JOSH KERR STRIKES BACK “ I’m not going to let Jakob Ingebrigtsen belittle me”

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

You confuse explanations with excuses -when Cheruiyot explained his underperforming in Tokyo Olympics with a hamstring injury, that was an explanation, not an excuse. And when Wightman in the same games concluded that he had a one race fitness, but the lack of strength to do heats, semis and final: that was an explanation and not an excuse. And when Jakob told about his (obvious) 2023 sickness, and speculated in 2022 about fouls he did in the racing strategy, this also were explanations… So could he have formulated his explanation in 2022 in a less awkward way -so Wightman didn’t feel a shift from the initial respect to disrespect? Certainly -but Jakob’s problem was that he thought (maybe wrongly, but still) that he would had been the best in WC 2022 with a different strategy. And as an honest, competitive guy he just had to say it (to himself and others)…

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

Nah I think you're reaching severely here. Saying you're sick immediately after 3 races you just lost (indoor world champs, world champs and Monaco 2021) *is* disrespectful of the winner. You're also rewriting history with this 'Kerr didn't address his poor 2022 until a year later' angle. I remember specifically Kerr addressing that he wasn't at the level he needed to be at in various interviews that year and saying things like 'I'm going to give it my all and see what happens'. I even remember him talking to BBC during CW games and leaving me with the distinct impression he was going to be nowhere near the podium. So quit the history rewrites. Whilst we're at it, Jakob did not take the loss to Wightman with much more dignity- you're acting like he gave some gracious speech. Whilst on that occasion he didn't blame illness, he did say something like "how can I be so good and yet so terrible?" in the immediate aftermath. Not 'he was the better man tonight' but 'he only won because I ran terribly'. Wightman would hardly be delighted with that assessment.

Essentially, neither of them are particularly nice or gracious in the press, but of the two, JI has very obviously insulted more of his competitors and offered way more excuses. When Wightman won gold, who ran over and hugged him on the ground with a big smile on his face? Clue: it wasn't JI.

Kerr spoke in vague generalities. He claimed that everything was great ahead of the Worlds final, even though deep down he knew it wasn’t. Again fine, but I’d prefer honesty like him saying “my buildup has been bad, I’m not eating properly, and I just couldn’t get it together after the Olympics.”

Jakob says what he believes, he is honest. You seem to want to bury him for that. He was basically expressing “how can I crush Wightman and others all season and then blow it in the biggest race.” That is accountability, and I don’t get being offended by that. Jakob didn’t think Wightman was the better man in terms of fitness, and yet you want him to go PC and lie that he did.

At the core of this whole thing, is observers who don’t want honesty after a loss. They just want hollow platitudes, and PC answers. Also Monaco is now something to be mad about? I mean clearly he was sick before and it added context to why he was passive in the race and underperformed. And at World Indoors, why shouldn’t he reveal he had COVID? So did Beamish for instance. Excuses vs explanations is in the eye of the beholder.

kiltedrunner wrote:

As I said, I like Jakob and I genuinely root for him when he isn't facing Kerr or Wightman, but some posters here are acting like all of his little digs/ post-race excuses (or explanations if you insist) aren't belittling the other athletes. Put yourself in their shoes. You've just raced a local 10k with 500 participants and finished first. The guy who won it last year comes up to you and says "Well done, great race. Although, it must be said that I ran with terrible tactics; I could have won it with a blindfold; a Kenyan guy kept trying to take the lead and so I wasted energy holding him off; I've had a cold this week; and so yeah...ultimately you were just the next guy."

Are we all going to pretend this wouldn't piss us off even a little bit? Good for the sport and creates rivalries but let's not pretend he's about to win awards for taking a loss stoically.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

Well done, you've managed to provide paragraphs of text without providing the bits everyone is actually talking about- the sickness excuses, 'how can I be so good yet so terrible' etc. Following up mild praise with an excuse is disrespectful, leaving the excuse bit out is therefore misleading. For what it's worth, I like Jakob's persona and enjoy the drama it brings to the sport, but Thoughtsleader was claiming he doesn't disrespect his fellow athletes, which in my opinion isn't really true. He's not Conor McGregor no, but he's not Nuguse either.

You confuse explanations with excuses -when Cheruiyot explained his underperforming in Tokyo Olympics with a hamstring injury, that was an explanation, not an excuse. And when Wightman in the same games concluded that he had a one race fitness, but the lack of strength to do heats, semis and final: that was an explanation and not an excuse. And when Jakob told about his (obvious) 2023 sickness, and speculated in 2022 about fouls he did in the racing strategy, this also were explanations… So could he have formulated his explanation in 2022 in a less awkward way -so Wightman didn’t feel a shift from the initial respect to disrespect? Certainly -but Jakob’s problem was that he thought (maybe wrongly, but still) that he would had been the best in WC 2022 with a different strategy. And as an honest, competitive guy he just had to say it (to himself and others)…

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am amazed at the number of fans of the sport who don't understand sportsmanship, which is that you don't say anything to reduce a competitor's win over you, even if you think there were reasons for your loss. It always looks like sour grapes - and doesn't show respect for those who beat you, because you're still trying to say you're better than they are. History will decide that, not your wounded ego - and Ingebrigtsen has plenty of that.

