'Invincible' 1985 Steve Cram outsprinted by Coe early season

I don't know that he could have beaten Coe in L.A. if he were fully healthy. I do not think that he could have beaten him if the race were run the way it was. Coe's best acceleration and top speed in the sprint were, I think, never ever matched by Cram. For Cram to have won that race, he would have had to go hard the last 600m probably, assuming end of 1985 form. In any case, with health, Cram would have made it closer. In 1985, he was a lot closer to Coe's 800m and 1k form, and better than Coe actually ever ran at 1500m and mile (by a second), so I do think that a healthy Cram would have very much had a shot, with different tactics.

jjjjjj wrote:

I still think he was ill but I haven't yet encountered it again. I read it in the past and I'll bring it back up when I find it. But you absolutely poor-mouthed the injury by saying that he just missed a few weeks of uninterrupted training and tuneups, whereas the wikipedia said that his season was "severely hampered" by the injury.

Well it depends on what your definition of 'severely' is.

From what I've read, and I have read a lot about this, he had a perfect winter build up, felt he was in great form early season (a 2:15 1000m with a sub 25 last 200m), then picked up a niggling injury at the AAA on June 24th, which kept him from training for a couple of weeks. He returned to racing on July 13th, still had a niggle, but subsequently run on the 15th and 17th.

He reluctantly pulled out of a race in Oslo, not wanting to aggravate his calf further, so decided to skip a few tune up races after a tt and go to LA to train.

You should read his biography, "The Making of an Athlete", in which he talks in some depth about his build up to LA. There is no mention of illness.

Here are a few extracts from that build up in 84:

- As Steve's training progressed, Jimmy Headley (his coach) was convinced he had never seen Steve in better shape. He was running faster times (in training) than ever before, and his consistent hard work after the early disasters in New Zealand certainly seemed to be paying their dividend.......Cram even began thinking he might be coming on too fast, so he arranged a quiet first track outing over 5000m (April 4) .....His first major track race of Olympic year was to be at Loughborough (June 17th) in the match between the students and the AAA.....His time was 2:15.98 - 0.86 secs outside his own UK All-Comers record. When he covered the last 200m in 24 seconds, he looked back to his awesome best. (P.176/177)

At the AAA Champs (June 23/24), "Cram came away with a niggling little strain in his right calf...... With victory (in the 800m) assured, Cram pulled up in his stride as he approached the tape....Within a couple of strides< cram had hopped off the track and slumped to the ground, clutching his lower right calf. " ......"I had said to Karen (his then wife) before running at Loughborough that everything was going TOO well, something had to go wrong soon. With more than six weeks to go to LA I still had time to break my leg, recover and get fit enough to win a medal! If the injury only takes a week or so then it won't be a major problem, BECAUSE I'VE HAD SO MUCH GOOD WORK UP TO NOW. It helps to have had the experience in the past of being injured at a late stage and to have still come back and run well. If this is the only problem I get between now and LA then i'll be happy. It may be a good thing in the long run. I was running very well and there was a chance that I might peak too early. A few days off and a re-appraisal of my racing schedule might even mean I arrive in LA in better shape than I would otherwise have done."(P.180)

"A week after his injury, Steve took his first tentative steps around the country lanes near his home. The following day it was a 20 min jog on the Jarrow track. Progress was slow. His reappearance on the track was set for a 1000m race at the Talbot Games at Crystal Palace (July 13th). " (P,181)

He ran poorly there, but won a 1500m 2 days later in Birmingham and then another 1000m in Edinburgh 2 days after that. (2nd to G. Williamson).

"If you feel you've done the work in training, and you're not actually having any injury problems in the race, then there aren't any real reasons why you shouldn't run well. I know I've got the speed work behind me. The Loughborough race showed it's all in there somewhere.

I was in a genuine dilemma over deciding to run three races in five days. ....I really needed more races, if only for my own confidence. I needed to sharpen up as well. Race fitness is something I wanted before going to LA, so I had to weigh up running races I needed against the risk of doing some serious damage. At the time I didn't think the injury was all that bad. " (P. 183/184)

'The next decision Steve had to make was whether he should run in Oslo three days later. ... After one final trip to the physiotherapist, he finally caved in to the weight of the advice he was getting urging him to take no extra risks. A further three days' rest would be enough to get him training again, while racing could set him back the best part of a week.' (P.185)

'He duly returned to training on Monday, starting with a steady run in the morning then a later track session with visits to the physio sandwiched in between. As well as testing his foot, Cram also had to make progress in his overall condition so each track session had to be worthwhile in itself. This pattern continued through the week, running 150s, then 200s, till on Wednesday night he ran 10 x 300m repetitions, each in under 39 secs. It was by far his best session for a long time, and the pain from his foot troubled him much less. It was the final encouragement he needed to go ahead with plans for a tough time trial at the Jarrow track on the Friday.'

