When I disagreed with your comment that Coe 'wasn't in the same class' as Rudisha & Kipketer, you said, "Not even close. Rudisha didn't just run 3/4 sec faster, he has also run sub 1:42 SEVEN times. Coe broke 1:43 twice."
Please explain how citing Rudisha broke 1:42 SEVEN times and Coe twice is not a criticism? You are stating that Coe isn't even close to Rudisha in ability, basing your opinion on the number of fast times they ran. Therefore you are criticising him for not putting up more fast times. That isn't bizarre, that is just obvious reasoning.
I offered reasoning for Coe's lack of super fast times. You don't have to agree with my opinions, but don't try and back track by saying that you didn't criticise him (in terms of his 800 ability v others, not him personally!).
I mentioned that it could be drugs that has made it possible for a lot more athletes to run sub 3:30 (particularly the c.1993-2004 period) for 1500m than 1:42 flat for 800m. EPO would have a much greater effect (in real and relative terms) on times over 1500m than 800m, based on the former being far more aerobic. I DID NOT mention any individual athlete by name. You mentioned Willis, asking if you believed his sub 3:30 put him on an equivalent level as a guy running 1:42!
I responded by saying "see above", which related to the comments I made about the effects of EPO on 1500m being much greater. Ergo, a 1:42.0 is clearly a much better performance than a 3:30 in the current climate when people have run 3:26. That in no way is a suggestion that Willis dopes. I don't believe he has, have no reason to think he has and if you misinterpreted it that way, then I am putting the issue straight.
But you made a direct reference to Coe when bringing up the subject of drugs.
? Where did I say Coe was capable of 'over a second faster than any other time he ran..?' This is totally incorrect.
I said he was capable of somewhere between 1:41.0 - 1:41.2 in 1981 with a few paced efforts later in the season. That is between 0.5 and 0.7 secs faster than he ever ran. So where do you get that I said over a second?
And unlike others who are happy to defend knocking 9 secs off an athlete's pb for their true worth in an ideal world, I base my opinion on realistic circumstances and take on board the views of others.
When he ran 1:41.7 it is a fact he ran wide on the 3rd bend for a significant part of it. Had he run on the inside of the lane (yes, I am now looking at ideal scenarios), he would have run c. 1:41.5, as he ran approximately 1.5m extra on that bend. Now, based on his split times, the entirety of his season that year, and conversations with several leading statisticians/journalists, not to mention Coe himself, I strongly believe he could have run 1:41.2 at some point in 81. But of course he didn't and I accept that, but is it really so far fetched to knock 0.3 secs off the time he would have run in an ideal race in early June? I don't think so.
The 1:41.0 is based on my belief, which I again hold strongly (and which is supported by the majority of the athletes, statisticians, etc, that I have heard express an opinion on the issue), that this is what he could have run on a modern, mondo track that today's elites run on.
Either way, I never suggested he could run 'more than a second faster than he did.
You also state on these boards that, "Numbers aren't super important unless there is some meaningful relationship between them."
If this is the case, then why are you referring to the number of sub 1:42's and 1:43's for 2 athletes that competed 30 years apart, in very different eras?
Using it to compare 2 athletes from the same period would be meaningful, but for a start the sport was not officially "professional" in 1979-1984, whereas it is now.
If you were to compare Coe and Snell just 20 years before him, then you would see a similar difference in the number of what was considered 'fast times' then.
Coe broke 1:45.0 c. 25 times.
Snell broke 1:45.0 once. He broke 1:46.0 twice in total. He broke 1:47.0 FOUR times. Even taking into consideration the slower cinder tracks, that is still only 3 performances that are of sub 1:45 standard.
Does that mean Snell wasn't capable of running more sub 1:45.0's? NO
Do I think Snell should have a question mark over his true ability for such a paltry number of fast times? NO
And the reason is because he ran in an era which was completely different to Coe.
Do I think Snell is in the same class as Coe? YES, absolutely!
So we will have to agree to differ on the significance of running a lot of fast times when comparing athletes from different eras.
You also say, after criticising me for suggesting Coe could run 1:41.2 (0.5 faster than he actually ran, not >1 sec), that, " if you DO discuss it (potential ability), then do the sam for Kiprop, grant that he's very likely capable of running sub 1:42, but with a 1500m likely 3-4 seconds faster than Coe.
So you are in fact stating exactly what you are criticising me for doing!
Namely, suggesting Kiprop is 'very likely capable of running sub 1:42,.."
That is MORE THAN A SECOND FASTER than he has actually run.
There seems some contradiction there.
I would be interested to read your suggestions as to why you feel Kiprop, who has never shown anything approaching 47 400 ability (and no I'm not suggesting he couldn't run 47), whereas Coe has run two 45 mid relay splits.
I also stick to my view that Kiprop's ability is not 3 or 4 secs superior to Coe over 1500m.
I don't think Kiprop is capable of a 1:41 800m, I do believe Coe was capable of a 3:28.0 1500m.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on several issues.
I just felt I had to clarify a few points, above.
I chose the 1:42 and 3:30 barriers, simply because they are the ones I have seen discussed on these boards before. I could have chosen sub 1:43.0 and 3:30, in which case there have been 3 men who have bettered both.
I even tried to choose equivalent times using the IAAF points system, 1:42.70/3:30.0, to make the same point, but you made no response to this.