So you still think runners performances are determined by "rules" regardless of their differences in individual physiology. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that rules are prescriptions and no one is making athletes conform to anything. You've been arguing the Houlihan/WADA case on so many threads you've become obsessed with rules and see them everywhere.
Of course you deny that drugs can enhance endurance - denying the performance enhancing effects of doping is your raison d'etre.
If athletes of the past have "poor endurance" it is because they didn't enjoy the benefits of the drugs athletes have access to today.
If I was a Jakob fan I would be very concerned you've turned up here, as you are only ever concerned to defend dopers.
Yet you seem to think Jakob's performances break some physiological rules you have not specified, rather than being due to "differences in individual physiology".
I didn't deny that drugs can enhance endurance, but whole-heartedly welcomed all the science and data you rely on.
I did deny you have provided any reason to think that Jakob's endurance was enhanced.
Horwill invented his 4-second rule in 1980, apparently by observing "athletes of the past" in the '60s and '70s -- when Snell, Ryun, Coe, Ovett, Dixon and Walker were dominating the 1500m.
I don't think Jakob breaks any "physiological rules". Rather, he and other top runners suggest how physiology can be enhanced in a way not observable in previous generations of top milers.
Elliott rarely race the half - his best over the 800 was 1.46.7* (converted from the 880) without the benefits of modern shoes and tracks. That's at least 1.44-45 today. His best mile was 3.54.5. He trained incredibly hard. Jakob is 8secs faster. I wouldn't put it all down to shoes and tracks. Why would I when doping is rife in sport and largely undetectable?
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
The 2k is much closer to the 1500/mile than the 800 is. Is it possible for you to make an honest argument?
But the argument was lack of experience in the event. So you want to shift the goal posts? In any case, for a stamina athlete like Jakob the 800 should be a pretty simple proposition; to run two laps as close as possible to his fastest possible speed. But we see that isn't very high.
It's kind of funny to see you do all these backflips for Snell, attempting to rationalize why he failed to achieve his potential, after ignoring everyone telling you why Jakob has not achieved his 800m potential.
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
I can grasp that Snell, and even moreso Jakob at 800m, are "likely even better than that".
Your bending over backwards for Snell shows why your suspicions over Jakob are not reasonable.
Yet you seem to think Jakob's performances break some physiological rules you have not specified, rather than being due to "differences in individual physiology".
I didn't deny that drugs can enhance endurance, but whole-heartedly welcomed all the science and data you rely on.
I did deny you have provided any reason to think that Jakob's endurance was enhanced.
Horwill invented his 4-second rule in 1980, apparently by observing "athletes of the past" in the '60s and '70s -- when Snell, Ryun, Coe, Ovett, Dixon and Walker were dominating the 1500m.
I don't think Jakob breaks any "physiological rules". Rather, he and other top runners suggest how physiology can be enhanced in a way not observable in previous generations of top milers.
Elliott rarely race the half - his best over the 800 was 1.46.7* (converted from the 880) without the benefits of modern shoes and tracks. That's at least 1.44-45 today. His best mile was 3.54.5. He trained incredibly hard. Jakob is 8secs faster. I wouldn't put it all down to shoes and tracks. Why would I when doping is rife in sport and largely undetectable?
Their physiology was enhanced by better training than the milers of the '50s and '60s.
You already showed us with Snell that all the great milers of that era were slow. Snell broke world records without really pushing himself and no one else could push him.
Who then was pushing Elliot in 1958? Bannister had only just broken the 4 minute mile in 1954. And the previous record holder was Derek Ibbotson at 3:57. Surely, with proper modern training, plus tracks and shoes, and someone pushing him, and not retiring at age 22, Elliot would be much better than that, running times comparable to John Walker, Coe, Cram, and Ovett of the '70s and '80s.
You should stop comparing a 1500m/5000m specialist, with half-mile/mile specialists of the '50s and '60s. Half-mile/mile specialists will inherently have comparatively better speed and poorer endurance, than 1500m/5000m specialists, due to "physiological differences".
Your "suspicions" are a pure artifact of your own faulty reasoning.
The 2k is much closer to the 1500/mile than the 800 is. Is it possible for you to make an honest argument?
