Why Jakob Ingebrigtsen might be delusional (about his own capabilities)…

You put WAY to much stock into estimations and how that speed/lack of speeds somewhat completely dictates what a person can run in other distances. Saying that "every sign telling us he couldn't run sub 2 in a million years" is extremely stupid when the person you are talking about does have a WR. Seems like not EVERY sign. Also, why ask for sources but in the same paragraph wave around with ESTIMATED 100m times that are to good to run a good 800m. Hillarious. If only he was worse at 100m he would be a true 800m champ.

and still won gold in the 5,000m in Eugene. While getting water. Twice.

you mean easily won

I don’t think my words about Karsten Warholm was extremely stupid, but I admit I might have been a little too bold, (having gotten too much confidence from my posts in the thread about Fred Kerley’s supposed lack of sub 2.00 abilities -a man who might not be that fare from being a WR holder -400m), and maybe superficial, and a little too speedy, and that I very well may have to eat some crow here…! (See my long answer to John Wesley Harding that I will post in a couple of hours..)

Regarding estimated 100m pb’s: Well, we have no choice. Some of the athletes have no recorded pb’s here, and I think you would agree that f.ex Karsten Warholm’s old pb’s aren’t at all representing his speed capabilities….

Me being to caught up in (superficial) statistically and theoretical thinking: Yes, I think that’s right -some of the point of the debate must be to adjust (over) theorising to reality….

I too easily broke 2 as a teenager without any serious training, so that’s not the point, because it isn’t per se hard to break 2, but for some sprinters it is (and the better 100m sprinter one is the harder -in my opinion…). I think Fred Kerley is a striking example here (although he hasn’t run any 800m I’m aware of) -Karsten Warholm is more of a complicated case (he is in many ways an enigma), and I might very well have done some misjudgment here…

i dont believe jakob can,or will ever run better than 26.40.running a fast two mile does not equate to running a super quick 10;000,which is a much longer distance.also,if he isnt doping,hes gonna start to look very vulnerable,and his weaknesses will start to show.also his body will start to break down.he will become beatable,and he will never go on to break a plethora of records.now if hes full throttle doping,thats a different story,but i still think he'll be limited.

Ha,ha -you thought you popped me there (because you in fact may have done so!)…

I have got a lot of alternative strategies then it comes to answering you (or maybe not answering), but I fear all of them will turn out somewhat too fluffy, because you’ve got a point here in your last post… But I have to try: (But let me first say this: I don’t think I have any agenda against Warholm or Ingebrigtsen -on the contrary I’m a devout fan boy of them both, and would love to see them excell in the widest of range possible. And only a year ago I thought they both could glide from their prime events to even better in the nearby longer runs (an even the “shorter” 400m flat for Warholm). So when I discovered the “logic” and statistics I have fronted in this post I really went against my own feelings and hopes. And I will be pleased if you now are forcing me to repent..! And throw away my too restrictive logic.)

1. I could hang my head in shame, erase my username, and start over again.

2. I could try to rescue my self by pointing out that before I saw your post I myself found a flaw in my reasoning (I found the outlier Sifan Hassan that pretty much shows that I might be wrong about Jakob, and therefore also about Karsten -see my answer to “youraveragerunner2006”)

3. I could deny your point, by bias picking out everything in Brandon Johnson’s progression and profile that suites my agenda, and also create strange ad hoc theories / explanations and assumptions. And I could somewhat hide in the obscurity around Warholm’s pr’s and age development and training, and strengths and supposedly weaknesses… And that he hasn’t run a ground up 800m, and maybe nor a 1.15 training session…. (If he has done this 1.15 we can stop debating -then I am obviously wrong in everything….)

4. I could try to shift from Warholm to Kerley ( who is a far better candidate for my fast 100m -400m runners who can’t break 2), and then conclude that Warholm is an enigma -we just don’t know…

5. I could try to adjust and moderate my theories to real life, f.ex by admitting Warholm to a 1.55 or something…And also acknowledging training and individual factors over simplistic theories about muscle fibres and so on…

My logic and reasoning is of course a replacement for (the lack of) experience and knowledge -I get that…

This is my reasoning based on “the soup” of the above mentioned 1-5 points:

Brandon Johnson fits very well to my point of a 400m runner who have to have a slow 100m pr to be able to run a fast 800m, because on this level 10.41 is slow… (I now post this so I don’t loose it / the post getting to long -will be continued in next post).

I'm sorry to be this condescending, but have you run track at an OK level? Meaning say..sub 1.55? With the 1.15 Warholm would easily get sub 2. There is no question about it. How good he would be is something else, but if you know about the 1.15 you might also know how well he does 45/15 intervals. Surprisingly well.

