He sure didn't duck him at the WC final when it most counted
Jakob didn't duck Kerr ever.
Sure looks like Kerr is ducking him this week-end.
Too bad. Kerr looked great ion NYC. He would have had a chance to beat Jakob in the mile this week-end. Prove his win was not due to Jakob's illness.
Kerr obviously should run at Pre, but this won't prove anything. Jakob lost to Cheruiyot after the OG, does that prove that Jakobs win was because of Cheruiyots hamstring injury?
This is just highlighting and issue with track and field, stars are ducking each other all the time. Whatever you may think of Jakob "always" excusing his losses in a less than sympathetic way, his actually making us kinda spoiled in the same way Cheruiyot used to do. Hes just always racing, its great for the sport and should be talked about more.
Sure looks like Kerr is ducking him this week-end.
Too bad. Kerr looked great ion NYC. He would have had a chance to beat Jakob in the mile this week-end. Prove his win was not due to Jakob's illness.
Kerr obviously should run at Pre, but this won't prove anything. Jakob lost to Cheruiyot after the OG, does that prove that Jakobs win was because of Cheruiyots hamstring injury?
This is just highlighting and issue with track and field, stars are ducking each other all the time. Whatever you may think of Jakob "always" excusing his losses in a less than sympathetic way, his actually making us kinda spoiled in the same way Cheruiyot used to do. Hes just always racing, its great for the sport and should be talked about more.
Why is xc skiing and bike racing so popular in Europe? One of the reasons is that the best race each other all the time. The thought of ducking competition in those sports is ridiculous.
Kerr obviously should run at Pre, but this won't prove anything. Jakob lost to Cheruiyot after the OG, does that prove that Jakobs win was because of Cheruiyots hamstring injury?
This is just highlighting and issue with track and field, stars are ducking each other all the time. Whatever you may think of Jakob "always" excusing his losses in a less than sympathetic way, his actually making us kinda spoiled in the same way Cheruiyot used to do. Hes just always racing, its great for the sport and should be talked about more.
Why is xc skiing and bike racing so popular in Europe? One of the reasons is that the best race each other all the time. The thought of ducking competition in those sports is ridiculous.
Agree, and Jakob is great here. Though, should be noted that its "easy" to compete often when you manage to be in great shape the whole season. Most don't so its kinda unfair to compare, but Kerr is obviously still in good enough shape to compete for top 3 in the DL and should be there.
Sure looks like Kerr is ducking him this week-end.
Too bad. Kerr looked great ion NYC. He would have had a chance to beat Jakob in the mile this week-end. Prove his win was not due to Jakob's illness.
Kerr obviously should run at Pre, but this won't prove anything. Jakob lost to Cheruiyot after the OG, does that prove that Jakobs win was because of Cheruiyots hamstring injury?
This is just highlighting and issue with track and field, stars are ducking each other all the time. Whatever you may think of Jakob "always" excusing his losses in a less than sympathetic way, his actually making us kinda spoiled in the same way Cheruiyot used to do. Hes just always racing, its great for the sport and should be talked about more.
I agree with much of this. It would be great if Kerr ran at Pre (but I get why he won't - he gave everything for EC). But on the other hand, it doesn't change anything. Jakob could win by 20 seconds but Kerr is still the world champion of 1500m.
I have a lot more sympathies with runners "ducking" after big championships, than the ones never racing before and after.
I didn't say tracks and shoes make no difference - but they don't make as big a difference as some claim, in justifying every kind of performance.
If an athlete is doping they are doping - not "partly doping". Jakob is doping. If he wasn't he would be running 3:22 for the 1500 juiced and sub 3:40 for the mile. So - no - he's doping alright.
So if I understand you correctly: By doping you get approx. five seconds down at his level. Nice. Could you please support this with some credible evidence.
Have a look at the progression of Rashid Ramzi. If anything, it's more than 5 seconds. But that you have to ask the question shows you know next to nothing about what doping can enable at elite and championship levels.
Well they haven't found a positive test from him yet so dream on. The fact remains he staunch Muslims are unlikely to dope which can be approximated as 100% clean for the purposes of our argument.
Abderrahim Goumri blows your argument up faster than a suicide bomber does.
You just said Jakob has to beat one of the most obviously doped records in sport to be considered great.
Now you're saying don't confuse greatness with doping.
What if Jakob isn't doping and can still get close to El G? Even if he is doping, he would only be microdosing compared to epo era El G due to the ABP and better EPO testing. According to you, shoes and tracks don't make any difference.
I didn't say tracks and shoes make no difference - but they don't make as big a difference as some claim, in justifying every kind of performance.
If an athlete is doping they are doping - not "partly doping". Jakob is doping. If he wasn't he would be running 3:22 for the 1500 juiced and sub 3:40 for the mile. So - no - he's doping alright.
I hope WADA employs you look at athletes PR's to deem who is doping or not. That will do away with the impractical and costly blood and urine samples.
So if I understand you correctly: By doping you get approx. five seconds down at his level. Nice. Could you please support this with some credible evidence.
