You wrote what you wrote. I don’t care because you’re clearly a deranged individual. You’re making Coevett looking good tbh. I think he is primarily a biased fan, but you’re not even disguising your belief system.
You wrote what you wrote. I don’t care because you’re clearly a deranged individual. You’re making Coevett looking good tbh. I think he is primarily a biased fan, but you’re not even disguising your belief system.
You wrote what you wrote. I don’t care because you’re clearly a deranged individual. You’re making Coevett looking good tbh. I think he is primarily a biased fan, but you’re not even disguising your belief system.
It’s also a mile, which favors Jakob over two 800/1500 types. Given the travel and mile distance, this was going to be Jakob’s race to lose. Kipsang drifted in the middle (giving himself way too much to do late) and Tim looks like he’s still working back to full strength. Should be some fun showdowns at Worlds and Monaco/Oslo perhaps?
Have you run miles and 1500's? I just say that becomes running a mile is really no different than running 1500. Of course 800 is a totally different kettle of fish.
Yes I have. There is a difference of 109 meters and some 15-20 seconds. At the highest levels it matters with runners having different strength and weaknesses. Coevett understands this one and you should too.
My take is the energy systems involved are slightly but perceptively different. The 1500 is about ~27% anaerobic while the mile is ~23% anaerobic. If we assume Jakob's weakness compared to Cheruiyot, etc. is his anaerobic fitness, then, yes, Jakob would be relatively better at the mile. It's not that complicated!
Did not think the 1500/mile thing was that confusing. It’s not a big deal but it impacts the race. If Jakob was positioned to beat Tim and Kipsang by a few tenths in the 1500, in a race 109 meters longer his strength/margin will show even more. You saw indoors that Kipsang nearly died when he ran a 2,000.
Happy we’re at the Coevett dancing on Kenya’s graves stage of the season. A rite of passage every year.
You should be able to offer more than just vague generalities if the difference between the two distances is so straightforward. I find it hard to believe that any two athletes who are equal in the 15 wouldn’t also be in a dead heat in the mile, but I guess I’m in the minority here.
Kipsang blowing up in a record attempt is not evidence for your argument. There’s no rule that says 8/15 types can’t succeed over 2k. Plus, going from 1500 to 2000 is not the same as going from 1500 to 1609.
How slight? Can you justify this statement at all? If it’s just your opinion, fine, I’m just trying to understand the thinking here because to me it doesn’t make any sense.
In math, this is something we call a "proof by contradiction."
Let's see if you're good with the following two assumptions:
(1) A 1500/5000 runner (A) is faster than an 800/1500 runner (B) in the 5000, assuming they are equal in the 1500.
(2) The impact of each additional 100m beyond 1500m is equal for a particular runner (how much that runner's average speed decreases each time we extend the race an additional 100m). As this isn't exactly quite true in a linear fashion (slowdown from 1k to 3k is more than 3k to 5k), you could take any logarithmic translation (and there should be one that ends up being a very close estimate of the runner's slowdown, will put the reference link below) and it doesn't change for our purposes. You can think of it as "relative slowdown" in this case.
(3) [PREMISE WE WANT TO DISPROVE]: There is no difference in impact in going from 1500m to a mile (let's call it 1600m for ease) between runners A and B.
If premise (3) is true then they each slowed down the same from 1500 to 1600. By assumption (2) every additional 100m also slows down the runners equally, meaning the slowdown for each runner is also the same going from 1600->1700, 1700->1800,...,4900->5000 meters. Therefore, the runners should have equal 5000 times as they are equal in the 1500. But by assumption (1), runner A is faster than runner B in the 5k. We have a contradiction, which means that our premise is not true, and runner A must be faster than runner B in the 1600m (or mile).
So if the observed slowdown for 2 runners over a given 100m span is identical, it follows that their slowdowns will also be the same for every subsequent 100m segment added to the initial distance? I don’t think so. Noah Ngeny and Jakob Ingebrigtsen have almost identical marks at 1500 and 2000, yet there is a huge gap between them at 3000.
