Great record, but I don't think it equates to a sub 2hr marathon on a certified course without the conditions set up for Kipchoge's 1:59 Challenge. Is it better than Kipchoge's official WR is more open to debate.
Great record, but I don't think it equates to a sub 2hr marathon on a certified course without the conditions set up for Kipchoge's 1:59 Challenge. Is it better than Kipchoge's official WR is more open to debate.
Pretty comparable performances, I think the World Athletics points actually are fine in this case even though I disagree with them sometimes.
Both took down strong world records with huge negative splits and more room to improve with even pacing. It isn't crazy to say that they should both be 7:15 and 1:59...
One way to see which is more impressive is comparing how far ahead of everyone else both WRs are, but that brings in the whole old argument of "7:20 was soft / overrated" vs "2:01 in supershoes is 2:03 in the old shoes".
It kind of also depends on how strong you thought Kipchoge's 2:01s were previously. I'm not convinced that Bekele running 2:01:41 means 2:01 is weak and that a bunch of track 26:30 type guys could run 2:01s.
Even with the advanced footwear, Jakob’s improvement on a 28 year old record was less than Komen’s on Morceli’s 2 year old record.
3.12 secs improvement on a 7:20.67 sec record is @ 0.71%.
Apply this to other WRs.
WR marathon is 2 hours and 35 secs. An improvement of 0.71% would results in a marathon time of 1:59 and 44 secs. Would that be incremental?
100m WR of 9.58 secs would go down to 9.51 secs and 1500m WR of 3:26.00 to 3:24.54.
Incremental?
Someone doesn’t know what the word incremental means. IF a 28 year old marathon world record were broken by 51 seconds that would indeed by an incremental improvement, especially aided by advanced footwear. This is elementary.
3.12 secs improvement on a 7:20.67 sec record is @ 0.71%.
Apply this to other WRs.
WR marathon is 2 hours and 35 secs. An improvement of 0.71% would results in a marathon time of 1:59 and 44 secs. Would that be incremental?
100m WR of 9.58 secs would go down to 9.51 secs and 1500m WR of 3:26.00 to 3:24.54.
Incremental?
Someone doesn’t know what the word incremental means. IF a 28 year old marathon world record were broken by 51 seconds that would indeed by an incremental improvement, especially aided by advanced footwear. This is elementary.
The meaning of INCREMENTAL is of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments.
Can't admit you are wrong?
The fact the 3k WR stood for so long speaks to the quality of Jakob's 3k WR.
I'm on record saying that Komen's record was overrated, so maybe that makes me too biased to say anything useful about this question (although I actually *don't* necessarily think Ingebrigtsen's new record is overrated in the same way).
Instead, I'll mention something we often don't mention about when comparing times across distances, which is historical era. I don't mean comparing today's runners against the past, but comparing performances of the same era. Historically, longer distance times have come down much quicker, on a percentage basis than shorter distance times.
As an extreme example, consider two hypothetical runners in the year 1940: a 1:47.0 800m man, and a 2:13 marathoner. The former would have been excellent, close to Harbig's famous 1:46.6 set the previous year. But the latter would have been an alien, 13 minutes under the world record at the time, still 5+ minutes ahead of the world until 1956, and faster than anyone would run until Bikila in 1964. His marathon pace would have only been 16 seconds/mile slower than the contemporary 10k world record pace, (compare to today's gap of 23 seconds/mile). In 1940, a 2:13 marathon would have been far stronger than a 1:47 800m. Yet, 1:47 is actually as to today's world record as 2:07-high!
More relevant to the question, let's consider the two events at hand, the 3k and marathon. Here are the world records for both events taken every two decades (through the end of the given year)
3k: 1920: 8:33.2 1940: 8:09.0 (4.9% drop from 20 years previous) 1960: 7:52.8 (3.4% drop) 1980: 7:32.1 (4.6% drop) 2000: 7:20.67 (2.6% drop) 2020: 7:20.67 (no drop) Present: 7:17.55 (0.7% drop)
Notice that the drop in marathon times is usually more, often by large margins.
Next, let's compare Ingebrigtsen and Kiptum to these past world records. Percentages are how much faster Ingebrigtsen and Kiptum are than past records.
So in years 2000 or before, both times would have been insane, but Kiptum's would have been completely otherworldly. If trends continue, the opposite will be true in the decades to come: Ingebrigtsen's time will stay world class while Kiptum's will recede from the forefront. For now, they are ships that pass in the night...only a Letsrun thread, then darkness again and a silence.
Someone doesn’t know what the word incremental means. IF a 28 year old marathon world record were broken by 51 seconds that would indeed by an incremental improvement, especially aided by advanced footwear. This is elementary.
The meaning of INCREMENTAL is of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments.
Can't admit you are wrong?
The fact the 3k WR stood for so long speaks to the quality of Jakob's 3k WR.
Most of you, certainly including you, are morons. You don’t even know what the word “incremental” means. Jakob is overrated because he is white.
Most of you, certainly including you, are morons. You don’t even know what the word “incremental” means. Jakob is overrated because he is white.
What does that have to do with the word incremental?
His improvement of the 3k WR is incremental because he is white?
It is incremental because it is incremental but because he is white you guys have to salivate over it and lavish praise and engage in hyperbole and sniff his shorts. Some of us are able to see through the nonsense.
What does that have to do with the word incremental?
His improvement of the 3k WR is incremental because he is white?
It is incremental because it is incremental but because he is white you guys have to salivate over it and lavish praise and engage in hyperbole and sniff his shorts. Some of us are able to see through the nonsense.
Three plus seconds of a 3k WR is not incremental by the very definition of the word.
The meaning of INCREMENTAL is of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments.
7:20.67 to 7:20.50 would have been an incremental decrease in time
It is incremental because it is incremental but because he is white you guys have to salivate over it and lavish praise and engage in hyperbole and sniff his shorts. Some of us are able to see through the nonsense.
Three plus seconds of a 3k WR is not incremental by the very definition of the word.
The meaning of INCREMENTAL is of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments.
7:20.67 to 7:20.50 would have been an incremental decrease in time
7:20.67 to 7:17.55 is not
Because of the shoe technology, the improvement is incremental. Most of you are incapable of critical thinking and analytical reasoning, which renders interaction with you problematic.
Three plus seconds of a 3k WR is not incremental by the very definition of the word.
The meaning of INCREMENTAL is of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments.
7:20.67 to 7:20.50 would have been an incremental decrease in time
7:20.67 to 7:17.55 is not
Because of the shoe technology, the improvement is incremental. Most of you are incapable of critical thinking and analytical reasoning, which renders interaction with you problematic.
Got nothing to do with the fact the time decrease was not incremental.
One can make the argument that the new shoes have resulted in faster times and that Komen's time is superior to Jakob's due to that.
Because of the shoe technology, the improvement is incremental. Most of you are incapable of critical thinking and analytical reasoning, which renders interaction with you problematic.
Got nothing to do with the fact the time decrease was not incremental.
One can make the argument that the new shoes have resulted in faster times and that Komen's time is superior to Jakob's due to that.
That's a different argument.
You are not smart enough to engage here, and of course most of you are not. If the shoes render this 3000m almost tantamount to a very slight downhill, say a 2 second aid, then this translates to an imperceptible improvement on a 28 year old record. This is what is happening. It is best for me to detach myself from the ignorance here.