He has lost at least 5 races in 1960 - you deny it without knowing anything about his racing scedule He has lost a 1000m in January in Sorrento, Australia a 880y in February at the Victorian Champs in Melbourne a 800m in March in Melbourne a 800m in August in Sydney a 880y in September in Dublin
But you keep repeating that he almost never raced outside 1500m/Mile. For example, just after his Olympic triumph on his European tour, he has had at least 11 competitions, 5 in the 1500m/Mile, 6 on other distances. You repeat the same wrong stuff again and again without knowing anything about the subject, like you do again and again in hundreds of threads in this forum.
You really are the most stupid ***** on these boards. Elliott NEVER lost at his specialty distance - that is unmatched in the sport. So you scramble around for distances that were not his specialty to find a few losses. They are irrelevant in the context of what he achieved in his career. Jakob meanwhile loses at his specialty distances. But you know everything about losing - that's your specialty.
It has really hit the Dumb hard that Elliott has lost so often during his short career.
I just mentioned it because objectiveobserver wrote something about you and Elliott's unbeaten record over 800m and 1500m/Mile. Clarifying something if it unfortunately doesn't support your view is completely beyond you.
He called me a liar for the simple reason that he doesn't like the presented fact. Here we see his preferred way of arguing: name calling.
We have had it before any times in this thread: Elliott has lost. As a senior he was unbeaten in the 1500m/Mile. Running those events during two (!) seasons against the best in the world helps.
Ingebrigtsen is competing regularly against the best during the last six seasons.
John Wesley Harding - a man who in his left finger has more knowledge about the subject than Armstrong ever will have (and even more important: tries to be not biased) - has Elliott on place 19 in his ranking of greatest distance runners. For me that's a fair ranking, for sure just a personal ranking of something which CAN'T have an ultimate answer. Elliott has stopped his career very early. So what? It's his decision. But OK, what if he would have continued his career up to Munich 72 for example (he would have been not too old: 34). What if he would have lost his dominance already in 64 (Peter Snell). What if he couldn't stand a new phenomenon like Jim Ryun. What if he just would have reached the final in Mexico without any success. What if he tried to have a good comeback for years - but finally had to accept that he couldn't make it above first round in Munich? We would not talk about him like we do now (unbeaten in his main distances). That he stopped so early even could help the way we see him now. Ranking him on place 19 - like JWH did - seems to be a fair compromise for me.
All of this is simply opinion - whether it's yours or someone else you happen to agree with. But you state it as though it is a fact like the laws of gravity. Apart from demonstrating what a pompous self-absorbed ass you are it shows an inability to distinguish fact from opinion or cope with a view that you don't share. In your imagined superiority you are a textbook demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
My words:
- for me a fair ranking
- for sure just a personal ranking which can't have an ultimate answer
- a fair compromis
Dumbs translation: I state it as a fact like laws of gravity.
This is exactly his level in almost any "discussion". What he writes is totally useless - unfortunately he has such an enormous negative impact in so many threads.
I didn't know that you are an Ingebrigtsen fan, and I don't care, it shouldn't have any effect on his chances to become GOAT distance runner. I'm the opposite of an Ingebrigtsen fan, and I still can see what he has achieved up to age 22 (fantastic WRs over 2000m, 2 Miles, 3 Global outdoor titles, 2 Global outdoor silvers, 1 global indoor silver, a enormous record number of European titles, 3rd or 4th fastest in history over 1500m, Mile, 3000m, top time over 5000m. At age 22.
Elliott is completely irrelevant for this whole subject. He definitely is not within top 20 of all-time distance runners. Also for the debate if Ingebrigtsen is the best at age 22 from 1500m to 5000m (which came up on page 6 in this thread) he is not a real candidate.
Elliott has had 2 (two!) seasons (58, 60) where he raced against the best in the world (in 57 also against top runners from Australia). In those two seasons he dominated his main distances 1500m/Mile. Outside his main distances he has many losses. All this page long "discussions" with Armstrong are just for claryfying what someone has said/not said, what the point was and so on. He changes so much that a serious debate is not possible.
