The inaugural World Championships of Track & Field (now the World Athletics Championships) were held in Helsinki in 1983, somewhat late in Coe's career, and held only every 4 years initially (at least outdoors). Keep that in mind.
The World Athletics Championships (until 2019 known as the World Championships in Athletics) are a biennial athletics competition organized by World Athletics (formerly IAAF, International Association of Athletics Federations...
At the moment J. Ingebrigtsen for sure is missing an outdoor WR and Coe must be ranked ahead of him without a doubt. But if he can get such a record it's just a matter of time when he becomes the greatest European runner in history.
Logic has completely departed you. A record that lasts longer is a stronger record because it has been shown to be harder to break.
A record lasting longer does not necessarily mean that it is harder to break - it may just be the case that fewer people are interested in breaking it. We'd have to look at actual attempt numbers and the caliber of people making those attempts to judge the strength of a record.
All the very best 1500-5k runners have competed over the same distances for decades, that have included the 3k. It is squarely in their ball park. None have got close to Komen's record in quarter of a century.
Logic has completely departed you. A record that lasts longer is a stronger record because it has been shown to be harder to break.
Some deep thinking from your part.
A long standing record might be an exceptionally strong one - or not. Many other factors should be considered, for example the level of competition. But such an simple and obvious thought seems to be completely beyond you.
Young's 46.78 from '92 was good, but not exceptional in any way at the time. It stood for almost three decades, in some seasons nobody came within one second of the mark.
Kratochvilova's 49.59 also was not that special, but it stood for over four decades.
Gebrselassie's 12:44.39 from '95 was one of the best distance records in history - yet one year later it was almost bettered, and two years later it was bettered by five seconds.
3:26.00 and 12:35.36 definitely are better than 7:20.67.
You claim, without any justification, that certain records have endured because of an indifference to improving upon them. If a record is "soft" it is easily and dramatically improved. If it isn't soft - it lasts. The 3k fits the latter and it hasn't lasted because the best runners have lacked any real interest in breaking it. The 1500 world record-holder couldn't get near it and neither has any 5k world record-holder including the current record holder. Anyone who understands the sport - it seems you aren't in that category - knows it is a near superhuman record.
A long standing record might be an exceptionally strong one - or not. Many other factors should be considered, for example the level of competition. But such an simple and obvious thought seems to be completely beyond you.
Young's 46.78 from '92 was good, but not exceptional in any way at the time. It stood for almost three decades, in some seasons nobody came within one second of the mark.
Kratochvilova's 49.59 also was not that special, but it stood for over four decades.
Gebrselassie's 12:44.39 from '95 was one of the best distance records in history - yet one year later it was almost bettered, and two years later it was bettered by five seconds.
3:26.00 and 12:35.36 definitely are better than 7:20.67.
You claim, without any justification, that certain records have endured because of an indifference to improving upon them. If a record is "soft" it is easily and dramatically improved. If it isn't soft - it lasts. The 3k fits the latter and it hasn't lasted because the best runners have lacked any real interest in breaking it. The 1500 world record-holder couldn't get near it and neither has any 5k world record-holder including the current record holder. Anyone who understands the sport - it seems you aren't in that category - knows it is a near superhuman record.
Anyone who understands the sport - it seems you aren't in that category - knows that El Guerrouj only ran the 3000m on 3 occasions.
I must disappoint you! I can´t remember I have seen your username before even though I have read and contributed to many threads on these pages especially about international toprunners on the middle and long distances. So I am definitively not stalking you and I don´t know what you wrote last summer before the WC 5000m before seeing your above post.
I think your advice to Fisher at least seen in retrospective was wishful thinking since Fisher (and the other toprunners) obviously had no chance to beat Jakob in that 5000m final.
I know many posters (American patriots?) have been critical to Fishers performance in the 5000m final. I my neutral and unbiased opinion Fisher ran a great and smart race:
He ran close to the rail the whole race saving his energy for the finish. When Jakob took the lead 900m out Fisher had the best position in the field just behind Jakob. He couldn´t hold Jakob´s back when the latter changed to the highest gear about 150m out but he would possibly have got the bronze hadn´t he had his rail accident.
If Fisher had followed your advice he couldn´t have done better. If Fisher couldn´t hang on even though he had been drafted the whole race how should he fare better if he himself had been the pacemaker from 900m to go?
You claim, without any justification, that certain records have endured because of an indifference to improving upon them. If a record is "soft" it is easily and dramatically improved. If it isn't soft - it lasts. The 3k fits the latter and it hasn't lasted because the best runners have lacked any real interest in breaking it. The 1500 world record-holder couldn't get near it and neither has any 5k world record-holder including the current record holder. Anyone who understands the sport - it seems you aren't in that category - knows it is a near superhuman record.
Anyone who understands the sport - it seems you aren't in that category - knows that El Guerrouj only ran the 3000m on 3 occasions.
That's what happens when you can't get close to the record.
OK, I'll bite. If he did the following, I'd consider Ingebrigtsen the GOAT. This is assuming that everyone else runs about as well as they're running now, so for instance no one else breaks 3:26.
