@joemcm1 Hi! Sorry not getting back to you sooner but have had a very hectic week! No, I haven't heard that story at all, but would love to see the documentary. If you find out when it was on or who the person was, let me know. Cheers.
dont know whether its your bag-but basically i remember a documentary in late 80s where a fell runner had won this annual race in northumberland i think for about 5 years on the trot in his late teens and then packed in.this film crew basically found him in his local pub 50 odd years later and jokingly asked him(now in his 70s or 80s) if hed run in the next one.he did without training and came 3rd-------------------------do you know about this or have the footage???its seriously worth finding
A lot of the speed work hadn't yet been done for the peak of the season in August/September. Look how much better he was over the Mile in Brussels compared to Zurich 9 days before! Like Ovett, I don't think Coe achieved his full potential at 800 either. If he'd had a few more cracks at it later in the year rather than chasing the Mile, I think he still might be the 800 record holder.
He was also capable of the 1000 WR in that period. But as we know, Ovett wasn't prepared to go chasing fast times, and seldom ran the 800 anyway. It's laughable when BBC commentators mention that Rimmer has gone ahead (which he has of course in time) of Ovett on the all time UK list, as if that means he's somehow as good an athlete. FWIW, when Coe ran his 1:41.7, it was a week after he'd run a 45.6 relay at the Palace, and it was early June.
While I don't think he was quite in Coe's 45.5 league, it's not unreasonable to suggest that he could have run a 46 high relay split or a 47 low individual. That's pretty much where Ovett was in 77-80. So there 1500 bests were pretty close and I'd say Ovett was not much faster over 400 when both in their primes. Thus, hypothetically, if Ovett had Cruz pace him in 78 to 700m (like Cram had), then he should have run something in the high 1:42's.
Had Ovett run a circuit race a week or so later with a 50.5 first 400 and someone drafting him to 600m, he could have broken the WR, no doubt. Possibly down to 1:43.0. Now, we don't know much about Cram's 400m potential in 85, except that he ran a 47.6 relay leg in the Far East at the end of the 84 season (Sep/Oct). I'm pretty certain he would have been faster in August 85.
Had Coe managed to hit the 50.5 he was supposed to, then I think both could have gone under the WR at the time of 1:43.44. By running so fast, and doing all the drafting, Ovett's superior strength (at the time!) came into play. By that time Coe's 400 ability was pretty much the same as Ovett's (possibly slightly better), but he wasn't as good as Ovett at 1500 then. Thus Coe slowed the most and Ovett got past him.
Or, put another way, had Coe's Florence run been paced and had he been drafted to 700m (which was never going to happen in 81 as there was no one capable of staying with him, let alone running 700m in 1:28), then his time would have been in the region of 1:41.0. Ovett's pb of 1:44.09 was in the 78 Europeans, and he went through 400 too fast for him at 49.7. It was also a champs, so it was his 3rd run in that many days; not optimal for setting a pb.
@joemcm1 Hi mister. Intrigued to know what's up your sleeve! LOL. With regards Cram's 800 pb, I think that was his absolute limit,1:42.8. He was in the best form of his life, had an ideal first lap for him (51.2, anything under 50.5 would be too fast)& had Cruz pacing/ drafting him (meant to be worth about 0.5 for every 200) until the last 100. So, this means that if Cram had been in front at the bell & run the last lap solo (a la Coe's WR), he'd almost certainly have slowed to1:43.3-1:43.5
anther question(ramblerambleramble)how was it possfor cram to run faster than ovett over 800((backs my racervstime clock argument(not that youve really disagreed with it))ive never quite understood that one ether and had to check just now tbh.if cram could run that 1.42.8 ,ovett must have been easily capable of faster than even say the 1.42.5 at v least that i suggested earlier.im kping an athltics card up my sleeve but its not about the big two,wanna hear it? its amazing but not about c&o
..and slightly out of order as peter was a v good athlete himself in his own right.a 1980 ovett would have blown cram away at c palace for sure-but ive never been sure about 1985 when cram was on fire and thats coming from ovetts number one fan..another one to think about.
christ,we are agreeing,we'll have to find something to argue about-ovett had the better running style.LOL,great,great athletes wtf has happenened to GBR middle distance since-and no disrespect to elliott who was good but way below the coe/ovett/cram-ps i personally loved the piece and pic in the sun i think it was before the 88? olympics which had elliott as a carthorse and coe as the chained racehorse-hillarious!
