Where does Asbel Kiprop rank among all-time 1500m runners?

Hardloper wrote:

Come on Ventolin, you should know that

1) Komen didn't need pacers or competition or anyting to run fast. He wouldn't be caught dead running a 13:59 even in a hurricane.

2) Komen could not run 1:43.15 for 800m like Kiprop. I'm not even sure he could do half that. There's a reason he didn't sit and kick. Komen and Kiprop are not similar.

I was referring to Farah

try to keep up

Lol you are so delusional.

Of course Farah's times get worse as the distance gets longer. His 1500m is way better than his half marathon time. His 10k time is better than his half time. His ACTUAL 5k is better than his half time. And using your own argument about how he could have run faster for 5k in 2011, then his 5k is better than his 10k too.

Sure Farah is the only 1500m guy who has run a 60:10 half. That's true. But he's then only one that had TRIED. So you can't use that as an argument either. And anyone with actual common sense would be able to come to a conclusion about the quality of his 60:10 based on his tempo pace. The 60:10 is not at all impressive. It's 2 minutes off the world record.

And yes of course ANY runner of any distance could win the 10k at WC if the pace was slow enough. Did you see the finish time? It was near 27:30. Any endurance trained top 1500m guy could have won that race. To deny that just means that you're dumb. If Farah had won it in 26:40 then maybe you'd have a point, but it was 27:30.

And Farah saying that he's in better shape doesn't actually mean that he's in better shape. It means that he's saying he's in better shape. If he was really in better shape then he would have beaten Bekele.

None of your arguments are solid. Get new ones.

moron

what part of

"From Renato Canova -

"Don't think the real value of Mo is 12'53". He ran already 12'57" in 2010, when we worked together for some month in Iten, in Zurich, and now is very much stronger, after going to Salazar. To think can run near 12'40" is something reasonable, such as the possibility of running under 26'30" in 10000m."

"

don't you comprehend

He could run 1:42.8 800, 3:25 1500, 12:49 5000 if he went all out in each. Dude is at least #1 behind El G if he'd just give it his all.

someone had to do it wrote:

moron

what part of

"From Renato Canova -

"Don't think the real value of Mo is 12'53". He ran already 12'57" in 2010, when we worked together for some month in Iten, in Zurich, and now is very much stronger, after going to Salazar. To think can run near 12'40" is something reasonable, such as the possibility of running under 26'30" in 10000m."

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5302291

"

don't you comprehend

Moron

What part of

this is 2013 and not 2010/2011. Two years have gone by.

Don't you comprehend?

Idiot

Learn

oosk wrote:

Moron

What part of

this is 2013 and not 2010/2011. Two years have gone by.

Don't you comprehend?

Idiot

Learn

fu.king imbecile

people like Canova and myself understand what is simple

and that is Farah has massive endurance to run 3'28 off of such limited speed

moron

he would have run 12'40 & 26'30 in evenly paced tt with wabbits on euro circuit

pea brained idiots like yourself do not comprehend this fact

learn

imbecile

someone had to do it wrote:

fu.king imbecile

people like Canova and myself understand what is simple

and that is Farah has massive endurance to run 3'28 off of such limited speed

moron

he would have run 12'40 & 26'30 in evenly paced tt with wabbits on euro circuit

pea brained idiots like yourself do not comprehend this fact

learn

imbecile

There is no evidence that his speed is so "limited". Most of the evidence indicates the opposite. It indicates that his speed has increased. You continually refuse to accept this as a possibility even though there is evidence for it.

Mr. Obvious, I have no idea what you're trying to argue now. His 3000m, 5000m, 10000m (yes, "actual performances") get better as they go on. The 1500m is the best of them all, because that is an outlier as it is the ONLY distance he has time trialed recently.

Hardloper wrote:

Mr. Obvious, I have no idea what you're trying to argue now. His 3000m, 5000m, 10000m (yes, "actual performances") get better as they go on. The 1500m is the best of them all, because that is an outlier as it is the ONLY distance he has time trialed recently.

No they don't. His half is worse than his 5k/10k.

1. Nope. If you go by iaaf points and their table, then his 10k pr (26:46) is more impressive than his 5k pr (12:53). So his performances don't get worse as they go up.

2. No 1500 guy has ever had the endurance to run a 60:10. Plenty of milers have run half-marathons in their careers and none of them have come close. Why? Because they don't have the natural endurance and talent to run that fast. Farah was able to because he has more natural endurance than 1500 guys, because he's not a 1500 guy.

3. No, not any runner could win the WC 10k if it was slow enough. There have been plenty of 10k championship races slower than 2013's, and surprise, none of them were won by milers.