"I was really looking forward to the race to give me a boost to my confidence. Before Helsinki, I ran 1:44 in my last race at Gateshead. This time there was no way I could get that sort of reassurance. This time I knew I HAD SO MUCH GOOD TRAINING BEHIND ME, AND SPEED WORK AS WELL, I WAS JUST SORT OF RACES. I was already going to be relying on the heats and semi-finals to give me race practice." (P.187)

(N.B The same sentiment Coe expressed with the rounds of the 800 and 15)

Cram then ran a 3:39.8, running the last 500 alone, in very windy and rainy conditions.

" I was delighted. I'd certainly have settled for it before the race. ...The conditions were so bad that the run had to be worth more than that on a decent day - let alone the extra difference that a real race would have made." (P.188)

"I think it's more important that I feel perfect mentally than physically. I'm not going to have to run 3:31 in LA unless these championships are completely different to all the ones that have gone before. I don't need to run the fastest I've ever done in my life. I need to be in good enough condition to run a very fast last lap or even last 800m, and THERE'S NO REASON WHY I CAN'T STILL DO THAT. The most important thing is that I feel as though I can do it, that I'm confident enough going into the race to get into the right positions and dictate matters. I've got to believe I'm going to win it." (P.189)

So, all this is from Cram's own words or from his biographer. It shows clearly that he missed a week of training, then had to take it easy for a couple of weeks with his training, missed a few races, and that his background training had been better than ever, and his speed was going well.

Coe missed much more winter training and also had injury problems effecting his training in June. So both had their problems.

Cram's 84 season was not 'severely hampered'. He simply wasn't good enough to beat Coe that year.

Cram is on record (on several occasions) as saying that for him, even paced laps are the best way for running his best over 800m.

He ran 51.7/51.5 in Edinburgh 86

He ran 51.2/51.6 in Zurich 85.

He has stated that he was at his limit in Zurich 85, when running 1:42.8 and that he was not capable of breaking the WR. Yet you ludicrously state he was capable of 1:41 flat.

Let us look at the times some elite 800 guys have actually run, compared with what your analysis says they could have run. Actual pbs first: -

Ryun - 1:44.3 - 1:39.9

Ovett - 1:44.09 - 1:42.5

Souleiman - 1:42.97 - 1:41.5

Cram - 1:42.88 - 1:41.0

Ngeny - 1:44.49 - 1:41 low

In fact according to you there have been dozens of elite 800 and mile guys who were capable of running 1:41. This is at complete odds to the fact that only 5 men in history ever have, and only 2 of them have gone below 1:41.6.

You seem to have a complete lack of respect for the event. There are few capable of 1:42 in ideal conditions, and I have to say some of those that have in recent years are looking increasingly suspect this year.

From the above sample, the average Ventolin added premium takes 2.5 secs off their actual pb!

Now lets look at your same analysis for Coe: -

1:41.73 - 1:42.0!

For him, you've actually offered his true ability to be slower than he actually ran. LOL. And don't cite the timing problem in Firenze. Not only is there video evidence and manual time back up, giving 1:41.6, but he clearly ran an extra 1.5m wide on the 3rd bend.

Are you really going to say that your number crunching is actually based on something and is applied the same for everyone?

Cram’s win in Edinburgh was no more impressive than Coe’s in Stuttgart if you know anything about splits and distribution of effort/pace! Cram's Edinburgh run had pretty even splits of 25.2, 26.5, 26.5 & 25.0. (51.7, 51.5). He was basically paced to 600m, ran about 2.5m extra on the 3rd bend (worth 1:42.9) & was able to change pace at the end because of the even splits! Cram had 270m of drafting (200 – 470m), which is 70m further than what is expected in a fast tt. That’s worth 0.12, so if we add this back to Cram’s time we end up with 1:43.0. That is no indication whatsoever of 1:41 flat abilty. Also, it might as well have been a 1 off Grand Prix race, as there was a 3 day rest between the semi & final! In his heat and semi Cram ran 1:51 & 1:48.7; hardly severe Championship standard.

In the Europeans in Stuttgart later that summer, the 3 rounds were on consecutive days, and the times were faster. Cram would have been much fresher going into the Edinburgh final because of the lack of intensity leading up to it.

The Europeans were of a higher standard. Coe's aim in the Europeans was to track Cram and outkick him in the home straight. The 200m splits in the Euro final were much more erratic, taking more finishing speed out of an athlete.

Watch the Stuttgart 800 & see how wide Coe runs all 3 bends. Running on the line with lane 2 on each bend means you run 2.89 m further, running on inside of lane 2 = 3.5m per bend. Coe’s actual splits in the European final were also negative (52.8, 51.7), but, taking into consideration he actually ran c810m, his splits would have been equivalent to 52.5, 50.7 in the 800m, which is 1:43.2. His last 200m was 24.8 in rain, running much of it (2.5m) wide. It was worth about 24.5 if he could have run on the inside.