But the argument was lack of experience in the event. So you want to shift the goal posts? In any case, for a stamina athlete like Jakob the 800 should be a pretty simple proposition; to run two laps as close as possible to his fastest possible speed. But we see that isn't very high.
The argument was mainly a lack of trying to run his best at 800m, choosing instead to focus on 1500m and 5000m.
When he set his PB, he wasn't running his fastest, but his older brother's fastest. His 27 year old brother Filip also set a PB in that race at 1:46.74 (from a previous PB of 1:49.56).
Your 2K example is desparate. The 2K is rarely run, so setting a WR then was easier than the mile/1500m. Jazy is still in the top-100 for 2K but out of the top-900 in the mile, and out of the top 4900 for 1500m. That's why Mo Farah, specialist in 5000m/10000m, world class fast in the 1500m, while slower than Jakob in the 800m, holds his world records in the indoor 2-mile and the 1-hour run.
Since there is really nothing to add I will vacate the ground. I did find one poster who offered an informed and intelligent response in Thoughtsleader but he left the pack far behind.
From 2 days ago, extracted from the one shot out backwards from the chasing pack.
Lol. Having "really nothing to add" has never stopped you from posting before, and it hasn't stopped you now.
I suggested - as other great runners have - that a brilliant amateur who retired at any early age was likely better than his best performances, which were nonetheless world records. By contrast, Jakob is an indifferent runner over the 800; were he to run faster - and he could, but not by much - he will remain an indifferent runner over that distance. It is the main reason why he doesn't choose to compete in it.
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
I can grasp that Snell, and even moreso Jakob at 800m, are "likely even better than that".
Your bending over backwards for Snell shows why your suspicions over Jakob are not reasonable.
I suggested - as other great runners have - that a brilliant amateur who retired at any early age was likely better than his best performances, which were nonetheless world records. By contrast, Jakob is an indifferent runner over the 800; were he to run faster - and he could, but not by much - he will remain an indifferent runner over that distance. It is the main reason why he doesn't choose to compete in it.
Since there is really nothing to add I will vacate the ground. I did find one poster who offered an informed and intelligent response in Thoughtsleader but he left the pack far behind.
From 2 days ago, extracted from the one shot out backwards from the chasing pack.
Lol. Having "really nothing to add" has never stopped you from posting before, and it hasn't stopped you now.
I only chose to respond because the board's resident doping denier-in-chief has turned up, which confirms my suspicions about Jakob - as it should anyone as you have made it your cause to defend dopers.
I still maintain my estimation of Thoughtsleader at the expense of the rest of the posters - including your good self, of course.
But the argument was lack of experience in the event. So you want to shift the goal posts? In any case, for a stamina athlete like Jakob the 800 should be a pretty simple proposition; to run two laps as close as possible to his fastest possible speed. But we see that isn't very high.
The argument was mainly a lack of trying to run his best at 800m, choosing instead to focus on 1500m and 5000m.
When he set his PB, he wasn't running his fastest, but his older brother's fastest. His 27 year old brother Filip also set a PB in that race at 1:46.74 (from a previous PB of 1:49.56).
Your 2K example is desparate. The 2K is rarely run, so setting a WR then was easier than the mile/1500m. Jazy is still in the top-100 for 2K but out of the top-900 in the mile, and out of the top 4900 for 1500m. That's why Mo Farah, specialist in 5000m/10000m, world class fast in the 1500m, while slower than Jakob in the 800m, holds his world records in the indoor 2-mile and the 1-hour run.
Regardless of whether you think Jakob was "trying" or not (he did look like he was trying to do better than 4th) he won't be much faster than he already is over the 800. It isn't his distance. He is not a middle distance runner with great speed. He is mostly endurance. I have said what I have said about that.
The 2k may have been rarely run but it was not a soft wr. Jazy's 4.56 was barely slower than his mile record of 3.53.6 and Walker regarded his 4.51 at his single best performance. (He ran the last 4 laps in 3.52, as against his mile record of 3.49.4). Running an event regularly isn't always necessary to a good performance. Snell hardly ever ran the 1k. Indeed, it might only have been once. But it was enough to set a wr. Same with his 1000y indoors.