We'll have to agree to disagree on Ovett letting Coe win the 15. I'll accept he may not have wanted it as much after the 8, but I think Coe was a man possessed that day. No one (Morceli, EL G inc) has run a last 100 in 12.1 in a major champs since. I personally think Ovett was permanently affected by the problems in LA. He ran the odd good race after, but not much consistency. Without that he could have threatened Aouita at 3/ 5k. & I think a '80 Ovett would have beaten Cram at the Palace in 83?
@joemcm1 -I agree with you 100% on Straub, and he's the reason a lot of people think Ovett ran badly, because they compare them. Ovett always beat him easily, but then Straub never ran a 12.6 last 100m before. It wasn't so much that Ovett ran below his potential (imo), but that Straub ran so much better than anything before or after. Same with Beyer (his training partner & named on Stasi files as on PED scheme) in 78. Ovett should really have been the double European Champ in 78.
i still think ovett let coe have the 1500,i cant help myself,ive watched it a million times and im not nec going on what just happened in the race....its just his body lang all the way thro,before and after the race-during the race,he thinks at least ill get the silver to even it out,but straub (a cheat btw) just holds out-that going early that i referred to earlier-would have been an even bigger injustice if straub had got gold.personally i exclude the east germans from all athletics 70s/80s
having said that id like to have seen how good he could have been at 5000(earlier than 85/86 by the way-i know about 86 but its only a commonwealth)(i like brackets dont i!)
im starting to quite like this,any questions you want to ask me?i go off what i saw live(as do you no doubt) and i was gutted for ovett in 1984 when i thought he was in better cond than in 1980,im gutted that ovett was never quite the same after LA whether because of what happened in LA or thro injury.i agree coes splits do look even better than ovetts but have to say sometimes they dont tell the whole story.there was always talk of ovett moving up to 5000 which he thought boring(and so do i)
I believe Aouita got nearer to his full potential at 3:29.46 than Ovett did at 3:30.77. At his best Ovett ran to win, rather than set fast times. He only really started chasing times after Coe got his WR's in 79. Even then, both suffered some appalling pace making and Ovett especially didn't like running alone. If he could run a WR in 83 in windy conditions when past his best, then he was certainly capable of a lot faster in his prime years. If I had to pick one, then I'd go for Ovett.
@joemcm1 I think it depends on what sort of race it was. If those 5 ran 10 times in a season at their peaks, then all would probably win at least 1 each, depending on the pace, tactics, etc. Each in their own way was phenomenal. Of those 5 I'd have to go with Coe & Morceli as the most complete milers, in that they were equally good in "fast from the gun" races & in slower, kicker races. I think Ovett was a bit suspect with long 500m + drive from home, while Cram didn't have Ovett's turn of speed
some serious stats,thanks.still dont tell the whole story,but you cant argue with them.my best 1500 would have coe,ovett,aouita,cram,morcelli at their peak,what a dream race(im v 80s biased mind).i suppose youd have coe no1 no probs id be v v interested to see who youd take,aouita v ovett?
Ovett tended to kick at 200m, get daylight, then wasn't quite able to maintain the pace in the last 100, whereas Coe increased slightly at 200 then kicked again at 100m.
No one runs sub 12 in 800s these days, or anywhere near. Even at 1500, he ran the last 100 in LA in 12.7 and in Zurich 84, 12.5 at the end of a 3:32. I can't think of anyone who has run faster than that at the end of a 3:32 or faster 1500. As a comparison, Ovett's last 100m in 77 Europa Cup (v. slow at 3:44.9) was 12.6, last 100 in World Cup - 13.1 (though his last 200 was 25.1!), 78 European Cup (3:35.6)-13.4 (last 200 - 25.7, so bend was much faster at 12.3) .
