Jakob is Tokyo 1500m Gold Medalist

I guess you don't understand what talent is.

the light wrote:

Sapel wrote:

Let me also shed some light on the situation -

TC has run 1:43.11 at altitude, faster than what Brazier ran yesterday over 800m in Monaco.

JI is like a 1:46 guy.

Night and day difference in talent.

Yes, let's shed some light on the situation. Jacob has run near 13 flat twice!

Timmy is a 13:47 guy.

Yes. Night and day difference in talent.

Tim definitely did not benefit from the lactic acid drowning his legs from going out in ~52. I think if Timmy were to go out in a more reasonable 54-56 he would have torched Jakob in the last hundred and would widen the gap from what we saw yesterday.

Jakob also did not benefit for being the pacemaker for a large pack and pulling them to catch up to Timmy.

I think if Timmy were to go out in 56 Jakob would hang on, draft and conserve energy, passing him in the home straight. 3:27.4

Sapel wrote:

I guess you don't understand what talent is.

the light wrote:

Yes, let's shed some light on the situation. Jacob has run near 13 flat twice!

Timmy is a 13:47 guy.

Yes. Night and day difference in talent.

Hahaha. Apparently 13:47 is more talented than 13 flat. Thank you for educating me.

Jacob Inge. can only win a 1500m Olympic or World Championship final with his 800m speed by taking the leading with at least 800m to go. J. Inge. would have to race last 800m from the front in sub-1:48, making all others race extra metres attempting to pass. No need to break out the slide ruler stating wind drafting first 1400m is the key. Numerous men have proven in races 1500m to 10000m, it is best to race in 1st or last in lane one near the curb, take the lead with 800m to 900m to go and make others race extra distance. Wind drafting is overrated running at less than 17 miles per hour. It does take gusto to lead from 800m or 900m to go in 1500m to 10000m races. Other 1:46.xx plus 800m men Olympic 1500m gold medalists: Kipchoge Keino, Peter Rono and Hicham el Guerrouj.

the light wrote:

Jakob also did not benefit for being the pacemaker for a large pack and pulling them to catch up to Timmy.

I think if Timmy were to go out in 56 Jakob would hang on, draft and conserve energy, passing him in the home straight. 3:27.4

Lololol

I don't know what Cherryriot had for breakfast, but I gladly take two!!

Jakob is really good. Few things he'll need to do to win Gold in Tokyo:

1. Dump the 5,000 ~ he's got to go all-in on the 1500, especially with the schedule

2. Be less reliant on perfect pacing. He's not going to have the wavelight tech to keep himself on schedule or a metronomic pacer to his needs. So, he has to race efficiently. If it's a slow race, worry more about position and ability to respond to moves than running the absolute shortest line. If it's a fast race, tuck in and stop making risky inside passes or unnecessary surges. Also be more courageous and go with a fast first lap if necessary to stay with Kwemoi/Cheruiyot. You are a gold medal contender, not Nick Willis racing for second or third place (no offense to Nick).

3. Get the lead on the backstretch and make Cheruiyot run you down. I do not think Jakob has Manangoi's turn of speed to surge by Cheruiyot at the end. Cheruiyot has also become a master of measuring his final lap effort to preserve a strong finish on the straightaway (a la Matt Centrowitz). So, Jakob can put him in trouble if he can squeak by Cheruiyot and make him go wide on the turn to try to retake the lead.

Not sure about Tokyo because it takes a long term commitment at least a year out to plan and fund an Olympics. Who would put out the millions in cash without a certain or close to certain knowledge about whether or not athletes and fans can attend?

If there is a Games Jakob is a contender for gold if he keeps doing what he is doing. He is a great young runner who can win if he races a good final.

Lol. Nonsense. The pacer went through in 52.6, with Tim in 3rd place, at least 3-4m behind. The absolute fastest he could have been was 53.0, but more likely 53.1. He then had the good sense to slow it down dramatically on the 2nd lap to 58.4-58.5 (1:51.5 at 800m, which is about perfect for a 3:28 1500m).

