Your theory is still illogical. Jakob wouldn't have wasted energy going for the lead at the bell if he thought he could easily beat Aregawi at the end.
Kerr wasn't the only one who ran at Millrose. If Jakob said he could beat Kerr blindfolded, the claim applies to everyone else in that field. Jakob's claim looked silly when Kerr beat him the next time they raced, in Eugene.
Jakob also said the Paris Olympics would be a "walk in the park." His claim looked silly again when Hocker, Kerr, and Nuguse beat him.
Jakob can say whatever he wants, but actions, times, and outcomes speak louder than words.
Actions - Jakob tried to get into the lead by 2500 and again at the bell. Those aren't the actions of someone conserving energy and thinking he can easily win in the final meters.
Times - Kerr had a faster close off a faster split. Kerr's finish time was 10.53 seconds faster than Jakob's.
Outcomes - Shortly after Jakob's heavy indoor racing schedule concluded (7 races in 18 days in 2 continents), he got injured and hasn't been the same since.
1) You have clearly never raced at a professional level. I have. Pushing hard for a whole lap expends more energy than waiting until the last 50 to pass someone. Facts.
2) Everyone else in the race was irrelevant at the time. The claim is irrelevant to a Mile when the discussion was a Two Mile. Keep reaching though.
3) Jakob said the European Championships would be a walk in the park, not the Olympics.
4) Once again they are are the actions of somebody conserving energy. He would have ran far faster if necessary but he has a good energy awareness for Aregawi.
5) Kerr barely closed faster while going all out. Jakob finished far faster than Kerr in a race 12 seconds faster while in similar fitness. Jakob is a far better 3000m runner than Kerr.
6) Now you are bringing in injury when that could be due to a million causes. Now that we know you are desperately trying to bring excuses out of everywhere, we know you are losing.
1) I don't care about your racing experience. Jakob very clearly made two different attempts to seize the lead. Those attempts cost him energy. He wouldn't have made those attempts if he thought he could just easily win at the end. Facts.
2) Jakob's blindfolded comment was obviously an exaggeration, whether it's about a Two Mile or One Mile. You said, "I'd agree that he'd beat Kerr blindfolded." That is insane. Your agreement with his blindfolded claim can only mean one of two things. You are either being disingenuous or you have such an inflated perception of Jakob that you are beyond reason.
3) You are wrong again. Jakob made the walk in the park comment about the Paris Olympic 1500m race. Citius Mag had an article about it.
4) Obviously Jakob did not have good energy awareness of Aregawi because he went for the lead and Aregawi held him off.
5) Kerr had the better close of the two world indoor championship races being compared.
6) I previously said Jakob was on the verge of physical breakdown in Nanjing. That's a relevant point for evaluating his condition in that race. It's more relevant than you bringing up a different type of race from 2023.
7) You asked which race I would rather be in if I was an elite runner trying to win. It'd be objectively harder to close faster than what Kerr ran off his 2800 split.
8) Kerr had the better WIC 3k performance against a better field.
9) Kerr now has more global gold medals in Jakob's signature event than Jakob has.
1) You have clearly never raced at a professional level. I have. Pushing hard for a whole lap expends more energy than waiting until the last 50 to pass someone. Facts.
2) Everyone else in the race was irrelevant at the time. The claim is irrelevant to a Mile when the discussion was a Two Mile. Keep reaching though.
3) Jakob said the European Championships would be a walk in the park, not the Olympics.
4) Once again they are are the actions of somebody conserving energy. He would have ran far faster if necessary but he has a good energy awareness for Aregawi.
5) Kerr barely closed faster while going all out. Jakob finished far faster than Kerr in a race 12 seconds faster while in similar fitness. Jakob is a far better 3000m runner than Kerr.
6) Now you are bringing in injury when that could be due to a million causes. Now that we know you are desperately trying to bring excuses out of everywhere, we know you are losing.
1) I don't care about your racing experience. Jakob very clearly made two different attempts to seize the lead. Those attempts cost him energy. He wouldn't have made those attempts if he thought he could just easily win at the end. Facts.
2) Jakob's blindfolded comment was obviously an exaggeration, whether it's about a Two Mile or One Mile. You said, "I'd agree that he'd beat Kerr blindfolded." That is insane. Your agreement with his blindfolded claim can only mean one of two things. You are either being disingenuous or you have such an inflated perception of Jakob that you are beyond reason.
3) You are wrong again. Jakob made the walk in the park comment about the Paris Olympic 1500m race. Citius Mag had an article about it.
4) Obviously Jakob did not have good energy awareness of Aregawi because he went for the lead and Aregawi held him off.
5) Kerr had the better close of the two world indoor championship races being compared.
6) I previously said Jakob was on the verge of physical breakdown in Nanjing. That's a relevant point for evaluating his condition in that race. It's more relevant than you bringing up a different type of race from 2023.
7) You asked which race I would rather be in if I was an elite runner trying to win. It'd be objectively harder to close faster than what Kerr ran off his 2800 split.
8) Kerr had the better WIC 3k performance against a better field.
9) Kerr now has more global gold medals in Jakob's signature event than Jakob has.
10) You've lost.
