The fact you haven’t included Snell in the race, many’s all time greatest half miler, shows that you know s**t about the history of the 800m.
Other comments in your post simply reinforce that fact.
The fact you haven’t included Snell in the race, many’s all time greatest half miler, shows that you know s**t about the history of the 800m.
Other comments in your post simply reinforce that fact.
Deanouk wrote:
it has to be said wrote:
WHAT? Another Coe world record which no one has known so far?
He clearly knows from his posts that it wasn’t a WR and probably meant to say a ‘near world record’. And it was. only 0.59 secs outside, and definitely a much greater performance than the then WR.
I wouldn't go around defending Coevett
Sanjay Gupta wrote:
Coevett wrote:
You're a dumba$$. He ran the equivalent of sub 1:43 for the 1000m twice. He was running 800m, 1000m, 1500m, Mile, unlike people like Rudisha or even Grey who were pretty much only racing the 800m. You're saying the very same Coe that ran 1:41.73 on a rubbish track that night in 81 put in a time machine and lined up with 7 other all time greats, presumably with Rudisha setting the pace on a Mondo track, would barely break 1:43 and finish 7th?? Well at least you allowed a white guy into the final I guess. I was roasted a little while back for suggesting that five white guys (including Jakob winning the 1500/5000) would be my picks for gold at Tokyo if Kenya weren't there, yet you're ignoring guys like Snell, Ovett, Juantorena and completely dissing Coe - almost including him as the token 'wrong physiology' non-African.
Snell, Ovett, and Juantorena obviously wouldn’t belong. He is wrong about Coe though.
I strongly disagree with your non inclusion of Snell! Certainly in the top 4 greatest 800m runners of all time and has a compelling argument to being the greatest ever!
1:44.3 in 1962 on grass!
That would be as good as Juantorena’s 1:43.44 WR had Snell fun on synthetic, and had he run on Monaco’s track, sub 1:43.
Double Olympic Champion and WR holder for 11 years.
Ovett and Juantorena might not quite make my all time greatest 800m runners, but they certainly deserve inclusion in the race if Kaki, Amos, Gray and Bungei are considered good enough!
I'd put a 'peak' Steve Cram ahead of Abubaker Kaki. In peak shape, Cram rarely lost an 800
I'm also not sure Rudisha would lead the way he did in London against this field, as it's a different ball game (he knew he was head and shoulders above everyone in London). So I don;t mind the winning time being slower than his WR.
Coe ahead of Gray every day ending in Y without a doubt. In fact, I think this field would play in to Coe's hands, as it would be fast and he would have to run 2-3 wide for most of the race.
Snell was great, but he only every broke 1:46 twice in his life (1:44.3 and 1:45.1) and only one of them was on a popper 400m track - so unfortunately, we can't put him in this field.
Deanouk wrote:
Sanjay Gupta wrote:
Snell, Ovett, and Juantorena obviously wouldn’t belong. He is wrong about Coe though.
I strongly disagree with your non inclusion of Snell! Certainly in the top 4 greatest 800m runners of all time and has a compelling argument to being the greatest ever!
1:44.3 in 1962 on grass!
That would be as good as Juantorena’s 1:43.44 WR had Snell fun on synthetic, and had he run on Monaco’s track, sub 1:43.
Double Olympic Champion and WR holder for 11 years.
Ovett and Juantorena might not quite make my all time greatest 800m runners, but they certainly deserve inclusion in the race if Kaki, Amos, Gray and Bungei are considered good enough!
So you yourself say Snell’s best performance converts to ~1:43.44 on synthetic and just sub-1:43 at Monaco. He’s just not fast enough to displace anyone here except maybe Gray. Cruz, Amos, Bungei, Coe, and Kaki could all do 1:42-low. Even Gray many times equalled your range for Snell’s time converted for Monaco.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the criteria, so if it’s just about fastest times, then surely you just list the all time top 8 in order with their best times, as the result!?
I took it that it was a Championship race, presumably after 2 or 3 rounds, so performance in Championships and experience are criteria to be considered!
Snell won 2 Olympic golds and a Commonwealth gold. His WR was also with too fast a first lap and no competition on 2nd lap. He would certainly have run faster with company on 2nd lap.
1:44.3, not stretched, 56 years ago is mind blowing and deserves inclusion IMO.
I don't get why a guy who obviously knows little about the history of the sport is trying this All Time Time Machine thing. I see you noticed it also.
Someone from the future would bear them all but still be some way behind some caveman before evolution made us weak.
What time is the event, and how do you get them there? Do you just show up like doctor who and snatch them away at the peak of their careers, unaware of everything yet to happen in their own future? That alone would completely neutralize Coe, who would not follow anybody out in 49. Rudisha and Amos will have thoroughly studied everyone else and know their strengths and weaknesses, while the others would have no inkling who they were up against.
It also matters because as space-time expands, the consistency of timing an event depends on using the space from that time. That is, a runner occupies a certain amount of space at a certain time, and at a different time the runner has expanded but so has the time, so the clocks can be compared. But if you take a space from one time and transplant it into a different time, then it hasn't expanded and the clock will be off. It's not a large effect. But if you put them all in the future, they'd all be a little bit smaller than usual and probably slower.