You can give positive feedback to whom you ever want, If you do it for Armstrong you do it for someone who insults people again and again since years, who repeats wrong "facts" even when proved they are wrong, who never ever agreed when being wrong on something (even when it was PROVED to be wrong), someone who changes again and again the subject just to "survive" in the thread - and so on. To call him just "dumb" is very, very friendly. Just read this thread, just this thread.
He once needed something like two months (after dozens of posts) to find an Olympic champion (out of two games, really difficult) from Kenya (he denied he exists). Do you think he finally accepted that he was wrong? For sure not, he changed the subject. There are so many more examples exactly like this. He destroys thread after thread (if I jump just in thread I'm not really interested in but was looking as he does, I just see fights with other posters, I see insult after insult of him. What an unbelievable terrible person this is.
Elliott isn't within the top twenty? You've had a lobotomy.
I have not really thought about the number, it was just a guess - but a good guess it seems.
Ahead of Elliott for me are - to name just the ones who came to mind at the moment; it's incomplete - definitely:
As good as Elliott was, just two dominating seasons at one event (and a few good 800m results), for me just doesn't put him higher. Some might put him closer to top 10 - or not in top 30.
As good as Elliott was, just two dominating seasons at one event (and a few good 800m results), for me just doesn't put him higher. Some might put him closer to top 10 - or not in top 30.
If we agree that a Goat list is subjective, we then also must respect other posters lists that we disagree in. I respect f.ex your top ten list, although some of the athletes there won’t make my top 500 list! We can discuss and quarrel about the lists for fun, but in the end we must respect each others different criteria when it comes to who we pick, and why…
As good as Elliott was, just two dominating seasons at one event (and a few good 800m results), for me just doesn't put him higher. Some might put him closer to top 10 - or not in top 30.
If we agree that a Goat list is subjective, we then also must respect other posters lists that we disagree in. I respect f.ex your top ten list, although some of the athletes there won’t make my top 500 list! We can discuss and quarrel about the lists for fun, but in the end we must respect each others different criteria when it comes to who we pick, and why…
Which top 10 list? I listed the names just as they came to mind - no concrete ranking involved. Are you talking about Nurmi? Armstrong has several times pointed on Elliott's times relative to the era. Give him 3 seconds for shoes, tracks - with 3:32 he would not be that special today. Relative to the era, Nurmi is amongst the very best in the history. But we can remove him from my list. Why do you mention we should respect other posters lists? That's so obvious that it has not to be mentioned. But for sure there are limits. If it's obvious that the main reason for some ranking is bias, than it could be criticized.
It seems you think I don't respect other posters criterion on something which can't have a ultimate truth. If so, please give a concrete example.
You really are the most stupid ***** on these boards. Elliott NEVER lost at his specialty distance - that is unmatched in the sport. So you scramble around for distances that were not his specialty to find a few losses. They are irrelevant in the context of what he achieved in his career. Jakob meanwhile loses at his specialty distances. But you know everything about losing - that's your specialty.
It has really hit the Dumb hard that Elliott has lost so often during his short career.
I just mentioned it because objectiveobserver wrote something about you and Elliott's unbeaten record over 800m and 1500m/Mile. Clarifying something if it unfortunately doesn't support your view is completely beyond you.
He called me a liar for the simple reason that he doesn't like the presented fact. Here we see his preferred way of arguing: name calling.
We have had it before any times in this thread: Elliott has lost. As a senior he was unbeaten in the 1500m/Mile. Running those events during two (!) seasons against the best in the world helps.
Ingebrigtsen is competing regularly against the best during the last six seasons.
5 years before Elliott ran his world records the records for the mile were 4:01 and 3:43 for the 1500. He ran 3:54.x and 3:36 respectively (later reduced to 3:35.x in 1960). Those are massive reductions in only a few years. Jakob meanwhile has not broken records for those distances set quarter of a century ago and yet he is a specialist over the same distances as Elliott. Jakob has also lost over his specialist distances and especially at championship level. At the same age Elliott had never lost at his specialist distances, including in championships - a feat unparalleled in md running. Nothing you say improves Jakob's competitive record in his specialist event or diminishes Elliott's. Jakob cannot match what Elliott did. You have no real understanding of the sport. It is evident in every post you make.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
All of this is simply opinion - whether it's yours or someone else you happen to agree with. But you state it as though it is a fact like the laws of gravity. Apart from demonstrating what a pompous self-absorbed ass you are it shows an inability to distinguish fact from opinion or cope with a view that you don't share. In your imagined superiority you are a textbook demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
My words:
- for me a fair ranking
- for sure just a personal ranking which can't have an ultimate answer
- a fair compromis
Dumbs translation: I state it as a fact like laws of gravity.
