There might come the point when he finally understands where he was wrong. But he would never just agree to it. NEVER. Many many examples for this behaviour of him.
You have a lot of difficulty coping with those who don't agree with you.
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.
The other poster has not defined the best runner as you claimed here.
But for sure the "best runner" (there never can be a clear definition of this) can be someone who isn't/wasn't the best in any specific event.
Being the 2nd best at various events might some rank higher than being the best in one event. Being top 10 in any event from 800 to 10000 for some might be worth more than being the 800m king. Who are you to give your view of the subject as the ultimate truth?
The initial point you have respondet to was, that no one has done as good as Ingebrigtsen at age 22 from 1500m to 5000m.
I would agree to it, others might differ. In all your responses, you have changed the subject several times, have totally misquoted others, have given your personal view as some sort of fact - have shown again and again why you ar well known to be the most ignorant poster on this board.
Which distance runners have achieved the best up to the age of 22?
1) Gebrselassie, Bekele
3) Ingebrigtsen
4) Elliot, Komen
6) Bayi, Ryun
As I have said, so what if he is the "best" combining two distances if he isn't the best at one? It's a consolation prize. I doubt he would accept that. That isn't the GOAT. In any case, other runners (Viren, Bekele, Farah, Snell and Coe) have been better at two events than he has. They have also arguably been better at one than he has.
But why stop at two events in defining the GOAT? Why not three, or four events? There are others who have done better than him by that measure. But that isn't a measure that suits you. In the meantime, he isn't the best in history at either of his two main events. Less a GOAT; more a kid.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
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.
I'm not confusing anything, being the best at one event makes you the best at that one event, it does not make you the best at the sport of running. If you want to be the best at the sport of running you have to show you're elite at as big of a range as possible. Jakob wants to become the best runner, not the best at one event.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
I'm not confusing anything, being the best at one event makes you the best at that one event, it does not make you the best at the sport of running. If you want to be the best at the sport of running you have to show you're elite at as big of a range as possible. Jakob wants to become the best runner, not the best at one event.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
Amstronglivs vs Everyone Else But he still things that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
Amstronglivs vs Everyone Else But he still things that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Doesn't 1500 meter specialist Jakob beat the 5,000 meter specialists every time?
I'm not confusing anything, being the best at one event makes you the best at that one event, it does not make you the best at the sport of running. If you want to be the best at the sport of running you have to show you're elite at as big of a range as possible. Jakob wants to become the best runner, not the best at one event.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
Yes, specialists are the best at the event they specialize in. They are not better at the sport of running than people who excel in several of the different events that makes up the sport of running. Is Bolt a better miler, 5k runner and 10k runner than Jakob just because Bolt is the best sprinter?
Genuinely, do you have problems with reading comprehension? This really isn't that complex of a point I'm making.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
Amstronglivs vs Everyone Else But he still things that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Not everyone else, just a few of you who because you share each other's opinions think you must be right. Like Trump supporters.
It isn't about the best range; that is your arbitrary definition. The best at any one event typically specialised in one event; they were therefore better than a runner that didn't specialise - and that you are saying is Jakob. In this sport, all rounders aren't the best; specialists are. As good as Jakob is, the best specialists in history (and in his events) were better than him.
Yes, specialists are the best at the event they specialize in. They are not better at the sport of running than people who excel in several of the different events that makes up the sport of running. Is Bolt a better miler, 5k runner and 10k runner than Jakob just because Bolt is the best sprinter?
Genuinely, do you have problems with reading comprehension? This really isn't that complex of a point I'm making.
You aren't making any kind of point. Bolt proves that the best specialist is the best runner - in his case, it is as a sprinter - something Jakob clearly does not excel at. So why should Jakob be considered to be the better runner than Bolt when he has fewer Olympic and WC titles (none) and no wrs in his specialist distances? I am not claiming Bolt is a better 5k or 10k runner than Jakob - that is an absurdity - you clearly don't have a clue what I have been saying.
You fail to understand the difference between excelling and being the best. Jakob excels at the 1500-5k but he is not historically the best at either distance. There have been better runners at each distance than he is. Furthermore, there are better runners who ran both - such as El G, who had WC titles that Jakob doesn't have (over the 1500m), an Olympic gold that Jakob doesn't have (5k), and the world records that Jakob doesn't have (1500m/mile). There are also runners who doubled over the 5k and 10k who were better than he is (Viren, Farah). By your criterion of an athlete who excels at more than one event they were better than he has so far shown.
