I think there are several runners who are currently vying for the top spot in the 1500, based on what we have seen this year. Jakob had that crown at Tokyo but it's since been up for grabs. The one I think least likely to take it is Hocker as I doubt he can back up his Paris win. It looks like a fluke to me. While Wightman hasn't fully recovered from injury he is also out of contention now. If Nuguse can win again in a big race he has to be counted and clearly Kerr is up there. Jakob's critical losses have put him back in the bunch - but only over that distance. The longer events are clearly another story.
And here you're proving the point that you only consider winning the gold in the global championship. When all of the top runners have the same amount of global golds the next point of consideration becomes who's the fastest, who placed the best in global championships where they didn't win the gold and who has the best record in non-global championships. The answer to all three of those questions is Jakob.
He's not the best by a big margin, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the best.
I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
And here you're proving the point that you only consider winning the gold in the global championship. When all of the top runners have the same amount of global golds the next point of consideration becomes who's the fastest, who placed the best in global championships where they didn't win the gold and who has the best record in non-global championships. The answer to all three of those questions is Jakob.
He's not the best by a big margin, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the best.
I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
He has the global gold, and nobody else has won more than one global gold. Hence he's still the best, because nobody else has been better when you factor in all the other factors I mentioned.
7
2
no debate that Ingebrigtsen is the best in the last years
And here you're proving the point that you only consider winning the gold in the global championship. When all of the top runners have the same amount of global golds the next point of consideration becomes who's the fastest, who placed the best in global championships where they didn't win the gold and who has the best record in non-global championships. The answer to all three of those questions is Jakob.
He's not the best by a big margin, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the best.
I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
For the last five years he clearly is the best.
- the best at the championships
- the best at the Diamond Leage
. the fastest in most years
- the fastest at the 1500m + Mile
You call him a loser- Because he hasn't won the last three global outdoor titles.
Ron Clarke hasn't won just a single one of his 10 Olympic/Commonwealth track finals plus two Marathons - for you an mega super loser.
Coe has lost all but one of his 800 (his best distance) finals (or didn't even qualify) - for you a mega super loser.
Ovett has lost (all) his 1500m global finals in 80 (WR year), 83 (WR year), 84 (very good shape) - for you a mega super loser.
I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
He has the global gold, and nobody else has won more than one global gold. Hence he's still the best, because nobody else has been better when you factor in all the other factors I mentioned.
He has one global gold - the Tokyo Olympics - but three other runners also have acquired a global gold since. So for three years he has been surpassed in global championships by other runners. That isn't what I would call the "best".
I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
For the last five years he clearly is the best.
- the best at the championships
- the best at the Diamond Leage
. the fastest in most years
- the fastest at the 1500m + Mile
You call him a loser- Because he hasn't won the last three global outdoor titles.
Ron Clarke hasn't won just a single one of his 10 Olympic/Commonwealth track finals plus two Marathons - for you an mega super loser.
Coe has lost all but one of his 800 (his best distance) finals (or didn't even qualify) - for you a mega super loser.
Ovett has lost (all) his 1500m global finals in 80 (WR year), 83 (WR year), 84 (very good shape) - for you a mega super loser.
He has the global gold, and nobody else has won more than one global gold. Hence he's still the best, because nobody else has been better when you factor in all the other factors I mentioned.
He has one global gold - the Tokyo Olympics - but three other runners also have acquired a global gold since. So for three years he has been surpassed in global championships by other runners. That isn't what I would call the "best".
So why do you keep trying to claim that you don't only consider the global championship golds when these comments prove that you do?
He has one global gold - the Tokyo Olympics - but three other runners also have acquired a global gold since. So for three years he has been surpassed in global championships by other runners. That isn't what I would call the "best".
So why do you keep trying to claim that you don't only consider the global championship golds when these comments prove that you do?
Because a global gold is, on balance, a decisive factor. Hard for you to grasp nuances in an argument, I know. You should get a job as Ingebrigtsen's agent. No one spends as much time publicly talking him up.
So why do you keep trying to claim that you don't only consider the global championship golds when these comments prove that you do?
Because a global gold is, on balance, a decisive factor. Hard for you to grasp nuances in an argument, I know. You should get a job as Ingebrigtsen's agent. No one spends as much time publicly talking him up.
Yes, global golds are a decisive factor. We're discussing people who have the same amount of global golds, so that isn't a factor. What decides who's the best when the most decisive factor is equal?
According to you, nothing, because you keep repeating that nobody is better than the other because they have the same amount of global golds, and yet you're telling other people that they don't understand nuance.
Bannister was the best in his event with no golds ever.
Before Bannister you had Sydney Wooderson, Rudolf Harbig, Arne Andersson, and Gunder Hagg who were all the best despite having no Olympic golds in their events. They were probably all deprived of doing so because of WW2.
2
0
no debate that Ingebrigtsen is the best in the last years
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.