Well if that’s the case it would be a shame because he needs to believe he has a good shot for him to really go after it - which is great for the sport (again, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Bislett packed like that, it was fantastic to see.)
I don’t know if it will be before Budapest, but my guess would be that we will see one more big effort from him this season where I think we see a slight adjustment to the pace in the first 800 (1.50.5 v 1.51.5). I can understand yesterday why in front of his home crowd and having the weight of expectation after the 2 mile, that he wanted to test the waters a little more and be perhaps a little more conservative before jumping into a split close to 1.50 which is uncharted territory for him.
So like a lot of people I landed on Jakob being a low 3.27 guy end of his career, but after watching this yesterday I am convinced he will at least run under 3.27. I can’t see a world where if he stays healthy he can’t find a second there as presumably he evolves and gets even stronger. WR still well on the lower end of optimism but I do wonder if he gets into the 26’s if that sentiment changes - even with him.
A split close to 1:50 is "uncharted territory" because it's likely too close to his limits over the 800, unless he's capable of sub-1:45. There are no signs he is. I doubt he could run close to 1:50 and hold on for another 700m. I think he would blow at that speed.
You are - as always - too pessimistic when it comes to Jakob.
The good thing is that he might make you look silly within a short time when we can still remember your misjudgement.
I am rather certain he could run 1:44 in the 800m if he got into a race under good conditions right now.
You just assume things based on very simplistic thoughts and impressions. But that doesn’t mean you are wrong -it only lowers the probability that you are right…
Your take on Jakob’s 800m speed and your view on doping aren’t necessary outlier opinions, but your surety (without any real signs of an inner discussion of pros and cons) is a red flag intellectually…
It’s like you declared “man never walked on the moon, because it’s too far away” -you might be right; the moon travels being a scam, but a 100% certainty without further reasoning (than it being to difficult) is the same red flag!
»..where has he shown faster than 1.46x capability?..” you ask, without discussing 1500m performances (the olympic final) that could suggest such a capability… I myself don’t know after examining the pros and cons -therefore your surety really seems to be heavenly sent…
To be fair: You pose one argument -Wightman beating Ingebrigtsen so easily in Eugene- but why so sure that was because of superior 800m speed (although you may be right -one can always be right regardless of the most simplistic thoughts; a shoot in the dark..!). -There were other 1.43 runners in the field that didn’t match Jakob. And Wightman himself said it was his bettering of stamina (and not speed) that gave the win. And do you really think that the definition of a kicker is the one with best speed (Cole Hocker, Woody Kincaid, Yifter “The Shifter”, even a Henrik Ingebrigtsen)…?
Your arguments misrepresent mine - especially the nonsense about the moon. But it reduces to this: the 1500 requires a given level of speed (if Jakob is to beat 3.26) and not just endurance; where has Jakob indicated that he has the necessary speed as well as aerobic capacity?
I have focused on the 800 because it is an indicator. What else do we have? Has he run the 400 in around 48secs or closed a slow 1500 in 50-flat? I don't think so. So what evidence are you relying upon to show that he has speed - or are you simply assuming that any athlete with high endurance has the necessary speed to take what is recognized as an outlier 1500 record (in which case Bekele, Komen or Cheptegei should all have been capable of taking it)?
As for your point about the 1.43 runners that Jakob beat - sure he will do that if his endurance outweighs their speed, but it wasn't sufficient to take the 1.44 runner, who was stronger and faster at the finish. I also didn't say that 800 speed is the ONLY factor that will be decisive. But a given level of speed will be crucial to be able to beat 3.26. If he doesn't have it he will be running too close to his top speed for too long - and no one can do that without tieing up.