However, your arbitrary selection of two specific events - the 1500m and the 5k - to define the greatest runner is simply nonsense intended to bolster Jakob's case. It doesn't. And even by that misplaced criterion Jakob isn't in the running for being considered the GOAT. He would have to accomplish much more than he has.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
Amstronglivs vs Everyone Else But he still things that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Not everyone else, just a few of you who because you share each other's opinions think you must be right. Like Trump supporters.
Actually, you are wrong. The people who matter here are the ones posting. And it's you against everyone else. You are very insecure. And obsessed with Trump.
What a pathetic critique. He isn't the best at any events yet at 23, so he has no claim to be GOAT? It is his goal to be the greatest of all time. He didn't claim to be it yet. But of course, he actually is already the best ever at 2 events and within a year or two of having a strong case at three other events. He has run the 8th fastest 1500m all-time, 11 sub-3:30s, and the third fastest mile of all-time, with limited pacing and into the wind. He smashed the world records at 2000m (he also has the #14 time) and two miles last year. He closed the last 3000m in 7:21, within a second of Komen's amazing 3000m record and probably could have run 7:18-19. He has 2 of the top 5 3k times all-time. Then he's run 12:48 in the 5000m and won two world championships already in that event to go with his Olympic gold in the 1500m and two World Outdoor Silvers and a World Indoor Silver in the 1500m. He has got an absolutely incredible start to his career, having accomplished all of the above by age 22.
Add a second Olympic 1500m gold and he'll have equalled Coe in that honor, while surpassing him by far in World medals at 1500m and running 11 times under 3:30 vs. just once. He's already equalled El G in Olympic 1500m golds but he'll surpass him in Olympic golds in Paris if he wins at 1500m and 5000m. He has a ways to go to surpass El G in times sub-3:30, best 1500m times, best mile time, and world championship golds. But then El G had done barely anything when he was 22. At 5000m, he has not run as fast as Bekele, Geb, or Cheptegei, of course, though faster than Farah, but he has two world golds already and the time will come when he targets it.
1500m
8 3:27.14 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Chorzów 16.07.2023
19 3:27.95 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Oslo 15.06.2023
23 3:28.32 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Tokyo 07.08.2021 (Olympic Record and gold)
34 3:28.68 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 2 Monaco 14.08.2020
35 3:28.72 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Lausanne 10.06.2023
38 3:28.76+ Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Eugene 16.09.2023 enroute to mile 3rd all-time
56 3:29.02 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Zürich 08.09.2022
59 3:29.05 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Lausanne 26.08.2022
79 3:29.25 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 3 Monaco 09.07.2021
93 3:29.47 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 2 Eugene 19.07.2022
111 3:29.65 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 2 Budapest 23.08.2023
Mile
1 3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Roma 07.07.1999
2 3:43.40 Noah Ngeny KEN 02.11.78 2 Roma 07.07.1999
3 3:43.73 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Eugene 16.09.2023
15 3:46.46 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Oslo 16.06.2022
22 3:47.24 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Eugene 21.08.2021
2000m
1 4:43.13 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Bruxelles 08.09.2023
2 4:44.79 Hicham El Guerrouj MAR 14.09.74 1 Berlin 07.09.1999
3000m
3 7:23.63 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Eugene 17.09.2023
4 7:23.64 Yomif Kejelcha ETH 01.08.97 2 Eugene 17.09.2023
5 7:24.00+ Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Paris 09.06.2023 (enroute to 2M WR)
Two Miles
1 7:54.10 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Paris 09.06.2023
2 7:58.61 Daniel Komen KEN 17.05.76 1 Hechtel 19.07.1997
5000m
35 12:48.45 Jakob Ingebrigtsen NOR 19.09.00 1 Firenze 10.06.2021
Yes, specialists are the best at the event they specialize in. They are not better at the sport of running than people who excel in several of the different events that makes up the sport of running. Is Bolt a better miler, 5k runner and 10k runner than Jakob just because Bolt is the best sprinter?
Genuinely, do you have problems with reading comprehension? This really isn't that complex of a point I'm making.
You aren't making any kind of point. Bolt proves that the best specialist is the best runner - in his case, it is as a sprinter - something Jakob clearly does not excel at. So why should Jakob be considered to be the better runner than Bolt when he has fewer Olympic and WC titles (none) and no wrs in his specialist distances? I am not claiming Bolt is a better 5k or 10k runner than Jakob - that is an absurdity - you clearly don't have a clue what I have been saying.
