I see this a lot. The belief that a runner can only be definied by their last race. Jake Wightman is a great runner and a great competitor. HOWEVER to assume that because he beat Jakob at the World Championships means that he is better or will beat him every time is absurd. Maybe the young Jakob learned something from that rare loss.
Either way, I think we need to see more of a pattern than one race before we start assuming that rather he can beat him next time is no longer a factor but the question is by how much!
Rare loss?
Jakob was 0-9 (?) against Tim C. before the Olympics. Won the title. Since then, has competed in two world finals at 1500m and has lost them both.
OK. Fair point. Rare may have been an inappropriate adjective. But still, considering Jakob's young age, Tim may have trouble keeping that record of success up. But we will see. Still, my point remains. No reason to assume Jakob will not win the next time. (Wightman is darn good though)
Jakob was 0-9 (?) against Tim C. before the Olympics. Won the title. Since then, has competed in two world finals at 1500m and has lost them both.
OK. Fair point. Rare may have been an inappropriate adjective. But still, considering Jakob's young age, Tim may have trouble keeping that record of success up. But we will see. Still, my point remains. No reason to assume Jakob will not win the next time. (Wightman is darn good though)
Wightman is in fact darn good, I do think he isn't as good as his WC Gold might suggest tho
The answer is Jakob beats JW. Upsets happen all the time till we see JW winning 90% of his races then only then you can say yes he is the best in the world. Everyone knows that the best in the world is JI a d this guy is so good that he even won gold in the 5000m in Eugene and I can guarantee you if organizers set up a nice schedule he could win also medals in steeplechase and 10,000m. Yes haters he is that good and he is extremely young.
OK. Fair point. Rare may have been an inappropriate adjective. But still, considering Jakob's young age, Tim may have trouble keeping that record of success up. But we will see. Still, my point remains. No reason to assume Jakob will not win the next time. (Wightman is darn good though)
Wightman is in fact darn good, I do think he isn't as good as his WC Gold might suggest tho
Jake is very very good indeed!
Jakob lost to Wightman fair and square in a WC no less!
...Jakob knows his tactics at WCs were abysmal and just like his vast experience at the young age of 21 has shown, he will not run another WC by marking every move and surge TimC throws at him if Wightman and his finishing speed is in the race.
My guess is if Wightman and Jakob line up again anytime soon in the 1500, then Jakob will front run to a WR and not give Wightman a chance in the final stretch anymore....because Wightman can and will beat Jakob s kick if they're close coming of the turn
Wightman is in fact darn good, I do think he isn't as good as his WC Gold might suggest tho
Jake is very very good indeed!
Jakob lost to Wightman fair and square in a WC no less!
...Jakob knows his tactics at WCs were abysmal and just like his vast experience at the young age of 21 has shown, he will not run another WC by marking every move and surge TimC throws at him if Wightman and his finishing speed is in the race.
My guess is if Wightman and Jakob line up again anytime soon in the 1500, then Jakob will front run to a WR and not give Wightman a chance in the final stretch anymore....because Wightman can and will beat Jakob s kick if they're close coming of the turn
His tactics were abysmal? You act as if the entire field blew by him at the finish but he did finish 2nd and lost by only .24 seconds. Wightman will be 29 for next year’s WC and 30 for Paris and I don’t see him hanging on to his .24 second advantage.
The answer is Jakob beats JW. Upsets happen all the time till we see JW winning 90% of his races then only then you can say yes he is the best in the world. Everyone knows that the best in the world is JI a d this guy is so good that he even won gold in the 5000m in Eugene and I can guarantee you if organizers set up a nice schedule he could win also medals in steeplechase and 10,000m. Yes haters he is that good and he is extremely young.
Wouldn’t a nice schedule include lengthening the meet by 3-4 days?
Jakob races really good fields except when it’s European Champs competition (and the top guys duck out/underperform), so at the 1500 I don’t think losses will be that rare. It’s an unpredictable race. At the 5,000, his advantages are more pronounced.
I agree with this. I think 1500m wins will be very hard to come by because of the lack of speed. He’ll need to front run, making him a one trick pony. There are ~5 ish active 3:28/29 dudes.
Now, in the 5000m, its the exact opposite. In this race, he has the most speed of any of the current crop of athletes which allows him to play the hunter. I don’t see any current runner that can beat him *unless* they use team tactics. I think Mo F could’ve handled him easily but Mo was an all timer whether people want to admit it or not.
Well, Jim Ryun, a sea level athlete who had some altitude stints in 1967-68 but was barred from going up to altitude in the months before the Mexico City games at nearly 7400 ft elevation ran 3:37.80, which gets corrected by about 9.4 seconds, according to the nearest NCAA altitude conversion sites, giving him 3:28.4. That was on cinders. That's worth 2 seconds. 3:26.4. Any way you look at it, having just recovered from mono and not having the altitude all the way to the games, unlike Keino, Ryun was worth close to the current 1500m world record. Was Keino worth more? I don't think that you can say that an athlete born at altitude and raised, and his ancestors being from altitude for hundreds of years back, will lose as much at altitude or gain as much at sea level. If so, the two best Kenyan altitude performers (3:30.9 (Kwemoi) and 3:31.1 (Kipsang)) would have run much faster than high 3:28, low 3:29 at sea level.
Altitude conversions give a very general idea. They are not reliable because everyone, whether born at sea level or altitude, is individual and thus different. This means some will benefit or not more than others. You are right though that Keino, having been born at altitude would have had probably no negative effect running for a relatively short time. History has shown that for some athletes, running at altitude actually benefits them over 800m.
Well, Jim Ryun, a sea level athlete who had some altitude stints in 1967-68 but was barred from going up to altitude in the months before the Mexico City games at nearly 7400 ft elevation ran 3:37.80, which gets corrected by about 9.4 seconds, according to the nearest NCAA altitude conversion sites, giving him 3:28.4. That was on cinders. That's worth 2 seconds. 3:26.4. Any way you look at it, having just recovered from mono and not having the altitude all the way to the games, unlike Keino, Ryun was worth close to the current 1500m world record. Was Keino worth more? I don't think that you can say that an athlete born at altitude and raised, and his ancestors being from altitude for hundreds of years back, will lose as much at altitude or gain as much at sea level. If so, the two best Kenyan altitude performers (3:30.9 (Kwemoi) and 3:31.1 (Kipsang)) would have run much faster than high 3:28, low 3:29 at sea level.
Altitude conversions give a very general idea. They are not reliable because everyone, whether born at sea level or altitude, is individual and thus different. This means some will benefit or not more than others. You are right though that Keino, having been born at altitude would have had probably no negative effect running for a relatively short time. History has shown that for some athletes, running at altitude actually benefits them over 800m.
Converting a 3:37 to a 3:26 is quite a dubious assumption unless it’s uphill.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.