So if they had passed him at 1300M is it still impressive or do you mean he had to go to 1420m?
Btw, What facts were denied?
In any case, good effort by you with this post... you've gotten people to respond so good on you. (me included, obviously)
Bottom line my friend. The top 3 ran more impressive races because they beat your guy.. and trust me your guy did what he did because he wanted to win (because he knew that would be impressive.)
Can you explain the significance of your first question? They passed him at what was already the end of the race, so there is the answer to your question.
You should read the original post, noting how the effort was one of the best in history, based on the cost of leading and running wide on a bend.
I asked you how far he had to go for it to be ' quite possibly one of the greatest achievement ever in athletics history'? How far? Would it have been that at 1200m? 800m? How far did he have to go to get that distinction ? (pretty simple really)
Here are your main points (direct quotes from you)>
1) ...quite possibly one of the greatest achievements ever in athletics history.
2) His performance was by far the most impressive.
These are opinions and not facts.
No one is denying any facts. People just don't agree with your opinions above because your guy was 4th and the point of the race was to win.
Did you even read the original post? The time it costs to lead and the wide bend? This was a sub 326 performance so it is a fact that this is one of the greatest runs in history, so it is obviously going to be the most impressive. The point of the race is to win but that doesn’t mean you have to be an idiot and say anything other than a podium finish is awful. My god.
Can you explain the significance of your first question? They passed him at what was already the end of the race, so there is the answer to your question.
You should read the original post, noting how the effort was one of the best in history, based on the cost of leading and running wide on a bend.
I asked you how far he had to go for it to be ' quite possibly one of the greatest achievement ever in athletics history'? How far? Would it have been that at 1200m? 800m? How far did he have to go to get that distinction ? (pretty simple really)
When he was passed, because at that point he was not pacing anymore.
I already said his strategy cost him a medal, but his performance based on that strategy he took was impressive despite the 4th place finish. Not sure why you are reaching so much here.
Reaching?? You think I"M reaching? Dude, you're getting hammered from all sides and you haven't the sense to stop trying to justify your ridiculous take.
Here are your main points (direct quotes from you)>
1) ...quite possibly one of the greatest achievements ever in athletics history.
2) His performance was by far the most impressive.
These are opinions and not facts.
No one is denying any facts. People just don't agree with your opinions above because your guy was 4th and the point of the race was to win.
Did you even read the original post? The time it costs to lead and the wide bend? This was a sub 326 performance so it is a fact that this is one of the greatest runs in history, so it is obviously going to be the most impressive. The point of the race is to win but that doesn’t mean you have to be an idiot and say anything other than a podium finish is awful. My god.
Wrong, Hocker's gold medal performance is more impressive than Jakob's failed front running. Championship racing is not time trialing. Championship racing is where the GOATs are determined. PBs, while important, are secondary to gold medals. Superior tactics and finishing speed are key elements of 1500m racing. Your boy failed in both aspects. This is not very impressive considering the objectives of the day, and it certainly is not one of the "greatest achievements ever" LOL.
Lemme guess, you’re someone who doesn’t acknowledge that Centro won in a sorry race, but that he should be revered as one of the greatest to ever do it?
Did you even read the original post? The time it costs to lead and the wide bend? This was a sub 326 performance so it is a fact that this is one of the greatest runs in history, so it is obviously going to be the most impressive. The point of the race is to win but that doesn’t mean you have to be an idiot and say anything other than a podium finish is awful. My god.
Wrong, Hocker's gold medal performance is more impressive than Jakob's failed front running. Championship racing is not time trialing. Championship racing is where the GOATs are determined. PBs, while important, are secondary to gold medals. Superior tactics and finishing speed are key elements of 1500m racing. Your boy failed in both aspects. This is not very impressive considering the objectives of the day, and it certainly is not one of the "greatest achievements ever" LOL.
I never said any of the things you said and it disproves none of what I said in the original post. Keep reaching pal.
Lemme guess, you’re someone who doesn’t acknowledge that Centro won in a sorry race, but that he should be revered as one of the greatest to ever do it?
Serem's performance in the SC heats was remarkable, probably moreso than the eventual winner's. Guess that event is also something you don't have to care about.
Bingo. This isn’t gymnastics or diving, where athletes score more points for higher degree of difficulty. The goal in track is simply to cross the finish line first, and if not first, then second or third. The most impressive athletes are the ones who made the podium, using both physical and mental fitness to get there.
Snowflakes: creating this thread is an indication that you are in the bargaining stage of grief. Your favored runner didn’t get the victory you hoped for, so now you are attempting to find an alternative form of distinction for him. It’s not going to work. Here’s hoping you reach the acceptance stage sooner than later.
Wow. I can’t believe the amount of Ad Hominems occuring in this thread.