And NO I don't think Ovett let Coe win the 1500. To have beaten him that day he'd have had to run the last 100m in 12.0, something Ovett had never done in a 1500 at that speed or quicker. People forget that Coe's kick at the end of some 800's have never been matched: 12.4 in the 1:44.5 in Stuttgart, 12.3 in a 1:44.0 front running effort at Palace in 81, 12.0 in winning the World Cup in 1:46.1, 24.1/11.9 in the '79 Europa Cup (1:47.2), 11.8 in the 81 Europa Cup, 11.3! in Europa Cup semi in 81.
@joemcm1. If Coe had been able to run on inside it would have been 24.5/24.6. Moreover, he'd had to run even wider on the bend after the bell. His actual last 400 was 50.65, but if you take the extra c.7m he ran, it's equivalent to well under 50.0. In the 1500m, Ovett's last 400 was 52.5, last 200 25.3, last 100 12.7 (same as in 800!). Coe's splits were 52.2, 25.0, 12.1!
Ovett was an icon & I wish he were around now-he'd still be winning medals against current crop of Kiprop et al. With perfect pacing & someone to push him, he was capable imo, of 1:43.0 for 800, 3:29.0 for 1500 & 3:45.5 - 3:46.0 for Mile. That would be slightly faster on today's mondo tracks. In 800 final Ovett ran last 200 in 25.0, last 100 in 12.7 running in lane 1. Last 400m was 50.5! Coe's last 200 was 24.9, 100 -12.6, but he ran most of last bend in or on edge of lane 2 = c. 3m further.
pps-im not one for splis really but what were their times in both finals from 200m and 100m out.for me i still think in most 1500s ovett would have outkicked coe(we'll never really know what they were capable of v each other) that close in,if coe had gone early maybe different story.tbh both were slightly susceptible to someone going early in a 1500m
excellent,thanks for the comments deano.have you heard any more about the upcoming film?i hope they dont ruin it! once heard that ovetts mate packed in running thinking he was holding ovett back,when he next spoke to ovett,steve said hed packed in aswel as he was bored running on his own-the stuff legends are made of
Your initial claim that Ovett was the best middle distance runner ever would find very little support if you were to go to the message boards of T&FN or Letsrun, or even ask a selection of statisticians or experts. In fact, he would be unlikely to be any higher than third. Coe & Snell's records when looking at all events from 800 to the Mile are better.
Coe beat Coghlan and McLoud (not to mention Foster's course record) over 4 miles on the road in 78 off the back of a season running 800m. Research the training session he did with Frank Horwill and Tim Hutchings for 5k. He ran 10 miles in training in just over 45 mins. His range was equally as good, and he represented Britain in the 4x400m. These are all facts, not opinions or based on favouritism. Ovett was great and he was probably more liked than Coe, but he certainly didn't achieve as much.
Not only did he win more than Ovett on the track, but he was the mastermind to us winning the Olympics. He is still working to reinvigorate British athletics and sport in general, whereas Ovett has emigrated to Australia! Who is doing more for future BRITISH winners? As for Ovett running a half marathon, the reason it was startling, was not so much his time, but the fact he ran it mid track season. Coe's over-distance endurance was at least the equal of Ovett's.
If it became slow and tactical and Coe was boxed, then Ovett could have beaten him on occasion. The bottom line is, 80 was Ovett's best year in terms of times, yet in both Olympic finals Coe was faster over the last 100m, 200m & 400m. IN Ovett's best distance in an Olympic final (when it mattered the most), they were together with 100 to go, yet still Coe pulled away with every stride. If you think Coe is a loser, then you have an odd definition of the word.
The next year Coe ran a 45.5 relay, far beyond anything Ovett could hope to run. 79 is when Coe's peak years began. Coe was even better in 81. In that form he would always beat Ovett over 8 unless he ran like an idiot as he did in Moscow. I doubt he was likely to do that again with Ovett in the race. At 1500m it would be closer, but I believe Coe would win more often; both were capable of faster than their pbs, but off a fast pace Coe was able to sustain his speed longer; e.g Moscow or his 1k WR
@joemcm1 If you want to be pedantic, then really only the Moscow races count as those they ran against each other at their peak. Coe was not the finished article in 78, had missed 5 weeks training in June with injury & it was his first outdoor champs. Ovett had already run in the 74 Euros & an Olympics, and was one year into his peak (77-81). Those in the know expected Ovett to win. Even Coe's father said Ovett would win. Coe's 400pb in 78 was 47.7, slower than Ovett's.