But what looks even worse for Ingebrigtsen is that his excuses ring hollow - he was beaten by the better man on the day. Twice.

On this, I will disagree. There is a line between what Jakob does — which is speak his perspective on the race, and outright bad sportsmanship. You made a Trump comparison, which is absurd. Jakob doesn't speak in "alternate facts." I've never heard him say after a race something patently absurd that would fit into that prism. The biggest leap in logic he's had is thinking that pacing a DL race after the rabbit drops off is the exact same as pacing an entire championship race — it's not. Outside of that, and maybe some subjective takes about his training system, best event, or the closeness of his competition to him it pretty much seems confident/arrogant, but by no means delusional.

Yes, providing no explanations is maybe the best "sportsmanship," but it gives nothing to the fans. There is a reason these athletes are interviewed after a race and people most want to hear the winner and maybe even more the person that fell short the most. You and some of the old-school sportsmanship thinking want them to say empty PC statement "Josh was better than me today. He had a better race." Well yeah, Kerr won — these are self-evident facts. If you want to see a cocky frontrunner get humbled and lose, that's fair enough. But why you need them to hold in what they think I don't understand — it is part of the story. Ultimately most athletes have an edge, and I'd rather hear them tell us the problems in their buildup, their tactical errors in the race, and where it all went wrong. Or you could have hollow sportsmanship, when the results are clear as day. We KNOW Josh won, there is no disputing it. No Jakob fan thinks Jakob was better — he lost! Why you need Jakob to say nothing in the name of sportsmanship, I don't know. It is infinitely more interesting to hear what athletes think.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have misunderstood the comparison with Trump. It isn't whether what Trump says or believes is true, it is that he simply says whatever he thinks (although thinking is often not really involved). Similarly speaking one's mind is what Jakob has been praised for. But in so doing he can be wrong (like Trump) and crass (although nothing like the extent Trump is). He puts runners down who have beaten him and makes excuses for his loss. Sincerity isn't always to be applauded; it can reveal stupidity - or, in Jakob's case, an overweening ego. It is possible to be interesting without being a prat.

Fair enough. I think Jakob is generally thoughtful. I'd agree some of the trash talk and belittling has been a bit much. I think we were mostly referring to his post-race comments, as opposed to the "blindfold" line or "walk in the park" one. I think disliking Jakob's bravado in these interviews is fine. For me, his post-race comments have never really crossed a line.

If we want to use the Nordas counter-example, I think his in Glasgow were crossing that proverbial line. To say you lost because the organizers let too many into a World Indoor final, and insisting that you're "better than Beamish" is the wrong type of thoughtlessness. If he'd said, "the race is tactical with 14 people and I lost because I botched the tactics"...that's totally fine. If he'd said "Beamish has a great kick and all of us were dumb to let it come down to that," also fine. Or if he'd said, "I pulled my hammy in the prelims and I couldn't generate my normal kick" I'd have no problem there.

Ultimately, it's a judgment call. It comes down to if what you are saying is a real insight into what happened and why it went down the way it did. Where Nordas failed is focusing on external factors and an unsupported judgment vs. being honest with himself, which he later did in his IG post.

Armstronglivs wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

On this, I will disagree. There is a line between what Jakob does — which is speak his perspective on the race, and outright bad sportsmanship. You made a Trump comparison, which is absurd. Jakob doesn't speak in "alternate facts." I've never heard him say after a race something patently absurd that would fit into that prism. The biggest leap in logic he's had is thinking that pacing a DL race after the rabbit drops off is the exact same as pacing an entire championship race — it's not. Outside of that, and maybe some subjective takes about his training system, best event, or the closeness of his competition to him it pretty much seems confident/arrogant, but by no means delusional.

Yes, providing no explanations is maybe the best "sportsmanship," but it gives nothing to the fans. There is a reason these athletes are interviewed after a race and people most want to hear the winner and maybe even more the person that fell short the most. You and some of the old-school sportsmanship thinking want them to say empty PC statement "Josh was better than me today. He had a better race." Well yeah, Kerr won — these are self-evident facts. If you want to see a cocky frontrunner get humbled and lose, that's fair enough. But why you need them to hold in what they think I don't understand — it is part of the story. Ultimately most athletes have an edge, and I'd rather hear them tell us the problems in their buildup, their tactical errors in the race, and where it all went wrong. Or you could have hollow sportsmanship, when the results are clear as day. We KNOW Josh won, there is no disputing it. No Jakob fan thinks Jakob was better — he lost! Why you need Jakob to say nothing in the name of sportsmanship, I don't know. It is infinitely more interesting to hear what athletes think.

You have misunderstood the comparison with Trump. It isn't whether what Trump says or believes is true, it is that he simply says whatever he thinks (although thinking is often not really involved). Similarly speaking one's mind is what Jakob has been praised for. But in so doing he can be wrong (like Trump) and crass (although nothing like the extent Trump is). He puts runners down who have beaten him and makes excuses for his loss. Sincerity isn't always to be applauded; it can reveal stupidity - or, in Jakob's case, an overweening ego. It is possible to be interesting without being a prat.