Bad Wigins wrote:
What time is the event, and how do you get them there? Do you just show up like doctor who and snatch them away at the peak of their careers, unaware of everything yet to happen in their own future? That alone would completely neutralize Coe, who would not follow anybody out in 49. Rudisha and Amos will have thoroughly studied everyone else and know their strengths and weaknesses, while the others would have no inkling who they were up against.
It also matters because as space-time expands, the consistency of timing an event depends on using the space from that time. That is, a runner occupies a certain amount of space at a certain time, and at a different time the runner has expanded but so has the time, so the clocks can be compared. But if you take a space from one time and transplant it into a different time, then it hasn't expanded and the clock will be off. It's not a large effect. But if you put them all in the future, they'd all be a little bit smaller than usual and probably slower.
Good thoughts. I think the scenario would be they time travel and the next day is the race, but they are given equal knowledge as all the others (matrix style), bodies normalized for equal PEDs, but not the time to change their training.
Deanouk wrote:
it has to be said wrote:
WHAT? Another Coe world record which no one has known so far?
He clearly knows from his posts that it wasn’t a WR and probably meant to say a ‘near world record’. And it was. only 0.59 secs outside, and definitely a much greater performance than the then WR.
Your Coeness is just mad - think about it, child. Your best friend wrote that Coe broke the world record. Which is wrong. Even on this occasion you must chip in and have to add "and definitely a much greater performance than the then WR"? Wtf? But you are not biased, we got it.
You forgot the impenetrable David Wottle.
JRinaldi wrote:
I'd put a 'peak' Steve Cram ahead of Abubaker Kaki. In peak shape, Cram rarely lost an 800
I'm also not sure Rudisha would lead the way he did in London against this field, as it's a different ball game (he knew he was head and shoulders above everyone in London). So I don;t mind the winning time being slower than his WR.
Coe ahead of Gray every day ending in Y without a doubt. In fact, I think this field would play in to Coe's hands, as it would be fast and he would have to run 2-3 wide for most of the race.
Snell was great, but he only every broke 1:46 twice in his life (1:44.3 and 1:45.1) and only one of them was on a popper 400m track - so unfortunately, we can't put him in this field.
Ha, he arrived on the scene in September 1960, ran 1:44.3 by February 1962, but a week earlier he broke Herb Elliot's mile WR and he said meet directors would only pay his trip and accommodation if he agreed to turn up and race the mile, they didn't care about his 800m abilities. So from then on he only raced the 800m seriously in Championships. He essentially retired in November 1964. The same thing was replicated with Coe, he only ran faster than 1:43.1 twice but had no need to and was invited to race 1500m/mile at big meets, same with Ovett.
I love to laugh and laugh hard wrote:
JRinaldi wrote:
I'd put a 'peak' Steve Cram ahead of Abubaker Kaki. In peak shape, Cram rarely lost an 800
I'm also not sure Rudisha would lead the way he did in London against this field, as it's a different ball game (he knew he was head and shoulders above everyone in London). So I don;t mind the winning time being slower than his WR.
Coe ahead of Gray every day ending in Y without a doubt. In fact, I think this field would play in to Coe's hands, as it would be fast and he would have to run 2-3 wide for most of the race.
Snell was great, but he only every broke 1:46 twice in his life (1:44.3 and 1:45.1) and only one of them was on a popper 400m track - so unfortunately, we can't put him in this field.
Ha, he arrived on the scene in September 1960, ran 1:44.3 by February 1962, but a week earlier he broke Herb Elliot's mile WR and he said meet directors would only pay his trip and accommodation if he agreed to turn up and race the mile, they didn't care about his 800m abilities. So from then on he only raced the 800m seriously in Championships. He essentially retired in November 1964. The same thing was replicated with Coe, he only ran faster than 1:43.1 twice but had no need to and was invited to race 1500m/mile at big meets, same with Ovett.
+1
anon. wrote:
You forgot the impenetrable David Wottle.
Didn't make Team USA on the separate thread for it.
formerbosox9yo wrote:
anon. wrote:
You forgot the impenetrable David Wottle.
Didn't make Team USA on the separate thread for it.
Isn't he like the only American to win a gold medal at the Olympics(correct me if I'm wrong)?
Sand Dunes wrote:
formerbosox9yo wrote:
Didn't make Team USA on the separate thread for it.
Isn't he like the only American to win a gold medal at the Olympics(correct me if I'm wrong)?
The analysis is how they would actually do racing against each other, not a list of who compiled the most hardware against inferior competition.
When it came down to it, a guy like Johnny Gray would beat David Wottle more often than not if they raced, despite the fact Wottle won a race that Gray would have also run had he run in that era.
EVERYTHING is considered, not just who has won races in their own era. We're looking at speed, endurance, heart, conditions, tracks, era, drugs, balls, etc etc etc. to determine who would win in a race if time machined to the same point. In the USA trials, Wottle didn't even make the final.