Where does Asbel Kiprop rank among all-time 1500m runners?

I agree, Your analysis is spot on. Don't be discouraged by

the opposition here. We are a big group of followers here on LR.

My $.02 wrote:

Nothing I wrote was hypothetical. He's never time trialed a 5k, we know he was in 12:4x shape in 2011 since he ran a 12:53 with a 53 last lap, and he has said he's in better shape now.

If you want to ignore facts, then fine, but you're still wrong.

Right, because such "conversions" are so scientific and accurate!!

Keep digging!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My $.02 wrote:

Nothing I wrote was hypothetical. He's never time trialed a 5k, we know he was in 12:4x shape in 2011 since he ran a 12:53 with a 53 last lap, and he has said he's in better shape now.

If you want to ignore facts, then fine, but you're still wrong.

Right, because such "conversions" are so scientific and accurate!!

Keep digging!

What conversions did I use?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Right, because such "conversions" are so scientific and accurate!!

Keep digging!

fool

From Renato Caonva -

"Don't think the real value of Mo is 12'53". He ran already 12'57" in 2010, when we worked together for some month in Iten, in Zurich, and now is very much stronger, after going to Salazar. To think can run near 12'40" is something reasonable, such as the possibility of running under 26'30" in 10000m."

My $.02 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Right, because such "conversions" are so scientific and accurate!!

Keep digging!

What conversions did I use?

If you can't recognize that as a conversion I don't know what to tell you chief.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My $.02 wrote:

What conversions did I use?

If you can't recognize that as a conversion I don't know what to tell you chief.

Ok, it's a conversion then. So what? Are you disputing that he was in 12:4x shape in 2011?

My $.02 wrote:

Ok, it's a conversion then. So what? Are you disputing that he was in 12:4x shape in 2011?

No, I am sticking by my contention that actual performances are what matters and when you look at actual performances his are best over 1500m and get worse the longer the race.

Your counterargument is that you apparently can use conversions and that the times from your conversions are more important than actual races.

I'm sticking to the facts, you can hang w/ Ventolin all you want.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My $.02 wrote:

Ok, it's a conversion then. So what? Are you disputing that he was in 12:4x shape in 2011?

No, I am sticking by my contention that actual performances are what matters and when you look at actual performances his are best over 1500m and get worse the longer the race.

Your counterargument is that you apparently can use conversions and that the times from your conversions are more important than actual races.

I'm sticking to the facts, you can hang w/ Ventolin all you want.

I'm sticking with facts to. It is a fact that he could have 12:4x in 2011. It's not physically possible to run a 12:53 with a 53 last lap if he wasn't. This is common sense. If someone ran a mile going 63,63,64,50 would you believe 4 minutes was their max? Of course not because they had so much left at the end. Same with Farah.

Also his times don't get worse as distances go up since his 10k is more impressive than his 5k

26:46 - 1248 points

12:53 - 1235 points

My $.02 wrote:

I'm sticking with facts to. It is a fact that he could have 12:4x in 2011.

Hypotheticals are not facts.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My $.02 wrote:

I'm sticking with facts to. It is a fact that he could have 12:4x in 2011.

Hypotheticals are not facts.

Saying he was in 12:4x shape in 2011 isn't a hypothetical. It's a fact and I've already explained why.

casual commentary wrote:

wateronice wrote:

I think it's the other way around, there's no fantasy as to El G doping or not - he's the world record holder right now because he's the greatest of all time, and people like you despise them with your full envy.

stay mad.

The only thing I envy is your youthful ignorance. It must be bliss.

You envy my ignorance huh? Thanks for the laugh

Hardloper wrote:

As his 7:40 and 13:59 PRs clearly indicate......

someone had to do it wrote:

imbecile

PR =/= capability

Come on Ventolin, you should know that

1) Komen didn't need pacers or competition or anyting to run fast. He wouldn't be caught dead running a 13:59 even in a hurricane.

2) Komen could not run 1:43.15 for 800m like Kiprop. I'm not even sure he could do half that. There's a reason he didn't sit and kick. Komen and Kiprop are not similar.

My $.02 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hypotheticals are not facts.

Saying he was in 12:4x shape in 2011 isn't a hypothetical. It's a fact and I've already explained why.

I see your understanding of what a hypothetical is isn't any better than your understanding of what a conversion is.

The Dingo wrote:

Olympic Champ

2 time World Champ

3:27.72 PR (4th fastest all time)

I think the only obvious people ahead are El G, Lagat, Morceli, and Coe.

2nd tier is Ngeny, Cacho, Kiprop, who else?

Is Kiprob top 5 all-time already?

Replace Cacho with Lagat and you are in the ballpark.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

My $.02 wrote:

Saying he was in 12:4x shape in 2011 isn't a hypothetical. It's a fact and I've already explained why.

I see your understanding of what a hypothetical is isn't any better than your understanding of what a conversion is.

I see you don't understand what facts are. It's a fact that he was in 12:4x shape in 2011. Why? Because we have proof that he was. What is our proof? A 12:53 5k with a 53 last lap. No hypothetical there. Also you've clearly run out of arguments and are just resorting to debating semantics of words.

My $.02 wrote:

I see you don't understand what facts are. It's a fact that he was in 12:4x shape in 2011. Why? Because we have proof that he was. What is our proof? A 12:53 5k with a 53 last lap. No hypothetical there. Also you've clearly run out of arguments and are just resorting to debating semantics of words.

I'll explain this simply, and I will use small words, so perhaps you will understand. Converted race times are hypotheticals. Farah ran a 12:53 5k w/ a 53 last lap. Your argument is that since he ran so quickly on the last lap then it would have been possible for him to run faster earlier. IF he had run a more even pace THEN he could have clocked a faster time overall.

Do you see the IF...THEN statement in there? That is a hypothetical. You are giving a hypothetical statement of what he could have run if the conditions or strategy was different. But it wasn't. He ran a 12:53. That is a fact. Do you see this difference now?

"Your argument is that since he ran so quickly on the last lap then it would have been possible for him to run faster"

- Yes, this is common sense.

"If he had run a more even pace then he could have clocked a faster time overall"

- Yes, again common sense.

"He ran a 12:53"

- Yes

What is your ultimate point to all this? Are you saying that he couldn't have gone 12:4x? Are you disputing that he could have run faster?

Since you missed it the first time...

No, I am sticking by my contention that actual performances are what matters and when you look at actual performances his are best over 1500m and get worse the longer the race.

Your counterargument is that you apparently can use conversions and that the times from your conversions are more important than actual races.

I'm sticking to the facts, you can hang w/ Ventolin all you want.

Hardloper wrote:

Come on Ventolin, you should know that

1) Komen didn't need pacers or competition or anyting to run fast. He wouldn't be caught dead running a 13:59 even in a hurricane.

2) Komen could not run 1:43.15 for 800m like Kiprop. I'm not even sure he could do half that. There's a reason he didn't sit and kick. Komen and Kiprop are not similar.

Kiprop would be one of the best in the world in the 5000 if he cared to be. He has a Jr. World Cross gold and beat Bekele and Kipchoge at Edinburgh in 2012.