As some here have suggested, Jakob may have better than 1.46 in him. Maybe. But as other athletes have shown he doesn't necessarily need a lot of races to show us what he is capable of. In any case, it won't be fast by any international standards and is likely to be slower than many other 1500/milers can do. Also, the best at his distance are not 5k runners and never have been. That is the point I began with.
Think that's a bit ambitious. Snell wasn't as good over the 1500 as he was the 800. And a synthetic track and modern spikes wouldn't make Elliott 9 secs faster.
IMO I'd give more like:
Snell - 1:42/ 3:31
Elliott - 1:43 high/ 3:30
Walker - 1:44 flat/ 3:29
Snell only ran the 1500 at one event, the Tokyo Olympics. You may recall that in the final he destroyed the best in the world with absolute ease. He wasn't running for time but to win. It would be like saying Walker wasn't a great 1500 runner if he never ran the event outside the Montreal Olympics, which he happened to win in "only" 3.39.
Snell dominated the mile in his era, never losing a major race. (I don't count his last tour in '65, when he lacked training and became ill). In setting his records - in any distance - he was never pushed. He only went for the record in the mile - then his own - once, at the end of '64, when he was coming down from his Tokyo peak. His potential far exceeded his achievements.
Elliott typically ran a different race from Snell (though they never competed against each other over the mile), with a more sustained finishing drive off a generally quicker earlier pace. He did not have Snell's explosive kick. No one did in that era. Snell has said that a mile race didn't start for him until the last lap; before that it was about relaxation and positioning. Time didn't matter. At his peak no one had an answer to his power.
Walker has always conceded Snell was the better runner.
I never said Snell wasn't a great 1500m/miler, I just said that he was a better 800m runner, especially in terms of time, which is not in any way diminishing his ability over the longer distance. Snell has a good claim to be the greatest 800m runner of all time, but as you said, he didn't run many 1500/miles for time. Nevertheless, his pbs were 3:37.6 and 3:54.1 (= 3:36.7), so suggecting he would be 9-10 secs faster on modern tracks and with modern shoes is pushing it a bit imo.
I think we can take 0.5 - 0.7 secs off per lap from cinder to 70's synthetic, which brings him down to c. 3:34/3:51. He probably therefore could have run 3:32/3:49 in a well paced race if pushed. Maybe another couple of secs off for latest mondo/Monaco track and super spikes, and we get 3:30/3:47, which is about what I put for Elliott. So I'm pretty happy with what I originally proposed. Of course that is taking him as he was at his height in the early 60's, and doesn't account for how he might adapt with modern training and advances in medical support.
I don't think Jakob breaks any "physiological rules". Rather, he and other top runners suggest how physiology can be enhanced in a way not observable in previous generations of top milers.
Elliott rarely race the half - his best over the 800 was 1.46.7* (converted from the 880) without the benefits of modern shoes and tracks. That's at least 1.44-45 today. His best mile was 3.54.5. He trained incredibly hard. Jakob is 8secs faster. I wouldn't put it all down to shoes and tracks. Why would I when doping is rife in sport and largely undetectable?
Their physiology was enhanced by better training than the milers of the '50s and '60s.
You already showed us with Snell that all the great milers of that era were slow. Snell broke world records without really pushing himself and no one else could push him.
Who then was pushing Elliot in 1958? Bannister had only just broken the 4 minute mile in 1954. And the previous record holder was Derek Ibbotson at 3:57. Surely, with proper modern training, plus tracks and shoes, and someone pushing him, and not retiring at age 22, Elliot would be much better than that, running times comparable to John Walker, Coe, Cram, and Ovett of the '70s and '80s.
You should stop comparing a 1500m/5000m specialist, with half-mile/mile specialists of the '50s and '60s. Half-mile/mile specialists will inherently have comparatively better speed and poorer endurance, than 1500m/5000m specialists, due to "physiological differences".
Your "suspicions" are a pure artifact of your own faulty reasoning.
I am sure Elliott, Snell and co were capable of much better than the times they recorded, with the advantage of modern tracks and shoes. But they were also highly trained - Elliott in fact retired young because he said training and competing took such a toll. I look on subsequent changes in training methods as not so much revolutionising running but refining it to provide incremental gains. Probably altitude-training offered the single biggest improvement.