Anyway, anyone who doubt sub 2 has the knowledge of the 800m similar to that of a stone.

Yes, I ran a few seconds sub 1.55 based on 4 months of training as a teenager. But I have no sprint training experience -5000m is my sweet spot. Saying that I too have heard of Warholm’s 15/45 (The Norwegian podcast “In the long run”). But I have only heard of the 1.15 as a rumour (Don’t know if it’s just being made up -a little suspicious that this number equals the Norwegian record, and that it’s exactly the same that f.ex Olympic champ Vebjørn Rodahl has run)… 1.15 will of course place Warholm in a sub 1.50 discussion, and not sub 2…

Saying all this I will mention a few things that contradict what I have said about Warholm in previous posts: 1. In a youth decathlon he ran the 1000m in 2.45 -this time is somewhat so good that it may show better talent for the 800m than I have admitted… 2. His poor pr’s in the 600/800m as a child and young teenager doesn’t have to mean a thing, since he also was relatively poor in the 400m, before he excelled there as a 17 years old…

I may have misjudged Warholm, or not. We really don’t know before he runs a 800m, or before his 1.15 is verified… But he is a stellar athlete, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he surprises me..!

1.15 in training is easier. He doesnt react to a clock and can choose the conditions. Its more like 1.16 in comp but that doesnt matter, sub 2 is a give. No question about it. And the rumours are true.

What did you run (aprox) in the 5000m?

*2. His poor pr’s in the 600/800m as a child and young teenager doesn’t have to mean a thing, since he also was relatively poor in the 400m, before he excelled there as a 17 years old…*

Good that you acknowledge that ;)

My pr’s are of little interest here… What’s interesting is if the 1.15 rumour is right or not -a little more info here (from you; something more than that “the rumours are true”) would be nice…

I have a knowledge of a stone, you said in a previous post. Well, maybe -if that’s your point I want debate that, because I have very little experience from own “career” (pretty much only one year of consistent training / racing as a teenager, and no coaching experience, and no deep understanding of the field, although I’ve got some formal education here.). But I’m puzzled of the lack of good arguments against my somewhat too bold Warholm post in these threads -think I have found the best counter arguments and undermining facts against my hypothesis myself, interesting enough (unless you can say something more about the 1.15)…

So here comes my part 2 of me “defending” my (outrageous) Warholm claims:

Brandon Johnson’s 100m pb is however good enough (measured against Karsten’s pb’s) to endanger my whole logic here (that’s the reason you posted Johnson’s profile, of course) -he even got the better 10.41 against Warholm’s pb’s (10.52 -outdoor, 10.49 -indoor), and Warholm should therefore (by my logic) also run at least a 1.43 800m (be better than Johnson here, because of less speed and therefore greater strength)…

Here comes my (somewhat flawed) arguments to avoid the above mentioned logic:

1. Warholm is much faster now than his 7 years old 100m pb. He may in fact (based on his opening speed in the 400mh; compared to Raj Benjamin’s), be quite close to the latter’s pb (10.03)…My logic will therefore stand the test, also confronted with Johnson’s 100 and 800m pb’s -Warholm is much faster in the 100m, and therefore much slower in the 800m!

2. Johnson’s 100m is somewhat artificial good in the 100m (he may be a 800m runner with 10.9 100m natural speed -there f.ex Olympic champ Vebjørn Rodahl got 11.28 /21.9). Johnson then got his pb down to 10.41 by excessive short sprint training (supposedly) at the expense of his natural 400/800m talent. Cause his talent wasn’t in the short sprint -one year later (still a teenager) he ran much slower -10.60, and then even worse some years later (21.29) -his slowly transition to 400m and eventually (much later) the 800m may even have ruined his sub 11 capabilities… The point here is this: I should have stressed that an athlete can’t run a fast 800m the same year he runs a fast 100m….

Some words about why my reasoning above might be flawed: 1. We don’t know for sure how fast Warholm is in the 100m now -the Raj Benjamin comparative may be wrong).
2. Seems like a sort of double standard when I admit Johnson to run fast 100m and 800m with a lot of years apart (because I have to -he did it), and then I say “not in a million years” about Karsten Warholm…

Closing words: I may be right about Karsten Warholm. But I may also be wrong -he is an enigma, an maybe a bad example for my «case”, because he is all over the place: A slow developer and a fast, a slow 100m runner and a fast, good endurance (his 2.45 1000m pb) and very bad (official 600/800/1500m pb’s), obviously getting faster because of speed training, but even maybe getting better endurance because of reported endurance training… …

And there are other outliers (I found Sifan Hassan, and Jakob I. might even be one). So I might be wrong, or right, or Warholm will place himself somewhere in between… Maybe I heard to much on Jakob on Warholm’s 800m capabilities (well, he didn’t say anything clear about sub 2 or not). And I think you are right in saying that although a good runner Jakob doesn’t have to be right in everything (running related) he poses.. As I also will say about al lot of things from Bob Dylan -despite his brilliance… And maybe we all could say something in the same alley about ourselves….