You wrote what you wrote. I don’t care because you’re clearly a deranged individual. You’re making Coevett looking good tbh. I think he is primarily a biased fan, but you’re not even disguising your belief system.
How slight? Can you justify this statement at all? If it’s just your opinion, fine, I’m just trying to understand the thinking here because to me it doesn’t make any sense.
In math, this is something we call a "proof by contradiction."
Let's see if you're good with the following two assumptions:
(1) A 1500/5000 runner (A) is faster than an 800/1500 runner (B) in the 5000, assuming they are equal in the 1500.
(2) The impact of each additional 100m beyond 1500m is equal for a particular runner (how much that runner's average speed decreases each time we extend the race an additional 100m). As this isn't exactly quite true in a linear fashion (slowdown from 1k to 3k is more than 3k to 5k), you could take any logarithmic translation (and there should be one that ends up being a very close estimate of the runner's slowdown, will put the reference link below) and it doesn't change for our purposes. You can think of it as "relative slowdown" in this case.
(3) [PREMISE WE WANT TO DISPROVE]: There is no difference in impact in going from 1500m to a mile (let's call it 1600m for ease) between runners A and B.
If premise (3) is true then they each slowed down the same from 1500 to 1600. By assumption (2) every additional 100m also slows down the runners equally, meaning the slowdown for each runner is also the same going from 1600->1700, 1700->1800,...,4900->5000 meters. Therefore, the runners should have equal 5000 times as they are equal in the 1500. But by assumption (1), runner A is faster than runner B in the 5k. We have a contradiction, which means that our premise is not true, and runner A must be faster than runner B in the 1600m (or mile).
For such an easy question, there is no need to impress some letsrunners with topics they don't understand (logarithmic...).
1500m and Mile are different distances and for sure a more endurence based athlete has an advantage in the Mile compared to an 800/1500m type if both are equal in the 1500. This is obvious and really needs no further explanation.
If not, all distances would rquire the same strenghts.
So if the observed slowdown for 2 runners over a given 100m span is identical, it follows that their slowdowns will also be the same for every subsequent 100m segment added to the initial distance? I don’t think so. Noah Ngeny and Jakob Ingebrigtsen have almost identical marks at 1500 and 2000, yet there is a huge gap between them at 3000.
And Jakob ran his PB as a track season opener in a quasi-exhibition/time trial race in 2020. Ngeny ran his 3 weeks after running 3:43 in the mile at the peak of his powers. Thanks for proving my point.
My take is the energy systems involved are slightly but perceptively different. The 1500 is about ~27% anaerobic while the mile is ~23% anaerobic. If we assume Jakob's weakness compared to Cheruiyot, etc. is his anaerobic fitness, then, yes, Jakob would be relatively better at the mile. It's not that complicated!
Can I ask where those numbers come from? That's just awfully specific. Feel free to enlighten me.
And not directed at you in particular, but isn't it more likely that Jakob is simply the better 1500 runner at this point in his career than Timothy C? Therefore is also better at the mile. With Jakob on the rise, and Tim coming back from injury (?), I don't see why it would have to be more complicated than that.
This thread sucks. can we get back to Jakob bein a boss
I will give J. Ing. credit as a 1500m to 5000m athlete. I don't want to read anything describing him as a potentially decent 800m &/or 1000m athlete. Keep J. Ing. in his lane.
So if the observed slowdown for 2 runners over a given 100m span is identical, it follows that their slowdowns will also be the same for every subsequent 100m segment added to the initial distance? I don’t think so. Noah Ngeny and Jakob Ingebrigtsen have almost identical marks at 1500 and 2000, yet there is a huge gap between them at 3000.
And Jakob ran his PB as a track season opener in a quasi-exhibition/time trial race in 2020. Ngeny ran his 3 weeks after running 3:43 in the mile at the peak of his powers. Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for ignoring the post that was directed towards you. Did you realize your take on Kipsang’s 2k was terrible?
Even if I grant that Ingebrigtsen has a higher ceiling in the 2k than Ngeny, the latter still clocked the 10th fastest time in history. And again, big difference jumping from 1500 to 2000 vs 1500 to 1609. Nice try though.