However the degree of improvement I have seen in top athletes in recent decades suggests other factors may be at play. We know that doping has become more pervasive in sports, and it remains ahead of efforts to stamp it out or even curb it. We may like to attribute the improvements in sports solely to the factors you describe, but we cannot count out the possible effect that doping has also had - and continues to have. I cannot do that. Nor can you.
Snell only ran the 1500 at one event, the Tokyo Olympics. You may recall that in the final he destroyed the best in the world with absolute ease. He wasn't running for time but to win. It would be like saying Walker wasn't a great 1500 runner if he never ran the event outside the Montreal Olympics, which he happened to win in "only" 3.39.
Snell dominated the mile in his era, never losing a major race. (I don't count his last tour in '65, when he lacked training and became ill). In setting his records - in any distance - he was never pushed. He only went for the record in the mile - then his own - once, at the end of '64, when he was coming down from his Tokyo peak. His potential far exceeded his achievements.
Elliott typically ran a different race from Snell (though they never competed against each other over the mile), with a more sustained finishing drive off a generally quicker earlier pace. He did not have Snell's explosive kick. No one did in that era. Snell has said that a mile race didn't start for him until the last lap; before that it was about relaxation and positioning. Time didn't matter. At his peak no one had an answer to his power.
Walker has always conceded Snell was the better runner.
I never said Snell wasn't a great 1500m/miler, I just said that he was a better 800m runner, especially in terms of time, which is not in any way diminishing his ability over the longer distance. Snell has a good claim to be the greatest 800m runner of all time, but as you said, he didn't run many 1500/miles for time. Nevertheless, his pbs were 3:37.6 and 3:54.1 (= 3:36.7), so suggecting he would be 9-10 secs faster on modern tracks and with modern shoes is pushing it a bit imo.
I think we can take 0.5 - 0.7 secs off per lap from cinder to 70's synthetic, which brings him down to c. 3:34/3:51. He probably therefore could have run 3:32/3:49 in a well paced race if pushed. Maybe another couple of secs off for latest mondo/Monaco track and super spikes, and we get 3:30/3:47, which is about what I put for Elliott. So I'm pretty happy with what I originally proposed. Of course that is taking him as he was at his height in the early 60's, and doesn't account for how he might adapt with modern training and advances in medical support.
That is a pretty reasonable analysis. (I don't think it was me, btw, who suggested he was possibly 10secs faster in modern competitive conditions).
However apart from tracks, shoes and training the other major factor that applied to both he and Elliott is that they were amateurs - with day jobs. The modern professional always has the advantage.
Incidentally, his great rival in Rome, Roger Moens, said in later life that he considered Snell the greatest middle distance runner he had ever seen. Quite an accolade.
Deano was probably thinking of me, but I didn't say Snell would be 10 seconds faster either. I said Snell would run 3:31, which is actually slower than Deano himself says he might run (today).
I suggested - as other great runners have - that a brilliant amateur who retired at any early age was likely better than his best performances, which were nonetheless world records. By contrast, Jakob is an indifferent runner over the 800; were he to run faster - and he could, but not by much - he will remain an indifferent runner over that distance. It is the main reason why he doesn't choose to compete in it.
That is part of your answer, the athletes of the past were so much slower in the mile - maybe as much as 5 seconds - because they weren't being pushed and they retired prematurely, not mention training, and tracks.
The other part is that we've seen many reasons why Jakob could be about +/- 1 second faster (if not 1.5 secs), if he tried, and that suggests good endurance, but nothing unusual that requires looking for any artificial explanation.
From 2 days ago, extracted from the one shot out backwards from the chasing pack.
Lol. Having "really nothing to add" has never stopped you from posting before, and it hasn't stopped you now.
I only chose to respond because the board's resident doping denier-in-chief has turned up, which confirms my suspicions about Jakob - as it should anyone as you have made it your cause to defend dopers.
I still maintain my estimation of Thoughtsleader at the expense of the rest of the posters - including your good self, of course.
You stayed, yet still had "really nothing to add".
You always misstate, either on purpose, or from a deep misunderstanding, what I deny and what I defend. There are a lot of myths and sub-standard science in the conversations about the power of doping and it's ability to impact the fastest distance running performances that are taken for granted without any substantial basis or observation. There are some things that I deny, some things that are speculation/hypothesis, and some things that can be supported by carefully controlled and measured observations sufficient to show a general correlation or specific causation.