Coe's last 100m in Stuttgart was 12.4, compared to Cram's 12.8 in Edinburgh. It was also raining in Stuttgart. As I've said before, Coe ran very wide on all 3 bends, and even though his finishing time was 1:44.5, it was worth c. 1:43.2. Comparable to Cram’s time in Edinburgh.

As a further example of the weakness of the Edinburgh field in comparison to Cram, one only has to look at Mckean’s performances in both races. He had always stated that he aimed to be at a peak for the Europeans at the end of August. He ran almost identical times in both Champs, but whereas his last 200m in the Common. was 26.1, in Stuttgart it was 25.2! Cram aimed to be at a peak in Edinburgh and "try" to maintain it until the Europeans. It's not that Cram was a shadow of himself at the Euros, but rather the rest of his rivals had improved.

Cram himself ran c 809m in the final in Stuttgart and had only 100m of drafting. If we take those 2 factors into consideration, he ends up with a 1:43.5 performance with a last 200m of 25.0, not disimilar to the same stats in the Commonwealth race. The reason Cram didn't appear to reproduce the same 2nd lap in Stuttgart as in Edinburgh is because all the variables were different; rounds faster, less time to recover, weather worse, opposition better, pace more erratic, etc. But the most significant variable was Coe was in the race.

Your bleating about the weather is nonsensical. A 2m/sec wind has a negligible affect on a 2 lap race.

Research shows that for a WR time of 43.15 sec for 400m, the difference between windless conditions and a steady tail wind down the home straight for running in lane 1, would slow a runner down by 0.08 sec. If there was a constant wind blowing in the opposite direction, it would only slow a runner (with no drafting) 0.04 secs for a 400m.

Running 51 secs for 800m pace would possibly slow a runner down by 0.2 per lap. That's 0.4 for an 800m, and that's presuming they get no drafting whatsoever.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.616.4826&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Steve Cram’s 800m victory in the 86 Commonwealth final, as magnificent as it was, is not indicative of 1:41 mid ability, and he would tell you so himself.

The weather conditions would have had a negligible effect on finishing time. The wind reading in the two 200m finals that day in Edinburgh were 2.07m/s and 2.15m/s. So it was in the same direction. It was not raining at the time of the 800 final.

If Cram's run in Edinburgh was worth faster due to weather and tiredness (which I don't believe they are), then Coe's 800 in Stuttgart needs to be adjusted accordingly. Not only was it raining at the time of the 800 final in the Europeans, with noticeable puddles all over the track and officials wearing rain coats, but the wind readings that day were as strong. On the same day, in the men's 200m heat 2, the wind read -1.7m/sec, Heather Oakes into a -2.0m/sec in her heat. Robert Emmiyan had a +1.9 in his Long Jump qualifying. So the wind was just as strong as in Edinburgh. The women’s 400m final was just before the men’s 800m, and Mel Watman wrote at the time in AW, that if not for the wet and windy conditions “Koch would likely have broken 48 secs”.

Weather stats show that the weather in Stuttgart on 28.8.86 was colder than Edinburgh on 31.7.86.

Stuttgart- Max 15C, Min 8C

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?LANG=en&WMO=10738&ART=MAX&CONT=euro&R=150&LEVEL=150&REGION=0001&LAND=__&NOREGION=1&MOD=&TMX=&TMN=&SON=&PRE=&MONAT=&OFFS=&SORT=&MM=08&YY=1986&WEEK=4

Edinburgh - Max 16C, Min 11C

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?LANG=en&WMO=03160&ART=MIN&CONT=ukuk&R=150&LEVEL=150&REGION=0003&LAND=__&NOREGION=0&MOD=&TMX=&TMN=&SON=&PRE=&MONAT=&OFFS=&SORT=&MM=07&YY=1986&WEEK=4

If you're prepared to take off a second for Cram because of cold weather, then you have to do the same for Coe in Stuttgart. I don't believe that such temperatures warrant taking such times off in such a short race, but if your rationale is to do so, then you have to apply it to everyone in same conditions. You

You suggest Cram would have run faster in Edinburgh off a 50 flat 1st lap, when his 400 time was 51.7. Well the same can be said of Coe, who ran 52.8 in Stuttgart. That is further away from a 50 flat, and his splits had a greater negative difference.

Cram's actual splits were 51.7/51.5 (-0.2)

With extra distance/drafting taken into consideration more like 51.7/51.3 (-0.4) = 1:43.0

Coe's actual splits were 52.8/51.7 (-1.1)

With extra distance/drafting etc, more like 52.5/50.7 (-1.8) = 1:43.2

So Coe ran greater negative splits and was further from the 50 flat you suggest is optimal for time (which I disagree with, it depends on the athlete) on first lap, yet you take off time for Cram but nothing for Coe.

