Ovett vs Coe movie

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

You obviously think Coe was the greatest middle distance runner ever. A lot of us don't agree. Fair enough. But it seems you won't allow even one example through where we think someone produced a better performance. Do you think you could just accept that other people can have alternative viewpoints?

Yes, of course you are entitled to your opinion and I'm happy to disagree.
I may well go 'on and on', but at least I am giving lots of evidence and explanation as to why I think/believe what I state. I don't just say, "Coe was a better 800 runner than Cram", I at least try to build a case behind my viewpoint.

You made the sweeping statement re Cram's Commonwealth 800 that, "I think this was far and away the most impressive 800 ever to have been run by a Brit," with nothing to back it up. No explanation, nothing. I think you'll find that you are in a small minority in thinking this, given that Coe held the world record for 18 years, longer than any other athlete has held the record since the War, and was further ahead of his contemporaries than anyone since Harbig in '39.

Let's just say we view the event completely differently.

[Rog]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

For a start your post makes little sense. Think there must be a typo there somewhere?
It's obviously some attempt at sarcasm, which is not only the lowest form of wit, but also a sure sign that you have no real worthy response to the points and argument made.

Thank you for pointing out the typo - smartphone autocorrect. The humour was an attempt to lighten the tone of your ardent Coe fervour.

Deano, if I have one point to make it's that you have a totally fixed viewpoint and nothing is going to sway your opinion one iota - certainly nothing I or even John G, who actually saw the Cram 86 CG 800 live, can say. I'm just amazed at your ability to go on and on and on, continually rehashing the same argument. When we point out that we think someone else produced a greater performance, not only will you not accept it but you won't let it go. Honestly, I think we've all got your point by now.

You obviously think Coe was the greatest middle distance runner ever. A lot of us don't agree. Fair enough. But it seems you won't allow even one example through where we think someone produced a better performance. Do you think you could just accept that other people can have alternative viewpoints?

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

For a start your post makes little sense. Think there must be a typo there somewhere?
It's obviously some attempt at sarcasm, which is not only the lowest form of wit, but also a sure sign that you have no real worthy response to the points and argument made.

[Rog]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

It's just a shame no one thought to introduce an 800m on water - then Coe really could have shown his stuff, eh Deano? You'd have got 5 or 6 posts out of that one!

[El Toro]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

and just when I thought Downton Abbey was about a system of long ago, I discover it's alive and well! Thanks for the entertainment :mrgreen:

Perhaps not as alive in the USA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-st ... 76931.html

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

For Coe, he ran wider than anyone else in the Stuttgart final, some c. 10.5m, although he did have more drafting than Cram. His official 200m splits were: - 25.4, 27.4 (52.8), 26.9, 24.8 (12.4/12.4)
Coe ran c.2.5m wide on the 2nd bend (200-300), c.5m extra on the 3rd bend (he was in lane 3 for some of it!) and c.3m on the last bend. Taking this extra 10.5m extra ran (= to 1.35sec) into consideration, then Coe's adjusted 200m splits become: -
25.4, 27.1, 26.2, 24.4 (12.0/12.4) = 1:43.1
In terms of drafting, Coe got 100m (200-300m) out of a possible 200m between 200 & 400m, but then got unexpected drafting from 500-600m and about 40m between 650-690m in the last furlong. This brings his 200 splits to: - 25.4, 26.9, 26.4, 24.5 (12.1/12.4) for 1:43.2

If we just compare Cram's Edinburgh and Coe's Stuttgart 200m splits based purely on extra distance run, alone (ignoring the amount of drafting, where Cram received marginally more) we get the following: -

Cram, Commonwealth: - 25.2, 26.5, 26.1, 25.0 (12.3/12.7) = 1:42.8
Coe, European : - 25.4, 27.1, 26.2, 24.4 (12.0/12.4) = 1:43.1

I contest that Cram's Commonwealth run was not clearly the best Championship performance over 2 laps by a Briton in 'real' statistical terms. There is only 0.3sec difference between them in terms of speed, and the Europeans were a more intense Championship with worse weather conditions on the day of the respective finals. Moreover, there was a lot more bumping and boring involved in the European final, and more changes in pace, which is less economical when trying to achieve a 'fast' time.
Coe's last 200m was in essence worth 24.4/24.5 in a 1:43.1 race. The only other athletes who have IMO matched that have been Rudisha (24.9 in a 1:42.84 race in the African Champs of 2010; N.B he did not run wide on any bends) & Kipketer, 24.7 last 200m in a 1:42.77 at Monaco in 1997 (again, no wide running and paced to 600m).

