When it comes to long distance running, the Africans are clearly superior. It isn’t even close, and guys like Jakob cannot match them either. Kiplimo has run 56:42, and even though I find this time a bit suspicious, how is it that the best non-Africans would have more than a half mile left when he finishes?
Yeah, looked this up on world athletics and I think all the athletes under 59 minutes were all African. It's worth noting sub 59 was extremely rare before super shoes, and it seemed for a while the record was stalled at Tadese's 58:23. Some of it is probably cultural and a numbers game, when running is a way out of poverty in your country and not just a way to not get a "real job", there's more incentive to go for it if you have the talent and anyone with world class talent gets discovered. Also the culture of running to school as a kid plus some of them inevitably dope and it's a recipe to churn out high performers.
I'll admit, I was a little shocked though when I looked that up and couldn't find any non Africans under 59. Bigger gap there than I was expecting
Julien Wanders
59:13
Etienne Daguinos
59:46
Surely Mantz could get if eventually he ran 59-17 off a sub standard build. If not Grant will definitely get it next year.
I was going to say Julien Wanders but I guess he only ran 59:13
ny_city_vibes wrote:
Etienne Daguinos
59:46
You might want to look up what “broken 59 minutes” means.
Whoady wrote:
When it comes to long distance running, the Africans are clearly superior. It isn’t even close, and guys like Jakob cannot match them either. Kiplimo has run 56:42, and even though I find this time a bit suspicious, how is it that the best non-Africans would have more than a half mile left when he finishes?
When it comes to long distance running, the africans are clearly superior in utilizing EPO.
Kenyans*. Saying africans is unfair to the majority of African countries that don't have a culture of doping.
I think maybe not wrote:
Yeah, looked this up on world athletics and I think all the athletes under 59 minutes were all African. It's worth noting sub 59 was extremely rare before super shoes, and it seemed for a while the record was stalled at Tadese's 58:23. Some of it is probably cultural and a numbers game, when running is a way out of poverty in your country and not just a way to not get a "real job", there's more incentive to go for it if you have the talent and anyone with world class talent gets discovered. Also the culture of running to school as a kid plus some of them inevitably dope and it's a recipe to churn out high performers.
I'll admit, I was a little shocked though when I looked that up and couldn't find any non Africans under 59. Bigger gap there than I was expecting
All this has been beaten to death many times with little certainty to anything, but here is what all arguments will inevitably bump into:
You are either a eugenicist or a racist. You are a eugenicist if you believe Africans are fundamentally superior at something as basic a human activity as running (in that if superior running is possible within a large group of people, why not inferior IQ?) or you think all large groups of humans have equal potential, in which case the only explanation is that the Africans dope more presumably (only) because they have weaker morals, which makes you a racist.
Abraham naibei Cheroben of Bahrain (Asia) ran 58:40, NOTE he was Kenyan, Before Bahrain gave him a Contract to run for Bahrain, So I know you wont want to count it, but he was Representing A NON African Country when he ran 58:40, He had run 58:48 BEFORE he represented Bahrain, So He was ABSOLUTELY an established Runner when Bahrain got him.
I think maybe not wrote:
Yeah, looked this up on world athletics and I think all the athletes under 59 minutes were all African. It's worth noting sub 59 was extremely rare before super shoes, and it seemed for a while the record was stalled at Tadese's 58:23. Some of it is probably cultural and a numbers game, when running is a way out of poverty in your country and not just a way to not get a "real job", there's more incentive to go for it if you have the talent and anyone with world class talent gets discovered. Also the culture of running to school as a kid plus some of them inevitably dope and it's a recipe to churn out high performers.
I'll admit, I was a little shocked though when I looked that up and couldn't find any non Africans under 59. Bigger gap there than I was expecting
I think another factor is the half is run much more now. Arguably even more en vogue and popular than the full. People are really starting to take it seriously now instead of it being just an off distance strength test. As to no white dudes getting below 59, I think Grant could today and obviously Jakob will have much more of a prepared and serious attempt when he runs it again. Almgren is another one who could potentially do it.
Mocazilla wrote:
Surely Mantz could get if eventually he ran 59-17 off a sub standard build. If not Grant will definitely get it next year.
Yup I think this is reasonable and Mantz could sneak under 59 with an ideal build. Grant could probably run 57:30 right now.
Whoady wrote:
When it comes to long distance running, the Africans are clearly superior. It isn’t even close, and guys like Jakob cannot match them either. Kiplimo has run 56:42, and even though I find this time a bit suspicious, how is it that the best non-Africans would have more than a half mile left when he finishes?
Yes, but according to 90% of people on this board Jacob is the GOAT so for the greatest of all time breaking 59 minutes should be a jog.
Define “non-African”? There can be white people born in Africa that are “Africans” and black peoples born in Sweden that are “European”
bhah wrote:
All this has been beaten to death many times with little certainty to anything, but here is what all arguments will inevitably bump into:
You are either a eugenicist or a racist. You are a eugenicist if you believe Africans are fundamentally superior at something as basic a human activity as running (in that if superior running is possible within a large group of people, why not inferior IQ?) or you think all large groups of humans have equal potential, in which case the only explanation is that the Africans dope more presumably (only) because they have weaker morals, which makes you a racist.
A better argument would be the fact that Africans have far greater genetic diversity than any other group. This is based on what we know of the genome now. So it is likely that the best and the worst in x or y would be from Africa, be that athletic talent or IQ.
TrackisKing wrote:
Define “non-African”? There can be white people born in Africa that are “Africans” and black peoples born in Sweden that are “European”
Yes, a white person can be born anywhere as can a black person.
A black person who is born in Sweden is a Swedish person and not an African.
Everyone here is aware that when discussing African runners with a few exceptions we are talking about the East African countries and within them primarily Kenya and Ethiopia.
Whoady wrote:
When it comes to long distance running, the Africans are clearly superior. It isn’t even close, and guys like Jakob cannot match them either. Kiplimo has run 56:42, and even though I find this time a bit suspicious, how is it that the best non-Africans would have more than a half mile left when he finishes?
Your obsession with that poster is funny.
Jakob will break it once the distance becomes more relevant. I don’t think the record holder in the 13.1 miles event is a very appealing title. Just washed up athletes getting 6th place in Olympic finals hitting their mid 30s who need to make some cash. Same with the 26.2 mile event, it got hyped by Nike and marketing but they are both events for washed up distance runners who have lost their speed 💯
1 post was removed from this page.