made switch full-time to 800

err...

who is ignorant of this ??

calculator called mo 3'28 so nothing wrong with that

further, if "control" of fully rested for a good few days, in peak shape on a warm, windless day with even pace, smooth drafting to bell, run tight in lane 1, is beyond you, then i have little to talk to you about

i would expect anyone with a clue about the sport woud know actual times have very little meaning unless they approach the "control" above for assessment

hicham has a 1'47pb

you want to use that figure to "assess" him ???

or if mo had skipped monaco 1500, you still going to use his then 3'33.9pb to "assess" him ???

You're correct. The races were very similar in pace and conditions, and Coe ran 0.9 faster over the last 200m, running at least 2m further. So, you are correct in saying 'about a second'.

The 1st 400 in the Olympic Trials in 80 was 51.8, in Stuttgart 86 it was 51.98.

And Ventolin can't add up correctly. The splits he gives for Paige 52.3 / 26.5+ / 25.6 add up to 1:44.4, and he ran 1:44.5. So his last 200m was 25.7 not 25.6.

Coe's splits in Stuttgart went 52.8, 26.9, 24.8. But whereas Paige ran about 5m extra over the course of his race, Coe ran approx 9m further.

C. 2m on second bend, 4.5m on the third and 2.5 m on last bend.

That's equivalent to a 1:43.3 on the rails with a last 200m of 24.5

The conditions for Coe's 800m were just as unfavourable as Paige's. It was pouring with rain in Stuttgart, there was clearly a lot of surface water on the track, and the wind had been changeable all day.

The wind reading in H. 4 of the men's 110mH had been -1.0, while in the men's qualifying of the L.J, Emmiyan recorded 8.24m with +1.9m

In fact a comment in AW (P. 46, 13.9.86 edition) on the women's 400m final, a race on just before the men's 800m 20 mins earlier, won by Koch in 48.22, stated: - "It must be fair to say that only the weather prevented Marita from cracking 48 seconds,..."

So the problem with Ventolin's assessment, apart from the obvious anti Coe biased, is that as usual, he applies a variety of trivial disadvantages to one athlete's performance, adjusting times upwards accordingly, while subsequently ignoring another athlete's similar circumstances and failing to make any adjustments at all. This is biased.

Both ran on rain soaked tracks, both had winds above 1.0m/s (which to me is normal and shouldn't have any bearing on their final times anyway!) both ran after heats and a semi, and both followed a pace that was within 0.2sec of each other at the bell. Both ran extra distance (Coe about 4m further) both had some drafting, and both finished in 1:44.5.

But the main difference is that Coe closed much faster, 24.8 to 25.7.

Ventolin quotes Coe's last 200m as 24.9, but he is basing this on the video, where he is on the 200m line at 1:19.6 and then subtracting this from his final time of 1:44.5. Well any look at the video will show that his torso is actually abreast the finish line at 1:44.4, which = 24.8 for the last 200m. There is clearly a slight residual error on the stadium clock of 0.1sec. This don't forget was running most of the bend wide (at least 2.5m), so that makes it more like a 24.5 for that 200. He had about 40m of drafting from Cram on the last bend which is worth less than 0.1sec. The extra distance ran more than compensated for the minimal drafting he had on the last bend.

Paige ran negative splits of 52.3/52.2. Well Coe's 86 splits were 52.8/51.7

In early 1980 Coe ran a 1:44.7 in windy conditions in Hull on June 7th with even more impressive negative splits, 53.0/51.7, and that was his 6th race in 13 days, only 2 days after running a 1:45.0 (and 46.4 relay leg within 90 mins) on cinders....."- a brilliant run in the circumstances, bearing in mind also that he had cool, windy conditions to contend with." (AW, P.47, 14.6.1980)

So if Paige's run signifies 1:42 mid ability for 1980 (which I do not believe it does anyway!), then Coe's superior runs in 80 & 86 must indicate 1:42 low form.

As for Paige's 0.03 win over Coe in Viareggio at the end of 1980, Don himself said,

"Sebastian Coe was a better half-miler than me," Paige said. "I just beat him that day."

"My number one competitor and that year was going to be Sebastian Coe who I value as one of the all time great half miler. A far better athlete than I ever was. Did I beat him? Yes, I got him on that special day. If we were to run probably 10 times, I don’t know what the outcome would be. I raced him once, and it was 1-0, I’ll take it, but he is by far a better athlete than I was." (Which isn't strictly true as he got beaten by Coe in an 800m in Gateshead in 1978.)

The late season European circuit was Paige's 'personal Olympics', having missed out on Moscow. He knew all season that Coe would be in Viareggio and he ran 2 800's in the 6 days before in preparation for this clash.

1:45.74 in Berlin on the 8th (beaten by Wullbeck) and 1:45.80 in Zurich for the win on the 13th.

Coe's race in Viareggio was at the end of a long season where the peak had been and gone. It was his 9th race in 3 weeks, and less than 24 hours after missing the world record at 1500m by less than 0.20 secs.

