Coe v Ovett v Ryun: 10 races

[lonewolf]

Ok, thats six. We need two more to fill 8 lanes before we run this hypothetical race.

[Deerfoot]

I picked Snell and Aouita because I thought they would have the best chance in this particular type of race. They were sprint finishers, whereas Elliott preferred a long drawn out run from the penultimate lap. Great as he was, I struggle to see him beating any of the others mentioned if they're even with 220 to go. El Guerrouj the same. Maybe Ngeny or Lagat would be decent contenders in this situation?
Anyway, does anyone have any views on this?

[deanouk]

My overall opinion of the most frequent result wouldn't change, but with 6 or more in the race, it's going to be more difficult to call, as it's practically impossible for them all to be in a line with 200m to go. I think Aouita had great closing speed (a "reported" 46.9 400m speed), and would obviously be dangerous in a 2:53 pace at 1200m. Snell might be dangerous at a pace about 4 secs slower, but I don't think he'd be a factor at 2:53 pace.
I think Coe, Ovett and Ryun would have the beating of them more often, given the original scenario.

[Gebrucilassie]

Say Coe, Ovett, and Ryun are all in their physical and mental prime. They run 10 one mile races, all fresh. In each race they've run an honest pace - lets say 2:53 @ 1320. (no slacking-no rabbits). They reach 220 to go, virtually together. How many races out of the 10 does Coe win? Ovett? Ryun?

Several people have mentioned Ovett's turn of pace with 200m to go. I would add that as impressive as that was, it was usually in slower paced races, where things only heated up over the last lap. When this happened in 77-79, the opposition was comparatively poor, so it looked even more impressive. By 1980, Ovett was running faster, but the opposition had improved. In fact I can't think of any 1500s or Miles at 2:53 pace for 1200m where Ovett obliterated the opposition!

His 1980 Koblenz WR of 3:31.36 is a case in point. The early pace was pretty even; 55.7, 57.4 & 57.7 for Ovett, but when he kicked past Wessinghage with 200 to go, he opened a small gap, which he maintained to the end, winning by less than 2m. His last 200 was 27.0, last 100m 13.3.
I just don't think Ovett was anywhere near as potent with his kick at 2:53 pace, or if someone went "all out" with 400m+ to run.

I can think of 2 races Coe ran in 84 (probably not his best year, but not far off) when he went through 1200m in 2:53. Firstly was the Olympic final, where he ran the last 200m in 25.7 and last 100m in 12.7, pulling a good 7m clear of Cram. That was at the end of 7 races in 9 days, so I would imagine those closing splits would have been faster if it were a 1 off race and he was "fresh".
The other was about 10 days later in Zurich, when off very erratic pacing (55.0, 60.9, 57.4 for Coe), he went through 1200m in 2:53.4 and covered the last lap in 53.0, last 300m in 39.0, last 200m in 25.6, last 100m in 12.5. He won over a rejuvinated Scott by about 10m.

The only race of Ryun's where I can think he ran anywhere near 2:53, was his 1500 WR in 67, when he went through 1200m in 2:54.0 and ran the last 300m in 39.1. There was no time given for the last 200m, but his last 100m was 13.5.

Another comparison can be made between Coe & Ovett's Mile WRs in 1981. In Ovett's 3:48.40, his last 400m was 56.6 (56.9 440yds) and he slowed quite considerably in the last 100m ~ 14.4
In Coe's run, where the first 3 laps were more erratic in pace, he covered the last 400m in 55.1, and his fastest 100m was the last one, at 13.1.
Having said this, clearly Ovett did not like to run from the front, and Coe had some opposition with 200 to go in the shape of Boit, 10m back. But not only is 1.3secs a big gap for the last 100m, it also shows (as do the other races mentioned above) that Coe must have had unused energy at the end of his races if his last 100m was always his fastest 100m split of the race.

I don't think the same person would win every time out of the 3, if they were to run 10 times. If it were just the 3 of them following 1 rabbit to 1200m in 2:53, then I think Coe would win the most. His turn of speed matched Ovett's, his speed endurance (as shown by his 1000m WR) matched Ryun's and his basic leg speed (45.5 relay split) was better than either of the other 2.

