Awesome Jakob Ingebrigtsen profile in The Times: When I'm done, I want there to be no doubt I'm the GOAT.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Koltrast wrote:

You're just repeating what I said. Bolt is the best at the distances he runs, so is El G, the actual act of running that includes putting one foot in front of the other is the same whether you run 100m or the marathon.

If you can only excel at one specific distance then you're not a better runner than someone who can excel at several, you're just good at that one distance.

Wrong. The person who excels at several distances is NEVER as good as the best at one distance if they aren't the best at any one distance. They may be versatile but not the best at any one event. The GOAT debate isn't about versatility; it's about being the greatest ever runner. You can't enter that discussion if you aren't the best at at least one distance.

For those of you who think you understand what Jakob means when he says he wants to be the GOAT I'll ask you this: does he want to be the best ever runner of the double of the 1500-5k if that also means he is not the best ever at either distance? In other words, despite excelling at two distances he is always second best to the best at either distance. I doubt that he meant that or would accept that.

Koltrast wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wrong. The person who excels at several distances is NEVER as good as the best at one distance if they aren't the best at any one distance. They may be versatile but not the best at any one event. The GOAT debate isn't about versatility; it's about being the greatest ever runner. You can't enter that discussion if you aren't the best at at least one distance.

For those of you who think you understand what Jakob means when he says he wants to be the GOAT I'll ask you this: does he want to be the best ever runner of the double of the 1500-5k if that also means he is not the best ever at either distance? In other words, despite excelling at two distances he is always second best to the best at either distance. I doubt that he meant that or would accept that.

Being the best at one specific distance is not a requirement to be the best runner if you're sufficiently good at a multitude of other distances. The 1500 is Jakobs worst event by his own admission and yet he's an Olympic champion and has the 5 fastest European times in history.

Hence why Sifan Hassan is the best women's runner, not someone who only excels at one distance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Koltrast wrote:

Being the best at one specific distance is not a requirement to be the best runner if you're sufficiently good at a multitude of other distances. The 1500 is Jakobs worst event by his own admission and yet he's an Olympic champion and has the 5 fastest European times in history.

Hence why Sifan Hassan is the best women's runner, not someone who only excels at one distance.

You have arbitrarily defined the best runner as someone with range, who is nevertheless not the best at any one event. I don't think the definition of the greatest ever runner is usually taken to apply to someone who wasn't the best at any one event. That is especially so when the judgement is not simply of a runner against their peers but how they compare in the history of the sport. Hence, to enter this debate an athlete has to be both an Olympic champion and a world record holder in that or a related event (when the mile was run more often than the metric distance) and to have been the undoubted best in that event amongst their peers. Being good at other events is a bonus but not essential to that debate.

However, I will add another fact that casts a different light on this discussion. A wide range is a feature of athletes in this century in particular. It is chiefly enabled by doping. So your criterion for what is the best athlete is a likely product of doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

objectiveobserver wrote:

YOU are either an idiot or VERY senile.

I wrote initially "that I agree (with another poster) that Jakob is not the goat yet".

In your confusion you think you argue against me but in reality you agree with me that Jakob is not the goat.

Then I state that he is the best ever at the age of TWENTYTWO from 1500 to 5000 with 3 golds and 3 silvers. That is what you should relate to. You can of course try to argue that Herb Elliott´s performance was superior even though he was only running in the 1500m and the mile. BUT YOU DIDN´T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE SUBJECT.

What Elliott ran in the 800m is irrelevant for this discussion.

I don´t expect you to admit your mistake.

But I trust most other posters understand.

I didn't misunderstand the subject but you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point. As I keep saying, it is both arbitrary and irrelevant to say Jakob is the best ever at a combination of distances if he is demonstrably not the best at one. That is why I introduced the example of Elliott. (I also didn't include the 880 as a measure of Elliott's superiority over Jakob, only to include it as one of the events he won at the Cardiff Empire Games). I don't agree with your criteria for greatness - and especially as you chose to define it by a certain age.

So I haven't made a mistake; I don't agree with you and the other plodders arguing an all-rounder, who isn't the best at any one event, beats the best specialist for greatness. In any case, it will not be what Jakob means. With his ego he expects to be the best at every event he competes in - until "the next guy" comes along.

objectiveobserver wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't misunderstand the subject but you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point. As I keep saying, it is both arbitrary and irrelevant to say Jakob is the best ever at a combination of distances if he is demonstrably not the best at one. That is why I introduced the example of Elliott. (I also didn't include the 880 as a measure of Elliott's superiority over Jakob, only to include it as one of the events he won at the Cardiff Empire Games). I don't agree with your criteria for greatness - and especially as you chose to define it by a certain age.

