And the 1:41 800m runner types are doped too. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to assume that doping only helps one extend one’s speed further. It can help make one faster at short distances too. So if you want to see doping everywhere, you will see it.
It is everywhere. But most prefer not to see it. I don't maintain that doping is confined to 1500m runners. I hope you aren't stupid enough to think I have.
A quick question: does anyone here still doesn't understand the difference between an 800m/1500m type of a runner and a 1500m/5000m one?
An 800m/1500m runner can run 5000m as a training and suck at it and a 1500m/5000m type runner can run 800m as a training and suck at it too, see J.I.
Btw, 1:48 is plenty fast for someone who can run 5000m in 12:45. I wouldn't be surprised if Cheptegai could barely crack 1:50 in 800m.
Cheptegei hasn't beaten 3.37 for the 1500. It isn't his distance. But 1.48 would be very slow for a 3.28 runner.
Yes, it isn't his distance. An 800m is not Jakobs distance either. 1:48 is plenty for 3:28, if the guy can run 12:45 in 5000m too. Mo Farah ran 3:28 with 13s / 100m top-speed.
You may be a "student" of Lydiard but you are poorly-informed. Lydiard said that Snell's 1.44 on grass was worth up to 2 seconds on modern tracks. (Snell carved 1.4 secs off the then 800m world record and 1.6secs off the then 880y record). It has somehow escaped you that in 1962 Snell wasn't running on modern tracks. If grass was as fast as modern tracks we would still be running on them. We aren't.
So why don't you apply the same logic to their 1500m times? Herb Elliot would run close to sub 3:30 if he was in last years Tokyo Olympic final, even without supershoes or any modern training refinements.
In todays DL with supershoes, I'd say
Snell 1:41/3:28
Elliott 1:43/3:26
Walker 1:43/3:29
Jakob, unlike them a 1500/5000 runner, is probably 1:45/3:27
I wouldn't necessarily agree with your time conversions for Elliott, Snell and Walker. They would be faster than in their era, but perhaps not as much as you suggest.
And it's not childish at all to point on your laughable behavior. You have destroyed so many threads over the years in this forum that it's good when people point on and ridicule all of your nonsense.
Cheryuiot - wtf?!? And you have clearly stated it IS pronounced CHERRY-IT. Not: "I have heard..." . Which for sure I also very much doubt.
It's written CHERUIYOT. It's pronounced CHERUIYOT. Wow.
I'm an expert in very few fields and a non-expert in most. And I never would pretend to be an expert when I'm not.
If you are going to be pedantic - which you are - you need also ensure that you don't commit error yourself. If you listen to the commentator at the Tokyo Olympics his pronunciation is pretty much as I said. But why the matter of the spelling of his name is so important to you is baffling, as it has no relevance to the subject of the discussion. That is petti-fogging.
THE commentator? The one and only? Please give a link to this commentator (you can't, I know...).
Spelling and pronunciation of a name of some runner is not important to the question how fast another runner can run over some specific distance, that's right.
It's just another small point to show how nonsensical you often act.
See your last comment when I clarified a mistake I did.
Cheptegei hasn't beaten 3.37 for the 1500. It isn't his distance. But 1.48 would be very slow for a 3.28 runner.
Yes, it isn't his distance. An 800m is not Jakobs distance either. 1:48 is plenty for 3:28, if the guy can run 12:45 in 5000m too. Mo Farah ran 3:28 with 13s / 100m top-speed.
I would suggest 1.48 is only plenty for a 3.28 runner if they are doped to the gills.
And the 1:41 800m runner types are doped too. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to assume that doping only helps one extend one’s speed further. It can help make one faster at short distances too. So if you want to see doping everywhere, you will see it.
It is everywhere. But most prefer not to see it. I don't maintain that doping is confined to 1500m runners. I hope you aren't stupid enough to think I have.
OK so what is the point here? You seem to be spending a lot of time on this subject about Jakob’s 1:46 3:28 12:48 being a red flag for doping. So what? I suppose the same could be said for Timothy C running 1:43 3:28 and 13:47, however misleading this might be. You just like to argue but to no real point.
Yes, it isn't his distance. An 800m is not Jakobs distance either. 1:48 is plenty for 3:28, if the guy can run 12:45 in 5000m too. Mo Farah ran 3:28 with 13s / 100m top-speed.
I would suggest 1.48 is only plenty for a 3.28 runner if they are doped to the gills.
Based on what? How could you know this? Did you ever run 1:48, 3:28 or 12:45? Do you know anyone who can run those times?
If you are going to be pedantic - which you are - you need also ensure that you don't commit error yourself. If you listen to the commentator at the Tokyo Olympics his pronunciation is pretty much as I said. But why the matter of the spelling of his name is so important to you is baffling, as it has no relevance to the subject of the discussion. That is petti-fogging.
THE commentator? The one and only? Please give a link to this commentator (you can't, I know...).
Spelling and pronunciation of a name of some runner is not important to the question how fast another runner can run over some specific distance, that's right.
It's just another small point to show how nonsensical you often act.
