Ovett ran 50XX off a 55 in the 80 Olympics he won
That's the real reason Coe could not catch him not just poor tactics
Ovett ran 50XX off a 55 in the 80 Olympics he won
That's the real reason Coe could not catch him not just poor tactics
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Ovett ran 50XX off a 55 in the 80 Olympics he won
That's the real reason Coe could not catch him not just poor tactics
Ovett ran laps of 54.9 and 50.5. He ran 2m wide on 2nd bend and c. 1.5m wide on final bend. Without the extra distance run it was worth 54.6/50.3 in a 1:44.9.
Coe ran the entire race in lane 2. His laps were 55.1/50.7. He ran 5m extra on first bend, 4m+ on third and 3.5m on last bend. That's an extra 12.5m run.
Without the extra distance run it was worth 54.4/49.8! in a 1:44.2.
He was in great 800 shape but chose to ruin any chance of winning by giving Ovett about a 9m head start.
Deanouk wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Ovett ran 50XX off a 55 in the 80 Olympics he won
That's the real reason Coe could not catch him not just poor tactics
Ovett ran laps of 54.9 and 50.5. He ran 2m wide on 2nd bend and c. 1.5m wide on final bend. Without the extra distance run it was worth 54.6/50.3 in a 1:44.9.
Coe ran the entire race in lane 2. His laps were 55.1/50.7. He ran 5m extra on first bend, 4m+ on third and 3.5m on last bend. That's an extra 12.5m run.
Without the extra distance run it was worth 54.4/49.8! in a 1:44.2.
He was in great 800 shape but chose to ruin any chance of winning by giving Ovett about a 9m head start.
I think you mean he ran 5m wide on the 2nd bend in Moscow from 2 to 300.
But you're right, Coe always seemed to run further than anyone else in his 800 races. Why? Did the same in Euro 86 and to some degree in LA 84.
He also got pretty much no drafting from wind in that Moscow race. Can probably knock a few more tenths off.
Deanouk wrote:He ran an equally incredible 800 there (Nairobi) in 2010 in 1:42.84 (51.6/51.2) with a 24.9 last 200m! Which gives a lot of credence to the belief that running at altitude (Nairobi is c. 1700m above sea level) is actually beneficial over the 800m distance, especially if that athlete was born at altitude
utter nonsense
where is his 1'40.91 in nairobi ???
I don't think Rudisha has finished with a sub 25.0 in any other of his sub 1:43's at sea level
no
he however has at sea-level, after rounds, off a near suicidal 23.4 opener, a small matter of a 1'40.91
Deanouk wrote:
autoxfil wrote:Correct:
https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-olympic-trials-david-rudisha-runs-laps-of-52-and-50-seconds/Kipketer in Monaco as well, I believe.
Yes, Rudisha did negative split in the Kenyan trials in Nairobi in 2012, but the 'general' laps of 52 and 50 quoted in that link are not correct. I watched and recorded the race at the time, and his laps were 51.2 and 50.9.
200 splits of 24.8, 26.4, 25.6, 25.3. Incredible even paced running.
He ran an equally incredible 800 there (Nairobi) in 2010 in 1:42.84 (51.6/51.2) with a 24.9 last 200m! Which gives a lot of credence to the belief that running at altitude (Nairobi is c. 1700m above sea level) is actually beneficial over the 800m distance, especially if that athlete was born at altitude. I don't think Rudisha has finished with a sub 25.0 in any other of his sub 1:43's at sea level.
Kipketer also ran negative splits of 52.0 and 50.7 in Monaco 1997.
Very good. Thanks for the quality. After 53 seconds opener how many guys have broken 26 for the last 200m ?