You fail to understand the difference between excelling and being the best. Jakob excels at the 1500-5k but he is not historically the best at either distance. There have been better runners at each distance than he is. Furthermore, there are better runners who ran both - such as El G, who had WC titles that Jakob doesn't have (over the 1500m), an Olympic gold that Jakob doesn't have (5k), and the world records that Jakob doesn't have (1500m/mile). There are also runners who doubled over the 5k and 10k who were better than he is (Viren, Farah). By your criterion of an athlete who excels at more than one event they were better than he has so far shown.
However, your arbitrary selection of two specific events - the 1500m and the 5k - to define the greatest runner is simply nonsense intended to bolster Jakob's case. It doesn't. And even by that misplaced criterion Jakob isn't in the running for being considered the GOAT. He would have to accomplish much more than he has.
I haven't argued any of the things you claim, neither that Jakob is the GOAT either at a distance or overall, that Jakob is better than Bolt or that the 1500 to 5k is the only thing that matters.
I'm arguing that to be the best runner you have to excel at many events and not just a very limited part of the very vast ground that the sport of running covers. So no, you clearly lack reading comprehension.
Who is the better runner, Bolt who excelled at sprinting only or Bekele who has excelled at every distance from the 3k to the marathon and cross country?
This post was edited 23 seconds after it was posted.
The other poster has not defined the best runner as you claimed here.
But for sure the "best runner" (there never can be a clear definition of this) can be someone who isn't/wasn't the best in any specific event.
Being the 2nd best at various events might some rank higher than being the best in one event. Being top 10 in any event from 800 to 10000 for some might be worth more than being the 800m king. Who are you to give your view of the subject as the ultimate truth?
The initial point you have respondet to was, that no one has done as good as Ingebrigtsen at age 22 from 1500m to 5000m.
I would agree to it, others might differ. In all your responses, you have changed the subject several times, have totally misquoted others, have given your personal view as some sort of fact - have shown again and again why you ar well known to be the most ignorant poster on this board.
Which distance runners have achieved the best up to the age of 22?
1) Gebrselassie, Bekele
3) Ingebrigtsen
4) Elliot, Komen
6) Bayi, Ryun
As I have said, so what if he is the "best" combining two distances if he isn't the best at one? It's a consolation prize. I doubt he would accept that. That isn't the GOAT. In any case, other runners (Viren, Bekele, Farah, Snell and Coe) have been better at two events than he has. They have also arguably been better at one than he has.
But why stop at two events in defining the GOAT? Why not three, or four events? There are others who have done better than him by that measure. But that isn't a measure that suits you. In the meantime, he isn't the best in history at either of his two main events. Less a GOAT; more a kid.
He is constantly arguing against something nobody has argued for.
It was explained to him several times on the last pages, but Armstrong still hasn't got the point at all.
At age 22, nobody has done better than Jakob Ingebrigtsen, this was the claim. And it's most likely true. Who can challenge it? Nurmi? Iharos? Keino? El Guerrouj? No, not at age 22. Who else?
To become GOAT distance runner, he has a long way to go. But for me it definitely seems to be possible. But I'm little bit sceptical if he will have a long career. But Olympic Golds in the 5000m and 10000m as well as a WR in an Olympic event just would be enough for me.
Who is the better runner, Bolt who excelled at sprinting only or Bekele who has excelled at every distance from the 3k to the marathon and cross country?
Impossible to give an definitive answer to this. I think most would vote for Bolt, since he is undoubteldly the GOAT in (men's) sprinting. But for sure Bekele also has very strong arguments on his side.
There might come the point when he finally understands where he was wrong. But he would never just agree to it. NEVER. Many many examples for this behaviour of him.
You have a lot of difficulty coping with those who don't agree with you.
Not at all about agreeing or disagreeing to some opinion.
You change the subject, you completely misquote what others have said and so on.
As I have said, so what if he is the "best" combining two distances if he isn't the best at one? It's a consolation prize. I doubt he would accept that. That isn't the GOAT. In any case, other runners (Viren, Bekele, Farah, Snell and Coe) have been better at two events than he has. They have also arguably been better at one than he has.
But why stop at two events in defining the GOAT? Why not three, or four events? There are others who have done better than him by that measure. But that isn't a measure that suits you. In the meantime, he isn't the best in history at either of his two main events. Less a GOAT; more a kid.
At age 22, nobody has done better than Jakob Ingebrigtsen, this was the claim.