Thank you for a well written and matter-of-factly answer. I kind of feel a little ashamed when you thus choose to be the bigger man (after my somewhat harsh post)…
You are of course right in your naming “that moon nonsense” -I didn’t write that to suggest you believe something like that, (or attempting to belittle you) but on the contrary to give you a nonsense example (I really thought you would regard as nonsense) to show how some of us regard to much confidence in things that can’t be proven. And you yourself have stated that athletes easily outsmart most of the testing -ergo the overall doping never can be proven…
Well, The Devil is in the details -I accuse you, and in fact most posters for being to simplistic in the arguments, but somewhat understand that this can be turned as a label on me too. -Maybe a thread about doping in near future can reveal better details and facts and arguments than we have seen so far from both sides….
Regarding Jakob’s speed: We just have to wait on an all out 800m race. And Wigtman’s pr is 1.43.65 and not 1.44..!
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
A split close to 1:50 is "uncharted territory" because it's likely too close to his limits over the 800, unless he's capable of sub-1:45. There are no signs he is. I doubt he could run close to 1:50 and hold on for another 700m. I think he would blow at that speed.
You are - as always - too pessimistic when it comes to Jakob.
The good thing is that he might make you look silly within a short time when we can still remember your misjudgement.
I am rather certain he could run 1:44 in the 800m if he got into a race under good conditions right now.
That's over two full seconds faster than anything he has run over the distance. In the 800m - and in a mature athlete - that is a massive (and I would suggest unbridgeable) gulf. If you are "certain" he could do it, what do you base that certainty on? What has he run for the 400m to indicate that - or the 1000m? You are simply guessing.
He shows impressive finishing speed for a 5k runner but that is chiefly the product of his remarkable endurance. Amongst the best 1500m runners over history - and it's history he's being judged against, not his contemporaries - he is "slow". All the best had more speed - they had far better 800m performances - and speed is crucial to the very best 1500 runners.
He doesn't have the same speed as El G - who could run the last 800 in a 3.32 1500 faster than Jakob has ever done just for the 800 - and even if Jakob's endurance may be a fraction superior (as suggested by his 2 mile record) that won't be enough to compensate for that relative lack of speed. I believe to beat 3.26 he has to run too close to his aerobic limit for too long.
Your arguments misrepresent mine - especially the nonsense about the moon. But it reduces to this: the 1500 requires a given level of speed (if Jakob is to beat 3.26) and not just endurance; where has Jakob indicated that he has the necessary speed as well as aerobic capacity?
I have focused on the 800 because it is an indicator. What else do we have? Has he run the 400 in around 48secs or closed a slow 1500 in 50-flat? I don't think so. So what evidence are you relying upon to show that he has speed - or are you simply assuming that any athlete with high endurance has the necessary speed to take what is recognized as an outlier 1500 record (in which case Bekele, Komen or Cheptegei should all have been capable of taking it)?
As for your point about the 1.43 runners that Jakob beat - sure he will do that if his endurance outweighs their speed, but it wasn't sufficient to take the 1.44 runner, who was stronger and faster at the finish. I also didn't say that 800 speed is the ONLY factor that will be decisive. But a given level of speed will be crucial to be able to beat 3.26. If he doesn't have it he will be running too close to his top speed for too long - and no one can do that without tieing up.
Thank you for a well written and matter-of-factly answer. I kind of feel a little ashamed when you thus choose to be the bigger man (after my somewhat harsh post)…
You are of course right in your naming “that moon nonsense” -I didn’t write that to suggest you believe something like that, (or attempting to belittle you) but on the contrary to give you a nonsense example (I really thought you would regard as nonsense) to show how some of us regard to much confidence in things that can’t be proven. And you yourself have stated that athletes easily outsmart most of the testing -ergo the overall doping never can be proven…
Well, The Devil is in the details -I accuse you, and in fact most posters for being to simplistic in the arguments, but somewhat understand that this can be turned as a label on me too. -Maybe a thread about doping in near future can reveal better details and facts and arguments than we have seen so far from both sides….
Regarding Jakob’s speed: We just have to wait on an all out 800m race. And Wigtman’s pr is 1.43.65 and not 1.44..!
Yes, you are right about Wightman. I simply rounded his best up to 1.44 as an approximation. His fans might have suggested I should have equally rounded it down. I was simply making the point that a superior 800 runner has an advantage over Jakob at the finish if that runner has sufficient endurance - as Wightman showed he does.