If it was part of a field of 8 or 9 runners, then tactics would come into play more, and that would possibly be in Ovett's favour, as the best tactician of the 3.

And if each of the 10 races were run at a different pace, then I think it would result in different winners. The slower, the better for Ovett. I think if it went off very fast, then that would favour Coe and wouldn't help Ryun, who ran most of his best races when the pace started off slow to steady, preferring to launch his long drive over the last lap. He didn't, as far as I can remember (please correct me if wrong), run any 1500s or miles when the opening lap went 55 or 56. So a fast start would put him psychologically into an area he had never experienced before. Both Coe and Ovett have run fast times of sub 55 sec first laps: - Ovett ~54.4 in his 3:30.77; Coe ~52.4 in his 3:31.95 & 54.0 in his 3:29.77. And Coe of the 3 was the only one who knew what sub 3:30 felt like.

Based on the OP's "original criteria", and the evidence outlined above, as opposed to "favourites" or a hunch as to what they could, would or might have achieved, I'd go for Coe - 6, Ryun and Ovett - 2 each.

Let me first say I have always been impressed by each of these 3 greats finishes at times. But I think your comparison of Ovett's finish in his Koblenz race and Coe's of '84 might be slightly flawed. If your splits are correct (I admit, I was too lazy to look them up) then Coe kicked his 25.7 and 12.7 off of 2:53 pace while Ovett's was off of a 2:50.8 pace. This being the case, I believe 27.0 and 13.3 are equally impressive. But back to the original question, I think it most probably would have been pretty equally split. I just wish we had been treated to these types of Ovett vs Coe races when they actually raced.

[Powell]

Ok, thats six. We need two more to fill 8 lanes before we run this hypothetical race.

You want them to run the 1500 in lanes?

[lonewolf]

Ok, thats six. We need two more to fill 8 lanes before we run this hypothetical race.

You want them to run the 1500 in lanes?

Now, theres a thought. Why not? No rabbit.

[gibson]

if it's indeed even with half-lap to go my money is on Ovett nearly every time, with Ryun 2nd, Coe 3rd. Ovett had a gear-shift that was stunning.

But I would posit that (the imaginary) Ryun would never be even at that point; he already would have run away.

great thread!

spoken like a true triple jumper.

ovett's legendary kick only worked off a moderate to slow pace.
coe could kick fast off any pace.
then there is the clock, check the splits. coe wins.
then there is ovett at his peak without super competition.... except for coe.
and then you have the fact? that ovett never defeated coe over the mile or 1500m. right?
but right you are, a peak coe and ovett never met but once.......with coe winning hands down.

78 Euro 800m: Ovett d Coe
80 Olympic 800m: Ovett d Coe
80 Olympic 1500m: Coe d Ovett d Cram
84 Olympic 800m: Coe d Ovett
84 Olympic 1500m: Coe d Cram d Ovett
89 Crystal Palace 1500m: Coe d Ovett

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... z1vx0GC57r
i'd be very comfortable betting on a peak coe over a peak anybody in a championship 1500.
and ryan? i have no idea.

[portsea57]

Deanouk's stats have certainly convinced me of Coe's superioty, but It would be interesting to hear what the contemporaries of Ovett and Coe would make of this question; Steve Scott - in his autobuography - seemed to be a lot more in awe of Coe than Ovett.

[deanouk]

portsea57 said;

It would be interesting to hear what the contemporaries of Ovett and Coe would make of this question; Steve Scott - in his autobuography - seemed to be a lot more in awe of Coe than Ovett.

In the back of Coe's 92 biography by David Miller, the author asked many athletes, athletic journalists and promoters to rank the top milers of all time. This was obviously before the careers of Morceli & EL G, but without exception, they all ranked Coe above Ovett. Those panelled included; Dave Bedford, Chris Brasher, Andreas Brugger (Zurich promoter), Ron Clarke, Stan Greenberg (statistician), Derek Ibbotson, Arthur Lydiard, Peter Matthews (statistician), Wilf Paise (UK coach), Roberto Quercetani (statistician/author), Steve Scott, John Walker and Mel Watman.
In Pat Butcher's book, "The Perfect Distance" he mentions Coghlan's thoughts about the two.