Have a look at the progression of Rashid Ramzi. If anything, it's more than 5 seconds. But that you have to ask the question shows you know next to nothing about what doping can enable at elite and championship levels.
Ramzi was what I would call a prolific doper. There's a meaningful difference between doping and prolific doping, and it's crucial to make this distinction. An athlete 'doping' is one whouses prohibited substances or methods to enhance athletic performance. An athlete who is a prolific 'doper' , on the other hand, is utilizing a more systematic and consistent pattern of doping over an extended period.
Ramzi's career progression, which involved significant time reductions, does indeed raise suspicion of prolific doping. Athletes who consistently achieve remarkable improvements, especially at championship-level meets, are more likely to be engaged in systematic and ongoing doping practices. This level of doping can enable them to make substantial gains over time, far beyond what could be reasonably attributed to natural training and talent.
I didn't pose that question, dumbo. But keep arguing with yourself.
What was your answer to the fact that this season so far 11 athletes have run sub 3:30 in the 1500m and just 7 sub 3:53 (worth 3:35.6) in the Mile?
Armdebil: "You have trouble distinguishing "greatness" from doping." A comment without a last rest of logical connection to the stated fact: the season is almost over, and not a single good Mile has happened.
So, your other statement actually was: to be called "great" in the 1500m, you have to set a WR in the 1500m or in the Mile and you have to win at the big occasions (Olympics, Worlds - if available). So, only a Mile WR is enough, even when the mark is weaker than the 1500m WR? OK, your strange view on the subject. But this is only valid for the 1500m, correct.
"Greatniss" in other events is determind differently. In other events no big titles are needed - according to you. Also no WR? Just in the 1500m?
Without a last rest of doubt, you are the most stupid poster in this forum, and this for sure includes childish imbeciles like Bad Wigins.
Wipe your chin. We have been discussing what a "great runner" needs to be in the context of a 1500m/miler. Historically we have seen that those considered "great" won the big titles - which was an Olympic title before world championships were also introduced - but also broke the wr in the mile or its metric counterpart of the 1500. The mile was the main event until the 70's. For example, Snell ran only one 1500 event in his career but was regarded as the greatest md runner of his era because he beat all the best, he broke the mile record twice (as well as setting the 800 and half mile) and was Olympic champion over two distances - twice in the case of the 800.
Jakob is reigning Olympic champion but unlike the greats who go back to Lovelock he doesn't also hold the wr in either the 1500 or the mile or both. Several great runners have done that over the decades. He hasn't, so he has yet to join the top rank in the history of the event.
I didn't say tracks and shoes make no difference - but they don't make as big a difference as some claim, in justifying every kind of performance.
If an athlete is doping they are doping - not "partly doping". Jakob is doping. If he wasn't he would be running 3:22 for the 1500 juiced and sub 3:40 for the mile. So - no - he's doping alright.
So, Kerr IS doping. Otherwise he would be running 3:24 juiced.
Walker was doping. Otherwise he would have run 3:44 low for the Mile in 1975 (with todays shoes, tracks and wavelights sub 3:43) juiced.
Coe was doping. Otherwise he would have run 1:39 with 1981 shoes and tracks and 3:24 juiced.
Snell was doping, Otherwise he would have run 1:42 on grass 60+ years ago juiced.
So you know nothing about doping in the history of the sport. You left out Lovelock was doping or he would have run 3:42. Only an ignoramus like yourself is unaware of how stupid he sounds.
I didn't say tracks and shoes make no difference - but they don't make as big a difference as some claim, in justifying every kind of performance.
If an athlete is doping they are doping - not "partly doping". Jakob is doping. If he wasn't he would be running 3:22 for the 1500 juiced and sub 3:40 for the mile. So - no - he's doping alright.
I hope WADA employs you look at athletes PR's to deem who is doping or not. That will do away with the impractical and costly blood and urine samples.
So you are assuming that doping would confer no advantage to Jakob - he would still be running 3:27x if he doped. This is even so despite WADA determining the drugs can be "performance enhancing". We have seen substantial gains in athletes who have doped - so if Jakob is clean he should stand to gain considerable improvement from doping. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
This post was edited 47 seconds after it was posted.
Have a look at the progression of Rashid Ramzi. If anything, it's more than 5 seconds. But that you have to ask the question shows you know next to nothing about what doping can enable at elite and championship levels.
Ramzi was what I would call a prolific doper. There's a meaningful difference between doping and prolific doping, and it's crucial to make this distinction. An athlete 'doping' is one whouses prohibited substances or methods to enhance athletic performance. An athlete who is a prolific 'doper' , on the other hand, is utilizing a more systematic and consistent pattern of doping over an extended period.
Ramzi's career progression, which involved significant time reductions, does indeed raise suspicion of prolific doping. Athletes who consistently achieve remarkable improvements, especially at championship-level meets, are more likely to be engaged in systematic and ongoing doping practices. This level of doping can enable them to make substantial gains over time, far beyond what could be reasonably attributed to natural training and talent.