Thank you for a well written and matter-of-factly answer. I kind of feel a little ashamed when you thus choose to be the bigger man (after my somewhat harsh post)…
You are of course right in your naming “that moon nonsense” -I didn’t write that to suggest you believe something like that, (or attempting to belittle you) but on the contrary to give you a nonsense example (I really thought you would regard as nonsense) to show how some of us regard to much confidence in things that can’t be proven. And you yourself have stated that athletes easily outsmart most of the testing -ergo the overall doping never can be proven…
Well, The Devil is in the details -I accuse you, and in fact most posters for being to simplistic in the arguments, but somewhat understand that this can be turned as a label on me too. -Maybe a thread about doping in near future can reveal better details and facts and arguments than we have seen so far from both sides….
Regarding Jakob’s speed: We just have to wait on an all out 800m race. And Wigtman’s pr is 1.43.65 and not 1.44..!
Yes, you are right about Wightman. I simply rounded his best up to 1.44 as an approximation. His fans might have suggested I should have equally rounded it down. I was simply making the point that a superior 800 runner has an advantage over Jakob at the finish if that runner has sufficient endurance - as Wightman showed he does.
Well you may be right in your reasoning about Wightman versus Ingebrigtsen. But you may also be wrong -Wightman has always had this unique shifting ability that is something else (than speed or endurance). The same is to be said about athletes like Yifter, Hocker and Kincaid. 2020 Wightman (loosing against Ingebrigtsen) compared to 2022 (winning): The latter Wightman had gained stamina (his improvement in 800m pb not key here)…
Yes, you are right about Wightman. I simply rounded his best up to 1.44 as an approximation. His fans might have suggested I should have equally rounded it down. I was simply making the point that a superior 800 runner has an advantage over Jakob at the finish if that runner has sufficient endurance - as Wightman showed he does.
Well you may be right in your reasoning about Wightman versus Ingebrigtsen. But you may also be wrong -Wightman has always had this unique shifting ability that is something else (than speed or endurance). The same is to be said about athletes like Yifter, Hocker and Kincaid. 2020 Wightman (loosing against Ingebrigtsen) compared to 2022 (winning): The latter Wightman had gained stamina (his improvement in 800m pb not key here)…
I am not arguing that Wightman is overall a better runner. He isn't. But the extra speed a runner like he has is an advantage in the 1500 in a close finish. That is the kind of speed Jakob doesn't have. To me, Jakob is more a Komen-like runner than an El G.
I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think the 1500m last year proved Jakob has a bad kick or insufficient speed or anything.
If you look at the splits, he really wasn’t closing much slower than Wightman (last 200- 27.34 vs 27.11; last 400- 55.24 vs 54.84).
I believe positioning was the deciding factor in that race, not raw speed. Jakob had a poor strategy, starting in the back, accelerating to the front and then decelerating, running a lot of the race in the outside lanes. Whereas Wightman had a perfect strategy, sticking with the top 3-4 the entire race and running the inside lane.
Jakob still outkicked guys like Kerr (low 1:45 PR) easily. I believe with a better strategy he’s capable of out kicking Wightman as well (although Wightman was a beast in that race and deserves all the credit in the world).
I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think the 1500m last year proved Jakob has a bad kick or insufficient speed or anything.
If you look at the splits, he really wasn’t closing much slower than Wightman (last 200- 27.34 vs 27.11; last 400- 55.24 vs 54.84).
I believe positioning was the deciding factor in that race, not raw speed. Jakob had a poor strategy, starting in the back, accelerating to the front and then decelerating, running a lot of the race in the outside lanes. Whereas Wightman had a perfect strategy, sticking with the top 3-4 the entire race and running the inside lane.
Jakob still outkicked guys like Kerr (low 1:45 PR) easily. I believe with a better strategy he’s capable of out kicking Wightman as well (although Wightman was a beast in that race and deserves all the credit in the world).