"My coach, Gerry Farnham tried to instal in me that I was the only guy in the world who could beat Ovett, but I think he only managed to do it about 99%. 1 %, I have to admit in hindsight, was always there. Seb Coe, on the other hand, was a different kettle of fish. It was almost like, 'Erm, you ain't gonna beat Coe.' "

[portsea57]

Moving on to Jim Ryun !
My "Holy Grail" of lost/missing middle-distance tv footage comes from the 1967 USA V West Germany meeting.
In the 1500m it was Ryun and Grelle v Tummler and Norpoth.
By the start of the last lap, Grelle was tailed off, and as the two Germans entered the back straight they took off.
Then - and it took my breath away - Ryun just flew passed them. One website has Ryun running the 100m of the final back straight in 11.6!
Now I know the final time was "only" 3min 38 point something, but, that day, Ryun was out of this world.

[kuha]

Totally agree. I'd LOVE to see this, and have at least some small hope that it will surface sooner or later. I still believe that no one else--ever--could have consistently beaten the Ryun of 1967.

[gibson]

looking at the old footage of ryan and seeing the splits, i'd say the guy was capable of a 345 mile.
given all the delux track, drafting and all time peak.

all time peak in perfect conditions = ppc

ovett however, i give only a second or two under his pr. i.e. ovett did race very optimally, did get in the even paced races, did draft on many occasion. all the waving down the stretch during the wr to me is just steve bullshitting. he's trying to make it seem like it was a walk in the park when in reality he was close to max.

el g: comes in at 341 mile and 324mid 1500. ppc

coe? though i pick him in championships i can't predict his best 1500 time ppc.
i think coe was capable of 140 low in the 800 which implies a possible 1500 which is off the charts.
before you jump all over this conjecture, consider (i think) coe was quoted to say the he though he could run 1:39...!

why coe never put the 1500 wr out of reach, is beyond me. a maybe not so wild guess is that dad optimized training for less than the mile distance i.e. 49-51 second pace not 55-56 second pace. this would leave coe at 1200m in a very fast race in a lot of pain and you can get him at this point if you are a super fit cram and coe's a little off peak.

looking at training logs it seems that the specialist el-g got it right for the mile and trained more in 52-56 second land.

[Deerfoot]

Looking at their careers it's impossible not to put Coe above Ovett, given his two Olympic gold medals. However, I do think that in ability over 1500m or a mile they were closely matched. Perhaps Coe had a slight edge, but no more than that. As I'vs said on this thread, if they'd had a series against each other I think the wins would have been pretty evenly distributed. As for competitors being more in awe of Coe than Ovett, Wessinghage(also in Pat Butcher's book) expresses similar sentiments about both runners in this regard, saying of Ovett after one performance: 'I sensed he was human after all. Now I know I was wrong.'. Walker says that 'He could have won anything' and then adds 'But so could Coe.' Coe was the greater, but I'm not sure he was the better, at any rate over 1500m.
As for Ryun I really can't say. I've read historical accounts and seen a few of his races on youtube, but they don't really give me the full flavour. I do find it hard to credit some of the more extravagent claims made on his behalf, such as 1:40 for 800m and 3:42 for the mile if he were running now.

[deanouk]

coe? though i pick him in championships i can't predict his best 1500 time ppc.
i think coe was capable of 140 low in the 800 which implies a possible 1500 which is off the charts.
before you jump all over this conjecture, consider (i think) coe was quoted to say the he though he could run 1:39...!

why coe never put the 1500 wr out of reach, .

Certainly at the end of the 81 season Coe was quoted as saying that he felt he could run 1:40 for 800, implying a sub 1:41.0. I think he could have done this in 81 had he had several cracks at it towards the end of the season. He said he would experiment with running the first 400 in 48-49 secs in the winter before a further assault in 82. Sadly he got injured was out for most of the summer and then got ill, which also wiped out the 83 season. Had he enjoyed the same build up as 81 in those 2 seasons I feel confident he would have gone sub 1:41.