4. Farah said he was in better shape than 2011. His half-marathon time dropped from 60:23 to 60:10 in 2013. This is proof that he was in better shape. How Bekele did is irrelevant.

oosk wrote:

No they don't. His half is worse than his 5k/10k.

Okay so it goes 1500, 10000, 3000, 5000, HM? That order doesn't prove the statement that he gets worse the higher the distance goes up. If pacers/other names were in on his half I imagine it would have went well under 60.

1. So his half marathon is better than his 1500m time? By the different tables available, his 5k and 10k are equal or fairly equal. The difference between his 1500 and his half time is much larger. So his times do in fact get worse as the distance gets longer. You cannot deny this but you will find a way won't you? Somehow math is wrong and you are correct.

2. No, plenty of milers have NOT run half marathons in their careers. Show me proof that "plenty" have even attempted a half marathon during their competitive peak season. You're making things up.

3. No top milers have ever even entered the 10k WC so what are you talking about? Again, you're making things up.

4. No, how Bekele did is very relevant because it made Farah run all out. And his all out turned out to be all slow. Slower than what he should have run if he was actually in better 5k/10k shape.

Your arguments are old and unsubstantiated.

Hardloper wrote:

Mr. Obvious, I have no idea what you're trying to argue now. His 3000m, 5000m, 10000m (yes, "actual performances") get better as they go on. The 1500m is the best of them all, because that is an outlier as it is the ONLY distance he has time trialed recently.

oosk wrote:

No they don't. His half is worse than his 5k/10k.

I'll say it one more time, a little slower if I have to:

His 3000m, 5000m, 10000m "actual performances" get better as they go on.

Hf.R. wrote:

Okay so it goes 1500, 10000, 3000, 5000, HM? That order doesn't prove the statement that he gets worse the higher the distance goes up. If pacers/other names were in on his half I imagine it would have went well under 60.

No, the 5 and 10 are so similar. The 1500 and half are way different. That actually does prove that his performances get worse as the distance gets longer.

However, using 5k/10k times from 2 years ago doesn't really make much sense. Who knows whether he's improved or regressed since then. Two years is a long time. And no saying you feel stronger doesn't actually mean you're stronger and in better shape. See Solinsky this past weekend.

He had 2 efforts this year where he was pushed all out to the finish line. His 1500m and his half marathon time. Because they were somewhat all out and because they actually occurred in the same year should make them the only performances of his to use. And what do you know. His 1500 was way better than his half.

And he had a pacer in Bekele all the way to the finish line and couldn't break 60.

Hf.R. wrote:

oosk wrote:

No they don't. His half is worse than his 5k/10k.

Okay so it goes 1500, 10000, 3000, 5000, HM? That order doesn't prove the statement that he gets worse the higher the distance goes up. If pacers/other names were in on his half I imagine it would have went well under 60.

Can't you see the obvious pattern you imbecile?

How about this:

1500: 2nd to Kiprop

5000: 3 GOLDs

10000: 2 GOLDs

half: 2nd to bekele

What's his best event?

Hardloper wrote:

I'll say it one more time, a little slower if I have to:

His 3000m, 5000m, 10000m "actual performances" get better as they go on.

Ok? And I'll say it one more time. Read it as fast or as slow as you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm correct and you're wrong. His "actual performances" get worse as the distance gets longer. I don't know why you're having trouble with this.

Hardloper wrote:

How about this:

1500: 2nd to Kiprop

5000: 3 GOLDs

10000: 2 GOLDs

half: 2nd to bekele

What's his best event?

The 1500. The point you're failing at trying to make is a dumb point. He didn't even attempt a medal in the 1500 or the half so you can't compare those to the 5 and 10. Also, he's come 2nd or worse plenty of times in the 5k and 10k. Hardloper, I thought you were a troll but not even a troll could be this dumb on purpose.

1. No, his 1500 time is better than his half marathon, but you said that his times get worse as they go up,they don't. You are wrong. According to the IAAF table, his 10k time is better than his 5k. Even if they were equivalent, that still shows that his times don't get worse as they go up.

2. Milers don't do half-marathons in their peak years. I never said they did. Lagat and Silva are a couple of examples of milers that later did half-marathons. They never got close to Farah's time.

3. I didn't make anything up. I said that no miler has ever won a championship 10k despite the pace. This is true and not made up. You said that any miler could if the pace was slow enough. There is absolutely no evidence of this.

4. Farah said he was in better shape than 2011. His time got faster from 2011 to 2013. That means he's in better shape. Connect the dots. Also Farah didn't go all out in his 60:10 because his last 400 was 60 seconds.