You have no idea how Ramzi doped compared to any other athlete who doped. They only need fail a test once. It doesn't tell us anything about how often they may have doped or the programme they employed. But what we do see - as Ramzi showed - is that doping will produce very substantial gains.
So, Kerr IS doping. Otherwise he would be running 3:24 juiced.
Walker was doping. Otherwise he would have run 3:44 low for the Mile in 1975 (with todays shoes, tracks and wavelights sub 3:43) juiced.
Coe was doping. Otherwise he would have run 1:39 with 1981 shoes and tracks and 3:24 juiced.
Snell was doping, Otherwise he would have run 1:42 on grass 60+ years ago juiced.
So you know nothing about doping in the history of the sport. You left out Lovelock was doping or he would have run 3:42. Only an ignoramus like yourself is unaware of how stupid he sounds.
What was your answer to the fact that this season so far 11 athletes have run sub 3:30 in the 1500m and just 7 sub 3:53 (worth 3:35.6) in the Mile?
Armdebil: "You have trouble distinguishing "greatness" from doping." A comment without a last rest of logical connection to the stated fact: the season is almost over, and not a single good Mile has happened.
So, your other statement actually was: to be called "great" in the 1500m, you have to set a WR in the 1500m or in the Mile and you have to win at the big occasions (Olympics, Worlds - if available). So, only a Mile WR is enough, even when the mark is weaker than the 1500m WR? OK, your strange view on the subject. But this is only valid for the 1500m, correct.
"Greatniss" in other events is determind differently. In other events no big titles are needed - according to you. Also no WR? Just in the 1500m?
Without a last rest of doubt, you are the most stupid poster in this forum, and this for sure includes childish imbeciles like Bad Wigins.
Wipe your chin. We have been discussing what a "great runner" needs to be in the context of a 1500m/miler. Historically we have seen that those considered "great" won the big titles - which was an Olympic title before world championships were also introduced - but also broke the wr in the mile or its metric counterpart of the 1500. The mile was the main event until the 70's. For example, Snell ran only one 1500 event in his career but was regarded as the greatest md runner of his era because he beat all the best, he broke the mile record twice (as well as setting the 800 and half mile) and was Olympic champion over two distances - twice in the case of the 800.
Jakob is reigning Olympic champion but unlike the greats who go back to Lovelock he doesn't also hold the wr in either the 1500 or the mile or both. Several great runners have done that over the decades. He hasn't, so he has yet to join the top rank in the history of the event.
Discussing? You have stated your DEFINITION of a "great" 1500m runner: has to win at the BIG occasions (always? - for how long?) and has to set at least one of the WRs at 1500m or the Mile (would it be OK to set a WR which is bettered soon after?).
Other events have other DEFINITIONS for greatness. Can you please give the one for the 800m? No titles are needed here - where comes this difference from? Is WR+big titles only true for the 1500m, or also for some other events?
How would you rank Ingebrigtsens achievements over all the events? Average? Good? Great? Not worth to talk about? He will not answer this question as he does with any concrete question.
Have a look at the progression of Rashid Ramzi. If anything, it's more than 5 seconds. But that you have to ask the question shows you know next to nothing about what doping can enable at elite and championship levels.
Ramzi's career progression, which involved significant time reductions, does indeed raise suspicion of prolific doping.
You can see today the progression of 6 to 7 runners that jumped from 3:36 to 3:29 in the space of 1 or 2 years.
Then I suggest you to swim in the sea of the other "prolific doping" of today.
Rashid Ramzi / Kiprop cases none talk about them except in this site of looser you name it:
- Somes Brits (old nostalgia of Ovett/Coe/Cram)
- Australians/New Zelandais (old nostalgia of Peter Snell; Walker, Herb Elliot)
- American (Jim Ryn)
They never accepted darkened black skinned guy take the front of international scene and eclipse their old Hollywoodic faces of idoles. (*)
Rashid Ramzi case is a case is a case of vengeance: some big players wanted him sportively dead because he was considered as a bad example.
(*) For history Hollywood didn't accept blacks until the middle of 60s
No, it wasn't. Not even run at the 1970 Commonwealth Games, never at the Olympics. A nice addition to the 1500m run and the main distance in some countries.
But this is completely irrelevant here.
Coe at 800m:
78 EC 3rd
80 OG 2nd
82 EC 2nd
83 WC did not participate
84 OG 2nd
86 EC 1st
87 WC did not participate
88 OG did not qualify
90 CG 6th
Extremely weak for someone like him, but he definitely is one of the GREATS in the event.
He sure didn't duck him at the WC final when it most counted
Jakob didn't duck Kerr ever.
Sure looks like Kerr is ducking him this week-end.
Too bad. Kerr looked great ion NYC. He would have had a chance to beat Jakob in the mile this week-end. Prove his win was not due to Jakob's illness.
I dunno. Kerr announced he was running Zurich and 5th AVE right after his World Champs win. Seems to me that Jakob could have turned up at either of those if he had wanted to. Not everyone has to dance to Jakob's tune
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.