He was also disappointed he hadn't put the 1500 & Mile records "out of reach" that season (81). This was largely due to diabolical pacing in his 3 attempts, especially the 1500 in Stockholm, where he solo ran 3:31 with a 52.4 first 400 thanks to Robinson's 51.5. Anyone who can then go on to front run through 800 in 1:49.1 & miss the WR by 0.6 was clearly capable of 3:28.0 - 3:28.5 that night, which would have put it out of reach for over a decade.

[deanouk]

He talked about a future 3:44 mile in 81, but again the illnesses of 82/ 83 probably took away his best 2 seasons in terms of age. By the time he started the comeback I think he was just concerned with getting to LA. After the Games he tried in Zurich but was again hindered by Robinson's pacing, this time too slow. A very easy 3:32 resulted in further injury to his foot, & a premature end to his season for the 3rd year running (and the 5th time in previous 6 years!). After that he never really got back to record breaking form until a near miss (3:29.7) at the end of 86. He said then that running such a time at 30 convinced him he "should at some time (earlier in his career) have run much faster" .

As for Ryun I really can't say. I've read historical accounts and seen a few of his races on youtube, but they don't really give me the full flavour. I do find it hard to credit some of the more extravagent claims made on his behalf, such as 1:40 for 800m and 3:42 for the mile if he were running now.

You mean Ventolin aka Eldrick!?

The way he knocks seconds off Ryun's times for this and that is rather silly and doesn't help his case at all. I am sure he could have run significantly faster on synthetic, but nowhere near 1:40 or 3:42!

It's a shame there aren't more of Ryun's races for all to view on Youtube. I think a lot of splits claimed for him were probably taken by hand and without video evidence are somewhat unreliable.

[gh]

what Ryun splits are you challenging?

[Marlow]

what Ryun splits are you challenging?

Is not his last lap in the 3:51.1 the fastest ever in a Mile WR?

[deanouk]

Marlow wrote:-

Is not his last lap in the 3:51.1 the fastest ever in a Mile WR?

No. And that's exactly what I mean about conflicting stats. It's late here in the Uk, so I haven't got time at moment to go into details, but Ryun's last 440 in that 2nd mile WR is often given as 52.5!! This is even the time given in the IAAF WR Progression book that I have.
Fortunately the video for this race, one of the few Ryun runs there seems to be in the public domain at least, clearly shows him going through the bell in 2:57.3, giving him a last lap (440yds) of 53.8. While still an excellent time, it is still 1.3 secs out on what is often given, and is slower than Cram's 53.2 in his 3:46.32 Mile WR.

Another example is his 1500WR. I have a book called "The Milers" (Cordner Nelson & Roberto Quercetani)which was published by T&FN, and I presume is taken directly from the pages of T&FN.
In it it says: - " They came around to the gun lap, with 440 yards to go, and Ryun's time was 2.39.2" Now if that is with a lap to go then his last 400m was 53.6 (1100m in 2:39.5), in the IAAF book it's given as 53.3.

[deanouk]

It goes on: - "Keino was still moving strongly, past three quarters in a fast 2.55.0. At this point, going into the last backstretch, Ryun was alongside Keino, ready for his drive." Now if Ryun's time was 2.55.0 at three quarters, the same as Keino's, then that means his 1200m time was around 2.54.1. Giving him a last 300m of 39.0! This doesn’t match up with the 39.3 they mention further in the report! Or indeed the 39.6 quoted elsewhere, including the IAAF book.
Also, doesn't that 100m stretch from 1100m to 1200m, at 14.6, seem a little slow, given that the last lap was sub 54!?

Now the statistics at the end of the report:
" Ryun's last 320 yards took only 38.1 seconds (equivalent to 300 meters in 39.3). His last 440 was .. 53.9,.......And Ryun's last three fourths mile was in about 2.48.7,...." Which means a last 1200m of about 2.47.8/9 (- 0.3 per 440 to 400m) . Still amazing, but quite a way short of the 2.46.6 quoted in various other sources. As I said, the splits given for this race vary according to which supposedly reliable source you use.