Everyone knows that a newly laid Mondo WS track at Monaco (it's advertised as making athletes faster on their webpage for goodness sake), already the fastest meet of the year, together with the technologically advanced carbon plates woven into the soles of today's spikes are going to make someone run considerably faster than with tracks and spikes from 30 years ago. That is a given. At the London 2012 Olympics the track was specially 'tuned' so that the inside lane gave more energy return (for the middle and distance athletes) than the 'harder' outside lanes, which were for the benefit of quicket times in the sprints. Hence lane 1 was not used for the 100m or 200m.

The commentaters are often referring to 'this is a very fast track, and insinuated that on Friday, with Cram saying something like, "Well it is Monaco folks!".

The idea that there has been no technological advances in track surfaces and running shoes in the last 30 years is laughable. And even when comparing current tracks, the important stadiums for championships and Diamond League events will invariably have more expensive and more up to date tracks that other meets cannot keep up with.

the beagle wrote:

Don’t bother. He was making ridiculous split claims for Brazier’s last 300m in the 1500m to discredit that as well.

Laughable. You haven't got a clue.

Brazier went through 1200m in 2:57.5 in that 3:35.85 1500m, which gives his last 300m as 38.3. His last 400m was 52.2 (39.1 300m pace), and he only started kicking just after the 1200m point. So go on then! Impress us with what you think his last 300m was?

The clock doesn't show tenths, which is a bit pathetic for a top meeting, but from the seconds shown, the lead guy was 1m shy of the 1200m line at exactly 2:57 in the race. At this point_

Brazier was in 4th place, 1m behind 2 runners level ahead of him, and another 1.5m behind the lead guy. In other words, he was 3.5/4m away from the 1200m line at 2:57.0. How long do you think it takes him to cover 3.5-4m to reach the 1200m mark? It's not rocket science!

By the time the clock changes to 2:58, Brazier is now in 3rd place, 2m ahead of the guy in 4th, who himself is 1.5m in front of the 1200m line.

In other words Brazier is about 3.5m beyond the 1200m line at 2:58.0. So he is almost equi-distance behind the 1200m line at 2:57 as he is beyond that point at 2:58.

He covered that 100m section (1100m - 1200m) in 13.9 secs.

13.9 / 100 = 0.139.

In that second he covered c. 7.5m

7.5 x 0.139 = 1.04. Close enough.

So his split at 1200m was 2:57.5 or 2:57.6.

If it was 2:57.5 then his last 300m was 38.35.

If it was 2:57.6 then his last 300m was 38.25, which rounds up to 38.3.

I use stats and maths to calculate split times. If you want to delude yourself by using your rough observations and rough estimations with a moving clock during a race and mythologise that he covered it in '37 secs', then carry on kidding yourself.

extreme bias wrote:

He is doing all of this just to highten up the performances of his beloved hero Coe (and to a much lower level also Ovett and Cram). What a childish behavior.

It seems he is getting closer to the level of Coevett.

No S88, I am stating and using statistical facts.

When one (you) reverts to name calling and comparing one person to another in a prejudicial light, that not only makes you as bad as the person you deem to (indirectly) criticise through association, it also illustrates that you don't really have a cognitive argument to offer!

And you are either ignorant or blind! I never stated they ran that 100m in 13.7, I stated 13.9!

Please tell us what you think the split is? LOL!

the beagle wrote:

Paulson’s 1100m split is 2:43.3. If he went through 1200m in 2:57.0 that is 13.7. So yeah, you did claim that. As if he ran his fastest 100m of his last lap from 1100m to 1200m.

You have no credibility.

And you are having great difficulties with basic maths and reading comprehension. Lol.

I never quoted 'Paulson!?' I worked out the splits for myself, because the splits given by so called pundits on the videos are invariably wrong or non specific.