Another example of bias.

Both Cram and Coe had c 250m of drafting in their respective races. How you can differentiate or quantify quality of drafting is nonsense. They had the same amount, which cancels each other out.

Where do you get that a stumble costs 0.2 secs? Let's say for argument's sake that it is. No problems. Coe had to check his stride at 200m, again at about 280m and then stumbled at about 320m. So let's afford him the same 0.2 secs as Cram. So, again the 2 incidents cancel each other out.

As for the 1500m, you've already stated on these boards, as Ventolin, that Coe's Stockholm 1500 was worth 3:28 flat.

And on Track Talk as Cocakula, you wrote this: -

"People only aim for running a bit faster than the WR, i.e. Coe aiming for 3:31 in 1981 when he was likely capable of 3:28 flat, possibly 3:27 high. People woulda called him crazy if he asked for that pacing, but we know now it is obviously possible. He musta known that after running a 3:29.77 well past his prime in '86."

http://www.tracktalk.net/t/jim-ryun/11584/44

Don't deny it's you. Anyone who frequents this board and reads through the comments on the 'Jim Ryun' thread will recognise it's you straight away.

Here's another extract from said Cocakula: -

"No

It is very obvious you are not comprehending what I am saying.

I never gave Jim 1s for rabbits over 800m. He had near 45 flat speed in '67 and 3:24.xx 1500 ability. That indicates 1:40.low 800 ability.

Rudy was 1:40.low ability in that race on that track, which as I've said, was a bit better than standard synthetic and '70s synthetic as it was designed specifically with world records in mind (think: very hard).

Everything I've said for Jim is for

read

'70s synthetic tracks"

Look familiar?

THANKS DEANO. Yeah, we know it's you posting this.

deanerflaker wrote:

THANKS DEANO. Yeah, we know it's you posting this.

Haha, I'm certainly not Deano, just a casual fan who grew up watching the Coe/Ovett/Cram era.

I'm glad I managed to trigger another epic Ventalin/Deano debate though!

Gonzalez (thanks for the spelling correction btw) has a medal from a global non boycotted champs, Coe does not. Moscow was heavily impacted by the boycott no Wessinhage, Walker, Scott etc etc .. LA had no Eastern Bloc who were still a force in the late 1970s early 1980s - for example no Straub who almost defeated Coe and Ovett in Moscow. Yes you can argue the Eastern bloc were doping but this leads to another complicated discussion.

You criticize people for commenting about the Olympic boycotts and Coe's medals being "easy" but you are doing the same here saying that Gonzalez's medals were "easy" and yet these championships in which Gonzalez won medals in were not boycotted i.e. none of the best athletes were actively barred from these championships.

You are missing Gonzalez's world indoor silvers over 3000m and 1500m. I am counting 3000m as Coe did run 3000m indoors. I also have not counted European cup performances which could also make things more interesting.

This does not make sense. Gonzalez beat Coe in his prime over a mile in the biggest mile race of 1985. If we look at the results:

3:46.32 Steve Cram 3:47.79 José Luis González 3:49.22 Sebastian Coe

we see that the gap to Gonzales from Cram was basically the same as the gap from Gonzales to Coe and yet people write about the race as though none of the runners mattered except for Cram and Coe or that Cram was only worried about Coe.

Gonzales' performance in the 1987 outdoor world champs behind Abde Bile was impressive and I don't know if Coe would have beaten him that day. Coe himself could not beat Bile over 1500m in 1989.

Rather than saying that Gonzalez was no match against Coe in their primes the actual race results instead show that in top class races Gonzales would have a chance against Coe over 1500m/mile.

I am not trying to downgrade Coe who was one of the greatest combined 800m/1500m of all time but it is frustrating to constantly hear other runners of the era being downgraded and not being given the respect they deserve. Whenever someone like Coe is beaten, we hear a stream of reasons trotted out - injury, illness, not quite fit, running wide, boxed in, etc etc as if these problems just did not exist for their competitors. Peter Eliott is another athlete who was not given the respect he desrved. His Seoul 800m/15000m double effort was a one of the best by a British athlete.

Thanks for the same arguments as Ventolin. The points you have listed are almost identical to those previously stated by him.

Coe beat Scott & Walker emphatically a week or so after Moscow '80 in Zurich. They were rested, he'd run 6 races in 9 days. Walker never beat Coe after '77. Scott didn't beat him until '83.

Coe never lost to Wessinghage, even beating him in a 2000m in 82, the year Wessinghage went on to run a European Record of 4:52.2.

Straub had long retired before LA, so he's a moot point, and who exactly were these great Eastern bloc milers in 84 that couldn't run in LA?

The fastest Eastern Bloc runner over 1500 in 84, was Busse, who Coe beat easily in Zurich, where Coe won by over a second and Busse came 8th.