Well you may be right in your reasoning about Wightman versus Ingebrigtsen. But you may also be wrong -Wightman has always had this unique shifting ability that is something else (than speed or endurance). The same is to be said about athletes like Yifter, Hocker and Kincaid. 2020 Wightman (loosing against Ingebrigtsen) compared to 2022 (winning): The latter Wightman had gained stamina (his improvement in 800m pb not key here)…
I am not arguing that Wightman is overall a better runner. He isn't. But the extra speed a runner like he has is an advantage in the 1500 in a close finish. That is the kind of speed Jakob doesn't have. To me, Jakob is more a Komen-like runner than an El G.
I agree in your last sentence. But I think stamina and the ability to shift is more important than 800m speed last 200m of a 1500m.. -But what do I know….
You are - as always - too pessimistic when it comes to Jakob.
The good thing is that he might make you look silly within a short time when we can still remember your misjudgement.
I am rather certain he could run 1:44 in the 800m if he got into a race under good conditions right now.
That's over two full seconds faster than anything he has run over the distance. In the 800m - and in a mature athlete - that is a massive (and I would suggest unbridgeable) gulf. If you are "certain" he could do it, what do you base that certainty on? What has he run for the 400m to indicate that - or the 1000m? You are simply guessing.
He shows impressive finishing speed for a 5k runner but that is chiefly the product of his remarkable endurance. Amongst the best 1500m runners over history - and it's history he's being judged against, not his contemporaries - he is "slow". All the best had more speed - they had far better 800m performances - and speed is crucial to the very best 1500 runners.
He doesn't have the same speed as El G - who could run the last 800 in a 3.32 1500 faster than Jakob has ever done just for the 800 - and even if Jakob's endurance may be a fraction superior (as suggested by his 2 mile record) that won't be enough to compensate for that relative lack of speed. I believe to beat 3.26 he has to run too close to his aerobic limit for too long.
Ok I will try (once more) to explain why Jakob´s current 800m PB isn´t a reliable measure for his real potential:
1. If you only run 2 random early season 800m races within 3 years it is very unlikely that you hit your real potential.
2. Look at the real 800m runners rustbusters compared to their SBs. Can you find any examples where these times are close? I will help you:
I have taken the first 10 on the 2023 outdoor 800m ranking:
No. 1 Wanyonyi has only inproved marginally so far (he also started with a 1:43 time; but the season is not over yet).
The rest have improved between 5 sec (Roberts) and 1 sec (Murphy). The average improvement from their rustbuster is about 3 sec (and the season isn´t over yet).
3. Jakob´s PB (1:46.44) was run 3 years ago at age 19. He has clearly improved his speed since then. See his races from 1500m and up the last years. He is one of the fastest in the last 100m even if the pace is "modest" (as in DL Rabat). And as pointed out by others: Wightman didn´t destroy Jakob in the WC final last year. He beat Jakob narrowly after having saved his energy for his final burst. While Jakob had wasted some energy by holding off Tim.
4. Jakob´s 800m last year in Bergen was run under poor weather conditions where the winner Van Diepen and no 2 Deng was far from their SBs. 2.5 and 2 sec respectively.
5. Centro and Engels have run 1:44 and Jakob have outsprinted them time and again so why don´t you think Jakob at least can go 1:44 too?
----------------
But all this is theory. We can come back to this thread after the 1500m in DL Lausanne and DL Silesia. I think there is a good chance that Jakob will improve further in the 1500m independent of what we consider to be his 800m potential.
That's over two full seconds faster than anything he has run over the distance. In the 800m - and in a mature athlete - that is a massive (and I would suggest unbridgeable) gulf. If you are "certain" he could do it, what do you base that certainty on? What has he run for the 400m to indicate that - or the 1000m? You are simply guessing.
He shows impressive finishing speed for a 5k runner but that is chiefly the product of his remarkable endurance. Amongst the best 1500m runners over history - and it's history he's being judged against, not his contemporaries - he is "slow". All the best had more speed - they had far better 800m performances - and speed is crucial to the very best 1500 runners.