But I can say this: Both Warholm and Ingebrigtsen will give some of us a lot to discuss, and even maybe something to enjoy…

I agree that it is a rarity and the collision of 800 speed and 10000m strength could be a thing limiting peoples potential while trying to be amazing at the 1500m and 10000m. But I think that you have slightly underestimated what Jakob has already done.

Mo farah wasn't ever really in the pursuit of a world record 5k and I don't think that he was in shape for it. He was clearly kick focused as he relied on it to get basically all of his global titles which to me is where his speed comes in and helps out with the 1500m of 3:28 which was really incredible for a 5/10km guy.

But Jakob is separated and put into a different category because he already has proved his strength in the 5k. Jakob has been untested in a 5000m race for the time completely, and many would agree that he is in shape for the 5000m world record literally right now if he really wanted it with his insane 2 mile world record.

This means that all he needs to do is take the focus off the 1500m and become more of a 5/10k guy, and then hes probably at least a top 3 10k runner.

Jakob actually doesn't even have this inborn 800m speed in my opinion either running only 1:47 even when he was around 3:28 shape which means that he's actually more strength based.

On top of all that, Jakob has already won a world championship 5k against one of the most stacked 5k fields of all time last year in the world championships. Furthermore, in a stacked 5000m race where Joshua Cheptegei was coming off the 5000m world record pushing the pace, Jakob could still hang with the 5 and 10k world record holder and out kick him at the end like 2 years ago proving he has enough if not more then enough strength for the 10000m and higher.

You might be right in this post. But I remember watching Jakob’s 1,47 (not beaten by much by a 1.43 man, also a little windy conditions) the year after he ran 1.46 -so you may underestimate Jakob’s 800m speed…

I might be doubting it a little bit, but he's clearly a runner built on strength not speed. He ran the 800 as a teen but not exceptionally like the he ran the 1500/mile. Through the years he has ran so many double days and 100+ mile weeks that it is clear hes at least now a strength based runner. The 1:43 man was probably not in the best of shape and i think that jakob couldn't go faster then 1:45 which doesn't really indicate any type of special 800m speed considering his other pb's.

Well, the 1.43 man pr’ed / was close to pr right before this race, and right after.. (If my memory serves me well). Saying that I agree with you in the rest of your post.