If you think that a World Indoor or European indoor gold are comparable to even a boycotted Olympic Games title, then I can't help you.

Coe was not in his prime in 1985. He had stated from the outset of the year that it was a transitional year geared towards moving up to 5000m. He then had injury problems and a recurring back injury throughout the summer which prevented him doing the strength work needed to run 5000. So he stuck with 8 & 15. Coe was a shadow of the athlete he had been a year earlier or in 81.

There is no evidence at all that Gonzalez in 87 would beat a prime Coe. He was miles behind Bile at Worlds and only beat a sub par Cram by a whisker in the European Cup that year.

A nearly 33 year old Coe, well past his best in 89, ran Bile a lot closer than Gonzalez did in 87.

answer just 1 question

a question asked of you numerous times but never an answer

what was coe's time if he'd run the perfect route-1 race, tight in lane 1 all the way with smooth drafting to bell only, with 2s +ve splits in stuttgart ?

You are absolutely nuts. Do you have nothing else to do in your life?

Re. LA in 1984; as I have pointed out previously, Ovett made TWO Olympic finals at a time when he was very obviously seriously ill. He would have been a MAJOR factor on the last lap of the 1500 if this had not been the case.

And talking of the trio's efforts over 5K; Ovett was the only one of the three to end his career with a sub 13:20 clocking!

As for the race featured in the video, I seem to recall even Coe himself saying that his victory was to be expected since Cram had not really raced before this contest. Cram's best 800 races tended to come towards the end of a season, not at the start.

Vent - you can change you're name, but you're ramblings will always give you away. A leopard never changes his spots.

At the end of the day, Coe has two Golds and two Silvers. Cram has only one Silver as does you boy Ryun. No math will ever change that.

Trackbot! Steve Cram vs Said Aouita

Deanouk wrote:

This is the link you should read.

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank13.html

Coe was certainly capable of well below 14:00mins. His father wouldn't have wasted 2 winters of training for the 5000m (84/85 and 86/87) had he thought his son had too many fast twitch fibres to run no faster than 14mins for 5000m.

That training that the author suggests in the article looks outright horrible, and a wonderful way to get injured quickly.

'We next consider the effects that wind has on the overall performance of a runner for different

wind direction angles θ. Table 4 illustrates the effects for runners in lanes 1, 4, and 8 of a 2 m/s

wind blowing from all points of the compass in 30° increments. (We use 2 m/s because it is the

maximum legal speed for a world record to be recorded without the notation “wind assisted.”) In

addition to the predicted model times, we have included time corrections from the data obtained

UNDER WINDLESS CONDITIONS. For example, a runner in lane 4 would have an overall increase in time of 0.06 seconds corresponding to a steady 2 m/s wind blowing at an angle of 60° from the main straight.'

The table (see link below) shows that for a constant tailwind of 2m/sec throughout the race, a 400m performance of 43.15 in lane 1 would be slowed down by just 0.08 secs, compared to windless conditions. That is for someone that has no drafting.

If it is a constant headwind of 2m/sec, then it slows down by just 0.04 secs.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.616.4826&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Where do you get a 2 secs slowdown for a 2.15m/sec wind in an 800m race where much of the time the athlete is protected from the wind by those in front?

Good find.

It also suggests that running on an old track with longer straights and shorter bends actually SLOWS down the final time.

"The final time in the equal quadrant track is 0.06 seconds slower than the IAAF standard track

simulation, due to the smaller radii on the bends. This causes the runners to spend more time on

the ground than in the air, which increases their time. An equal quadrant track has longer

straights than the IAAF standard track, which gives the runners on an equal quadrant track an

advantage to be able to run faster on the straights. However, this does not outweigh the

disadvantage that they have on the bends."

So Calculo is wrong about effect of a 2m/sec wind, vastly over inflating its impact, and also on tracks with shorter curves, which he believed speeded up final times.

Nobody said he was invincible over 800m

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Nobody said he was invincible over 800m

But he wasn't invincible over A mile either in 85. Ovett beat him in London.

Deanouk wrote:

This causes the runners to spend more time on

the ground than in the air, which increases their time. .

This statement here is false. Runners are not faster in the air than on the ground. It's the opposite.

maloofi proved this is nonsense

no

51.8 / 51.4

a joke

you can't analyse

he was ahead of barbosa at bell & barbosa was 0.4s behind at last track mark

50.9 / 51.9

he is clearly clueless

i'm sure maloofi wouda said same thing & he ran 1'42.6 with ~ 4.5m extra off 49.9 for 1'42.0 intrinsic !!! off suicidal 23.5 !!!

maloofi has taught you nothing ???

what were the splits for maloofi's previous pb ???

the GOAT

clearly you learn't nothing from brief dusseldorf vid

huge +ve split + lot of wide bend-running & tactical race where he shouda run over coe at 500 but wasted time thinking coe was a threat & dawdled to 700

~ 8m extra wide on bends !!!

lack of drafting & quit at end when beaten !

