Steve Cram's other Bislett run from 1985

The Dusseldorf track was probably short. At least on one side. The side where the 1500 starts.

JRinaldi wrote:

Never meet an athlete that said he/she preferred to run on a track with tight bends! It's laughable to suggest you run quicker and it's the problem with using math/physics as the sole basis to determine what an athlete can run on any given track. Vent falls over in this regards every time when doing his conversions....not to mention that he doesn't apply the same math to every athlete.

I'd love to see an Diamond League type field run a paced 800m at Oxy one day - those long bends are amazing,

I loved racing on the track at Occidental College in (Eagle Rock) Los Angeles, CA, because of the long, gentle turns. The southern California weather usually was quite hospitable, too.

From a philosophical geometry point of view, the broader the curve, the more it approaches being a straight line which is the fastest way to race.

calculo wrote:

what is this drivel ?

offer it

& chump-change, Ryun on '79 bislett in '67 Dusseldorf shape wouda pushed it down on that mickey-mouse "laughable" of a track into

~ 1'38-low

? Alert!? Alert!? Alert!?Alert!?

Venti has officially lowered his revisionist, counter-factual time for Jim Ryun for 800m from 1:39 to 1:38!!!! Based on 43.8!!!

? Alert!? Alert!? Alert!?Alert!?

This is not a joke???

Oddly the configuration of the Bislett track only seemed to work for one person per race. Every time someone ran great there the rest of the field would be toiling away halfway up the straight.

No, just because the start and finish lines, or indeed any markings, are in different places, it does not mean that the configuration, the relative ratio of bend and straight lengths, has also changed. The track was resurfaced in 1985 to make it faster, but there was no change in the structure of the track and thus it's configuration, until 2005. In 1985, they may well have brought the finish line back a few metres, but that would just mean that other markings around the track would have been moved back accordingly. And as someone else mentioned, you had great difficulty recognizing the correct position of the 1500m start line a few years ago in a race in France, so your geometric observations don't have a reliable track record.

As Deano also pointed out, you don't even know the exact configuration for Oslo's track in the 70's and 80's. You are merely presuming it was 105/95. Where is your evidence or source?

calculo wrote:

Ryun coulda done 1:44 tops in Bislett wrote:Remember that time ventolin wasn't sure where a 1500 should start but argued that he knew?

what is this drivel ?

offer it

& chump-change, Ryun on '79 bislett in '67 Dusseldorf shape wouda pushed it down on that mickey-mouse "laughable" of a track into

~ 1'38-low

Epic. Truly epic. Ryun runs a 1:38 low! Hahahahha

calculo wrote:

Ryun coulda done 1:44 tops in Bislett wrote:Remember that time ventolin wasn't sure where a 1500 should start but argued that he knew?

what is this drivel ?

offer it

& chump-change, Ryun on '79 bislett in '67 Dusseldorf shape wouda pushed it down on that mickey-mouse "laughable" of a track into

~ 1'38-low

Funny how I remember that too you said the 1500m in question started before the bend. Then claimed it was because the race started in a different position. The real reason is he's never run a step in his life. Now he'll claim to not to remember the short course world xc debacle. He got over excited and thought some 25 year old 'junior' was about to set a world record.

Somehow he thinks a 6 lane track makes a difference to 8 when you run in lane one.

The only reason Vent is attaching the Olso track is because of Coe's 1:42.33. As with his comments on the track in Florence, he has no evidence to back up the claims he makes again the validity both tracks. This, despite the fact that he has no evidence as to the validity of the tracks that Ryun ran his WR's on; noting that his 1500m WR appears to be on a 95/105 track) - his mile WR in 66 could also be on a similar size track given the finish line is a good 15m before the start of the bend.

I repeat - no athlete likes running on a track with tight bends. I don;t care what your math says.

JR

Here is the proof about the farce of Coe's 1:41.73... looks to me like Coe was more like a 1:42-ish guy at best. NO ONE in the history's WR holder status has such a gap differential from #1 to #2 performance.

Coe's All-Time Performances over 800m

1:41.73

1:42.33

1:43.07

1:43.38

gsa wrote:

Here is the proof about the farce of Coe's 1:41.73... looks to me like Coe was more like a 1:42-ish guy at best. NO ONE in the history's WR holder status has such a gap differential from #1 to #2 performance.

Coe's All-Time Performances over 800m

1:41.73

1:42.33

1:43.07

1:43.38

Coe's best two 1500 times were about as far apart.

I doubt any other person took a full second off the 800 record the first time and then set another that stood for 16 years either. So you might expect that sort of discrepancy.

While no athlete likes to run on tight curves, you have to balance out the longer straightaways--faster than any curves--with the shorter curves. I'm not sure that 95 v. 84 m curves make that much of a difference in the 800m, certainly not in the 1500m, but we all know that it is very tough to run much tighter indoor curves on a 200m track, esp. unbanked at any speed over 1500m. Maybe they gained more from longer straightaways than they lost in tighter curves at Bislett. Wind and a crowd close by, plus great weather and great, great fields and pacemakers made for so many wr's.

Re. Coe and his 800m Times.

Unlike modern 800m specialists who only ever run 800m, Coe ran the 1500, mile just as often. You can’t compare his spread of times against 800m specialists.

