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.
A lot has changed in the sport in the last 8 years. The explanation could be Sam is more talented, he's faster at shorter distances, and he has more + better tech and legal supplements available to him than Jakob had at the same age. He might also be a hyper responder to super shoes.
Or maybe Sam simply matured faster. Teens don't all develop at the same exact rate. Jakob ran 3:31 at 17. Sam ran the equivalent at 16. Is one year difference really worth getting all bent out of shape?
I still don't understand why you continue asking for explanations when it seems like you've already made up your mind, and there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind.
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.
Ruthe is insanely talented. I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes an all-time great and breaks one or more world records. But I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen, or that he progress slows down a bit in the next couple of seasons (still breaking 3:30 in his late teens) It's impossible to tell, but he will be really exciting to follow.
Giant leaps over just one year happens to distance athletes. Jakob did a massive jump from 17 (turning 18 that year) to 18 (turning 19 later that year) with 8.74 seconds (from 3:39.92 to 3:31.18), and then improving with "only" 1.02 seconds the next year.
Myers was well ahead of Jakob and Laros the year he turned 17 (3:33.26 vs 3:39.92 and 3:39.46), to all the sudden being behind both of them one year later 3:33.30 vs 3:31.18 and 3:31.25) So he actually ran slightly slower that season. And then the next season he ran 3:29.80.
My point is that it' impossible to predict, and the athletes you compare athlete X to might catch up one or two year later. Their curve usually flatten after doing some crazy progression for some time. But things are looking really promising for Ruthe. It would be really cool to see him compete in world indoors, The Commonwealth Games and a couple of DL races this season
(English is not my first language, I hope I explained things/articulated myself well enough)
You explained things great. Always remember, the median American adult reads at a 6th grade (12 year old) reading level, which means half of them are below that, and practically none of them speak a 2nd language.
Ruthe's performance has really made me consider what 'talent' is. Clearly, unless he drops a 3:41 in the next few years, talent doesn't really refer to an athlete's absolute ceiling. I've held the opinion, for 4+ years now, that phenoms like Jakob, the Youngs, Sahlmans, etc aren't actually the most talented; They're just the guys who got the best training/environment from a young age (while still being like 97-99th percentile in talent, whatever 'talent' is).
I feel like I'm coming more around to the idea that what we refer to as 'talent' is, more often than not, a measure of how much work an athlete has to do to reach their ceiling, and that most people's ceilings aren't that different from one another. Like probably 20%+ of the male population has the ceiling to run a sub-4 mile, but the vast majority of those people would have to train almost perfectly for a decade to actually do it, which just isn't possible when you have a job, family, or just don't want to run 100mpw. Thus, the vast majority of us only reach, say, 85% of our ceiling. Meanwhile, some supertalents only have to train at a high level for a year or two to reach 99% of their ceiling.
For guys we think of as super phenoms, Jakob, Myers, Ruthe, Laros, Lutkenhaus, etc, I think it makes more sense that they just got good training sooner than guys like Hocker, Nuguse, Brazier, rather than truly being more talented. I know Hocker and Brazier's HS coaches held back, and as a result, they didn't have a breakthrough until they'd spent a year in college training better. Was Brazier truly not capable of 1:44 as a HS senior, but capable of a 1:43 as a true freshman? Was Hocker truly not capable of 3:53 in HS, but ready to run 3:50i at 19 and 3:31 that summer?
With that said, I think it's likely that Lutkenhaus and Ruthe are basically at the top end of talent. And there's more than one aspect to it, surely some guys at the top level do have slightly higher ceilings, are less injury prone, have better top end speed, etc. I just think in most cases, 'talent' is a proxy for how quickly someone can reach their ceiling.
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.
A lot has changed in the sport in the last 8 years. The explanation could be Sam is more talented, he's faster at shorter distances, and he has more + better tech and legal supplements available to him than Jakob had at the same age. He might also be a hyper responder to super shoes.
Or maybe Sam simply matured faster. Teens don't all develop at the same exact rate. Jakob ran 3:31 at 17. Sam ran the equivalent at 16. Is one year difference really worth getting all bent out of shape?
I still don't understand why you continue asking for explanations when it seems like you've already made up your mind, and there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind.
I agree a lot has changed in the sport in the last few years but we won't agree about what has changed it. I think talent is much the same, so is the training and the tracks and the shoes don't make the difference people think they do - El G's world records in old shoes still stand. Howman has recently admitted that dopers are getting away with it. That will explain the biggest jumps in performance today.
a) What do you think he could have run if he micro-dosed safely?
b) What do you think he could have run if he doped boldly (and dodged the testers here or there)?
c) What do you think he could have run if he was doped to the gills?
If he is clean then doped he would already be the 1500 and mile world record-holder. 5-6 secs is easily achievable with drugs. Unfortunately, we are seeing that quite a lot now.
A lot has changed in the sport in the last 8 years. The explanation could be Sam is more talented, he's faster at shorter distances, and he has more + better tech and legal supplements available to him than Jakob had at the same age. He might also be a hyper responder to super shoes.
Or maybe Sam simply matured faster. Teens don't all develop at the same exact rate. Jakob ran 3:31 at 17. Sam ran the equivalent at 16. Is one year difference really worth getting all bent out of shape?
I still don't understand why you continue asking for explanations when it seems like you've already made up your mind, and there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind.
I agree a lot has changed in the sport in the last few years but we won't agree about what has changed it. I think talent is much the same, so is the training and the tracks and the shoes don't make the difference people think they do - El G's world records in old shoes still stand. Howman has recently admitted that dopers are getting away with it. That will explain the biggest jumps in performance today.
Current athletes and coaches say the better tech and legal supplements have made runners faster. We can see it in the records being broken and the explosion of sub-4 milers in the college ranks since these products have been introduced. Do you really think you know better than current athletes and coaches?
And if nobody and nothing can change your mind, why do you keep pressing the issue? You're just wasting everyone's time here, including your own.
I agree a lot has changed in the sport in the last few years but we won't agree about what has changed it. I think talent is much the same, so is the training and the tracks and the shoes don't make the difference people think they do - El G's world records in old shoes still stand. Howman has recently admitted that dopers are getting away with it. That will explain the biggest jumps in performance today.
Current athletes and coaches say the better tech and legal supplements have made runners faster. We can see it in the records being broken and the explosion of sub-4 milers in the college ranks since these products have been introduced. Do you really think you know better than current athletes and coaches?
And if nobody and nothing can change your mind, why do you keep pressing the issue? You're just wasting everyone's time here, including your own.
I didn't say I came here to have my mind changed. I know I won't change yours. But the stuff you say has led to a sudden explosion in times is just frills. It isn't what's driving the increase. Athletes haven't just suddenly discovered things that revolutionize the sport.
Current athletes and coaches say the better tech and legal supplements have made runners faster. We can see it in the records being broken and the explosion of sub-4 milers in the college ranks since these products have been introduced. Do you really think you know better than current athletes and coaches?
And if nobody and nothing can change your mind, why do you keep pressing the issue? You're just wasting everyone's time here, including your own.
I didn't say I came here to have my mind changed. I know I won't change yours. But the stuff you say has led to a sudden explosion in times is just frills. It isn't what's driving the increase. Athletes haven't just suddenly discovered things that revolutionize the sport.
So you're claiming all the coaches and athletes who say the better tech and legal supplements have made runners faster are lying? And you know more than they do?