1;41-mid all-day

zurich/oslo both terrible tactical races & poor weather for latter with serious wide bend runnning

most definitely 1'41-flat

you think maloofi was superior to cram for 800 off 1500 training ???

cram finished a 3'46+ with a 52+ last 400 !!!

is this a joke ???

he ran 2'11.9WR off 49.9 !! with ~ 6m extra on 1st bend !!!

how many seconds did it take him to get into tight in lane 1 compared to coe in his 2'12.1 off 51.3 ???

is this a joke ???

maloofi just ran, after rounds, including a fast semi, 1'42.6 with ~ 4.5m extra on bends, off a suicidal 23.5 !!!

Big-Man ran brace of 1'41-flats off 24,5 !!!

there have been huge number of 1'41+ guys, but they run rubbish splits, especially 200 & too much wide running

is this a joke ???

do you have any clue about the sport ???

the women's 10k wr was smashed & guy before said those africans shoud have gone 29'30 off ~ 14'10

1'42.0 is rubbish

raw kid runs 1'42.9 off 23.9 split !!!

if Big-Man ran brace off 1'41-flat's off 24.5, what on earth do you think this kid couda run for 800 off 24-mid/high, especially if rested 1-off in zurich ???

yes

it is ruined by rubbish 23+ to 24-flat openers which are nonsense

they lose ~1s off clocking compared to going out in 24-high

is this a joke ???

what part of maloofi with ~ 4.5m extra off suicidal 23.5 in a 1'42.6 didn't tell you 1'42+ is nonsense ???

what part of a raw kid running 1'42.9 off suicidal 23.9 you not comprehend as wrecking his final time ???

both done after fast rounds !!!

Big-Man set brace of rested 1'41-flats off only 24.5 !!!

is this a joke ???

have you seen the 800 final ???

did you see the suicidal opening 200s ???

did you see what extra distance top-2 ran ???

is this a joke ???

can't you analyse individual cases ???

it is a joke to lump together individuals

1'41.73 is a joke

mickey-mouse unknown track with no auto-timing

1'42.0+ only

if you run pb on mickey-mouse unknown track with no auto-timing, you get no favors

he didn't break 1'46 elsewhere that year in 1/2-dozen+ stand-alone 800s !

nothing lol

hard facts only

beg, borrow or steal a auto-time

where was it ???

mickey-mouse meet on mickey-mouse track with mickey-mouse time

name any other serious meet in last 40y where auto-time broke down for serious middle distance clocking ???

firenze :

laughable unknown meet with busted timing

the track looks squeezed into a tight stadium

obviously stepanova's 52.94WR near 2m short track had siblings !!!

is this a joke ???

no runnning clock, no auto-timing

what on earth back-up ???

hand-timing ???

is this a joke ???

ruskie woman ran 1'54.85WR, auto-timed in that era & HTs were nonsense 1'54.7. 1'54.6 !! & 1'54.5 !!!

no chance for HT recognition after '81

no

~ 1.0m on unknown distance, mickey-mouse track

please tell the world where firenze track was after '84 ???

where was it in '85 or '86 or '87 or days of '90s ???

what happened to firenze track ???

i number crunch objectively

i laugh at runs on mickey mouse tracks at mickey mouse meets even moreso with busted timing

is this a joke ???

is this a joke

he got baulked by mckean at 200 costing 0.2s

no

51.8 / 51.4

a joke

he was so far back or so far wide he got only portion of drafting, owed at least 0.2s

a joke

he runs ~ 2.75m extra on 3rd & ~ 0.75m extra on last

that is 3.5m total

no

1'42.7

is this a joke ???

can't you watch or analyse ???

he got clipped at 200, lost his momentum & had to play stalking/catch-up

cram had no intention of wasting his time at the back with 1'42+ pb but took it when clipped by mckean

this doesn't include the big stumble he had when clipping mckean at ~ 210m which cost coupla tenths so that goes to 51.6 / 51.2

then the huge amount he runs wide in 3rd bend with actual running in lane 2 !!!

at least 2.5m extra on that bend, making his final unimpeded splits for lane 1

51.6 / 50.9

for 1'42.5

using formula quoted previously for 2s +ve splits, that 1'42.5 wouda been quicker by

[ 2nd lap - 1st lap - 2.00 ] * ( 1/3 )

= [ 50.9 - 51.5 - 2 ] * ( 1/3 ) = 0.87s

= 1'41.6+

for a 2s +ve split race

in freezing windy weather !!!

no

significant drafting from 370 - 460 with poor drafting from 200 - 370

worth combined ~ 175m & that's ungenerous to him

no

he has collision past 200 & gets well behind mckean then mckean runs wide & cram is getting nothing from him but from trivial from other blue-vested guy who is directly ahead & cram only then gets some worthwhile drafting at 370m

he then gets this to ~ 460m when he is running wide of mckean & into lane 2

that is significant drafting from 370 - 460 with poor drafting from 200 - 370

no

~ 25m less than in a tt race

what "touch" nonsense ???!!!

from 2'49 in vid he can be be seen clearly running with both feet in lane 2 !!!

