you said it. there is a paradigm shift. all bets are off. jacob was quite enough of a game changer, and now we have laros, myers, ruthe, and who else?
personally i need to recalibrate, as the old formula of doping, progressions, training, etc. something has fundamentally changed, shoes, tracks bicarb, amino acids, traning the gambit, i do not have a handle on it, formerly i would be comfortable in commentary, based on the fundamentals from coaches of note, with minimal novelty from this side.
some of this was predicted by percy cerutty, and actually arch jelley, coach of john walker, though i can't speak for them, the way it is playing out, maybe not what they envisioned.
you can google arch jelley on his 101 year birthday about snell, advances, and equivalent times back in the day.
and maybe read about percy cerutti predictions from his books back in the day.
every evolving Gault, can supplement his learnings with the above. he's close to the premier journalist already, with few holes , being subtleties in elite training and certanily insider ped know how.
also really required reading is the books by gordon pirie, he was quite the guy, nuts somewhat, with come fundamentals, which are expressed, i think in today's shoes.
there you go
What is Ruthe doing that Ingebrigtsen wasn't at 16 to be 8 seconds faster?
I know you're just vandalizing another thread, but the answer is simple. Ruthe IS NOT Ingebrigtsen.
Cram ran 3:47 to Ruthe's 3:31. Yet Ruthe is only running 40-60mpw. So how does that work?
You’ve presented two facts and implied a scandal. The missing step is the logic.
Mileage differences aren’t the contradiction here — the assumption that they should match is and you’re treating Cram’s training as a universal template. Physiology disagrees.
Nothing about those numbers is incompatible. The only conflict is the one you’ve invented.
You’ve built a mystery out of normal variation. Elegant, but still imaginary. If you’re expecting identical training to produce identical times across decades, that’s the issue. The sport is complex. Your explanation is not. That’s where the gap is. You’re asking a question that only makes sense if all athletes are interchangeable. They aren’t.
What is Ruthe doing that Ingebrigtsen wasn't at 16 to be 8 seconds faster?
I know you're just vandalizing another thread, but the answer is simple. Ruthe IS NOT Ingebrigtsen.
That is apparent. Ingebrigtsen, who trained twice as hard as Ruthe as a youngster - 100kpw from the age of 12 - was far slower than Ruthe at 16, despite breaking most of the world age records in his teens.
Ingebrigtsen is the 7:17 runner over 3k. With the enormous superiority that Ruthe has over the 16 year old Ingebrigtsen - 8 secs in a mile - we can look forward to Ruthe running close to 7 minutes for the 3k in his twenties. And none of you will bat an eye.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
Anyone who knows the first thing about the Ruthes would know that they aren't anywhere near touching PEDs.
Only ones deranged on this topic are cooked boomers interviewing their keyboards.
Exactly. You could watch his dad's brain break in real time processing what's happening. If they're squeezing every ounce out of him with PEDs, this would be an unlikely reaction. Morons who suck at life and know nothing about elite running nor anything about drug use will argue every thing until the end of time. But so far they look on the up and up.
That is apparent. Ingebrigtsen, who trained twice as hard as Ruthe as a youngster - 100kpw from the age of 12 - was far slower than Ruthe at 16, despite breaking most of the world age records in his teens.
Ingebrigtsen is the 7:17 runner over 3k. With the enormous superiority that Ruthe has over the 16 year old Ingebrigtsen - 8 secs in a mile - we can look forward to Ruthe running close to 7 minutes for the 3k in his twenties. And none of you will bat an eye.
Jakob is an aerobic monster. He doesn't have Sam's speed.
Still awaiting your answers to these questions:
Your mind is closed on this topic, yet you keep asking for explanations. Why? Nothing anyone says can convince you that he's clean, so why do you bother to continue asking the questions?
And: is it really so shocking that someone can run faster on the bouncy BU track with super shoes than someone ran on a grass track with whatever crappy-by-comparison shoes runners had to wear over 60 years ago?
Training is training, train like a top pro race like one and with this talent it is impressive. However, it will be interesting how these guys hold up in the long run whether they slow down due to injury, etc. I will say a common things with all these runners is they are very skinny (I know all distance runners are but more so) and I do wonder the bug injury will hit earlier like we have seen with Jakob.
Some runners are underweight to the point of looking emaciated. It cant be good for them long term,but i wont skinny shame anyone,either. Theres nothing wrong with being lean or thin,but plenty of them are too thin,and too lean. Some of them also use PED'S and ive seen runners scarily lean,yet muscled at the same time,but a bodyfat percentage which is downright unhealthy and dangerous. So in answer to your question,no most of them will not hold up to the intense training,theyll get injured,and unwell.
Moe Berg is in much better shape this year. 3:34.32 now, and he is running in Dortmund the 8th. And young Sam Ruthe, promising as he is, has both this season and the next to be part of this U20 statitics. But it tough seconds.
Moe Berg is in much better shape this year. 3:34.32 now, and he is running in Dortmund the 8th. And young Sam Ruthe, promising as he is, has both this season and the next to be part of this U20 statitics. But it tough seconds.
No one seriously believes Koech is a teenager. No one who’s honest that is.
That is apparent. Ingebrigtsen, who trained twice as hard as Ruthe as a youngster - 100kpw from the age of 12 - was far slower than Ruthe at 16, despite breaking most of the world age records in his teens.
Ingebrigtsen is the 7:17 runner over 3k. With the enormous superiority that Ruthe has over the 16 year old Ingebrigtsen - 8 secs in a mile - we can look forward to Ruthe running close to 7 minutes for the 3k in his twenties. And none of you will bat an eye.
Jakob is an aerobic monster. He doesn't have Sam's speed.