Speaking of Scott and Aouita, does anybody have a video of their great 3000m indoor race in NJ in 1989?

nonsense

if your nonsense needs bold, you are deluded

rubbish

don's race had lotta wind before/after

coe's race looked to have little wind from observing singlets/shorts

go fetch the temperature for both...

rubbish

it's 25.6+ - 24.9 =

0.7s

at worst, with NO official split for don

enyeart lead field thru in 1'18.8

at worst, don was 1'18.8+

he maya been 1'18.9 or 1'19.0 or +++

it's likely to have been lot quicker than 25.6+

i gave conservative, ungenerous number

nonsense

you have no clue how much extra don ran

he was behind at 400 & 600

you have no clue as to whether he ran penultimate bend all out in lane 2 ???

it very likely he ran some serious wide bend running as he was lot slower than enyeart at bell :

51.8 v 52.3

that's 1/2s slower at bell !

utter rubbish

nominal 0.7s

likely helluva lot smaller

& don had some serious wind to battle

so ?

don's split was 52.3

so ?

coe's split was 52-high in lot less wind

this really is dumbest drivel i have seen posted !!!

your ineptitude/bias knows no bounds !!!

you shockingly failed to read my

26.5+ / 25.6+

that ->

52.1++

his listed was 52.2

even moreso is fact enyeart was leading at 1'18.8 with no statement of how far behind don was

he couda been 1'18.9 or 1'19.0...

meaning his last 200 couda been

25,5

or quicker

no

more like 27.0 / 24.9

utter nonsense

you have no clue about how far don ran on bends

& with lotta drafting

with huge amount of extra drafting

rubbish

no obvious wind from observing singlets/shorts

no obvious rain during race from watching vid

no huge number of umbrellas

rain had stopped

rubbish

not when 800 started

no

wet track but no saturation

wet track is good for middle/long as long as no slipped footage

there was none

wet track reduces friction

meaning quicker times

there looked negligible wind from observation of singlets/shorts

the wind for the actual race looked negligible

no blustering singlets/shorts

an opinion by some obscure writer

i saw race live on tv also

learn to think

her 47.6wr is reckoned to have been aided by some odd stadium dynamics which gave her a following wind on both stretches

it was likely 48-flat in an enclosed stadium

so, she ran faster than canberra on a wet track ???

learn to think

it was damn good conditions for 400/800

roger ran 44,59 as a kid

eh ?

it's damn good

rubbish

i offer only total unbiased opinions

nonsense

i applied observation to '86 race

your comments on don's '80 run are utter total rubbish, with drivel writen about splits, not even stating 52.3 & 1'18.8+

or maybe even 1'18.8++

eh ?

never

only unbiased

nonsense

'86 race looked to have no serious wind/rain

the rain had already stopped

just a wet track offering reduced friction & fast times

rubbish

i made helluva lot of adjustments

total drivel

your claim of don's time/extra distance run are rubbish

you made up crap about his extra distance/splits without any report

just as absurd is your claim of '86 race which appears to have little/no wind/rain at start

yes

nonsense

'86 race looked to have no serious wind from vid

don had +1.5 prior to race

utter rubbish

any serious wind will knock off good few tenths/lap

are you so inept to comprehend this ???

clueless

don ran windy meet & likely raining

'86 was not windy & rain had stopped

to claim

"0.2s within"

in races 6y apart with no exact wind/temperature for different guys is even more nonsense than i thought capable of your aggrandizement to

ameoba

???

you have no clue about how much further don ran

he likely ran lot wide on bends to keep in touch to 600m

coe

had huge amount in race

don had none from 600m

yes

rubbish

coe had little wind from vid

don had 1.5m/s recorded prior

it's unknown how much extra wide don ran

offer it ???

yes

best source

were you at 200m line ???

yes

"his torso is actually abreast"

at the 600m line in 1'19.6

utter crass ineptitude

if it was 0.1s at 800

it was 0.1s at 600m

so,

it's 24.9/25.0

can't you get any sort of logical brain ???

err...

i already said he was good for 1'42-mid

& helluva lot slower than don to 600m with lotta wind/rain for don

rubbish

more like 80m+

your dismality incapable of understanding bend is ~ 116m ?

coe got

~ 0.6s

extra

utter rubbish

he had huge amount of drafting

yes

so ?

thats intrinsic 1'43-mid

don wouda killed that in trials form

err...

1'44.7 is not impressive

go fetch cruz

koln '84

all the races in 1/52 before

that is his best run in '80

he was 1'42-mid peak

so ?

he was never better than 1'42-mid in '80

yes

who gives a damn what you think

were you an hugely informed track adult in '80 ???

utter rubbish

i already said coe good for 1'42.5

don was good for same in '80

you posted utter nonsense about don's '80 trials shape

lotta meaningless blub

he beat coe & won zurich + coupla other euro 800s

coe woudn't face him in zurich

no

he was in magnificent shape in trials

gold winning shape if moscow

utter drivel

he chased him all post-moscow

can you not comprehend how badly peter-coe tried to avoid don ???

utterly clueless

he ran for $

coe had ducked him so bad it was ridiculous

no motivation

no games

no coe

rubbish

coe was in great shape in zurich, but woudn't face don over 800

& don had won zurich 800

coe shouda faced don in big meet, not some rubbish meet worse than

firenze

Here we go again! Trying to compare athletes from very different eras! An impossible task! Times run cannot be the leading criteria. Zatopek? Totally useless, never approached 28min for 10K! All any athlete can do is compete against the standards and athletes of his/her day; their greatness or otherwise has to be judged by how much they dominated in their era.

Ryun did not just break world records; he obliterated them! Good records set by great athletes; Elloitt, Snell Jazy. In his peak years 1966/67 nobody on the planet could live with him over 1500/mile. Granted, his time at his peak was limited to those two years but during that time he achieved a dominance that Scott never approached. you have to respect Scott's longevity and his willingness to race anybody, anywhere, any time but he had two very good chances to win an Olympic medal (he surely could have won gold in 1988?) but came up short each time. Ryun was a "failure" (I'm being ironic here, for the benefit of the less intelligent visitors to this site!) at the three Olympics he competed in but did win a silver.

[quote]ventolin^3 wrote:

scott was in fantastic shape in '80 trials & wouda been huge threat in games over 1500, especially as coe/ovett wouda had the 800 races in their legs

unfortunately for scott his form tailed off in july/august presumably from lack of motivation engendered by boycott.'

That lack of motivation must have been bad as it affected him over the next 8 years