& he doesn't pull in from there !!!

no

easily 2.5m for bend & that's not generous

that's just for 3rd bend

there's another 0.2s for the ~ 1.5m wide on 2nd bend

0.5s total

no

owed 25m drafting, which is 0.05s owed

no

1'43.22 - 0.5 - 0.05 =

1'42.67

then knock off 0.2s from collision at ~ 210 ->

1'42.47

with big -ve splits

that is big

no

the gold standard for any athlete is to run with ~ 2s +ve splits

that is what you convert any -ve or even split race to if no such race run by athlete

no

it's not

just look at splits of 1'40.91WR

near enough 2s +ve splits despite suicidal 23.4 opener

Big-Man clearly trying to ease of after 200m to run ~ 2s +ve splits

it affects everyone

if someone ran 1'44-flat at 30,000', no one here woud say same guy woud run 1'44-flat at 0'

a joke

he was owed 0.05s drafting

quote]That’s worth 0.12[/quote]

no

owed drafting

no

1'42.47

then further adjustments outlined

learn to analyse

huge windy, cold weather with massive wind-chill killed this race

is this a joke ???

both prelims run on same day !!!

it finished coe who quit !!!

is this a joke ???

they were both on same day !!!

it finished coe !!!

is this a joke ???

it finished coe !!!

why are you are not telling posters that coe quit after the 2-prelims in 1-day ???

unlike 2 rounds in 1-day which finished coe !!!

is this a joke ???

edinburgh had 2 rounds in 1 day !!!

it finished coe !!!

is this a joke ???

they had 2 rounds on same day !!!

it finished coe !!!

is this a joke ???

same main guys minus coe who was finished by 2 rounds in same day

cram won edinburgh in 1'43.2 !!!

coe won euros in 1'44.5 !!

how on earth does anyone think 1'43.2 is worse than 1'44.5 ???

pathetic

parasiting cram !!!

only tactic coe coud think coud win

draft off cram as much as possible & hope cram was nowhere edinburgh shape so coe mighta had sliver of chance

every grown-up expected cram to crush coe anywhich way he showed up

bad luck that cram was injured

a joke

edinburgh was even-pace race for "chumps" ahead of cram

cram just crushed them

stuttgart had everyone looking at cram & praying he wasn't in edinburgh shape

he wasn't & that's why more uneven pace

eh ??

you think i didn't ?

i see basic math is within your remit

is this a joke ???

what is this joke ???

give exact distances from inner line

a joke ??

coe splits ~ 52.6 with 51.9

no

~ 9.5m extra

for

~ 52.4 / 50.9

no

24.9

24.6

is this a joke ???

cram ran intrinsic 1'42.7+

coe ran 1'43.2+ with huge amount of drafting off cram in previous 100

he parasited cram all the race !!!

pathetic tactics from coe

is this a joke

cram ran 1'42.7+ intrinsic with under-drafting, whilst coe ran 1'43.2+ whilst hugely drafting off cram

huge & pathetic limpeting from coe

eh ??

he got hammered in front of home crowd which wouda shocked him

a joke

a scot peaks for this minor championships according to location

commonwealths/euros were/always minor meets, just minor prelim to OG or then WC

it's a joke to think mckean was happy to get smashed in edinburgh

can't you think ???

that's because it was so much worse weather in edinburgh & fact cram was injured before euros & nowhere like same 800 shape

what part of coe quit in edinburgh don't you want world to know ???

he failed

he got a leg injury which blunted his 800 speed

what part of 1'43.2 in edinburgh v 1'44-high in stuttgart you not comprehend ??

is this a joke ??

cram was in 1'41-flat shape in edinburgh

he looked out to 1'43-low/mid in stuttgart

cram's 800 shape had collapsed by euros

a joke

coe parasited him

a joke

cram was in ~ 1'41-flat/low in edinburgh

he was intrinsically 2++ slower in euros

is this a joke ???

the reason is :

cram ~ 1'41-flat/low shape in edinburgh

cram ~ 1'43.5 shape in euros

a joke

he quit edinburgh as 2 races in 1 day finished him

a joke

you have no clue about wind-chill

this is beyond a joke, it's utter nonsense

it woud wreck a 800 by probably 1s

what 43.15wr ???

when ?

where ?

is this a joke ???

what wind speed ???

i'm talking 2m/s

then search that nonsense-source for the effect on bends ???

or your lack of analysis not understand wind affects bends ???

is this a joke ???

with what wind speed ???

what wind speeds ??

what effect on bends ??