This 'vaguely' states they went through 800m in '1:58', which is totally misleading, as it's clear the leader went through in 1:58 high, while Brazier's split was more like 1:59.2. I am perhaps over-estimating your ability to even locate where the specific lines are for calculating the splits!?

The guy in the video link above does say Brazier's 1100m split was 'around 2:43.5', which is pretty accurate as I made it 2:43.6, meaning his last lap was either 52.2 (taking my split) or 52.3 (taking his). Hope you're following?

The link also says that the leader went through '3 laps in 2 mins 57 secs'. You do realise that there are 10 tenths in a second and that '2mins 57' doesn't automatically mean 2:57.0!?

Again, a bit vague, but I have the leader at 2:57.1, with Brazier 3 - 4m behind in 2:57.5-2:57.6.

So 2:57.5 - 2:43.6 = 13.9

This is what I have stated, not the 13.7 that you keep mentioning.

And where are you getting the idea that he 'ran his fastest 100m of his last lap from 1100m to 1200m.' ????

I never claimed that! I don't think anyone on here has claimed that!?

It must be due to your poor maths that you arrived at this conclusion!?

For the record, and to prove I never claimed his 100m from 1100m to 1200 was his fastest!?! I will break down how I timed his last 4 x 100m splits: -

13.9, 12.9 (down the backstraight), 12.2 (1300 - 1400m) and then 13.2 for the last 100m.

Meaning his last 300m was 38.3, last 200m was 25.4.

I think you should probably stop making a fool of yourself.

Why are you going with what some YouTube yapper says instead of actual timing splits?

YOU claimed that the leader went through 1200m in 2:57 even. That’s how you came up with Brazier being 2:57.5.

Actual split for that guy leading at 1200m (Paulson) when he was at 1100m was 2:43.302. That’s not what some YouTuber says, it’s the actual gd split.

That means you are dumb enough to argue he ran from 1100m to 1200m in 13.7 (I can tell I have to hold your hand, so that’s calculated from 2:57.0 - 2:43.3), and you are also dumb enough not to realize it.

Further, that guys last lap was only 56.558, so if he started with a 13.7 that would be notably faster than he averaged over the last 300m (42.858) which is obviously not what happened.

What part of that don’t you follow, besides all of it that you created?

Deanouk wrote:

I never quoted 'Paulson!?'

Paulson was in the race dumbarse. Do you even follow the sport? He grew up in the UK ffs! He is who you said on the meet thread went through 1100m “right as the clock turned 2:57”, he is the one who split 2:43.302 through 1100m per the timing company, and thus he is the one who you thereby argued ran his fastest 100m of his last lap from 1100m - 1200m, 13.7 by your own statements.

Am i in the twilight zone? Scary stuff.

But you agree with the mods there's nothing wrong in calling a teenage boy butt ugly? This thread has got out of hand, like most here, bitblook where that happened - personal abuse against a teenager.

And why does the premise of a thread that simply states that a 19 year old running a 3:28 with little drafting and impeded in the home straight, is more impressive than Tim's run?

This forum is a crazy as can be. My thread is racist because I laud what might be the greatest feat by a 19 year old in athletics history. There have been more doping allegations as well as now accusations of being butt ugly thrown at Jakob than praise or credit. Meanwhile, the mods ban me for acisn for being the only person to point out that the guy who beat him had his training partner suspended for anti-dopjng offences just 2 weeks ago.

Well the floor is yours John. You can continue making your top 25 lists of greatest 1500m runners with Coe being the token (half) white guy in 25th place undisturbed by any white supremacists casting doubt on your rocket fuelled rankings. I'm outta here.

Coevett wrote:

lalaland wrote:

hahahahahaha

Translation - white people can't run as fast as East Africans and when they do my entire sense of self and value comes tumbling down and I have to scream 'RACIST' and 'DOPING' to shut out the real world and preserve my sanity.

You make the EXACT same argument in favor of whites. No African has broken 3:35 clean but Coe could've run 3:27 without drugs. Go fck yourself dude, seriously. All you do is bit‎ch‎ and play the victim.