wilson kipketer

[sicpuppie]

was Wilson Kipketer injured?...or was he off form cause he did'nt dominate like he used to in the past. I'm referring to tmhe world championships.

[bubba]

Re: wilson kipketer

He hada bad bout of malaria a couple years ago and he hasn't been the same since.

[Powell]

Re: wilson kipketer

People overuse the malaria as an excuse for his (relative) lack of form. Malaria isn't that unusual for African athletes, most of whom come back to shape in a matter of months (if not weeks - look at Wifred Bungei this year). Yes, Kipketer reportedly had a very serious (even life-threatening) bout in 1998, but if he was back to good shape the very same year, and had a fantastic season in 1999, I don't see what effect it can still have in 2003.
The point is he's been at the top for a long time and is past 30 now (he's been variously reported as born in 1972 or 1970). For some reason people think if an athlete was the best in the world once, he will win forever - it just doesn't work like that. Kipketer is still going strong, but he's no longer the dominant force he once was.

[bubba]

Re: wilson kipketer

Powell, you're right. I forgot about the '99 season. He's also had some injury troubles that he didn't have when he was younger. Likely, aslo a part of the aging process. I know I don't bounce back the way I used to after tough workouts and little pains linger longer.

[Guest]

Re: wilson kipketer

<People overuse the malaria as an excuse for his (relative) lack of form. Malaria isn't that unusual for African athletes, most of whom come back to shape in a matter of months (if not weeks - look at Wifred Bungei this year). Yes, Kipketer reportedly had a very serious (even life-threatening) bout in 1998, but if he was back to good shape the very same year, and had a fantastic season in 1999, I don't see what effect it can still have in 2003.
The point is he's been at the top for a long time and is past 30 now (he's been variously reported as born in 1972 or 1970). For some reason people think if an athlete was the best in the world once, he will win forever - it just doesn't work like that. Kipketer is still going strong, but he's no longer the dominant force he once was.>

Much of what you say makes sense. However, let us not forget that in 1997, Kipketer showed us the great one season of running in the 800 m. Only other possible rival, J. Cruz's fantastic 1984 season.

[Guest]

Re: wilson kipketer

He's old fer cryinoutloud! He's probably even a little older than what he admits to.

[Powell]

Re: wilson kipketer

>Much of what you say makes sense. However, let
>et us not forget that in 1997, Kipketer showed us
>the great one season of running in the 800 m.
>Only other possible rival, J. Cruz's fantastic
>1984 season.

Of course, 1997 was his best season, but how is that relevant to the point I'm making? All I'm saying is if he had malaria in 98 and came back to 1:42 shape (close to his best ever) in 1999, it means he had recovered sufficiently by then, so we can ignore the effect of the disease on his later performances.

[Guest]

Re: wilson kipketer

<Of course, 1997 was his best season, but how is that relevant to the point I'm making? All I'm saying is if he had malaria in 98 and came back to 1:42 shape (close to his best ever) in 1999, it means he had recovered sufficiently by then, so we can ignore the effect of the disease on his later performances.>

As others have said, Kipketer was not getting any younger at a critical stage of his career. The point I was trying to make was that given his awesome 1997 season, it is a shame 1998 got wiped out.
We all like to indulge in "what if"? Witness the threads on Harbig-Woodruff, Keino versus a fit Ryun in 1968. It is always a shame to witness cases in which one believes an athlete did not reach his full potential, due to circumstances beyond his control e.g. serious illness, war.

[gh]

Re: wilson kipketer

1998 hardly got "wiped out." Even though he was able to run in only three meets, they were good enough that he ran a pair of 1:43s and ranked No. 4 in the world.

[Guest]

Re: wilson kipketer

<1998 hardly got "wiped out." Even though he was able to run in only three meets, they were good enough that he ran a pair of 1:43s and ranked No. 4 in the world.>

Wiped out may have been a bit extreme. His best time in 1998 (1:43.18), was not up to the standard of his seventh best time from 1997 or the eighth best time from 1996 (outdoor clockings). For someone who was as dominant as Kipketer from 1995 onwards, the 1998 season may be termed a disappointment, if allowance is not made for his illness.