1) You are being willfully ignorant now. If you can't see that he was conserving energy there is nothing I can say anymore. 2) It is a slight exagerration but it was a play on words that he would easily beat Kerr in a time trial 2 Mile, which has evidence supporting it. It is not completely unreasonable. This is just another case of you being willfully ignorant. 3) The original source was from a European Athletics Podcast where Jakob was talking about the European Championships. CitiusMag was known for making sensationalist posts in order to garner attention. 4) Jakob had very good energy awareness as he knew that he could put a small surge with 50 to go and easily pass him, expending less energy than if he had pushed the whole way around the track. 5) Only because Kerr had to go all out while Jakob didn't. 6) Jakob sustained an Achilles injury weeks after his World Indoor Championship. That could have been for any reason that we don't know about. Simply irrelevant. 7) It's harder to beat a guy who is widely considering the greatest at 3000m and is undefeated in distances above 1500/Mile when healthy. 8) Jakob’s race was harder to win because the best athlete in the event was in it. Josh Kerr had to survive a compressed race and execute a perfect close. Jakob was simply cruising on the last lap. 9) Nobody cares about World Indoors. So the fact that you are so adamant in discrediting Jakob is hilarious. Quite a low bar. 10) You've lost.
1) I don't care about your racing experience. Jakob very clearly made two different attempts to seize the lead. Those attempts cost him energy. He wouldn't have made those attempts if he thought he could just easily win at the end. Facts.
2) Jakob's blindfolded comment was obviously an exaggeration, whether it's about a Two Mile or One Mile. You said, "I'd agree that he'd beat Kerr blindfolded." That is insane. Your agreement with his blindfolded claim can only mean one of two things. You are either being disingenuous or you have such an inflated perception of Jakob that you are beyond reason.
3) You are wrong again. Jakob made the walk in the park comment about the Paris Olympic 1500m race. Citius Mag had an article about it.
4) Obviously Jakob did not have good energy awareness of Aregawi because he went for the lead and Aregawi held him off.
5) Kerr had the better close of the two world indoor championship races being compared.
6) I previously said Jakob was on the verge of physical breakdown in Nanjing. That's a relevant point for evaluating his condition in that race. It's more relevant than you bringing up a different type of race from 2023.
7) You asked which race I would rather be in if I was an elite runner trying to win. It'd be objectively harder to close faster than what Kerr ran off his 2800 split.
8) Kerr had the better WIC 3k performance against a better field.
9) Kerr now has more global gold medals in Jakob's signature event than Jakob has.
10) You've lost.
1) You are being willfully ignorant now. If you can't see that he was conserving energy there is nothing I can say anymore. 2) It is a slight exagerration but it was a play on words that he would easily beat Kerr in a time trial 2 Mile, which has evidence supporting it. It is not completely unreasonable. This is just another case of you being willfully ignorant. 3) The original source was from a European Athletics Podcast where Jakob was talking about the European Championships. CitiusMag was known for making sensationalist posts in order to garner attention. 4) Jakob had very good energy awareness as he knew that he could put a small surge with 50 to go and easily pass him, expending less energy than if he had pushed the whole way around the track. 5) Only because Kerr had to go all out while Jakob didn't. 6) Jakob sustained an Achilles injury weeks after his World Indoor Championship. That could have been for any reason that we don't know about. Simply irrelevant. 7) It's harder to beat a guy who is widely considering the greatest at 3000m and is undefeated in distances above 1500/Mile when healthy. 8) Jakob’s race was harder to win because the best athlete in the event was in it. Josh Kerr had to survive a compressed race and execute a perfect close. Jakob was simply cruising on the last lap. 9) Nobody cares about World Indoors. So the fact that you are so adamant in discrediting Jakob is hilarious. Quite a low bar. 10) You've lost.
1) Attempting to seize the lead isn't conserving energy. Jakob literally sped up when trying to make the pass. If you don't understand that, you are being willfully ignorant.
2) Unless you have a video of Jakob running an indoor track Two Mile race blindfolded faster than what Kerr did at Millrose, there is zero evidence to support the claim. Saying it's "not completely unreasonable" that Jakob could beat Kerr blindfolded shows even more that you are either disingenuous or a Jakob stan who is beyond reason.
3) In the article about Jakob saying the Paris Olympic 1500m would be "a walk in the park," Citius Mag linked to the European Athletics X account's post on it. The post by European Athletics had Jakob's quote with the caption, "Jakob Ingebrigtsen on the prospect of defending his Olympic 1500m title in Paris."
4) You're obviously wrong. Jakob thought he could easily take the lead from Aregawi by 2500m and again at the bell, but the guy who had been training for a half marathon denied him both times.
5) You're just making a weak excuse for why Kerr had the better close.
6) It's very possible that 7 races in 18 days in 2 continents led to the injury.
7) Crossing 2800 in 7:09.22 and needing to close faster than 26.34 is harder than crossing 2800 in 7:19.42 and needing to close faster than 26.67.
8) You didn't address what I said. I said Kerr had the better WIC 3k performance against a better field. Facts.
9) Jakob obviously cared about World Indoors because he travelled all the way to China for it when he could have stayed home to be with his siblings getting ready for an emotionally difficult trial. You obviously care because you've spent all this time debating me. If you didn't care, you wouldn't keep responding. Every time you respond, you show you care. Saying nobody cares about World Indoors is a desperate pivot that you're only making now because I said Kerr has more 3k golds than Jakob and because you've finally realized my next point.