Still awaiting your answers to these questions:
Your mind is closed on this topic, yet you keep asking for explanations. Why? Nothing anyone says can convince you that he's clean, so why do you bother to continue asking the questions?
And: is it really so shocking that someone can run faster on the bouncy BU track with super shoes than someone ran on a grass track with whatever crappy-by-comparison shoes runners had to wear over 60 years ago?
You aren't comparing "someone" with "someone else"; you're comparing a multiple Olympic champion and world record holder (Snell) with a school boy.
The school boy has now in a matter of weeks arrived at the level that Ovett and Coe ran. Superior training doesn't apply to that comparison and neither do tracks and shoes from that era.
Jakob is, as you rightly observe, an "aerobic monster". He is a 3:26x and 3:43x runner. Yet Ruthe is 8 seconds faster than Jakob was at 16, when he was then the world's best. No one can adequately explain how that works. It is also very unlikely Ruthe is anywhere near his eventual career peak but his progression so far suggests he will be far faster than Jakob's 3:26x-3:43x. Is he far more talented or better trained - or both?
Cram ran 3:47 to Ruthe's 3:31. Yet Ruthe is only running 40-60mpw. So how does that work?
You’ve presented two facts and implied a scandal. The missing step is the logic.
Mileage differences aren’t the contradiction here — the assumption that they should match is and you’re treating Cram’s training as a universal template. Physiology disagrees.
Nothing about those numbers is incompatible. The only conflict is the one you’ve invented.
You’ve built a mystery out of normal variation. Elegant, but still imaginary. If you’re expecting identical training to produce identical times across decades, that’s the issue. The sport is complex. Your explanation is not. That’s where the gap is. You’re asking a question that only makes sense if all athletes are interchangeable. They aren’t.
I didn't refer to Cram's training as a universal template. I simply ask how can he as the best in the world at that age (and of course later in his career) and a supremely gifted athlete be a universe slower than Ruthe?
Jakob is an aerobic monster. He doesn't have Sam's speed.
Still awaiting your answers to these questions:
Your mind is closed on this topic, yet you keep asking for explanations. Why? Nothing anyone says can convince you that he's clean, so why do you bother to continue asking the questions?
And: is it really so shocking that someone can run faster on the bouncy BU track with super shoes than someone ran on a grass track with whatever crappy-by-comparison shoes runners had to wear over 60 years ago?
You aren't comparing "someone" with "someone else"; you're comparing a multiple Olympic champion and world record holder (Snell) with a school boy.
The school boy has now in a matter of weeks arrived at the level that Ovett and Coe ran. Superior training doesn't apply to that comparison and neither do tracks and shoes from that era.
Jakob is, as you rightly observe, an "aerobic monster". He is a 3:26x and 3:43x runner. Yet Ruthe is 8 seconds faster than Jakob was at 16, when he was then the world's best. No one can adequately explain how that works. It is also very unlikely Ruthe is anywhere near his eventual career peak but his progression so far suggests he will be far faster than Jakob's 3:26x-3:43x. Is he far more talented or better trained - or both?
It's an interesting question. He is already at 3:48 mid for the mile and is poised to improve in 1.5 weeks at JDL with Hocker to pace off of. Does Ruthe just have more natural speed than Ingebrigtsen? He certainly is already faster than Jakob over 800m. He could also be on something at the same time. Time will tell but if he runs something like 3:24 you're probably right.
You aren't comparing "someone" with "someone else"; you're comparing a multiple Olympic champion and world record holder (Snell) with a school boy.
The school boy has now in a matter of weeks arrived at the level that Ovett and Coe ran. Superior training doesn't apply to that comparison and neither do tracks and shoes from that era.
Jakob is, as you rightly observe, an "aerobic monster". He is a 3:26x and 3:43x runner. Yet Ruthe is 8 seconds faster than Jakob was at 16, when he was then the world's best. No one can adequately explain how that works. It is also very unlikely Ruthe is anywhere near his eventual career peak but his progression so far suggests he will be far faster than Jakob's 3:26x-3:43x. Is he far more talented or better trained - or both?
People have tried to explain it multiple times across several threads, but you have rejected all attempts. Be honest: Is there any explanation you would accept other than PEDs? If not, then why do you keep asking for explanations?
You aren't comparing "someone" with "someone else"; you're comparing a multiple Olympic champion and world record holder (Snell) with a school boy.
The school boy has now in a matter of weeks arrived at the level that Ovett and Coe ran. Superior training doesn't apply to that comparison and neither do tracks and shoes from that era.
Jakob is, as you rightly observe, an "aerobic monster". He is a 3:26x and 3:43x runner. Yet Ruthe is 8 seconds faster than Jakob was at 16, when he was then the world's best. No one can adequately explain how that works. It is also very unlikely Ruthe is anywhere near his eventual career peak but his progression so far suggests he will be far faster than Jakob's 3:26x-3:43x. Is he far more talented or better trained - or both?
People have tried to explain it multiple times across several threads, but you have rejected all attempts. Be honest: Is there any explanation you would accept other than PEDs? If not, then why do you keep asking for explanations?
I haven't seen any explanations other than he is talented and the sport has progressed over time (and nonsense about shoes, tracks, bicarb and wavelight). That may be true but it doesn't explain how the best 16 year old today is 8 seconds faster than the best 16 year old 8 years ago (who went on to become a multiple Olympic champion and world record holder). We are talking about athletes in the same era but the difference between them is over half the straight. It has long been argued that Ingebrigtsen is possibly the greatest runner in the history of the sport. He isn't even in the same picture as Ruthe at the same age, despite having been a teen prodigy. Nothing I have so far read here can explain that.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