The discrepancies aren't just a couple of tenths. In some instances we're talking seconds. I don't think it helps with the whole yards/metres markings. I mean a 320yd split is a strange one to have. I'd have thought it would be 330yds!?

[deanouk]

However, it is the split times given for that 3.38 race in 1967 that really doesn't quite ring true for me. He is said to have run the last 300m in 36.4, last 200m in 24.8 and last 100m in 12.4; meaning the back stretch 100m was covered in 11.6!! It's possible that the last 100m and 200m are correct, but the last 300m is about 2 seconds faster than anything Coe, EL G or Cram did over the same distance in a similar paced race. It's also interesting to note that no official 1200m time was given for that race, and the "36.4" split seems to have been arrived at due to the fact that "One expert observer timed Ryun's 100m along the backstretch in a nearly incredible 11.6 seconds". I'd be interested to know who it was that timed this split and whether he was timing from the infield or from high in the stadium/commentary box with clear markings to guide him.

[deanouk]

Moreover, my suspicion that perhaps these stats are somewhat unreliable comes when in the same 3.38 race it says; " His last 400m was also fastest on record - 50.6 (One report gave his last 400 as 49.7.)"
The fact that 2 timekeepers can be almost a second out means that surely there was a bit of exaggeration and heresay taking place. If the last lap can differ by a second then why not the last 300 split also? Perhaps that 36.4 was for the last 320yds? That would be equivalent to 37.4 for the last 300m. Still unlikely, but certainly possible.

If there was a video of the race and I saw it with my own eyes and the markings and clock showed 36.4, then I would be willing to eat humble pie. But until such time I'll carry on being a bit skeptical.
That's not to say Ryun wasn't one of the most gifted athletes ever to grace a track and that he wasn't ahead of his time. I just think some stats make him out to be head and shoulders above all others, and they are not backed up with video footage to prove them correct.

[Jnathletics]

I'm a Coe and Ryun fan, so i don't see any way possible that Ovett wins any of the races.

Ryun was before my time but my limited knowledge was he always liked a bit slower pace then specified, so he might be a bit too far back too win to many. While Coe if the race was set up right was the best in his day of kicking off good paces. Therefore, I would go with Coe 6, Ryun 3 and Ovett gets 1 (every dog has his day.) Just can't overcome my biased in this situation, as Coe was my idol growing up.

[gibson]

the input on this thread goes a long way toward explaining in my mind why coe never ran close to his potential in terms of time for the mile.

the hypothetical 800m in 140.5 equates to a 341 mile and 325 1500m
check it.
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... _23299.pdf

so yes, i think projecting el-g like times for a peak coe is in order.

[kuha]

the input on this thread goes a long way toward explaining in my mind why coe never ran close to his potential in terms of time for the mile.

the hypothetical 800m in 140.5 equates to a 341 mile and 325 1500m
check it.
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... _23299.pdf

so yes, i think projecting el-g like times for a peak coe is in order.

??

What do equivalence scores mean? Numbers don't hurt and sweat; people do. Coe certainly ran near his potential at 800m. At the mile, sure, he was probably a second or two shy of what might have been possible under perfect conditions--but 6 seconds? Come on.

[Conor Dary]

the input on this thread goes a long way toward explaining in my mind why coe never ran close to his potential in terms of time for the mile.

the hypothetical 800m in 140.5 equates to a 341 mile and 325 1500m
check it.
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... _23299.pdf

so yes, i think projecting el-g like times for a peak coe is in order.

??

What do equivalence scores mean? Numbers don't hurt and sweat; people do. Coe certainly ran near his potential at 800m. At the mile, sure, he was probably a second or two shy of what might have been possible under perfect conditions--but 6 seconds? Come on.

Considering when Coe ran 3:47:33 he had a rabbit, Bolt, a decent pace and looked like he was going all out at the end, so, yea, 6 seconds is a bit over the top.

You have to take these scoring tables equivalents with a huge grain of salt.

[kuha]

the input on this thread goes a long way toward explaining in my mind why coe never ran close to his potential in terms of time for the mile.

the hypothetical 800m in 140.5 equates to a 341 mile and 325 1500m
check it.
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... _23299.pdf

so yes, i think projecting el-g like times for a peak coe is in order.