He doesn't have the same speed as El G - who could run the last 800 in a 3.32 1500 faster than Jakob has ever done just for the 800 - and even if Jakob's endurance may be a fraction superior (as suggested by his 2 mile record) that won't be enough to compensate for that relative lack of speed. I believe to beat 3.26 he has to run too close to his aerobic limit for too long.
Ok I will try (once more) to explain why Jakob´s current 800m PB isn´t a reliable measure for his real potential:
1. If you only run 2 random early season 800m races within 3 years it is very unlikely that you hit your real potential.
2. Look at the real 800m runners rustbusters compared to their SBs. Can you find any examples where these times are close? I will help you:
I have taken the first 10 on the 2023 outdoor 800m ranking:
No. 1 Wanyonyi has only inproved marginally so far (he also started with a 1:43 time; but the season is not over yet).
The rest have improved between 5 sec (Roberts) and 1 sec (Murphy). The average improvement from their rustbuster is about 3 sec (and the season isn´t over yet).
3. Jakob´s PB (1:46.44) was run 3 years ago at age 19. He has clearly improved his speed since then. See his races from 1500m and up the last years. He is one of the fastest in the last 100m even if the pace is "modest" (as in DL Rabat). And as pointed out by others: Wightman didn´t destroy Jakob in the WC final last year. He beat Jakob narrowly after having saved his energy for his final burst. While Jakob had wasted some energy by holding off Tim.
4. Jakob´s 800m last year in Bergen was run under poor weather conditions where the winner Van Diepen and no 2 Deng was far from their SBs. 2.5 and 2 sec respectively.
5. Centro and Engels have run 1:44 and Jakob have outsprinted them time and again so why don´t you think Jakob at least can go 1:44 too?
----------------
But all this is theory. We can come back to this thread after the 1500m in DL Lausanne and DL Silesia. I think there is a good chance that Jakob will improve further in the 1500m independent of what we consider to be his 800m potential.
J Ingebrigtsen has never outsprinted Matt C or C Engels. Stating J Ingebrigtsen outsprinted Matt C & C Engels is like stating Soviet Union Out Blitzed Germany. J Ingebrigtsen is not John Walker 2.0. John Walker, Matt C and C Engels, all legit 1:44.xx 800m men. If J Ingebrigtsen were a legit sub-1:45 800m man, J Ingebrigtsen would not be afraid to allow 1500m races to split 1200m slower than 3 minutes.
J Ingebrigtsen fanatics have moved away from J Ingebrigtsen breaking 1500m w.r. to now, all you gals & guys can say: there is a good chance J Ingebrigtsen will improve ...
Ok I will try (once more) to explain why Jakob´s current 800m PB isn´t a reliable measure for his real potential:
1. If you only run 2 random early season 800m races within 3 years it is very unlikely that you hit your real potential.
2. Look at the real 800m runners rustbusters compared to their SBs. Can you find any examples where these times are close? I will help you:
I have taken the first 10 on the 2023 outdoor 800m ranking:
No. 1 Wanyonyi has only inproved marginally so far (he also started with a 1:43 time; but the season is not over yet).
The rest have improved between 5 sec (Roberts) and 1 sec (Murphy). The average improvement from their rustbuster is about 3 sec (and the season isn´t over yet).
3. Jakob´s PB (1:46.44) was run 3 years ago at age 19. He has clearly improved his speed since then. See his races from 1500m and up the last years. He is one of the fastest in the last 100m even if the pace is "modest" (as in DL Rabat). And as pointed out by others: Wightman didn´t destroy Jakob in the WC final last year. He beat Jakob narrowly after having saved his energy for his final burst. While Jakob had wasted some energy by holding off Tim.
4. Jakob´s 800m last year in Bergen was run under poor weather conditions where the winner Van Diepen and no 2 Deng was far from their SBs. 2.5 and 2 sec respectively.
5. Centro and Engels have run 1:44 and Jakob have outsprinted them time and again so why don´t you think Jakob at least can go 1:44 too?