So I haven't made a mistake; I don't agree with you and the other plodders arguing an all-rounder, who isn't the best at any one event, beats the best specialist for greatness. In any case, it will not be what Jakob means. With his ego he expects to be the best at every event he competes in - until "the next guy" comes along.

Dear Armstrong

I give up.

I think you a reading problem.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Koltrast wrote:

Being the best at one specific distance is not a requirement to be the best runner if you're sufficiently good at a multitude of other distances. The 1500 is Jakobs worst event by his own admission and yet he's an Olympic champion and has the 5 fastest European times in history.

Hence why Sifan Hassan is the best women's runner, not someone who only excels at one distance.

You have arbitrarily defined the best runner as someone with range, who is nevertheless not the best at any one event. I don't think the definition of the greatest ever runner is usually taken to apply to someone who wasn't the best at any one event. That is especially so when the judgement is not simply of a runner against their peers but how they compare in the history of the sport. Hence, to enter this debate an athlete has to be both an Olympic champion and a world record holder in that or a related event (when the mile was run more often than the metric distance) and to have been the undoubted best in that event amongst their peers. Being good at other events is a bonus but not essential to that debate.

However, I will add another fact that casts a different light on this discussion. A wide range is a feature of athletes in this century in particular. It is chiefly enabled by doping. So your criterion for what is the best athlete is a likely product of doping.

Koltrast wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have arbitrarily defined the best runner as someone with range, who is nevertheless not the best at any one event. I don't think the definition of the greatest ever runner is usually taken to apply to someone who wasn't the best at any one event. That is especially so when the judgement is not simply of a runner against their peers but how they compare in the history of the sport. Hence, to enter this debate an athlete has to be both an Olympic champion and a world record holder in that or a related event (when the mile was run more often than the metric distance) and to have been the undoubted best in that event amongst their peers. Being good at other events is a bonus but not essential to that debate.

However, I will add another fact that casts a different light on this discussion. A wide range is a feature of athletes in this century in particular. It is chiefly enabled by doping. So your criterion for what is the best athlete is a likely product of doping.

There's nothing arbitrary about claiming the best runner is the person with the best range, because running consists of a range of different events, not one event. Arbitrary would be claiming Mondo Duplantis is the best high jumper in the world because both sports consists of jumping over a bar.

How do you decide if the person with an Olympic gold and WR in the 1500 is a better runner than a runner with an Olympic gold and WR in the 10k is the better runner? And are they better than a runner with a silver medal in both 1500 and 10k and a top 10 time in both events? Which woman is a better runner than Sifan Hassan?

objectiveobserver wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't misunderstand the subject but you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point. As I keep saying, it is both arbitrary and irrelevant to say Jakob is the best ever at a combination of distances if he is demonstrably not the best at one. That is why I introduced the example of Elliott. (I also didn't include the 880 as a measure of Elliott's superiority over Jakob, only to include it as one of the events he won at the Cardiff Empire Games). I don't agree with your criteria for greatness - and especially as you chose to define it by a certain age.

So I haven't made a mistake; I don't agree with you and the other plodders arguing an all-rounder, who isn't the best at any one event, beats the best specialist for greatness. In any case, it will not be what Jakob means. With his ego he expects to be the best at every event he competes in - until "the next guy" comes along.

Dear Armstrong

I give up.

I think you a reading problem.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Koltrast wrote:

There's nothing arbitrary about claiming the best runner is the person with the best range, because running consists of a range of different events, not one event. Arbitrary would be claiming Mondo Duplantis is the best high jumper in the world because both sports consists of jumping over a bar.

How do you decide if the person with an Olympic gold and WR in the 1500 is a better runner than a runner with an Olympic gold and WR in the 10k is the better runner? And are they better than a runner with a silver medal in both 1500 and 10k and a top 10 time in both events? Which woman is a better runner than Sifan Hassan?

You confuse running as a sport, which has a range of events, with the runners themselves, who typically specialise at one event. The best in history at any event usually specialised in that event and maybe one other. That applies from the sprints to the marathon. Despite his successes, Jakob is clearly not the best in history at either of his two events. As other runners have been better than him at the events he competes in he cannot so far be the greatest runner ever.