The explanation is that they were beaten by an a better competitor on the day. That's what winning is. All the post-match post race analysis and "what ifs" change nothing and are merely the concern of fans who may have wished for a different result.
Wrong. When Clarke fell he wasn't beaten by a better competitor. You really are dumb.
A fall needs an "explanation"?
What similarly doesn't require explanation is the low intellectual level of most posters on these threads; it is the norm. I look on coming to these running threads as a form of "slumming it" intellectually. I can always depend on finding you here.
Wrong. When Clarke fell he wasn't beaten by a better competitor. You really are dumb.
A fall needs an "explanation"?
What similarly doesn't require explanation is the low intellectual level of most posters on these threads; it is the norm. I look on coming to these running threads as a form of "slumming it" intellectually. I can always depend on finding you here.
More insults. Keep them coming. Bring that frustration out.
What an unbelievable nonsense. Ron Clarke, 12 competitions at the Commonwealth Games and the Olmpics - zero wins. Despite numerous world records. No need for any explanation? Just: He was beaten. The explanation why some favourite was beaten is: he/she was beaten. 1974: Ali has beaten Foreman - nothing more to read in world press as: Foreman was beaten 1981: McEnroe has beaten Borg - nothing more to read in world press as: Borg was beaten 1996: Morceli has beaten El Guerrouj - nothing more to read in world press as: El Guerrouj was beaten.
Sport is reduced here to listing the result: 1st, 2nd, 3rd... - any additional comment is totally useless. Armstrong tops himself here by some margin.
The explanation is that they were beaten by an a better competitor on the day. That's what winning is. All the post-match post race analysis and "what ifs" change nothing and are merely the concern of fans who may have wished for a different result.
So the sport papers all over the world are full of discussing some outcoms. Why? What if? Could have? ...
Armstrong: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - NOTHING MORE.
For sure the winner not always was the better competitor on the day. One centimiter can decide a football match in last minute. Big part for sure is also just luck.
What is between the coach and an athlete is between them. But a public "explanation" by an athlete for a loss is that they were beaten by a better athlete on the day. Anything else is an excuse.
Well, I admit you have got a point here -the explanations could have been done in a better way sometimes. But I think you demand a much higher perfectionism from Jakob, than almost every other…
The explanation is that they were beaten by an a better competitor on the day. That's what winning is. All the post-match post race analysis and "what ifs" change nothing and are merely the concern of fans who may have wished for a different result.
So the sport papers all over the world are full of discussing some outcoms. Why? What if? Could have? ...
Armstrong: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - NOTHING MORE.
For sure the winner not always was the better competitor on the day. One centimiter can decide a football match in last minute. Big part for sure is also just luck.
Like most here you missed my point completely. I said we don't need "explanations" for losses from runners but that doesn't mean commentators and others can't have views about the race.
What is between the coach and an athlete is between them. But a public "explanation" by an athlete for a loss is that they were beaten by a better athlete on the day. Anything else is an excuse.
Well, I admit you have got a point here -the explanations could have been done in a better way sometimes. But I think you demand a much higher perfectionism from Jakob, than almost every other…
I don't demand "perfectionism" from Jakob; I would simply like to see some degree of sportsmanship from him.
Wrong. When Clarke fell he wasn't beaten by a better competitor. You really are dumb.
A fall needs an "explanation"?
What similarly doesn't require explanation is the low intellectual level of most posters on these threads; it is the norm. I look on coming to these running threads as a form of "slumming it" intellectually. I can always depend on finding you here.
When you type this, do you feel better about yourself afterwards?
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
What similarly doesn't require explanation is the low intellectual level of most posters on these threads; it is the norm. I look on coming to these running threads as a form of "slumming it" intellectually. I can always depend on finding you here.
When you type this, do you really feel better about yourself afterwards?
Any maybe an equally pressing question, how do you feel they line up with your judgement on whether certain athletes behave in an acceptable matter or not? Would any of the athletes saying those things about their competitors get a pass from you?
So the sport papers all over the world are full of discussing some outcoms. Why? What if? Could have? ...
Armstrong: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - NOTHING MORE.
For sure the winner not always was the better competitor on the day. One centimiter can decide a football match in last minute. Big part for sure is also just luck.
Like most here you missed my point completely. I said we don't need "explanations" for losses from runners but that doesn't mean commentators and others can't have views about the race.
If "most" constantly miss your points completely, that means you are not a good communicator.
That is not what I said… at all. You really have the worst reading comprehension. You do realize the human physiology has a finish sprinting capability? And when todays races come closer to the athletes top speeds, their kicks/gear shifts will be severely diminished because the difference between their racing speed and sprint speed are way smaller? Thats why your heroes have «bigger gear shifts», because their race speed was way slower. Lmk if you need further explanation.