This is exactly his level in almost any "discussion". What he writes is totally useless - unfortunately he has such an enormous negative impact in so many threads.
As I said - you are a perfect demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
It has really hit the Dumb hard that Elliott has lost so often during his short career.
I just mentioned it because objectiveobserver wrote something about you and Elliott's unbeaten record over 800m and 1500m/Mile. Clarifying something if it unfortunately doesn't support your view is completely beyond you.
He called me a liar for the simple reason that he doesn't like the presented fact. Here we see his preferred way of arguing: name calling.
We have had it before any times in this thread: Elliott has lost. As a senior he was unbeaten in the 1500m/Mile. Running those events during two (!) seasons against the best in the world helps.
Ingebrigtsen is competing regularly against the best during the last six seasons.
5 years before Elliott ran his world records the records for the mile were 4:01 and 3:43 for the 1500. He ran 3:54.x and 3:36 respectively (later reduced to 3:35.x in 1960). Those are massive reductions in only a few years. Jakob meanwhile has not broken records for those distances set quarter of a century ago and yet he is a specialist over the same distances as Elliott. Jakob has also lost over his specialist distances and especially at championship level. At the same age Elliott had never lost at his specialist distances, including in championships - a feat unparalleled in md running. Nothing you say improves Jakob's competitive record in his specialist event or diminishes Elliott's. Jakob cannot match what Elliott did. You have no real understanding of the sport. It is evident in every post you make.
Elliott improved the records by big margins (from 3:38.1 and 3:57.2), set 1 year earlier. A few years later Elliott's records were also bettered by big margins. Elliott is famous for his records and his Olympic title (with a WR).
Outside of his speciality distance he has lost many races. It will not change if you call me bad names, if you call me a liar and so on. He has lost around 10 races in 1958 - 1960.
Also to always point on his wondrous winning streak in the 1500m/Mile for me is misleading - we are talking about two seasons where he raced against the best.
For the 1500m, Elliott's reputation at age 22 clearly is ahead of Ingebrigtsen's. As far as I know, nobody has questioned this. Looking on all of Ingebrigtsen's achievements, for me he is already clearly ahead of Elliott. But still way behind the likes of Bekele, Gebrselassie, El Guerrouj, Kipchoge.
Completely different to you, my "understanding" of the sport correlates heavily with the facts and is not the result of 95% bias towards my "own" athletes while lying towards myself.
Btw, it's so obvious that I know so much more about this sport than you (who has to be corrected regularly on almost everything). I remember that you recently even understood the concept of the format to write times. After 6+ decades of following closely athletics. Congrats for this!
I have Elliott around 25 in an all-time distance running list (JWH has had him on 19 a few years ago).
Where would you rank him in a pure 1500 list and in a all of distance running list?
- for sure just a personal ranking which can't have an ultimate answer
- a fair compromis
Dumbs translation: I state it as a fact like laws of gravity.
This is exactly his level in almost any "discussion". What he writes is totally useless - unfortunately he has such an enormous negative impact in so many threads.
As I said - you are a perfect demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
- for sure just a personal ranking which can't have an ultimate answer
- a fair compromis
Dumbs translation: I state it as a fact like laws of gravity.
This is exactly his level in almost any "discussion". What he writes is totally useless - unfortunately he has such an enormous negative impact in so many threads.
As I said - you are a perfect demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
You are a perfect demonstration of narcissistic personality disorder.