See your last comment when I clarified a mistake I did.
You didn't read the post by a commenter above who included a Youtube link to the Tokyo race. But I am really not interested in your silly little egoistic contests.
I would suggest 1.48 is only plenty for a 3.28 runner if they are doped to the gills.
Based on what? How could you know this? Did you ever run 1:48, 3:28 or 12:45? Do you know anyone who can run those times?
Name one 12:45 guy who ran 800m faster than 1:48.
I am not discussing a 12.45 guy. Nor am I going to write an essay here about doping for someone who has likely done little to inform themselves about it. But hang on to your indignation, by all means. It is the typical response when the subject is raised.
Where have I claimed that he would be competetive in the 800? (Nowhere). Good that you admit that the predictions remain in the realm of speculation if not fantasy - so stop speculating on J.I's 800m potential. J.I. No one disagree that his next distance is the 5000 and no one will disagree that Cherry-It will have a better 800 pr, lol.
Then you appear to be agreeing with me that his 800 performances show he isn't fast. Perhaps you could respond to my earlier point, of how does a runner who is slower than the record-holders of the '60's and 70's run far superior times than they did over the longer distance (up to 8 secs) when they also trained to their limits?
I think your definition of "fast/not fast" is hillarious, wrong and quite frankly quite stupid. An 800m sprinter can be "not fast" for a 400m, a 400m runner can be "not fast" for a 100/200m runner etc etc.
Ingebrigtsen is certainly fast in a 1500m and in a 5000m runner, and I don't struggle so much with the concept, even though you evidently do. Maybe you and the sprinters of the past should stop focusing on being fast in the 800 (and 400 and 200 and 100) and more on being fast in the 1500.
It is everywhere. But most prefer not to see it. I don't maintain that doping is confined to 1500m runners. I hope you aren't stupid enough to think I have.
OK so what is the point here? You seem to be spending a lot of time on this subject about Jakob’s 1:46 3:28 12:48 being a red flag for doping. So what? I suppose the same could be said for Timothy C running 1:43 3:28 and 13:47, however misleading this might be. You just like to argue but to no real point.
I have discussed Jakob but I certainly wouldn't say doping is confined to only one athlete - if he is doped. But a red flag for doping is stamina way above the norm, even for top athletes.
No, I don't. How is it possible that you just misinterpret easy sentences like that so extremely?
Then why did you bother to cite the performance - since it tends to support my argument?
On several occasions in this thread I wrote, JI has run just two times the 800m in four seasons. I just realised THIS WAS WRONG. Don't you get this? I clarified it because it was wrong. Regardless which argument is supported by the clarification. Something obviously unheard for you.
If I found that JI has run a (for what ever reason not publicly known) 1:42, do you think I would hide it to "support" something? I'm not writing a single word just to support "my argument". I'm only interested in the truth.
Btw, this 1:48 at the Norwegian Champs (hardly a time trial) doesn't "support" any argument in this issue at all.
OK so what is the point here? You seem to be spending a lot of time on this subject about Jakob’s 1:46 3:28 12:48 being a red flag for doping. So what? I suppose the same could be said for Timothy C running 1:43 3:28 and 13:47, however misleading this might be. You just like to argue but to no real point.
I have discussed Jakob but I certainly wouldn't say doping is confined to only one athlete - if he is doped. But a red flag for doping is stamina way above the norm, even for top athletes.
I suppose Bolt was clean as it appeared he lacked “stamina way above the norm.”
Based on what? How could you know this? Did you ever run 1:48, 3:28 or 12:45? Do you know anyone who can run those times?
Name one 12:45 guy who ran 800m faster than 1:48.
I am not discussing a 12.45 guy. Nor am I going to write an essay here about doping for someone who has likely done little to inform themselves about it. But hang on to your indignation, by all means. It is the typical response when the subject is raised.
Just write how it is. You speculate that someone is doping, because.... that is something you think.
Where is your scientific base for proving someone is doping, if they can't run 800m faster than 1:48 in a tough windy race, but then do run 3:46 mile under perfect conditions?
Then you appear to be agreeing with me that his 800 performances show he isn't fast. Perhaps you could respond to my earlier point, of how does a runner who is slower than the record-holders of the '60's and 70's run far superior times than they did over the longer distance (up to 8 secs) when they also trained to their limits?
I think your definition of "fast/not fast" is hillarious, wrong and quite frankly quite stupid. An 800m sprinter can be "not fast" for a 400m, a 400m runner can be "not fast" for a 100/200m runner etc etc.
Ingebrigtsen is certainly fast in a 1500m and in a 5000m runner, and I don't struggle so much with the concept, even though you evidently do. Maybe you and the sprinters of the past should stop focusing on being fast in the 800 (and 400 and 200 and 100) and more on being fast in the 1500.
As I said much earlier in the thread, Jakob's few performances over the 800m suggest he is much slower in terms of basic speed than many previous top 1500/milers. You have done nothing to dispel that but say he is fast over the 1500. That isn't disputed. The question is how are runners like him able to do that off a relatively low speed base when their predecessors couldn't.