World record 1500m: 3:24, with two more 3:25s World record 3000m: 7:17 Sub-12:40 5k
2023: 1500m, 5k World Champ 2024: 1500m, 5k Olympic Champ 2025: 1500m World Champ 2027: 5k World Champ 2028: 5k Olympic Champ
In one of his 1500m wins, he turns the screws from 1000m out and destroys the field, winning by over 1.5 seconds. In one of his 5k wins, he runs 60-62-58-52 to finish off a 12:57 race.
I'm adjusting for the shoe/track/pacer improvements of recent years. Give or take some details, if he does the above, he's the GOAT over Bekele. Anything less, and he's not.
Jakob has far stiffer competition than El G etc. El G only had to beat a handful of Kenyans juicing as hard as he was.
Also, 1500 is more important than 5000. One 1500 Olympic gold is worth two 5000m golds, and three 10000m golds.
He only needs to get close to the 1500/mile WRs as they were obviously the product of full throttle EPO.
One 1500 Oly Gold = Two 5000 Oly Golds and Three 10000 Oly Golds, correct?
While I'm Pro-Jakob anyday. That's quite a vague dream.
What do you mean "Greatest"? People to this day dispute between Gebrselassie, Bekele, and Kipchoge. It's not like with Usain Bolt where he holds Two world records that have had historical debate for Fastest Man alive (Michael Johnson-Donovan Bailey).
If he means acquire World Records. He's off by quite a margin.
He's dreaming big. What would have have to accomplish to become the GOAT?
“I love to compete and to collect medals. That is what drives me and other athletes. It is not only about the winning, it’s about winning time after time. My main goal is to become the best runner that ever existed. To do that, I will need to win more races and the next one is tomorrow.”
Is he speaking for the women also? I strongly believe that when Letesenbet Gidey finishes her running career and returns to the Endameskal village to raise a family, she will have the most outstanding record when compared to her international running peers past and present. Jacob cannot possibly hope to gap his competitors in that way that she has/will. next year she will add the marathon WR to her accomplishments. Only other thing she will be gunning for is Olympic gold in the 10000m
0.81 seconds per km away from the record, on his only serious attempt, must be considered "close to the record" over 3000 m.
It wasn't 0.81. Nowhere near. His pb was 7.23 as against Komen's 7.20.
Did you even graduate highschool? Open up your calculator and divide 2.42 (which is the difference between Komen's time and ElG's time) by 3, see what you get. Embarrassing.
While I'm Pro-Jakob anyday. That's quite a vague dream.
What do you mean "Greatest"? People to this day dispute between Gebrselassie, Bekele, and Kipchoge. It's not like with Usain Bolt where he holds Two world records that have had historical debate for Fastest Man alive (Michael Johnson-Donovan Bailey).
If he means acquire World Records. He's off by quite a margin.
1500 - WR: 3:26.00 Jakob: 3:28.32
Mile - WR: 3:43.13 Jakob: 3:46.46
2000 - WR: 4:44.79 Jakob: 4:50.01
3000 - WR: 7:20.67 Jakob: 7:27.05
5000 - WR: 12:35.36 Jakob: 12:48.45
I like my G but, He's got a long way to go.
Any athlete have concrete goals and more vague goals or dreams if you like. I dont understand the fuzz or need to discuss this to much. I expect any young athlete that is at the top or close to the top of their sport to have dreams of becoming a legend or the best of the best. I don't know if its a difference in culture that makes people react on this.
It must be easier to do the work needed to become the best if you have a dream of actually becoming the best. Judging by some other runners, even in the 1500 it seems like some runners would have benefitted by dreaming bigger.
That's what happens when you can't get close to the record.
0.81 seconds per km away from the record, on his only serious attempt, must be considered "close to the record" over 3000 m.
And it was far from perfectly paced. He probably was capable of breaking the record on this occasion - but definitely while concentrating more on the distance. He has had just one more attempt on the distance outdoors after this one - according to the letsrun non-checker no. 1 because El G knew the record to be out of reach.
It wasn't 0.81. Nowhere near. His pb was 7.23 as against Komen's 7.20.
Did you even graduate highschool? Open up your calculator and divide 2.42 (which is the difference between Komen's time and ElG's time) by 3, see what you get. Embarrassing.
I didn't read the fatuous distinction "per kilometre" because it is irrelevant. It is no more relevant than saying he was only 0.081 secs slower per 100 metres or even 0.0081secs per metre. So ph*qing what. It looks closer but the end result is the same. El G was 2.42 secs slower over the full distance - which is nowhere near Komen's record. Dividing that time differential by 3 is meaningless and makes him no closer to a record he couldn't break.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Did you even graduate highschool? Open up your calculator and divide 2.42 (which is the difference between Komen's time and ElG's time) by 3, see what you get. Embarrassing.
The stopwatch and not your calculator says El G was 2.42 seconds slower than Komen. That isnt 0.81secs, as was claimed.
Ah so the problem is not your inability to do 2nd grade calculations, it's actually your illiteracy - the person said 0.81s per km.