5 years before Elliott ran his world records the records for the mile were 4:01 and 3:43 for the 1500. He ran 3:54.x and 3:36 respectively (later reduced to 3:35.x in 1960). Those are massive reductions in only a few years. Jakob meanwhile has not broken records for those distances set quarter of a century ago and yet he is a specialist over the same distances as Elliott. Jakob has also lost over his specialist distances and especially at championship level. At the same age Elliott had never lost at his specialist distances, including in championships - a feat unparalleled in md running. Nothing you say improves Jakob's competitive record in his specialist event or diminishes Elliott's. Jakob cannot match what Elliott did. You have no real understanding of the sport. It is evident in every post you make.
Elliott improved the records by big margins (from 3:38.1 and 3:57.2), set 1 year earlier. A few years later Elliott's records were also bettered by big margins. Elliott is famous for his records and his Olympic title (with a WR).
Outside of his speciality distance he has lost many races. It will not change if you call me bad names, if you call me a liar and so on. He has lost around 10 races in 1958 - 1960.
Also to always point on his wondrous winning streak in the 1500m/Mile for me is misleading - we are talking about two seasons where he raced against the best.
For the 1500m, Elliott's reputation at age 22 clearly is ahead of Ingebrigtsen's. As far as I know, nobody has questioned this. Looking on all of Ingebrigtsen's achievements, for me he is already clearly ahead of Elliott. But still way behind the likes of Bekele, Gebrselassie, El Guerrouj, Kipchoge.
Completely different to you, my "understanding" of the sport correlates heavily with the facts and is not the result of 95% bias towards my "own" athletes while lying towards myself.
Btw, it's so obvious that I know so much more about this sport than you (who has to be corrected regularly on almost everything). I remember that you recently even understood the concept of the format to write times. After 6+ decades of following closely athletics. Congrats for this!
I have Elliott around 25 in an all-time distance running list (JWH has had him on 19 a few years ago).
Where would you rank him in a pure 1500 list and in a all of distance running list?
He didn't lose the number of races you claim. He rarely raced outside his specialty distances. But so what - how many 400 and 800 races has Jakob won? Not his specialty distance either. So - more of your drivel.
His career was not "two seasons" but from 1957-61. Some of those he raced in his own country, like Merv Lincoln and Albie Thomas, were amongst the best in the world in that era.
You also ignore the point I make of how far he had taken the records for the mile/1500m in 5 years. No one else has achieved such an improvement in those records in such a short space of time.
I don't make the claim that Elliott must be the GOAT but he was amongst the very best in the sport and over the same distances as Jakob he has achieved what the Norwegian never can.
Your problem is that you think your highly selective and indeed misleading criteria are the only appropriate measure for determining comparative achievement in the sport. You only show your partialities and the rigidity of your thinking.
Like clockwork you turn up to make the same post that always do. You're like a dog the barks whenever I pass its kennel.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, Fido? You are so predictable.
Not very bright either, are you? You were the one likened to a dog yapping. That's all you have. From you, nothing hurts. Probably all I have to do is scrape the bottom of my shoes.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, Fido? You are so predictable.
Not very bright either, are you? You were the one likened to a dog yapping. That's all you have. From you, nothing hurts. Probably all I have to do is scrape the bottom of my shoes.
Shush. You are the puppy following every rekrunner post.
But now staying on topic, Fido, there's no reason for you to be here. Jakob is 23, you are almost 71. Jakob may have another 15 years left in his career. You will not be around then, to know if he is or not the GOAT.
Which top 10 list? I listed the names just as they came to mind - no concrete ranking involved. Are you talking about Nurmi? Armstrong has several times pointed on Elliott's times relative to the era. Give him 3 seconds for shoes, tracks - with 3:32 he would not be that special today. Relative to the era, Nurmi is amongst the very best in the history. But we can remove him from my list. Why do you mention we should respect other posters lists? That's so obvious that it has not to be mentioned. But for sure there are limits. If it's obvious that the main reason for some ranking is bias, than it could be criticized.
It seems you think I don't respect other posters criterion on something which can't have a ultimate truth. If so, please give a concrete example.