??

What do equivalence scores mean? Numbers don't hurt and sweat; people do. Coe certainly ran near his potential at 800m. At the mile, sure, he was probably a second or two shy of what might have been possible under perfect conditions--but 6 seconds? Come on.

Considering when Coe ran 3:47:33 he had a rabbit, Bolt, a decent pace and looked like he was going all out at the end, so, yea, 6 seconds is a bit over the top.

You have to take these scoring tables equivalents with a huge grain of salt.

The scoring tables are NOT predictive for any individual. They simply reflect relative equivalencies--that is, X is equal in quality to Y. One can come up with equivalencies for the mile and the discus, or the steeple and the high jump--but it doesn't mean that any one person can actually achieve them.

[deanouk]

Conor Dary wrote:-

Considering when Coe ran 3:47:33 he had a rabbit, Bolt, a decent pace and looked like he was going all out at the end, so, yea, 6 seconds is a bit over the top.

Yes, 6 seconds is not realistic, but he was certainly capable of much faster than the 3:47 he ran that night. For a start he had a lot left, only really turning it on in the last 100m, which was his fastest 100m of the whole race ~ 13.1. He was getting quicker and quicker in the last straight, and ran the last 40m in 5.1, that's 12.7 pace for 100m. Compare this to Ovett's last 100m (14.4) in his 3:48.4 WR earlier that week or indeed El G's 13.7 with Ngeny right behind him in his WR run. In a world record run at the mile the athlete is (or should be) slowing down over the last 100. Coe was speeding up!

After the race Coe said he wanted to leave a little left for the last 100 as Boit was still in contention at the bell. He certainly lacked a little courage, probably because he ran the distance so rarely, but said he believed had he gone "all out" at the bell, he'd have run 3:46.5 that night.

[deanouk]

Secondly, the pace provided by Byers was not efficient at all, and certainly not a "decent" pace: - 54.9 for first 1/4, with Coe in 55.3. Coe was then taken to 880 in 1:53.3. A 55.3 followed by a 58.0 is not good pacing. That was then followed by a 58.6. Coe reached 3/4 in 2:51.9 and taking his word that he could have gone 3:46.5 off that, that would have meant a last 440 of 54.6 (54.3 for last 400m).

Now compare this to EL G's very even laps of 55.6, 56.2, 56.1 & 55.2. That's decent pacing, with less than 1 sec between each 1/4. Even Cram's 3:46.3 had more efficient pacing with
57.2, 57.3 & 58.6. A difference of 1.4 on the first 3 laps. That's a pretty comfortable base to launch a last lap of 53.2 from. Coe's first 3 laps differed by 3.3.

If one believes Coe's own words, and the stats of the last 100 would appear to give credence to that, then evened out, Coe's 3:46.5 works out at 3:46.0. If one then considers he was in front at 1000m and received no drafting for the 200m segment to the bell which most records receive (e,g Cram and EL G) then another 0.5 can be taken off. It gives a time of c. 3:45.5 for that run that night. With a few attempts at it in that kind of form I see no reason why he couldn't have gone sub 3:45.0. This also fits in with his 3:31.9 solo run in Stockholm that year being worth around 3:28.3 (= 3:44.9 for mile) with even pace & drafting to the bell.

[deanouk]

3:41 ...NO. But 3:44 was definitely within his compass in 81. Perhaps the other posters were alluding to the potential of what Coe might have done in the years following ~ 82 & 83 ~ with a few changes in his training focused on purely the mile, had he not had the misfortune of injury and more detrimentally, illness in the years that followed!? After all, anyone capable of 1:41 flat (in 81) and the endurance to win 2 successive 1500 Olympics with rounds on the back of an 800m, should have felt comfortable going through 880 in 1:52 and carrying on for another 2 laps at the same sort of pace.