You all keep using terms such as “physical and mental fitness” but can’t actually refute any of the points I made in the original post. Jakob’s run was unimpressive then? Or somewhat impressive? You can’t even give a straight answer with any analysis of the race. All it is from you folk are “He crossed the line first, who gives a crap”, so simpleminded you lot are.
Your assertion is Jakob’s performance “was by far the most impressive.” Any honest assessment of who was the most impressive must focus on the task at hand. The task was to win, and he failed in his task.
Moreover, Jakob grossly underperformed based on expectations. He was the overwhelming favorite to win, and he didn’t even medal. Instead of claiming his performance was the most impressive, how about acknowledging that his performance was the most disappointing.
Wow. I can’t believe the amount of Ad Hominems occuring in this thread.
You all keep using terms such as “physical and mental fitness” but can’t actually refute any of the points I made in the original post. Jakob’s run was unimpressive then? Or somewhat impressive? You can’t even give a straight answer with any analysis of the race. All it is from you folk are “He crossed the line first, who gives a crap”, so simpleminded you lot are.
Your assertion is Jakob’s performance “was by far the most impressive.” Any honest assessment of who was the most impressive must focus on the task at hand. The task was to win, and he failed in his task.
Moreover, Jakob grossly underperformed based on expectations. He was the overwhelming favorite to win, and he didn’t even medal. Instead of claiming his performance was the most impressive, how about acknowledging that his performance was the most disappointing.
I am looking at it with two angles: 1) It is a complete failure by him for not medalling, tactically he is a doofus.
BUT
2) I am not a moron that thinks this performance timewise is also bad, it is one of the best in history, just in the wrong moment at the wrong time. For me, that is more important than medals.
So you assume every other runner stayed tucked on the rail the entire time? All medalists move out of lane 1 at multiple times in that race so please take that, and the fact that they medaled and JI did not, into your calculations for “most impressive” race. I’d say that puts just about all the medalists in the 3:26:xx range.
First off, everybody in the top 5 ran extremely well and the top 3 tactically ran a great race.
Unfortunately though, I don’t really care. The guy who placed 4th led the entire thing and ran 3:28.2. That’s right 3:28.2. That is quite possibly one of the greatest achievements ever in athletics history. Leading and drafting for somebody is worth about 0.5 seconds per lap. Add to that, Jakob ran the first bend wide, which is worth around a quarter to a half second as well. That means that he ran a performance equivalent to sub 3:26.
Was this strategy stupid? Yes. Did it cost him gold? Yes. But I don’t pretend that Hocker, Nuguse, or even Kerr could have done close to what Jakob has done today. His performance was by far the most impressive.
yes, but championship racing requires the right tactics.
Your assertion is Jakob’s performance “was by far the most impressive.” Any honest assessment of who was the most impressive must focus on the task at hand. The task was to win, and he failed in his task.
Moreover, Jakob grossly underperformed based on expectations. He was the overwhelming favorite to win, and he didn’t even medal. Instead of claiming his performance was the most impressive, how about acknowledging that his performance was the most disappointing.
I am looking at it with two angles: 1) It is a complete failure by him for not medalling, tactically he is a doofus.
BUT
2) I am not a moron that thinks this performance timewise is also bad, it is one of the best in history, just in the wrong moment at the wrong time. For me, that is more important than medals.
The problem with track and field is it’s about who crosses the line first or who jumps the highest. That should be only worth 80% of the score. If experts weigh in to adjust the marks it would make the sport more interesting.
Here are your main points (direct quotes from you)>
1) ...quite possibly one of the greatest achievements ever in athletics history.
2) His performance was by far the most impressive.
These are opinions and not facts.
No one is denying any facts. People just don't agree with your opinions above because your guy was 4th and the point of the race was to win.
Did you even read the original post? The time it costs to lead and the wide bend? This was a sub 326 performance so it is a fact that this is one of the greatest runs in history, so it is obviously going to be the most impressive. The point of the race is to win but that doesn’t mean you have to be an idiot and say anything other than a podium finish is awful. My god.
Dude, no where did the guy say JI's race was awful.
Maybe if you'd have said something like 'the greatest pacing achievement ever in an olympic 1500 final.' yes, try that people might agree
I asked you how far he had to go for it to be ' quite possibly one of the greatest achievement ever in athletics history'? How far? Would it have been that at 1200m? 800m? How far did he have to go to get that distinction ? (pretty simple really)
When he was passed, because at that point he was not pacing anymore.
You may not be too bright.
People lead races and go out too hard all the time. I've seen any number of races where the leader goes out at WR pace and eventually gets passed.
You have decided this race was 'one of the greatest achievements ever in athletics history' because he was pacing at WR pace. The guy was asking you how far he had to go pacing to achieve this "level of greatness"? Was it exactly to the point he got passed or could he have been passed earlier?
How far did he have to pace this race at WR pace for that to happen in you brain? Why is that so hard for you to understand?
And the reason for the question is to try to highlight to you that it is in fact just an opinion of yours, nothing more.