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

In addition, whereas in the Commonwealths Cram got 270m of drafting, where 200m is the norm, in the European final he received only 150m (200-250, 350-450). Therefore in the 2nd 200m of the race he received only 100m of the drafting expected. With a full 200m he would have been 0.2 faster. However he then received 50m in the 3rd 200 section, which would have given him 0.1. Adjusted accordingly, his splits were equivalent to: 25.4, 26.6, 26.5, 25.0 for an 800m time of 1:43.5. Which is just 0.5 slower than his performance value in Edinburgh.

So, the reviewed splits for both races after extra distance and drafting are taken into consideration, we get the following for Cram: -
Edinburgh - 25.2, 26.5, 26.3, 25.0 (12.3/12.7) = 1:43.0
Stuttgart - 25.4, 26.6, 26.5, 25.0 (12.1/12.9) = 1:43.5
They are very evenly matched. The discrepancy of 0.5 could be down to the fact that the weather was worse in Stuttgart (more water on the track), the intensity of the heats was greater, and he perhaps slackened off a touch towards the line when he knew he was beaten. More likely it was a mixture of all three. But the idea that he was in so much better shape in Edinburgh that Stuttgart is a myth.

I have done the same for both of McKean's runs in the 2 Championships, but haven't the time to go into so much detail right now. Suffice it to say he ran c 804.5m in Edinburgh and c. 805m in Stuttgart, although in the former he had only 70m of drafting compared with 150m in the latter race. The main difference in his 2 runs were the closing 200m in each. In the Commonwealth final he ran 26.1 (13.0, 13.1), but in the Europeans it was a full second faster at 25.1 (12.4/12.8). Although he actually covered the last 200m in a marginally quicker time than Cram, he was actually 0.1 sec slower in real terms; McKean having run no more than the necessary 200m, compared to Cram's 202.5m

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

Regardless of the weather conditions, statistically speaking Cram's run in Edinburgh was not that much better than his own performance in the Europeans a month later, when he came 3rd.
The reason why he 'looked' so much better in the Commonwealth final was due to several factors:
1) Relatively weak field in Edinburgh - no one in race faster than 1:44 high at time;
2) Race and pace set up perfectly for Cram to run optimum race: - even splits, no obstructions, only ran 3m wide. Compare this to the European final, where there were several relative changes in pace, he got blocked and had to check his stride on occasions, and he ran c.9.5m extra wide on bends.
3) He got c270m of drafting in the Commonwealth final, compared to only 150m in Stuttgart.
4) In Edinburgh there were 3 days rest between his heat & semi (1:51.42, 1:48.71, run on the same day) and the final. In Stuttgart he ran 1:46.54, 1:46.59 & 1:44.88 on consecutive days; a far more strenuous series of races.

I have analysed both the Commonwealth and European finals from 86 in some detail from dvd good quality recordings. If we compare just Cram's runs in both those finals we get the following splits:
Commonwealth: - 25.2, 26.5, 26.5, 25.0 (12.3/12.7)= 1:43.22
Europeans : - 25.4, 27.2, 26.9, 25.3 (12.4/12.9)= 1:44.88
However, when we look at the overall distance run in those 2 races, we find that in Edinburgh, Cram only ran the 3rd bend (400 - 500m) wide, c. 3m extra. Based on just the extra distance alone, Cram's run of 1:43.22 for 803m = 1:42.84 for 800m.
Taking this into consideration, his new 200 splits become: - 25.2, 26.5, 26.1, 25.0 (12.3/12.7)
In an ideal circuit race in Europe, an athlete would normally expect 200m of drafting from 200 - 400m, before normally running the second lap solo. Cram got c. 270m of drafting; despite running wide on the bend after the bell, he actually got a good 70m of drafting that one wouldn't normally expect in a fast paced effort. As each 400m of drafting is considered to be worth roughly 1.0 sec per 400m, then that extra 70m was equivalent to c. 0.175sec. Let's say 0.2. We therefore add this back on to his 3rd 200m split and now get a final 'adjusted' time (for extra distance run and drafting received) of 1:43.0 (25.2, 26.5, 26.3, 25.0)

In Stuttgart, Cram ran c. 3m wide on the second bend (200-300), 4m wide on the 3rd and 2.5m on the final bend, where McKean held the inside lane. So his 1:44.88 was for running 809.5m (and I'd add that this is a conservative estimate), which is equivalent to a 1:43.65 800m performance. With the extra distance taken into consideration, Cram's 200 splits become : -
25.4, 26.8, 26.4, 25.0 (12.1!/12.9). This last 200m is as fast as he ran in Edinburgh, and the penultimate 100m was faster.

[John G]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

and just when I thought Downton Abbey was about a system of long ago, I discover it's alive and well! Thanks for the entertainment :mrgreen:

We never should have introduced sarcasm to The Colonies. Some people just don't know their place.

[Bruce Kritzler]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

John G.,
I was watching the meet also. The backstretch stands were cold all week as the wind would blow through them. The final day we sat in the homestretch, and it was much more protected. Definitely one of the coldest meets I remember.

