HOLY CRAP WHAT A MEET in Lievin today (2 p.m. ET) -- Ingebrigtsens, Hassan, Barega, Muir, & tons more

deydoodoodohdohdontdeydoo? wrote:

John Wesley Harding wrote:

Fine...I’ll tell you that Jakob has not run “<3:28”.

I don’t think Wale’s 3k is necessarily better than Jakob’s outdoor 1500 PB, and I’m not gonna claim he and Barega are overall better runners than Jakob, but you should admit that 3:31.8 is the 3rd most impressive mid/long distance performance of the meet.

Why is that? Because you like to denigrate European athletes subject to much stricter doping controls than East Africans? Jakob just ran the 5th fastest time ever indoors and broke the European record, with no competition (which actually included the WR holder). Plus the 1500m is 10 x the importance of the 3000m.

7:25:00 is worth 3:29:50

Wale time is much more impressive much much more.

john wilbur wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

Not as good as Selemon and Wale.

Had no idea both of them ran <3:28. Cool.

Take a peek at those results^

W 1500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTR8348i630

Baba Yaga wrote:

deydoodoodohdohdontdeydoo? wrote:

Why is that? Because you like to denigrate European athletes subject to much stricter doping controls than East Africans? Jakob just ran the 5th fastest time ever indoors and broke the European record, with no competition (which actually included the WR holder). Plus the 1500m is 10 x the importance of the 3000m.

7:25:00 is worth 3:29:50

Wale time is much more impressive much much more.

7:25 indoors is just 7:25 indoors.

3:31 indoors is much more impressive. Wale would have to run 7:21 to be on par with Jakobs run. Still, the 1500 is so much more indicative of a true powerful runner, there's no distance beyond that that can be more impressive. It's like saying Walmsleys 100k record attempt was more impressive than Wales run. No. Just no.

Lol. We were discussing the 1500 and you show a 5000?

Also, are you next going to show results from when Jakob was 12?

john wilbur wrote:

Lol. We were discussing the 1500 and you show a 5000?

Also, are you next going to show results from when Jakob was 12?

0/10

Let me know when Jakob actually wins something. Heck, let me know when he has a medal ?

Hard to ken how a 3:31.8, 3 seconds off his outdoor pr, which is itself nearly 3 seconds off of the outdoor world record and a time that has been beaten on many occasions outdoors, is superior to a 7:24.98, the #4 time ever, indoor or out, and two seconds faster than Jakob's outdoor 3k pr.

Unfortunately the results are very suspicious.

FastTuohy wrote:

W 1500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTR8348i630

What do we make of this performance?! Wow! ?

For me running a race averaging 56 seconds a lap like Jakob just did is just more impressive to me than running a minute per lap.

I could run a 400 in 60 sec no problem but 56 is tough. To do that near 4 times in a row..damn!! On a banked track??

3000 is a weaker event anyways.

Jabba jabba wrote:

For me running a race averaging 56 seconds a lap like Jakob just did is just more impressive to me than running a minute per lap.

I could run a 400 in 60 sec no problem but 56 is tough. To do that near 4 times in a row..damn!! On a banked track??

3000 is a weaker event anyways.

No offense but your post is meaningless in terms of valuing the performances. I would guess you cannot run a 10.5 100m but that does not make it superior to a 7:24 3000m.

Kudos to the cutiepie Winfred Yavi for winning the 2000m steeple in a World Record of 5:45. Granted its a seldom run event, although becoming more popular indoors, but it was an awesome race. She called me elated afterwards. Next up she'll run a 5k on the roads in Monaco on the 14th.

Not really though is it? One is a completely different type of event, called sprinting...using weird contraptions called blocks.

1500 is pure running.

Jabba jabba wrote:

Not really though is it? One is a completely different type of event, called sprinting...using weird contraptions called blocks.

1500 is pure running.

OK maybe I can spell it out for you better. An 800m in 1:52 is not something you can do as you admit that a 56 400m is difficult for you. You say that 60 second pace is not so difficult for you. However, a 1600m in 4:00 is a superior performance to a 1:52 800m, even if it is easier for you to run part of the 4:00 1600m. Got it? In other words, what is easier for you makes no difference in what is considered a superior performance.

runderun wrote:

Halviking wrote:

Muir 3.59.58

Runs a great race, indoor PB, sub-4, but beaten by 20 metres. If Houlihan needed any more evidence that her best shot at a medal is the 5000 then this was it. She's in the same position as Muir and GDS if she sticks with the 1500

Let's hope that the screamingly obvious Ethiopian EPO'er gets caught by Tokyo. Suspicious as F performance - the doping agencies should be on this one, but given that she's African, it may be that she isn't caught until after Tokyo. She won't care; no-one will except those cheated out of medals.

Having said that, I still think Houlihan's best shot is the 1500m. The 5,000 is even more EPO'ed (up to the eyeballs). Houlihan - sadly - doesn't even have a vague chance against the EPO'ed Africans in the 5000m. EPO + their superior distance genetics is a killer. She's got an extra 15lbs on them too, even though she couldn't possibly lose another pound in fat. They're lighter and better built for distance. It's gotta be the 1500m for her I'd say.

Why? You don't plan to watch the Olympics yourself?

Moron#5 wrote:

Jabba jabba wrote:

Not really though is it? One is a completely different type of event, called sprinting...using weird contraptions called blocks.

1500 is pure running.

OK maybe I can spell it out for you better. An 800m in 1:52 is not something you can do as you admit that a 56 400m is difficult for you. You say that 60 second pace is not so difficult for you. However, a 1600m in 4:00 is a superior performance to a 1:52 800m, even if it is easier for you to run part of the 4:00 1600m. Got it? In other words, what is easier for you makes no difference in what is considered a superior performance.

Let me spell it out for you. I love and respect the 1500 the most with the 800 not far behind. With the 800 being a different monster. I think Jakobs run was more impressive than Hoppels. I care far less about 3000.

Jabba jabba wrote:

Moron#5 wrote:

OK maybe I can spell it out for you better. An 800m in 1:52 is not something you can do as you admit that a 56 400m is difficult for you. You say that 60 second pace is not so difficult for you. However, a 1600m in 4:00 is a superior performance to a 1:52 800m, even if it is easier for you to run part of the 4:00 1600m. Got it? In other words, what is easier for you makes no difference in what is considered a superior performance.

Let me spell it out for you. I love and respect the 1500 the most with the 800 not far behind. With the 800 being a different monster. I think Jakobs run was more impressive than Hoppels. I care far less about 3000.

You love it and respect it so much that you didn't even know the world record holder.

Jabba jabba wrote:

Moron#5 wrote:

OK maybe I can spell it out for you better. An 800m in 1:52 is not something you can do as you admit that a 56 400m is difficult for you. You say that 60 second pace is not so difficult for you. However, a 1600m in 4:00 is a superior performance to a 1:52 800m, even if it is easier for you to run part of the 4:00 1600m. Got it? In other words, what is easier for you makes no difference in what is considered a superior performance.

Let me spell it out for you. I love and respect the 1500 the most with the 800 not far behind. With the 800 being a different monster. I think Jakobs run was more impressive than Hoppels. I care far less about 3000.

Your feelings are meaningless here. Who cares what event you like the most, or what you think “seems harder,” running 3.75 X 56.5” or 7.5 X 59.3”? The 3k is the statistically superior performance. That is what we’re discussing.