[gibson]

steve-o from the beginning was easily the best in positioning and drafting.
and coe, just terrible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wYYu4nz ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjuU-OL2OQQ

the only race i've seen steve blow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt7z5aQS ... re=related

[deanouk]

gibson wrote: -

the only race i've seen steve blow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt7z5aQS ... re=related

Really!?
I think his worst tactical race ever was the 83 Worlds. He really should have won that one. His positioning and tactics, running several metres further on the last 600m than those ahead of him, was Coe like in its inefficiency. It was almost as bad as Coe's Moscow 800 and Stuttgart 1500 in giving himself literally no chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHiAWvVgK4

[gibson]

What do equivalence scores mean? Numbers don't hurt and sweat; people do. Coe certainly ran near his potential at 800m. At the mile, sure, he was probably a second or two shy -but 6 seconds? Come on.

Considering when Coe ran 3:47:33 he had a rabbit, a decent pace and looked like he was going all out at the end, so, yea, 6 seconds is a bit over the top.

You have to take these scoring tables equivalents with a huge grain of salt

here is where that crazy best case scenario speculation of 6 seconds improvement comes from.

1 - draft properly, behind a decent rabbit, not in lane 2 beside a lousy one.
2- run even splits and don't run wide, coe often runs on the outside of lane 1 even when alone
3 - expected improvement lost due to injury and illness in 82-83

check out coe's 332 in 1984 after a couple of bad years- after 800 and 1500 rounds while committing all the time wasting sins listed..
= running wide, refusing to draft, looking around, uneven pace = gold medal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOVVLrz2fq4

now imagine 1983 being a solid year and add that to the 1984 ability,
then take away the rounds, have a johnny grey taking coe to 600m in 114,
then what happens?
and a steve scott taking coe to the 1200m in 55 + 55 + 56
then what happens?

and hey, the iaaf tables are not all that bad.
check out moorcroft pb
349 mile - 732 3000m and 1300 5000.
now check the tables.

[gibson]

further to the "sub-optimal" 1984 la run.
what did coe do the week before to "prepare" for the 1500 in 3:32?
here are the "workouts"

3 August 1984 800m 1:45.71
4 August 1984 800m 1:46.75
5 August 1984 800m 1:45.51
6 August 1984 800m 1:43.64
7-8 August - rest.
9 August 1984 1500m 3:45.30
10 August 1984 1500m 3:35.81
11 August 1984 1500m 3:32.53

how many meters extra did he run?
several
how many times did he chop his stride?
couple of times
was the pace uneven?
there were two mid race surges followed by a very fast last lap
did coe have something left in the tank?
looks like it. watch coe give a murderous look and a few F***** yous to the press, then jog about, while the others are wasted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddrxCe3ZOOM

[gibson]

coe running wide yet again. and he still gets in trouble with elbows in the stretch.
all coe had to do was draft off favorite cruz as ovett would have done if he was up to snuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BABr2DA26Xw&feature=related
the margin of victory by cruz is roughly equivalent to the extra distance coe traveled.
cruz however deserves victory not only for having run the better race but for having run the greatest series of 800m races ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_ ... _Olympics_–_Men%27s_800_metre

[deanouk]

gibson wrote: -

here is where that crazy best case scenario speculation of 6 seconds improvement comes from.
1 - draft properly, behind a decent rabbit, not in lane 2 beside a lousy one.
2- run even splits and don't run wide, coe often runs on the outside of lane 1 even when alone
3 - expected improvement lost due to injury and illness in 82-83

check out coe's 332 in 1984 after a couple of bad years- after 800 and 1500 rounds while committing all the time wasting sins listed..
= running wide, refusing to draft, looking around, uneven pace = gold medal!

You have a valid point. Coe often ran wide in lane 1 for no apparent reason, even when he was ahead or alone in that space. E.g. Rieti 86.
I remember he ran the first 5 bends wide of Byers during his 1st mile WR of 81 in Zurich. Thus he ran about 1.5m further every bend, which = 1.0 sec. Coe received no drafting for the first 1000m because he was not directly behind Byers. When he did hit the front, he ran the last 600m alone. At this level an athlete would generally expect to be taken to 1200m with drafting. The benefit of drafting is generally regarded as 1.0sec per 400m. So, on this day in Zurich, had he been directly behind a rabbit for 3 laps he should have been at least 2.5s faster. Add this to the 1.0s lost by running wide & we see that Coe could have run 3:45.0 that day!