Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
So the more I hear from this guy (Kerr) the more disappointed I get that even he knows in his heart of hearts he has very little shot at doing this, and therefore it is becoming a WWE style promo/marketing push for primarily himself framed up under this guise of "Brooks Innovation".
You are right that both records are really difficult. EVERY world record is extremely difficult - but for a number of reasons the mile is simply not as difficult as the 1500m mark and you'd have to have no interest in the sport and mens MD running to think the alternative - which is why he's latched on to this distance and is framing it up as this lifelong career dream and goal when I've never ever heard him talk about the mile every before.
And now trying to create this context that it's even harder of course serves him well in every facet right? If (when) he doesn't break it, well "it's even harder than the 15, so what do you expect" or in the fantasyworld when he does it's "the greatest MD run ever because it's a harder record than the 15 which nobody has touched in 27 years".
Yawn.
3.27.79 does not equate to 3.43.13 (or under) any way you want to frame it - especially when we all know the interim for that WR was 3.28.21. A 3.27.8 guy would probably need 4.40 2000m strength to endure that split time and still run another 109m at sub 55 speed. Or he'd need to be in mid 3.26.X shape which Josh Kerr never has been and never will be in his lifetime.
The more he builds his "hype train" on this, the more it becomes apparent what this really is to him. And I guess by a number of metrics it's working - Citius, LRC, Running Effect, all the British tabloids are cupping his nuts on this and giving him air and face time so fair play to him. But these comments are quite revealing in my opinion.
I can't believe people suddenly think he's capable. This is why I hate the world record hype. Kerr was towed to a 3:27high, and put up only a 3:29.3 last season. Another season later, and we're supposed to believe he can break the mile world record? Come on. Same goes for Lyles. It's now been years since he ran 19.3, and I still see folks saying this year he's "going for it". He's not. If he ran 19.3 again, there is still considerable daylight to running 19.18.
In addition to marketing, Kerr seems to be trolling. During the podcast, he didn't lead with saying the mile WR is harder than the 1500m WR. His first comment re: the difficulty of the mile WR was, "It is the hardest world record right now and the oldest world record right now in athletics."
Kerr was factually incorrect about the mile WR being the oldest (El G broke the 1500m nearly a year before he broke the mile WR), and he didn't qualify his opinion to only distance records. If he was referring to all track events, I think Bolt might like a word!
When he was talking about the mile vs the 1500m, I thought Kerr would try to argue that the mile WR is harder to break because there aren't many opportunities to race it. I don't know if I would buy that argument, but I might consider renting it. But Kerr didn't say that at all. Instead, Kerr's argument was:
the mile is an extra 109 meters, and "it is frustratingly annoying to work out that nine meters"
there are more variables in a slightly longer race
it's harder to start on a bend than it is to start on a straight
That last point is actually solid, but I don't think it's enough to outweigh the reality of 54.93 laps vs 55.46 laps.
I think where his argument really falls apart is his belief that running 3:27 in Paris was an indicator that, "it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could have done it [break the mile WR] that day." Even after taking into account the rounds and having to sleep in uncomfortable beds while in Paris (reasons Kerr gave for why he thinks he can run faster than he did in that Olympic final), saying 3:27.79 indicates that you can break the mile WR isn't good support for believing the mile WR is harder to break than 3:26.00.
Not saying Kerr will break the record, but bear in mind Jakob's 3,000 PB was more than 6 seconds slower than the WR before he broke it and that race was billed as a WR attempt. Athletes and their coaches know what they're capable of running more than any of us.
So the more I hear from this guy (Kerr) the more disappointed I get that even he knows in his heart of hearts he has very little shot at doing this, and therefore it is becoming a WWE style promo/marketing push for primarily himself framed up under this guise of "Brooks Innovation".
You are right that both records are really difficult. EVERY world record is extremely difficult - but for a number of reasons the mile is simply not as difficult as the 1500m mark and you'd have to have no interest in the sport and mens MD running to think the alternative - which is why he's latched on to this distance and is framing it up as this lifelong career dream and goal when I've never ever heard him talk about the mile every before.
And now trying to create this context that it's even harder of course serves him well in every facet right? If (when) he doesn't break it, well "it's even harder than the 15, so what do you expect" or in the fantasyworld when he does it's "the greatest MD run ever because it's a harder record than the 15 which nobody has touched in 27 years".
Yawn.
3.27.79 does not equate to 3.43.13 (or under) any way you want to frame it - especially when we all know the interim for that WR was 3.28.21. A 3.27.8 guy would probably need 4.40 2000m strength to endure that split time and still run another 109m at sub 55 speed. Or he'd need to be in mid 3.26.X shape which Josh Kerr never has been and never will be in his lifetime.