----------------
But all this is theory. We can come back to this thread after the 1500m in DL Lausanne and DL Silesia. I think there is a good chance that Jakob will improve further in the 1500m independent of what we consider to be his 800m potential.
J Ingebrigtsen has never outsprinted Matt C or C Engels. Stating J Ingebrigtsen outsprinted Matt C & C Engels is like stating Soviet Union Out Blitzed Germany. J Ingebrigtsen is not John Walker 2.0. John Walker, Matt C and C Engels, all legit 1:44.xx 800m men. If J Ingebrigtsen were a legit sub-1:45 800m man, J Ingebrigtsen would not be afraid to allow 1500m races to split 1200m slower than 3 minutes.
J Ingebrigtsen fanatics have moved away from J Ingebrigtsen breaking 1500m w.r. to now, all you gals & guys can say: there is a good chance J Ingebrigtsen will improve ...
All true enough. I was amused at your last sentence.
The "argumentation", as you put it, would take most of the thread. But everything that is known about doping says the very best sporting performances now can't be achieved without it. I have followed the sport for decades. I have seen what drugs have done to this and so many other sports. WADA puts track up there with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for doping. Only the most naive follower of any of those sports would think the winners are clean.
Can you clarify what you believe WADA is telling us?
This association with bodybuilding looks like some new stat that you made up that you want to give credit to WADA, in order to demonize track and field further - a sport you've apparently grown to hate. Do you have a real quote or source from WADA putting Track and Field "up there with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for doping"? Otherwise, to be clear, this is "Armstronglivs" putting them together.
I guess you mean total ADRVs in annual reports. The main reason Track and Field finds so many positives is that there are a lot more track and field athletes under-going a lot more tests. Of the top-5 sports, the likelihood of testing positive resulting in an ADRV, per sample tested, is the lowest in athletics, and the next lowest in cycling. Both are far lower than the power sports.
In 2019 (the last year with data, before COVID), the top-doped sport of Bodybuilding conducted only 1,339 tests versus Athletics conducting 34,576, or about 25x more, tests. Yet Bodybuilding had 217 ADRVs versus Athletics' 173. Whatever category you now want to believe WADA puts them in, a Bodybuilding sample is 32x more likely to result in an ADRV than Athletics. Curiously, India has about 26% of the Bodybuilding ADRVs. I'm not a fan, but does India outperform the Bodybuilding world by that much?
In 2019, three of the top-5 doped WADA sports are Bodybuilding, Weightlifting, and Powerlifting. Compare that specialization of gym related sports to athletics, an umbrella federation which combines track and road and field, with disparate running (sprints, middle, and long distance), walking, and throwing and jumping events. Cycling and athletics are in the top-5 by virtue of having so many athletes competing and being tested.
As a percentage of samples tested, cycling (24,577) and athletics (34,576) were the least likely to result in an ADRV, with 139 and 173 ADRVs, respectively. In fact, these endurance sports were about the average of all Olympic sports. (Non-Olympic sports have a significantly higher average, about 4x more). Compared to Athletics, Body-building (1,339) was 32x more likely (217), Weightlifting (12,849) was admirably just 2x more likely (137), and Powerlifting was 4.5x more likely (97). Cycling was slightly more likely, at 1.14x, than Athletics.
The "argumentation", as you put it, would take most of the thread. But everything that is known about doping says the very best sporting performances now can't be achieved without it. I have followed the sport for decades. I have seen what drugs have done to this and so many other sports. WADA puts track up there with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for doping. Only the most naive follower of any of those sports would think the winners are clean.
Can you clarify what you believe WADA is telling us?
This association with bodybuilding looks like some new stat that you made up that you want to give credit to WADA, in order to demonize track and field further - a sport you've apparently grown to hate. Do you have a real quote or source from WADA putting Track and Field "up there with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for doping"? Otherwise, to be clear, this is "Armstronglivs" putting them together.
I guess you mean total ADRVs in annual reports. The main reason Track and Field finds so many positives is that there are a lot more track and field athletes under-going a lot more tests. Of the top-5 sports, the likelihood of testing positive resulting in an ADRV, per sample tested, is the lowest in athletics, and the next lowest in cycling. Both are far lower than the power sports.