Clearly Coe was a 1:41 guy since he ran 1:41 and backed it up with two Olympic 800m medals and two 800m world records. The guy ran 46. for 400m, electric from blocks and a 3.29 1500m. What does that tell you about his 800m ability?

[quote]Not Steve Cram wrote:

Re. Coe and his 800m Times.

Unlike modern 800m specialists who only ever run 800m, Coe ran the 1500, mile just as often. You can’t compare his spread of times against 800m specialists.

Clearly Coe was a 1:41 guy since he ran 1:41 and backed it up with two Olympic 800m medals and two 800m world records. The guy ran 46. for 400m, electric from blocks and a 3.29 1500m. What does that tell you about his 800m ability?[/quote]

What it tells me is that Venti's calculator is incredibly faulty.

gsa wrote:

Here is the proof about the farce of Coe's 1:41.73... looks to me like Coe was more like a 1:42-ish guy at best. NO ONE in the history's WR holder status has such a gap differential from #1 to #2 performance.

Coe's All-Time Performances over 800m

1:41.73

1:42.33

1:43.07

1:43.38

You're an idiot, this has been gone over several times recently. In 1981, Coe ran ONE 800m paced race. Rusihda, Kipketer etc ran/runs maybe a dozen each year, with other sub 1:44/5 guys every time. What part of this is too much for you and Venti's brain to handle? Coe had three years (four if you include 1978) at his 800m peak where he could set his fast times. In that three year period he maybe had half a dozen paced races where he was trying to or had to run a fast time. Rushida/Kipketer had/have had maybe 50 or more. In the year Kipketer finally broke Coe's world record, he'd already made FIVE attempts on it that season alone. In 81, Coe smashed his own world record, which was already out of sight of any other runner on the planet, and then spent the rest of the season trying to outdo Ovett over 1500m/Mile, as well as competing in European Cups and meaningless GB VS Portugal etc meets.

Coe ran low 1:43 when he was 32 or something and had long been more of a 1500m runner. If he had been a specialist 800m runner, let alone been on modern tracks, better competition/pacing, more years of health, he probably would have ran 50 sub 1:43s (and still be the WR holder).

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

[quote]Not Steve Cram wrote:

Re. Coe and his 800m Times.

Unlike modern 800m specialists who only ever run 800m, Coe ran the 1500, mile just as often. You can’t compare his spread of times against 800m specialists.

Clearly Coe was a 1:41 guy since he ran 1:41 and backed it up with two Olympic 800m medals and two 800m world records. The guy ran 46. for 400m, electric from blocks and a 3.29 1500m. What does that tell you about his 800m ability?[/quote]

What it tells me is that Venti's calculator is incredibly faulty.

+1 above, sorry I didn't see you'd already pointed this out.

Coevett wrote:

(...) Rusihda, Kipketer etc (...)

(...) Rushida/Kipketer had/have had maybe 50 or more.

You really have a problem with his name, don't you, you arrogant fool?

Last week you said it was a typo. Obviously it wasn't.

Mount Rushidamore wrote:

Coevett wrote:

(...) Rusihda, Kipketer etc (...)

(...) Rushida/Kipketer had/have had maybe 50 or more.

You really have a problem with his name, don't you, you arrogant fool?

Last week you said it was a typo. Obviously it wasn't.

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/images/saturday/kzm2yzm89xsj594ecce7c3fc4.jpg

I didn't say it was a typo you idiot, I said it was a spelling mistake.

JRinaldi wrote:

The only reason Vent is attaching the Olso track is because of Coe's 1:42.33. As with his comments on the track in Florence, he has no evidence to back up the claims he makes again the validity both tracks. This, despite the fact that he has no evidence as to the validity of the tracks that Ryun ran his WR's on; noting that his 1500m WR appears to be on a 95/105 track) - his mile WR in 66 could also be on a similar size track given the finish line is a good 15m before the start of the bend.

I repeat - no athlete likes running on a track with tight bends. I don;t care what your math says.

JR

+1.

He has been denigrating Coe's performances in any way he can for years now. He is also doing similar to Snell's achievements lately. The simple reason is because Coe & Snell are far and away the greatest ever 800 - 1 mile runners, having achieved far more than Ryun did. He finds that difficult to deal with.

Coe's 1:42.33 was probably worth sub 1:42 itself, and not far off his 1:41.7. Venti created a thread not so long ago about Coe's 800 WR in Oslo, in which he made a hash of trying to re-write his splits. Instead, it only highlighted that Coe's 400 & 200 splits were even more impressive ~ 50.85/51.48, and 24.6, 26.2, 24.6, 26.9.

The difference between the 2nd and 3rd 200m splits, which are usually positive, actually were negative, and by 1.6 secs.

To speed up in that third 200m from 26.2 to 24.6 is very inefficient and indicates 1:41 form in 79, 2 years before he actually ran a 1:41. That 3rd 200m in 24.6 is (I think) the fastest for that section of any 800m WR.

Rather than devalue Coe's 800 pedigree it actually provides another example of sub 1:42 ability, based on Calculo's gold standard 2 sec +ve splits and the formula he uses to give actual worth to a performance.

51.48 - 50.85 - 2.0 * 1/3 = - 0.46

1:42.33 - 0.46 = 1:41.87.