Why there’s so much “(self-)deception” / “delusion” on LRC -well, the reason is in my opinion not that Let’s runners are utterly stupid, or more stupid than people in general, but simply the fact that we in this forum are humans like everybody else, and that the human area is complex, (f.ex running), and that the one thing nearly all of us are doing (wrong) is being too sure when no certainty can be found (ever, in principle)…
One example of the above is doping problematic / prevalence, and I will (somewhat unpopular) add the DSD discussion…
And then there is this: How fast can an athlete run in an event he never (or only long time ago) has run?!
Self acclaimed experts, common posters and athletes have fronted bold claims like the most obvious facts (sadly I’m one of them, gotten carried away by principles and facts that seemed so clear), based on simplistic thinking that almost never will be true, given its (over) simplistic nature..! And even the large bulk of posters that follow a principle of some middle way may be very wrong, cause what’s the evidence for the world being so average and middle and plain (as apposed to black and white / contrary and unique)…
In the OP post I said Jakob Ingebrigtsen might be delusional about his own capabilities (primarily the 10000m, half and full marathon, but maybe even the 800m…) -Does that mean that I think he will (relatively) suck in those events? -Not at all; it may not be probable with WR’s in some of these distances, but (low) probability doesn’t mean a thing if it doesn’t kick in, and Jakob excels - with WR..! (Probability is never the same as certainty; doesn’t need to correlate at all).. And me calling him (potential) delusional doesn’t mean he can’t be right -my point is that I don’t think he’s got the experience from training to know what he can do in the 10 k and above, but that doesn’t mean he blindly cannot hit the truth…). What he himself has done over the years in his outlier training, and the knowledge about the achievements of the outlier Sifan Hassan here, is of course a ++ for Jakob’s long run goals, despite all un probability…
I said that Karsten Warholm never in a million years would run sub 2.00 in the 800m. -Well, I knew at the time that my statement was stupid, and that I should have said 1.55 (to have some margin to be safe), but now (in my afterthought) I would take the claim completely to the dustbin, because I honestly just don’t know what to make of the guy. And I have done some further research, and have found clear evidence for my no sub 2 claim, and clear evidence against!
In my thinking I would normally place Warholm sub 1.50 (based on his 100/200/400m pb’s). -Bad 100m pb / strong 400m pb predicts a good 800m… And his 2.45.80 in the 1000m as a 17 teen year old (probably on tired legs on day two after seven other events) doesn’t necessarily say a thing of his 800m capabilities now -he has had an overall staggering athletic development since then…
But it’s tempting to compare Warholm to Ashton Eaton, who got 10.21 / 45.00 / 1.55.90 / 2.32.67. -The Norwegian’s 2.45.80 (1000m) is 13+ sec slower than the American’s; Warholm is therefore on the wrong side of 2.00 in the 800m (as opposed to Eaton; converted from the 1000m…) And further more: Warholm’s pb’s in the 100 and 200m seem to be obsolete -maybe he can do as fast as 10.10 / 20.20….If so his bad progression towards the 1000m (compared to Eaton) will be even more significant…
I don’t think one can compare athletes like I have done above, because their pb’s are too uncertain in too many events. And there are (other) outliers like Brandon Johnson; 10.41 / 46.34 -1.43.84 -3.45.12 -who doesn’t fit the narrative at all (should have been far better in the 400m with that kind of combined speed and strength, and so on).
I still think speedy 400m runners -and even 400m hurdlers- (with a good 100m pb) will struggle to break 2.00 (800m) if they’re strength is below average for their current speed. But pb’s can trick us, and say little about current capabilities (Warholm, Brendon Johnson, even maybe an Andreas Almgren) -training, injuries, age, priorities and practise are part of the equation…
I think nobody glides or run on reserves (from a fast 400m pb) to a sub 2.00 -if you have started to fade around 400m (compared to others with the same 400m pb) you will then struggle exponentially towards the 800m, and it will be really ugly… But a good 400m runner / 400mh runner, with stamina for 800m, will of course run sub 2, or sub 1.50 or even sub 1.44. With only some stamina the result will maybe be 1.57 - 2.03, and without I suspect full crash, but what do I know.. (I have “jogged” myself sub 2, even on gravel…)
Karsten Warholm is an enigma (most runners without updated pb’s in a lot of events will be). He himself has talked about low 43s in the 400m flat, and elite 800m, and we know he sometimes train endurance, and his age development is somewhat odd, and his arguments for his stellar off events performance are either missing or hard to grasp. But giving a sport with so many outliers and surprises over time I will give Warholm (in all his obscurity and mysticism) the possibility/ doubt to do something outstanding even in the 800m, rather than chicken out to some 1.55…). But a 800m and then a 600m between him and Jakob would be fun to watch..!
But my point is that we don’t know a lot (neither do the athletes nor coaches), and that the (over) certainty on Letsrun is hilarious (my own included) -but that the un certainty makes the whole thing so much more exciting…!

I like to challenge the obvious. And most knowledgeable Letsrunners consider it obvious that Karsten Warholm easily can run f.ex a sub 2.00 800m… But why not also add some reasons why..?

Far too many seem to think that one’s case is stronger without reasoning -suggesting the correctness of one’s opinion is so self evident that additional wording only will complicate the obvious unnecessary… And in isolation this bear some logic.. But the problem is this: People will (because of that logic) get stuck in the “obvious” also when it’s wrong! And most philosophers and psychologists will tell us that a lot of what we consider obvious is obviously wrong!

My problem in this thread is that sometimes the obvious is right, obviously. So here comes the reason why I find my previous view (Warholm not obviously sub 2) to be (totally) wrong:

I have now made a comparison between Karsten Warholm and Rai Benjamin -in many ways these two seem to share some common traits: Both seem to have good speed as well as stamina, and both seem to be in progression. But the most interesting here is that Benjamin (unlike Warholm) got an official adult (well, he was 16 and a half years old) 600m pb: 1.22.42 (indoors)! And even more important: Rai has improved his 400m pb 3 sec since then, which converts to 4.5 sec in the 600m : Resulting in an anticipated current sub 1.18! And if we give Warholm somewhat the same 600m capacity I have obviously been wrong all the time (about the limits in this 800m discussion)…

I therefore officially apologise to Warholm and his (other fans) -the 2.00 limit should never have been raised at all -Warholm (and Benjamin) are on another elite level in the 800m than I thought. I’ve learned that now -better late than never..!

Yes, Jakob is just as delusional as Kipchoge was right before Kipchoge ran a sub-2 marathon that most people were sure that a sub-2 was never going to happen for 20 years.