The 2k may have been rarely run but it was not a soft wr. Jazy's 4.56 was barely slower than his mile record of 3.53.6 and Walker regarded his 4.51 at his single best performance. (He ran the last 4 laps in 3.52, as against his mile record of 3.49.4). Running an event regularly isn't always necessary to a good performance. Snell hardly ever ran the 1k. Indeed, it might only have been once. But it was enough to set a wr. Same with his 1000y indoors.
As some here have suggested, Jakob may have better than 1.46 in him. Maybe. But as other athletes have shown he doesn't necessarily need a lot of races to show us what he is capable of. In any case, it won't be fast by any international standards and is likely to be slower than many other 1500/milers can do. Also, the best at his distance are not 5k runners and never have been. That is the point I began with.
It wasn't weak? The 2000m record was 5:02.2 when Jazy first set it.
He did take it down to 4:56.2, comparable to 3:53.6, but didn't we just get done saying that mile times of the '60s and Elliot's 3:54 from 1958, were slow because no athletes were pushing each other, and athletes retired early? Indeed, by the mid-80s, a handful of other runners worldwide found 3-5 more seconds, perhaps helped by improved tracks.
The point you began with is taking something that requires no further explanation, as a cause for your "suspicion" of "other factors at play".
Their physiology was enhanced by better training than the milers of the '50s and '60s.
You already showed us with Snell that all the great milers of that era were slow. Snell broke world records without really pushing himself and no one else could push him.
Who then was pushing Elliot in 1958? Bannister had only just broken the 4 minute mile in 1954. And the previous record holder was Derek Ibbotson at 3:57. Surely, with proper modern training, plus tracks and shoes, and someone pushing him, and not retiring at age 22, Elliot would be much better than that, running times comparable to John Walker, Coe, Cram, and Ovett of the '70s and '80s.
You should stop comparing a 1500m/5000m specialist, with half-mile/mile specialists of the '50s and '60s. Half-mile/mile specialists will inherently have comparatively better speed and poorer endurance, than 1500m/5000m specialists, due to "physiological differences".
Your "suspicions" are a pure artifact of your own faulty reasoning.
I am sure Elliott, Snell and co were capable of much better than the times they recorded, with the advantage of modern tracks and shoes. But they were also highly trained - Elliott in fact retired young because he said training and competing took such a toll. I look on subsequent changes in training methods as not so much revolutionising running but refining it to provide incremental gains. Probably altitude-training offered the single biggest improvement.
However the degree of improvement I have seen in top athletes in recent decades suggests other factors may be at play. We know that doping has become more pervasive in sports, and it remains ahead of efforts to stamp it out or even curb it. We may like to attribute the improvements in sports solely to the factors you describe, but we cannot count out the possible effect that doping has also had - and continues to have. I cannot do that. Nor can you.
I see two problems here:
- You downplay the impact on improvements in training over the last 60 years, to make more room for your ideas about what you don't really know about doping and performance. It's not enough to be "highly trained", but you need the right training for your event, the right order of training, to build on what you have gained without losing something else, as well as sufficient recovery, or you will retire young like Elliot.
- For these events in question, there hasn't been the significant degree of improvement in top athletes in recent decades that you say you've seen. Most of the gains (about 2.7% in 1500m) were made by the mid-1980s, ending with the British era of Coe, Cram, and Ovett. Since then, the 800m has been largely static, with only two people surpassing Coe, and the 1500m has seen marginal improvements (less than 1%) from about 2 dozen runners, and bigger margins (less than 2%) from about a half-dozen runners.
Deano was probably thinking of me, but I didn't say Snell would be 10 seconds faster either. I said Snell would run 3:31, which is actually slower than Deano himself says he might run (today).
Oooohh.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't think it was me, btw, who suggested Snell was possibly 10secs faster in modern competitive conditions
Coevett wrote:
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
You also have never said, the natural limit for Kenyans is 3:35?
It's kind of funny to see you do all these backflips for Snell, attempting to rationalize why he failed to achieve his potential, after ignoring everyone telling you why Jakob has not achieved his 800m potential.
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
Snell looked half dead after his mile WR and felt it too. He was all out and close to his limit.