Jakob and Filip to run 800m on tuesday june 30th

ghaghagha wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It has nothing to do with his training. He isn't capable of 1.42 because he isn't fast enough. In your parlance, he is too "resistant" to ever achieve anything like that time.

Why don't you leave training discussion to people who understand about training?

And why don't you stop insulting people with every single post?

So what was Jakob's 800 time in his last race? 1.46x. And you think he could run 1.42 because "those who understand about training" - like Canova - say so?

How about you try re-reading Canova's post...

juantorena ran a 3.45 1500 in 1984.He tried to step up to that event,but he wasnt suited to it.Im much more intrigued as to what his 100 and 200 meter times were.Ive never been able to find out his short sprint times,but im guessing he could have run 200 in 20.6-20.7.

spot on! wrote:

How about you try re-reading Canova's post...

So what part of Canova saying Jakob could run 1.42 if he trained for it don't you understand?

Renato Canova wrote:

It's related because people need to understand tha for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m.

This part...

jeff tallon wrote:

juantorena ran a 3.45 1500 in 1984.He tried to step up to that event,but he wasnt suited to it.Im much more intrigued as to what his 100 and 200 meter times were.Ive never been able to find out his short sprint times,but im guessing he could have run 200 in 20.6-20.7.

20.7 is given.

hm okay.... wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

It's related because people need to understand tha for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m.

This part...

Allowing for his convoluted expression, that is the same as saying it is only Jakob's choosing to train for the 5k that would prevent him from achieving 1.42 over 800. I am only one of many here who have said we don't think he could get anywhere near that time - even if he focussed on it. But take the word of someone who maintains doping doesn't help the best-trained athetes, if that makes you feel better.

It's not a convoluted expression, you just have poor reading comprehension. That statement is very clear - it's not possible for Jakob to run 1:42.

Armstronglivs wrote:

hm okay.... wrote:

This part...

Allowing for his convoluted expression, that is the same as saying it is only Jakob's choosing to train for the 5k that would prevent him from achieving 1.42 over 800. I am only one of many here who have said we don't think he could get anywhere near that time - even if he focussed on it. But take the word of someone who maintains doping doesn't help the best-trained athetes, if that makes you feel better.

Your comprehension is as bad as your manners.

hm okay.... wrote:

It's not a convoluted expression, you just have poor reading comprehension. That statement is very clear - it's not possible for Jakob to run 1:42.

You're right only about the part he will never run 1.42. The reason part you don't get. Here's Canova's comment again.

"...for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m"

You were saying about "comprehension"? Try reading the full sentence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

hm okay.... wrote:

It's not a convoluted expression, you just have poor reading comprehension. That statement is very clear - it's not possible for Jakob to run 1:42.

You're right only about the part he will never run 1.42. The reason part you don't get. Here's Canova's comment again.

"...for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m"

You were saying about "comprehension"? Try reading the full sentence.

That doesn't at all contradict the claim that he can't run a 1:42, it in fact enforces it. His best event will be the 5000m. Do you actually think you're making a point here, or are you just lashing out because your feelings are hurt?

compreezy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Allowing for his convoluted expression, that is the same as saying it is only Jakob's choosing to train for the 5k that would prevent him from achieving 1.42 over 800. I am only one of many here who have said we don't think he could get anywhere near that time - even if he focussed on it. But take the word of someone who maintains doping doesn't help the best-trained athetes, if that makes you feel better.

Your comprehension is as bad as your manners.

Oh dear, another who has failed to read the full sentence by Canova. There is a reference to Jakob's training for the longer distance as the reason (and the only one) for why he won't run 1.42. Is that polite enough for you?

Armstronglivs wrote:

compreezy wrote:

Your comprehension is as bad as your manners.

Oh dear, another who has failed to read the full sentence by Canova. There is a reference to Jakob's training for the longer distance as the reason (and the only one) for why he won't run 1.42. Is that polite enough for you?

It's not a "why" in the follow up. You are embarrassing yourself.

hm okay.... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're right only about the part he will never run 1.42. The reason part you don't get. Here's Canova's comment again.

"...for Jakob 1'42" never can be possible, if he wants to have a proper training looking at his best future event, that probably can be 5000m"

You were saying about "comprehension"? Try reading the full sentence.

That doesn't at all contradict the claim that he can't run a 1:42, it in fact enforces it. His best event will be the 5000m. Do you actually think you're making a point here, or are you just lashing out because your feelings are hurt?

It is difficult discussing some subjects with those who apparently struggle with the English language. But here goes - I have several times said Jakob's best events are the longer distances, that I consider him currently to be a 1500/5k runner. There I would agree with you. That is also why I don't think he will run at an equivalent level over 800 - and not simply because he may not train specifically for the shorter event.

However, where I differ with some like Canova is that I don't think it is only training that would prevent Jakob from running 1.42. I don't think he has the speed. I would be surprised if he ever gets below 1.45.

compreezy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Oh dear, another who has failed to read the full sentence by Canova. There is a reference to Jakob's training for the longer distance as the reason (and the only one) for why he won't run 1.42. Is that polite enough for you?

It's not a "why" in the follow up. You are embarrassing yourself.

If what Canova says isn't a "why", what is it, and why (sorry) is it in the same sentence? No need to answer that. I guess you can take a horse to water, as they say.

Where did Canova say it's only his training that will prevent him from running 1:42? I have very few issues understanding Canova because my reading comprehension is better than the average 5th grader.

Armstronglivs wrote:

compreezy wrote:

It's not a "why" in the follow up. You are embarrassing yourself.

If what Canova says isn't a "why", what is it, and why (sorry) is it in the same sentence? No need to answer that. I guess you can take a horse to water, as they say.

His inability to run a 1:42 is a reason for him to focus on the 5000m, you moron....

compreezy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Allowing for his convoluted expression, that is the same as saying it is only Jakob's choosing to train for the 5k that would prevent him from achieving 1.42 over 800. I am only one of many here who have said we don't think he could get anywhere near that time - even if he focussed on it. But take the word of someone who maintains doping doesn't help the best-trained athetes, if that makes you feel better.

Your comprehension is as bad as your manners.

It's 3 a.m. there and he is has been posting on LRC for hours... How sad. :(

Probably a bitter and lonely old man.

Armstronglivs wrote:

compreezy wrote:

It's not a "why" in the follow up. You are embarrassing yourself.

If what Canova says isn't a "why", what is it, and why (sorry) is it in the same sentence? No need to answer that. I guess you can take a horse to water, as they say.

So the fact that everyone but you can understand very clearly what he wrote and you can't somehow means we are the idiots? Being willfully ignorant is no way for you to go through life, son.