You miss the point. A kick isn't only a kick off a slow pace. But you always miss the point.
Unbeliavable... How are you this daft yet this arrogant. If you read what you comment to, I am referring both to kicks?? The whole POINT, which is a word Im starting to realize you dont know what means, is that the difference of acceleration from a kick when you compare a slow race to a fast race, is vastly different. STILL kicks. But the kicks are DIFFERENT IN MAGNITUDE. As an example, going from 20km/h to 26km/h is a huge difference from going from 25km/h to 26km/h. Understand? I really dont know how to spoonfeed you this in a greater way. If you still misunderstand this sentiment I really dont know how to explain you differently. If you actually have a counterargument to the point that doesnt include not understanding basic sentences Im all ears.
What similarly doesn't require explanation is the low intellectual level of most posters on these threads; it is the norm. I look on coming to these running threads as a form of "slumming it" intellectually. I can always depend on finding you here.
When you type this, do you feel better about yourself afterwards?
I don't need to. But I feel sorry for many of you.
Like most here you missed my point completely. I said we don't need "explanations" for losses from runners but that doesn't mean commentators and others can't have views about the race.
If "most" constantly miss your points completely, that means you are not a good communicator.
You miss the point. A kick isn't only a kick off a slow pace. But you always miss the point.
Unbeliavable... How are you this daft yet this arrogant. If you read what you comment to, I am referring both to kicks?? The whole POINT, which is a word Im starting to realize you dont know what means, is that the difference of acceleration from a kick when you compare a slow race to a fast race, is vastly different. STILL kicks. But the kicks are DIFFERENT IN MAGNITUDE. As an example, going from 20km/h to 26km/h is a huge difference from going from 25km/h to 26km/h. Understand? I really dont know how to spoonfeed you this in a greater way. If you still misunderstand this sentiment I really dont know how to explain you differently. If you actually have a counterargument to the point that doesnt include not understanding basic sentences Im all ears.
I haven't argued that there is no difference of magnitude between a kick off a slow pace and a kick off a fast pace. Of course there will be. But it isn't relevant to the point that great kickers can have that relative superiority off a fast as well as a slow pace. A kick isn't confined to slow pace races.
When you type this, do you really feel better about yourself afterwards?
Any maybe an equally pressing question, how do you feel they line up with your judgement on whether certain athletes behave in an acceptable matter or not? Would any of the athletes saying those things about their competitors get a pass from you?
I will answer that by referring to history. A lesson in how great runners respond after a race came from Bannister and Landy after "the Miracle Mile" in Vancouver '54. Bannister spoke of what he needed to do, to stay close enough to Landy, and how he had to be at his very best to beat him, while Landy said when he hadn't been able to break Bannister before the finish he knew he couldn't win. He said he gave it his best, it wasn't good enough and "the better man won on the day". Each runner graciously acknowledged the quality of the other. Yet each also had excuses - if they had wanted them. Bannister ran with a heavy cold and Landy had cut his foot. Neither mentioned these. Their post race comments were not an "explanation", as such, but an acknowledgement of what they had to do and tried to do and the quality of their rival. They were great sportsmen as well as great runners. Athletes today could learn from that.
Unbeliavable... How are you this daft yet this arrogant. If you read what you comment to, I am referring both to kicks?? The whole POINT, which is a word Im starting to realize you dont know what means, is that the difference of acceleration from a kick when you compare a slow race to a fast race, is vastly different. STILL kicks. But the kicks are DIFFERENT IN MAGNITUDE. As an example, going from 20km/h to 26km/h is a huge difference from going from 25km/h to 26km/h. Understand? I really dont know how to spoonfeed you this in a greater way. If you still misunderstand this sentiment I really dont know how to explain you differently. If you actually have a counterargument to the point that doesnt include not understanding basic sentences Im all ears.
I haven't argued that there is no difference of magnitude between a kick off a slow pace and a kick off a fast pace. Of course there will be. But it isn't relevant to the point that great kickers can have that relative superiority off a fast as well as a slow pace. A kick isn't confined to slow pace races.
Great! You are now one step further. You understand to some extent that there is a difference in magnitude, even though you still feel the need to extinguish how a kick isnt confined to slow pace races, which is quite redundant when you can see that exact sentiment in the comment you are replying to. Anyways, you are grasping some new knowledge at least.
Now, are you able to see, also at some extent, the flaw in reasoning when you refer to specific runners as way better kickers(as an absolute) when we have never even seen them kick in races as fast as the ones today? Because they will of course appear to be greater kickers than Kerr,Wightman etc., when the races were slower.