[gh]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

and just when I thought Downton Abbey was about a system of long ago, I discover it's alive and well! Thanks for the entertainment :mrgreen:

[deanouk]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

stand by my contention that the conditions in Edinburgh were horrible (certainly relative to any other fast 800 metre race I can think of). My recollection of sitting there, freezing my bollocks off may not be worth much to you but look at the video of the race: there are puddles all over the track and the crowd are all dressed in coats and waterproofs.

I don't doubt it was cold, and it was not the most perfect conditions for running, but the term "horrible" is hardly warranted. There was no wind; look at the video showing the athletes getting ready. Their hair is stationary, their vests are still. It certainly wasn't raining before or during the race. There are no puddles on the track; a slight surface dampness in one place just after the start, but definitely no puddles.
They are running in dry conditions with no discernable wind for just over 1 min 40. A cool temperature does not slow you down to any large extent in such a short race.

Here is a link to the video: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSI1ZPIvtu8

Now the conditions in the European final the following month were far worse; cold, rain and lots of surface water, and the performance there was as good as in Edinburgh. Notice how the officials in Stuttgart have the hoods of their waterproofs up, while those in Edinburgh don't! That should tell you something about the relative conditions of those two races.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z2timGYvA4

Also, as I've said before, Cram's heat was run in 1:50 something 3 days before the final. That has to be the weakest preliminary requirement of any 'Championship' I can recall. It was basically a one off race, not a series of 3 or 4 in that many days. It is easier to run quickly in such a scenario, than having already run 1:46/1:47's 2 or 3 times in the previous 2 days.

[Rog]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

[quote=John G]

Cram was wrong about his limit then. The run in Edinburgh in horrible conditions, with no one to push him was worth a lot more than 1:42.8. I was there and it was the best 800 I saw live until Rudisha in 2012.

It was certainly an awesome performance, but it was made to look so much more impressive by the weak opposition. It was basically a one off circuit run, coming 3 days after the heat in which he ran 1:51. A very weak Championship. It certainly wasn't a patch on Cruz's 1:43.0 after 4 races in 4 days.



The conditions in Edinburgh may not have been warm and balmy but they were hardly 'horrible'.

stand by my contention that the conditions in Edinburgh were horrible (certainly relative to any other fast 800 metre race I can think of). My recollection of sitting there, freezing my bollocks off may not be worth much to you but look at the video of the race: there are puddles all over the track and the crowd are all dressed in coats and waterproofs.[/quote:3is2u65z]

That's my memory of the race too - from watching it on TV, admittedly. Those conditions must have slowed Cram down. But what's visual proof in the face of blatant Coe-ophobia?

[John G]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

Cram was wrong about his limit then. The run in Edinburgh in horrible conditions, with no one to push him was worth a lot more than 1:42.8. I was there and it was the best 800 I saw live until Rudisha in 2012.

It was certainly an awesome performance, but it was made to look so much more impressive by the weak opposition. It was basically a one off circuit run, coming 3 days after the heat in which he ran 1:51. A very weak Championship. It certainly wasn't a patch on Cruz's 1:43.0 after 4 races in 4 days.



The conditions in Edinburgh may not have been warm and balmy but they were hardly 'horrible'.

stand by my contention that the conditions in Edinburgh were horrible (certainly relative to any other fast 800 metre race I can think of). My recollection of sitting there, freezing my bollocks off may not be worth much to you but look at the video of the race: there are puddles all over the track and the crowd are all dressed in coats and waterproofs.

[John G]

Re: Ovett vs Coe movie

Utter nonsense. Coe was firmly middle class. His Dad was highly educated (working class boy with scholarship to Westminster) and he had managerial jobs throughout Seb's life. His Mum was from Kensington and went to bloody RADA.

So education means you can't be working class now?

Are you also aware that the post war period RADA was famous for it's volume of working class actors? The whole period was actually Burton, O'Toole, Harris etc. The post war period was known for considerable work class achievements.

I suppose it's partly the ridiculous and fake class boundaries. Coe's dad was a working class communist who made a success of a factory in a poor part of the UK. Coe went to state school, had to help his father out in the factory and certainly didn't have any privilages not available to Ovett who was hardly disadvantaged as his mum owned a business. But the class thing seems to me to be something placed upon both of them and neither have backgrounds that easily fit into one or another.

Admittedly there was never a universally agreed defintion of middle class in the 1970s, However, all of them included the level of educational attainment, home ownership and type of work. So, a man like Peter Coe was born into a working class family but went to a grammar school and on to further education before becoming a manager and a home owner would have met anyone's definition of middle class at the time. Ditto actors who went through RADA and ended up being millionaires living in mansions left the working class.

For my sins I read Sociology at University. Class as a topic has always bored me. But you brought it up and made a statement about Coe's class that is simply factually incorrect.