no

it was indicative of

1'41-flat/low

unfortunately, he is no bright spark

he doesn't have a clue about his own abilities as maloofi's 800 has just shown for the nonsense posted about "even-pace 800 guys"

a joke

huge effect

huge wrecking wind

huge, wrecking wind-chill on top of buffeting

wind-chill made it near freezing as guy on T&F board who was there says it was

were you there watching race on stadium to counter account of T&F poster ???

is this a joke ???

they were due to weather, 2 rounds in 1 day & being injured before euros

easy

he quit in edinburgh !!!

you really have no clue

those can be construed as helping winds on both bends

is this a joke

hard man elliott complained about how tough weather was in edinburgh

he said nothing about same for euros

is this a joke ???

i saw final live on tv & it's here for anyone to watch :

it's wet but no wind mention

i don't need opinion of some "journalist" who left school at 14y to look for writing job on meet i saw live on tv

no

you have shown range

nothing specific for time of day

hard man elliott who ran in both said edinburgh was hard

he said nothing such of euros

the weather graph for stuttgat shows warmer range than edinburgh for the specific days

mckean got crushed in edinburgh but almost won euros !!!

coe quit in edinburgh !!!

no

~ 2.0+ s for

1'41-flat/low

a joke

warmer weather for race in euros & lesser wind

no complaint from elliott on weather

coe parasited cram whole way

coe that day at best in 0 wind, warm day standard drafting & no bumps

~ 1'42-mid

no

race specific temperatures/winds do

no complaints from elliott/mckean about euros weather

elliott the hard man said how tough edinburgh was

i did

far worse wind-chill in edinburgh than stuttgart

try & comprehend what wind chill is

then add in baulking effect of higher winds in edinburgh

maloofi proved it

no

it was 51.8

no

52.6

is this a joke ???

it was in far slower clocking

no

slight difference

coe's splits were 52.6 / 51.9 for 0.7s -ve splits much netter than cram who

had 51.8 / 51.4 for 0.4s

in a much slower race than edinburgh

& huge amount of drafting where he parasited cram the whole way before kicking off him

pathetic tactics

the tactics of a man who believed he coudn't win the race by dominating but hoped to parasite of the colussus in the field & hoped he was nowhere like edinburgh shape

no

51.8 / 51.4

you once again forget stumble at ~ 200m which cost at least 0.2s & he was owed drafting for being so much behind or wide

that makes his splits ~ 51. 6 / 50.9 for 1'42.5

in utterly misearble conditions with -ve splits

worth ~ ~ 1'41-flat/low in warm 0 wind wetaher with 2s +ve spits as maloofi has just shown

no

52.6 / 51.9 for -0.7s -ve splits

no

he got ~ 0.3s more drafting in race than he's entitled to

most of it on 2nd lap, so 0.1s gifted on 1st lap & 0.2s gifted on 2nd

with ~ 9.5m extra

-> 52.5 / 51.1 for 1'43.6

with included colossal amount of drafing, sticking as close to cram as he coud

worth ~ 1'43-mid/high with standard 200m of drafting

in far slower race

what part of 1'43.2 v 1'44.5 you not comprehend ???

your assertion is wrong

coe ran intrinsically much slower race than cram in edinburgh

further maloofi proved that when an elite 1500 guy is forced to run a sub-50, he can destroy his 800pb

learn to analyse

coe was worth 1'43-mid/high that day if only 200m drafting & probably

1'42-high/1'43-flat if 0 wind/warmer day & 2s +ve splits

cram was ~ 1'41-flat/low

cram was superior athlete by 1.5 - 1.75s in edinburgh than coe in stuttgart

no objective analysis

is this a joke ???

cram gets no more than sum of ~ 100m of quality drafting as too far brack or too wide in the race

coe in comparison got sum ~ of 350m of quality drafting

easy

it's from seen helluva lot of races over many decades & good analystical skills

is this a joke ???

coe had ~ 250m more drafting than cram in their respective runs

eh ???

can't you watch vid ???

cram gets clipped by mckean & his arms go flailing & loses lot of ground making cram decide to stick at the back, ruining an early move to the front

it is, for anyone with semblance of eyesight

is this a joke

there is no contact at all, no loss of momentum

that's worth ~ 0.1s

no, the stumble after the bend wasn't as bad as cram's, worth 0.1s loss for coe

no they don't

never heard of the guy

coe in stockholm was worth 3'29-low

no idea who this but he's wrong

coe was in good 1500 shape in '86 as ever in his life

name is calculo

guy is wrong

shoud be ~ 1'39-high

guy is wrong

nothing slow about '70s tracks compared to today

we've seen bolt just win 200 gold in 19.7+

is this track 0.6s slower for 200 than berlin ???

guy has obviously never heard of iaaf coefficient of restitution limit of 65%

whoever this guy is, he is wrong 3 times as much as he is correct

nothing to