do you want to go more 'fact' speak,id enjoy it? you could bore me with splits etc which i reckon while interestingish are quite meaningless actually.and no i dont see the difference between the two races,apart from you trying to excuse coes loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i gave coe the win in 1989,you begrudge ovetts in 1972.i think you are as big a loser as coe!
ok then,we will have to agree to disagree-in the two real races 800 and 1500 at their peak who would have won in your opinion?mine-800 at their peak even at a slow pace coe but only by a smidge,1500-ovett by about 5 yards.ovett could run all the way up to 1/2 marathon and more,coe couldnt.oh and yes i am bothered about who was the better loser-it says it all really,one a 'loser' and one a true 'sportsman'.sport is the name-look it up,you might learn something,maybe you should read more...
@joemcm1 LOL. You can't have it both ways. So, let me get this straight, when Ovett "ducks" he has legitimate reasons, but when Coe did (once), he's scared!? Hilarious. And you really can't see what the difference is between a 16 year old beating a 15 year old (12 months difference) in 4 mile XC race , compared to a 32 yr old beating a 33 yr old at their distance of 1500m? If that's the case then it's not worth arguing with you. I'm not bothered about who was the better loser, just the facts.
oh and u forgot to mention that ovett and norman(rip) had ever fallen out over sebs victory in 1989 hadnt you-one i gave to seb,even tho he was a year younger than steve-please see previous corros about the 1972 clash that you inferred too young to count-chalk them both off and its 2-1 ovett.i think you are a bad loser just like seb whereas steve could take it-moscow 80 medals ceremony-take your side everyone lets get the clash of the titans debate back on
rd thm deano,but youve to rd and make your own opinions.yve not mde a cmment on my 'ovett let coe have his gold',you wnt find that said by 'them' in the bks (i willl hve to red them agn mnd)what ovett said-'i got my gold and wanted to go home' ovett will have had his own reasons to 'duck' the challge never mind his agent! wha bout sebs ex agent-tell the whle story and pple can dcide what they think-steve was the better natural athlete,seb a trained racehorse thoroughd who cdnt undstn y 2nd bst
He chose to run in Norway instead, running an irrelevant 1:47. Coe had also tried to run the 2 Miles at the Palace in 78, but again it wasn't allowed by Norman. The only time Coe avoided Ovett was at the county Champs in May 80, when Ovett changed events on the day (from 8 to 15) & Coe, knowing that they would be racing a few months later when far more was at stake, moved to the 800 instead. Even a peak Ovett would not have beaten Coe in the 1500 on that day in LA. Keep on dreaming.
@joemcm1 You need to read more. Try Pat Butcher's "The Perfect Distance" and Coe's bio "Born to Run". You might be interested in what Ovett's former agent, Andy Norman has to say about it. It was Ovett who refused to run in the 79 Dream Mile in Oslo, Ovett who wouldn't allow Coe to switch to the Mile in Oslo 81 (Coe then ran the 1000 and broke the WR) & Ovett who pulled out of the Golden Mile in Brussels later that year a week before. It had been an arranged clash between the 2 all season.
i like it deano,if steve had been pushed and not just interested in just beating others hed have gone 1.42.5 easily,coe would have gone faster than his WR at the time mind if hed taken on ovett instead of ducking him,but come 1984 if ovett hadnt been suffering hed have taken coe in both 8&15 under race conditions.remember ovett wasnt scared to take cram on coming off a recent WR run and he lost no cred getting beat-why was seb so scared i wonder?
@joemcm1 LOL! When they ran the X-country Ovett was 16, and a year older than Coe. So basically you're only counting races up to 1980, when Ovett's form dropped? Ovett's peak years were 77-81, while Coe's were 79-84 (possibly up to 86), so the only ones they raced each other while at their top were the ones in Moscow. There's absolutely no way Ovett would have beaten Coe at 800 in LA; he'd never run under 1:44.
i better clarify before i get shot down----1972 schools-ovett/1978 800m ovett/1980 800m ovett/1980 1500m coe(altho ovett let him have his gold)/1984 800m-coe,but cant count in the head to head if you are realistic/1984 1500m-coe,again cant really count/1989-coe.3-2 ovett