The more he builds his "hype train" on this, the more it becomes apparent what this really is to him. And I guess by a number of metrics it's working - Citius, LRC, Running Effect, all the British tabloids are cupping his nuts on this and giving him air and face time so fair play to him. But these comments are quite revealing in my opinion.
Completely agree. His interview on Running Effect was basically an extended ad for Brooks, and the more he speaks, the more it becomes clear this is primarily a marketing stunt. Kerr isn’t stupid. He knows as well as we do that his odds of running 3:42 are extremely long, 3:26.00 > 3:43.13, etc. This is about creating “content” and getting people talking.
And I hate to be that guy, but I have to bring up Jakob here because the contrast is striking. He’s broken 6 world records/bests across 5 races indoors and out, and in none of those did we get this sort of marketing push. He simply announces his attempt, downplays his chances and shows serious respect to the existing record in all his interviews, and then goes out and destroys it.
Not saying Kerr will break the record, but bear in mind Jakob's 3,000 PB was more than 6 seconds slower than the WR before he broke it and that race was billed as a WR attempt. Athletes and their coaches know what they're capable of running more than any of us.
This is false. Jakob’s PB was 7:23.63, set in hot conditions the day after a 3:43 mile. He had also already run 7:54.10 for 2 miles which is superior to 7:20.67.
In addition to marketing, Kerr seems to be trolling. During the podcast, he didn't lead with saying the mile WR is harder than the 1500m WR. His first comment re: the difficulty of the mile WR was, "It is the hardest world record right now and the oldest world record right now in athletics."
Kerr was factually incorrect about the mile WR being the oldest (El G broke the 1500m nearly a year before he broke the mile WR), and he didn't qualify his opinion to only distance records. If he was referring to all track events, I think Bolt might like a word!
When he was talking about the mile vs the 1500m, I thought Kerr would try to argue that the mile WR is harder to break because there aren't many opportunities to race it. I don't know if I would buy that argument, but I might consider renting it. But Kerr didn't say that at all. Instead, Kerr's argument was:
the mile is an extra 109 meters, and "it is frustratingly annoying to work out that nine meters"
there are more variables in a slightly longer race
it's harder to start on a bend than it is to start on a straight
That last point is actually solid, but I don't think it's enough to outweigh the reality of 54.93 laps vs 55.46 laps.
I think where his argument really falls apart is his belief that running 3:27 in Paris was an indicator that, "it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could have done it [break the mile WR] that day." Even after taking into account the rounds and having to sleep in uncomfortable beds while in Paris (reasons Kerr gave for why he thinks he can run faster than he did in that Olympic final), saying 3:27.79 indicates that you can break the mile WR isn't good support for believing the mile WR is harder to break than 3:26.00.
For what it’s worth, I remember El Guerrouj stating that the Mile is a hard distance to get right and he considers it harder.
“My favourite is 1500m. It’s part of my heart. I competed in it a lot and I know every metre of this race. The mile is completely different. If you are not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well.”
It probably has to do with the extra 109m messing with people.
Not saying Kerr will break the record, but bear in mind Jakob's 3,000 PB was more than 6 seconds slower than the WR before he broke it and that race was billed as a WR attempt. Athletes and their coaches know what they're capable of running more than any of us.
I don’t think Jakob ever claimed he’d break the 3000m WR at Pre that year. We all knew though that he was completely capable of it based on the 7:54.10 2 Mile but he was too tired from the 3:43.73 mile the day before. In fact I don’t think Jakob ever claimed he would break either the Mile or 3000m that weekend. That is in contrast to the 2000m WR where he claimed to be going for the WR on instagram.
Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
I can't believe people suddenly think he's capable. This is why I hate the world record hype. Kerr was towed to a 3:27high, and put up only a 3:29.3 last season. Another season later, and we're supposed to believe he can break the mile world record? Come on. Same goes for Lyles. It's now been years since he ran 19.3, and I still see folks saying this year he's "going for it". He's not. If he ran 19.3 again, there is still considerable daylight to running 19.18.
I said exactly the same on the other thread. Does anyone remember this thread only 4 months ago from TL?
Read the comments here! The general sentiment here was of bearish'ness and wondering what was up with him
"I do lactate testing all the time, for almost every workout. I’m a mid-2:30s marathoner & my HR/lactate would be lower than this *at altitude* on the slower reps. Good on him for posting this, because this is not the workout of a world championship contender. It shows he’s out of shape, as other posters have noted."
And now he's on the cusp of running a 2+ second mile PR and taking El G out of the record books? And yes he's had a good indoor season but the reality is it was an 8.07 2 mile and then beating a tactically awful Hocker by a whisker at world indoors in a race where Hocker should have dusted the field by 4-5 yards. Like you, I don't get this other than it being the Brooks version of Kipyegons "sub 4" exercise which btw Nike has leveraged into absolutely nothing and ate 60 million bucks on.
Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
So let me get this right, with all the bullsh^t commentary on this thread from people who think they know WTF they're talking about (has anyone of these idiots run a sub 4 mile? or a even a sub 3:40 1500m)?, you're saying that YOU know more about which of these world records are tougher than the guy who ACTUALLY holds the world records?
The below statement is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!
El Guerrouj stated that the Mile is a hard distance to get right and he considers it harder. “My favourite is 1500m. It’s part of my heart. I competed in it a lot and I know every metre of this race. The mile is completely different. If you are not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well.” It probably has to do with the extra 109m messing with people.
What am I missing? You can talk all you want about variables, stats, history, blah, blah, blah. Until you've ran fast enough in each of these events (sub 4 and sub 3:40), please STFU. Not only is the mile a longer race, there's a HUGE mental factor knowing that it's one of the most iconic and legendary racing distances in track next to the 100m, that in itself plays havoc mentally. Until someone breaks BOTH world records, and says "The 1500m is harder", I'm sticking with El G's view.
Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
So let me get this right, with all the bullsh^t commentary on this thread from people who think they know WTF they're talking about (has anyone of these idiots run a sub 4 mile? or a even a sub 3:40 1500m)?, you're saying that YOU know more about which of these world records are tougher than the guy who ACTUALLY holds the world records?
The below statement is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!
El Guerrouj stated that the Mile is a hard distance to get right and he considers it harder. “My favourite is 1500m. It’s part of my heart. I competed in it a lot and I know every metre of this race. The mile is completely different. If you are not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well.” It probably has to do with the extra 109m messing with people.
What am I missing? You can talk all you want about variables, stats, history, blah, blah, blah. Until you've ran fast enough in each of these events (sub 4 and sub 3:40), please STFU. Not only is the mile a longer race, there's a HUGE mental factor knowing that it's one of the most iconic and legendary racing distances in track next to the 100m, that in itself plays havoc mentally. Until someone breaks BOTH world records, and says "The 1500m is harder", I'm sticking with El G's view.
Well I think partly the reason why El Guerrouj said that was because he didn’t have access to wavelights. If you ran a split too fast at the start, it would feel like hell in that last 109m, especially when you’re splitting close to your 1500 best.
For what it’s worth, I remember El Guerrouj stating that the Mile is a hard distance to get right and he considers it harder.
“My favourite is 1500m. It’s part of my heart. I competed in it a lot and I know every metre of this race. The mile is completely different. If you are not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well.”
It probably has to do with the extra 109m messing with people.
Great find. Of course, we have to respect the GOAT's take on the matter.
That said, I'm wondering if it's helpful to distinguish between "harder" and "stronger." An event might be harder (particularly mentally) for someone to get right if they're not used to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the record for that event is stronger than the record for another event which is contested more regularly.
It sounds like El G said he prefers the 1500m because he's more familiar with it, from having raced at that distance much more often. His familiarity with the 1500m and knowing "every metre of this race" is what makes it more comfortable and therefore easier for him than racing a mile, which he only did a couple times a year on average. If the reverse were true, and he knew every yard of the mile from racing it more than any other event and only did the 1500m a handful of times, then he might have the opposite perspective.
So, yes, I can believe a 1500m specialist would find a mile harder to do if they're not used to it. I imagine it's similar to how a 400m sprinter might view the 500m. That doesn't make the 500m record stronger than the 400m record, nor the mile record stronger than the 1500m record.
Complete nonsense of course. Rojo pushed back a little bit, but I would have liked to see a rant on this in the middle of the interview. Of course they’re pretty close in difficulty relatively speaking, but we all know the 1500 is the better record, end of discussion.
I also disagree that his 3:27 in the Olympics means he could run 3:42 then, let alone 2 years later, but I get that this is partly marketing.
So let me get this right, with all the bullsh^t commentary on this thread from people who think they know WTF they're talking about (has anyone of these idiots run a sub 4 mile? or a even a sub 3:40 1500m)?, you're saying that YOU know more about which of these world records are tougher than the guy who ACTUALLY holds the world records?
The below statement is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!
El Guerrouj stated that the Mile is a hard distance to get right and he considers it harder. “My favourite is 1500m. It’s part of my heart. I competed in it a lot and I know every metre of this race. The mile is completely different. If you are not strong physically and mentally, you cannot run it well.” It probably has to do with the extra 109m messing with people.
What am I missing? You can talk all you want about variables, stats, history, blah, blah, blah. Until you've ran fast enough in each of these events (sub 4 and sub 3:40), please STFU. Not only is the mile a longer race, there's a HUGE mental factor knowing that it's one of the most iconic and legendary racing distances in track next to the 100m, that in itself plays havoc mentally. Until someone breaks BOTH world records, and says "The 1500m is harder", I'm sticking with El G's view.
I agree. A lot of slow runners here who cannot even touch Josh's jockstrap think they are experts.