In 2019 (the last year with data, before COVID), the top-doped sport of Bodybuilding conducted only 1,339 tests versus Athletics conducting 34,576, or about 25x more, tests. Yet Bodybuilding had 217 ADRVs versus Athletics' 173. Whatever category you now want to believe WADA puts them in, a Bodybuilding sample is 32x more likely to result in an ADRV than Athletics. Curiously, India has about 26% of the Bodybuilding ADRVs. I'm not a fan, but does India outperform the Bodybuilding world by that much?
In 2019, three of the top-5 doped WADA sports are Bodybuilding, Weightlifting, and Powerlifting. Compare that specialization of gym related sports to athletics, an umbrella federation which combines track and road and field, with disparate running (sprints, middle, and long distance), walking, and throwing and jumping events. Cycling and athletics are in the top-5 by virtue of having so many athletes competing and being tested.
As a percentage of samples tested, cycling (24,577) and athletics (34,576) were the least likely to result in an ADRV, with 139 and 173 ADRVs, respectively. In fact, these endurance sports were about the average of all Olympic sports. (Non-Olympic sports have a significantly higher average, about 4x more). Compared to Athletics, Body-building (1,339) was 32x more likely (217), Weightlifting (12,849) was admirably just 2x more likely (137), and Powerlifting was 4.5x more likely (97). Cycling was slightly more likely, at 1.14x, than Athletics.
The usual verbal smokescreen. I read it from WADA that it viewed T and F as being at the same risk of doping as weightlifting, bodybuilding and cycling - some of the worst doping offenders - in the Olympics and world championships. Debating such points with you in detail - indeed debating anything with you - is a complete waste of time, so I won't.
The usual verbal smokescreen. I read it from WADA that it viewed T and F as being at the same risk of doping as weightlifting, bodybuilding and cycling - some of the worst doping offenders - in the Olympics and world championships. Debating such points with you in detail - indeed debating anything with you - is a complete waste of time, so I won't.
So effectively, your answer is that you cannot clarify what you believe WADA is telling us.
As everyone can now see, it is not "the same risk of doping", and WADA in fact tells us no such thing. This is all about what you read from WADA and how you view it, and pretending WADA also shares your view.
The usual verbal smokescreen. I read it from WADA that it viewed T and F as being at the same risk of doping as weightlifting, bodybuilding and cycling - some of the worst doping offenders - in the Olympics and world championships. Debating such points with you in detail - indeed debating anything with you - is a complete waste of time, so I won't.
So effectively, your answer is that you cannot clarify what you believe WADA is telling us.
As everyone can now see, it is not "the same risk of doping", and WADA in fact tells us no such thing. This is all about what you read from WADA and how you view it, and pretending WADA also shares your view.
I don't have to clarify it - it is clear enough as it is, except to one who struggles to understand any of this, as you obviously do.
It further shows that if you haven't read it (and WADA did say it, which is why I noted it) it couldn't have been said - which fits perfectly with your extreme solipsism. Nothing exists outside your very limited version of reality.
No need to take up any of the thread with talk about bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. Can you tell us in one reply, some of what it is that is known by whom about doping and the very best performances?
I just have. Do you think the best athletes in those sports will be clean? WADA puts T and F in the same category. Clue: drugs are performance enhancing. Second clue: as only 1% of tests return a positive but confidential athlete surveys show around 50% or even higher are doping most dopers are never caught. 3rd clue: obviously doped records are now being beaten.
Great! I see I've just tapped into the mother lode of sport knowledge. Thanks for telling me you really have nothing more to say. Wouldn't want to waste too much of my time if you don't really know what time it is.
The only "whom" in your response is WADA, and they are just rule makers and host a central database. They don't really know anything about the performance side of the equation, except that about 1% of performers test positive. But from that 1% catch rate, and a survey that says 50-50 are clean-dirty, but not which is which, WADA knows that "the very best sporting performances now can't be achieved without it".