My point here is if we agree in the fact that a Goat estimate is highly subjective we must refrain from calling posters that won’t buy our arguments for dumb and so on…
There are several runners I rank lower than the average poster would, simply because my chosen subjective criteria for Goat are different…
You name Herb Elliott, and he is a good example of how different you and I may evaluate an specific athlete. -You convert his time to 3.32, whereas I would rather say 3.27 flat. In addition to this, one have to, IMO, also take a look on the gap to the other runners in each time period -this drags Elliott upwards in Goat status, and f.ex Jakob and El Guerrouj downwards…
As I said this is highly subjective, and you may cringe at my 3.27 flat estimate, and even Armstronglivs may find it to be too good.
My thinking (that of course may be wrong and over done) is this: In the seventies I myself front ran a 800m pb on Bislett stadium (tartan). A couple of weeks later I front ran another 800m on a well prepared dirt track -my form and the weather conditions seemingly the same: In the latter race I ran exactly 2 sec slower. So therefore I will give Elliott 4 sec conversion from Rome’s 1960 dirt track to f.ex Bislett’s tartan 1975. And from 1975 to current time: Maybe 2 new seconds (a half sec pr lap).
What about the shoes: Maybe 2 sec from 1960 till 2023..? And what about a champ race (field running with wide bends, and after heats, and what about the weather conditions in Rome -hot? Wind? opposed to Jakob / El Guerrouj who could pick ideally conditions throughout long carriers) vs a paced one with lights. -Maybe one and a half second here?
Elliott improved the records by big margins (from 3:38.1 and 3:57.2), set 1 year earlier. A few years later Elliott's records were also bettered by big margins. Elliott is famous for his records and his Olympic title (with a WR).
Outside of his speciality distance he has lost many races. It will not change if you call me bad names, if you call me a liar and so on. He has lost around 10 races in 1958 - 1960.
Also to always point on his wondrous winning streak in the 1500m/Mile for me is misleading - we are talking about two seasons where he raced against the best.
For the 1500m, Elliott's reputation at age 22 clearly is ahead of Ingebrigtsen's. As far as I know, nobody has questioned this. Looking on all of Ingebrigtsen's achievements, for me he is already clearly ahead of Elliott. But still way behind the likes of Bekele, Gebrselassie, El Guerrouj, Kipchoge.
Completely different to you, my "understanding" of the sport correlates heavily with the facts and is not the result of 95% bias towards my "own" athletes while lying towards myself.
Btw, it's so obvious that I know so much more about this sport than you (who has to be corrected regularly on almost everything). I remember that you recently even understood the concept of the format to write times. After 6+ decades of following closely athletics. Congrats for this!
I have Elliott around 25 in an all-time distance running list (JWH has had him on 19 a few years ago).
Where would you rank him in a pure 1500 list and in a all of distance running list?
He didn't lose the number of races you claim. He rarely raced outside his specialty distances. But so what - how many 400 and 800 races has Jakob won? Not his specialty distance either. So - more of your drivel.
His career was not "two seasons" but from 1957-61. Some of those he raced in his own country, like Merv Lincoln and Albie Thomas, were amongst the best in the world in that era.
You also ignore the point I make of how far he had taken the records for the mile/1500m in 5 years. No one else has achieved such an improvement in those records in such a short space of time.
I don't make the claim that Elliott must be the GOAT but he was amongst the very best in the sport and over the same distances as Jakob he has achieved what the Norwegian never can.
Your problem is that you think your highly selective and indeed misleading criteria are the only appropriate measure for determining comparative achievement in the sport. You only show your partialities and the rigidity of your thinking.
I know of 9 losses in the period 58 - 60 (this includes your 440y loss). You don't know anything about his racing schedule, as you have shown here regularly. Yet, you repeat the same nonsense again and again. For sure you are just lying.
I have not checked the number of 400m and 800m races which Ingebrigtsen has won. What's your point (small hint: there isn't any). At age 12 - for example - he has had 5 wins in the 800m.
