You are definitely not significantly smarter than me. (It is literally not possible by any widely accepted measure.)
It is bizarre that you cannot grasp that my original post was not even about his achievements as an athlete. (Reading comprehension does not seem to be among the characteristics you pathetically started bragging about.) The post was explicitly about his desperation for relevance. It is also bizarre that you want to promote him as a "journalist" (which he isn't) or a "commentator" (which anyone with an internet connection can claim to be).
Let me remind you what I wrote, Amby/apologist: "Who? This Amby person seems desperate for relevance in 2024. Sad."
I'll stand by that.
I have NOT read all your posts. I read one of your posts and was able to ascertain that your IQ is average, your analytical ability is weak, and so I am significantly smarter than you. End of discussion.
2
3
bloggers with limited achievements but lots to say
Ruth's progression is great, but that doesn't necessarily make her a doper. Again, if so, I would argue, based on progression as well as how strong the record was at the time, Radcliffe's 2:15 in 2003 was even more sus than a 2:09 in 2024.
Of course Radcliffe was more suspect.
Can anyone link to the blog that Amby wrote about Radcliffe, whose 2:15 performance checks all the same boxes he rants about for Chepngetich?
7
3
bloggers with limited achievements but lots to say
In decades of experience dealing with people who think they are special, many of whom are actually very, very talented while most are unimpressive, it is always the least impressive specimens who start talking about who "smart" they are, unprompted.
You seem to be part of that dismal club: perhaps within the top percent of your high school, but not in the top percent of any group that matters.
😆
1
5
bloggers with limited achievements but lots to say
I read one of your posts and was able to ascertain that your IQ is average, your analytical ability is weak, and so I am significantly smarter than you. End of discussion.
I don't know which is funnier, that fact that you think you ascertained anything whatsoever from a single post, or the fact that one of your "conclusions" is that my Mensan IQ is "average."
🤡
End of discussion? Indeed. You couldn't more clearly identify yourself as a mediocre American man that you already have.
I read one of your posts and was able to ascertain that your IQ is average, your analytical ability is weak, and so I am significantly smarter than you. End of discussion.
I don't know which is funnier, that fact that you think you ascertained anything whatsoever from a single post, or the fact that one of your "conclusions" is that my Mensan IQ is "average."
🤡
End of discussion? Indeed. You couldn't more clearly identify yourself as a mediocre American man that you already have.
I can quickly surmise how mediocre your mind is by one post. Absolutely. Your perseveration regarding Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator on this subject is dispositive in rendering the judgment that you are palpably mediocre in ratiocination.
Ruth's progression is great, but that doesn't necessarily make her a doper. Again, if so, I would argue, based on progression as well as how strong the record was at the time, Radcliffe's 2:15 in 2003 was even more sus than a 2:09 in 2024.
Of course Radcliffe was more suspect.
Can anyone link to the blog that Amby wrote about Radcliffe, whose 2:15 performance checks all the same boxes he rants about for Chepngetich?
I'm afraid he didn't, as Radcliffe is a powerful woman. She's not gonna let that slide like Ruth.
I can quickly surmise how mediocre your mind is by one post. Absolutely. Your perseveration regarding Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator on this subject is dispositive in rendering the judgment that you are palpably mediocre in ratiocination.
Again, improve your reading comprehension. Even at your age you can work on this.
I have never suggested that "Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator." (Please show me you mistaken read this.) I have suggested that he is desperate for relevance.
Finally, for someone gratuitously describing themselves as smart, how can you write such a terrible sentence as this? "Your perseveration regarding Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator on this subject is dispositive in rendering the judgment that you are palpably mediocre in ratiocination."
I'm embarrassed for you, while you don't even know how piteous you are to an intelligent person.
If YOU knew as much history as you want people to believe you'd know that there was no world record in the marathon when Amby won Boston 56 years ago.
Thanks for proving my point.
The marathon was so immature as an event that there wasn't even a recognized world record at the time.
The world best recognized by the IAAF and ARRS at the time was 2:09, a major breakthrough at the time when Amby was winning Boston 1968 in 2:22.
I believe Amby ran 2:14 in Fukuoka that year, five minutes off the world best?
Won Boston before it was competitive, against a weak field even for the time.
One of your points was that winning what was then the marathon outside the Olympics that most runners wanted to win wasn't an accomplishment that impressed you. It was the second fastest American time by less than a second. It was the seventh fastest marathon ever to that point in time. And most importantly, a person's race times have nothing to do with the validity of their opinions. I don't know what you've accomplished in the sport but I expect it's pretty sketchy compared to what Amby's are.
I can quickly surmise how mediocre your mind is by one post. Absolutely. Your perseveration regarding Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator on this subject is dispositive in rendering the judgment that you are palpably mediocre in ratiocination.
Again, improve your reading comprehension. Even at your age you can work on this.
I have never suggested that "Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator." (Please show me you mistaken read this.) I have suggested that he is desperate for relevance.
Finally, for someone gratuitously describing themselves as smart, how can you write such a terrible sentence as this? "Your perseveration regarding Amby’s bona fides as a runner as having any bearing on his credibility as a commentator on this subject is dispositive in rendering the judgment that you are palpably mediocre in ratiocination."
I'm embarrassed for you, while you don't even know how piteous you are to an intelligent person.
Your suggestion that Amby is desperate for relevance is again not an attempt to grapple with his position. You are simply not very bright. It is palpable to those of who are. So your position, because you possess a paucity of analytical skills and have no arguments of refutation, is that he is craving attention? Laughable.
1
1
bloggers with limited achievements but lots to say
what is wrong with you? you sound like someone who never broke 19 in a 5k and lives in their mother's basement. you've been posting nasty like a 15 year old on 60mg of Adderall / day
EDIT: sometimes it's not ad hominem, sometimes you're just an a-hole that should look under their shoe
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
And most importantly, a person's race times have nothing to do with the validity of their opinions.
I agree.
I never once suggested that his performances have any bearing on the validity of his opinions.
I simply responded to people who want to act like he has earned relevance through his performances.
Amby was Editor in Chief of Runner's World before the modern Internet, and probably before you were born. One of the few places you could get any distance running content. HIs contributions to US distance running are nonpareil.
what is wrong with you? you sound like someone who never broke 19 in a 5k and lives in their mother's basement. you've been posting nasty like a 15 year old on 60mg of Adderall / day
EDIT: sometimes it's not ad hominem, sometimes you're just an a-hole that should look under their shoe
Zzzzzzzzz.🥱
Another Amby apologist with nothing of substance to say, just personal insults.
It's almost like you have no real argument at all.
1
3
bloggers with limited achievements but lots to say
Amby was Editor in Chief of Runner's World before the modern Internet, and probably before you were born. One of the few places you could get any distance running content. HIs contributions to US distance running are nonpareil.
Wow, an actual response including any content whatseover. Bravo.👏
OK, so you think that editing Runner's World in the 80s connotes expertise on doping in 2024. I don't.
But at least you're answering the question of why we should care what he says, unlike the other apologists. In comparison to these twerps you're a brilliant essayist, having added a single piece of information to the discussion.