Ok I will try (once more) to explain why Jakob´s current 800m PB isn´t a reliable measure for his real potential:
1. If you only run 2 random early season 800m races within 3 years it is very unlikely that you hit your real potential.
2. Look at the real 800m runners rustbusters compared to their SBs. Can you find any examples where these times are close? I will help you:
I have taken the first 10 on the 2023 outdoor 800m ranking:
No. 1 Wanyonyi has only inproved marginally so far (he also started with a 1:43 time; but the season is not over yet).
The rest have improved between 5 sec (Roberts) and 1 sec (Murphy). The average improvement from their rustbuster is about 3 sec (and the season isn´t over yet).
3. Jakob´s PB (1:46.44) was run 3 years ago at age 19. He has clearly improved his speed since then. See his races from 1500m and up the last years. He is one of the fastest in the last 100m even if the pace is "modest" (as in DL Rabat). And as pointed out by others: Wightman didn´t destroy Jakob in the WC final last year. He beat Jakob narrowly after having saved his energy for his final burst. While Jakob had wasted some energy by holding off Tim.
4. Jakob´s 800m last year in Bergen was run under poor weather conditions where the winner Van Diepen and no 2 Deng was far from their SBs. 2.5 and 2 sec respectively.
5. Centro and Engels have run 1:44 and Jakob have outsprinted them time and again so why don´t you think Jakob at least can go 1:44 too?
----------------
But all this is theory. We can come back to this thread after the 1500m in DL Lausanne and DL Silesia. I think there is a good chance that Jakob will improve further in the 1500m independent of what we consider to be his 800m potential.
J Ingebrigtsen has never outsprinted Matt C or C Engels. Stating J Ingebrigtsen outsprinted Matt C & C Engels is like stating Soviet Union Out Blitzed Germany. J Ingebrigtsen is not John Walker 2.0. John Walker, Matt C and C Engels, all legit 1:44.xx 800m men. If J Ingebrigtsen were a legit sub-1:45 800m man, J Ingebrigtsen would not be afraid to allow 1500m races to split 1200m slower than 3 minutes.
J Ingebrigtsen fanatics have moved away from J Ingebrigtsen breaking 1500m w.r. to now, all you gals & guys can say: there is a good chance J Ingebrigtsen will improve ...
You could argue that Ingebrigtsen beating Centro and Engels at the end of 1500s is because of his superior strength and not his sprint speed, I’ll grant you that. But I see you always making this argument “If Ingebrigtsen could run sub-1:45, he wouldn’t be afraid to allow 1500m races to split 1200m slower than 3 minutes” and it makes ZERO sense. 1:44.9 isn’t special for a world class 1500 runner, but Jakob’s 3k/5k ability is. Why in the world would he let a 1500 dawdle at damn near his 5k pace and open the door for others to beat him when he could bury them earlier, or at least dull their kicks? That’s not evidence whatsoever that he can’t run sub-1:45, it only means he knows a fast pace gives him an advantage over other sub-1:45 guys.
Even John Walker was better at 2k than he was at 800, and he ran 3:32.4 on 1:44.9 800 speed. 3:32.4 is 4.5 seconds slower than Ingebrigtsen’s PB, if you haven’t noticed. More likely than not Jakob is in that same neighborhood over 800m, just with way better endurance.
I like the point objective observer made about 800 runners not running near their PBs every time out. Anyone who’s spent a lot of time of World Athletics profiles knows that most 800 specialists over the course of a season will run, say, 1:47.2 - 1:47.2 - 1:46.0 - 1:46.5 - 1:44.7 - 1:46.4 - 1:46.5 - 1:43.1 - 1:47.8 - 1:46.0 - 1:45.8 - 1:46.8 (Clayton Murphy, 2018)—so it’s not surprising Jakob wouldn’t hit his fastest potential 800 running it 4 times in the last 4 seasons (and two of those were rounds/finals at the Norwegian championships which he won, so they hardly count for anything).
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
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.