His career was not two seasons, that's correct. Nobody has said so, Dumb. He has had two seasons where he raced against the world elite. Yes, in 57 he raced against some of the best in his own country - as I have stated, Dumb. xemptyzHe improved the two records by 2.1 and 2.7 seconds from 1957, Dumb. Those are enormous improvements. In 67 the records were further improved to 3:33.1 and 3:51.1. You used a 5 year period as your benchmark. Why not going back to 1857? His improvement would sound even more impressive (at least for Dumbers like you). I have never ever said my ranking is the ultimate one, you liar, nonstop liar and never to stop liar. For the 1500m, there are two who for me are without question the top 2 in history: El Guerrouj and Morceli. Than It's getting difficult. Probably Coe on 3. Then it's just impossible for me to make a decision at all (how to fairly handle the fact that Elliott stopped so early, for example?). Elliot is one of those I would put on the places 4 to 10. But I can't do a concrete ranking here - for many reasons you would not understand even when explained 10 times. In all of distance ranking he definitely is not in my top 20. He could maybe at 21 or - when wighting his just two seasons racing all the best - also much lower. Ingebrigtsen for me definitely already is ahead of him. With a good season this year he definitely would reach my top 10.
Which top 10 list? I listed the names just as they came to mind - no concrete ranking involved. Are you talking about Nurmi? Armstrong has several times pointed on Elliott's times relative to the era. Give him 3 seconds for shoes, tracks - with 3:32 he would not be that special today. Relative to the era, Nurmi is amongst the very best in the history. But we can remove him from my list. Why do you mention we should respect other posters lists? That's so obvious that it has not to be mentioned. But for sure there are limits. If it's obvious that the main reason for some ranking is bias, than it could be criticized.
It seems you think I don't respect other posters criterion on something which can't have a ultimate truth. If so, please give a concrete example.
My point here is if we agree in the fact that a Goat estimate is highly subjective we must refrain from calling posters that won’t buy our arguments for dumb and so on…
There are several runners I rank lower than the average poster would, simply because my chosen subjective criteria for Goat are different…
You name Herb Elliott, and he is a good example of how different you and I may evaluate an specific athlete. -You convert his time to 3.32, whereas I would rather say 3.27 flat. In addition to this, one have to, IMO, also take a look on the gap to the other runners in each time period -this drags Elliott upwards in Goat status, and f.ex Jakob and El Guerrouj downwards…
As I said this is highly subjective, and you may cringe at my 3.27 flat estimate, and even Armstronglivs may find it to be too good.
My thinking (that of course may be wrong and over done) is this: In the seventies I myself front ran a 800m pb on Bislett stadium (tartan). A couple of weeks later I front ran another 800m on a well prepared dirt track -my form and the weather conditions seemingly the same: In the latter race I ran exactly 2 sec slower. So therefore I will give Elliott 4 sec conversion from Rome’s 1960 dirt track to f.ex Bislett’s tartan 1975. And from 1975 to current time: Maybe 2 new seconds (a half sec pr lap).
What about the shoes: Maybe 2 sec from 1960 till 2023..? And what about a champ race (field running with wide bends, and after heats, and what about the weather conditions in Rome -hot? Wind? opposed to Jakob / El Guerrouj who could pick ideally conditions throughout long carriers) vs a paced one with lights. -Maybe one and a half second here?
Ok -all I got for now…
Read this thread, just this thread. Again: to call Armstrong just dumb is very, very friendly. It's NOT for having a different thinking in highly subjective subjects. Please read just this unbelievable fact on this last page in this thread.
My comment to JWHs ranking of Elliott on place 19:
My words: - for me a fair ranking - for sure just a personal ranking which can't have an ultimate answer - a fair compromise
Dumbs translation: I state it as a fact like laws of gravity.
After pointing on this nonsense his reply: As I said - you are a perfect demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
If you don't accept now this simple point, than you are tending in the direction of Armstrong.
Armstrong is acting exactly like this SINCE YEARS in thousands and thousands of posts. Always in hard "fights" with dozens and dozens of posters.
My 3:32 was not thought out too deeply, it could also closer to 3:30. But definitely not anywhere near to 3:27 (in my thinking). I think we always overestimate such time benefits by tracks and so on. But I don't say I know the truth here - I don't.
For me, someone can have Elliott as high as no. 3 or as low as around no. 10 in an all-time 1500m list. (ahead of El Guerrouj and Morceli I really couldn't understand).