Jakob Ingebrigtsen made World Athletics’ predictions to shame after the Norwegian won the men’s 5,000m at the inaugural Ultimate Championship. The 2x Olympic champion stormed to victory in 12:59.24. Yet despite that recent triumph and his status as the reigning Olympic champion in the event, World Athletics’ broadcast failed to back Ingebrigtsen, leaving fans furious with its controversial prediction.
Watch What’s Trending Now!
The Ingebrigtsen prediction was not the only one to raise eyebrows during the new broadcast. World Athletics introduced win-probability graphics and predicted finishing positions as part of the Ultimate Championship’s television presentation. However, several predictions quickly came under scrutiny when the results on the track did not match what the graphics had suggested.
For instance, before the 5,000m, Ingebrigtsen was projected to finish 12th and was given less than a 40% chance of winning. The prediction quickly looked questionable once the race got underway, with the Norwegian staying in contention before producing a statement finish. Ingebrigtsen covered the final lap in 54.39 seconds to pull away from his rivals and win in 12:59.24, collecting the $150,000 winner’s prize. Cole Hocker finished second in 13:00.05, while Parker Wolfe took third in 13:00.13.
Ingebrigtsen himself appeared to find the prediction amusing after the race. “I was predicted number 12 by World Athletics; can you imagine?” Ingebrigtsen said after his victory.
His performance was particularly impressive given that he had only recently returned from Achilles surgery. After spending months away from competition, the Norwegian has quickly returned to winning form, first taking European 5,000m gold and then adding another major victory in Budapest.
But then the prediction graphics soon became a talking point among fans. One fan argued, “Sorry, these win probability graphics need to be scrapped if this is the garbage they’re churning out. Makes the broadcast look like a joke when the unstoppable winning machine who hasn’t lost all year is ‘projected’ to win less than 4 times out of 10.”
Another fan acknowledged that the idea behind the graphics was interesting but questioned the way they were being used. “One of the distinguishing features of the Ultimate Championship was supposed to be the TV production—and indeed, it’s different from the usual. Showing the players’ chances of winning (in %) and predicted placement seems like a good idea. However, there can be some remarks about the execution :)…”
However, Ingebrigtsen was not the only major star whose prediction attracted attention. Fans also questioned the figures shown during the men’s pole vault, particularly those involving Mondo Duplantis and Emmanouil Karalis. At one point, Duplantis was reportedly given only a 28% chance of winning, despite being the world-record holder and one of the biggest favorites in the event.
That made one more fan add, “The moment somewhere at the start of the competition when they gave Duplantis like 28% chance of winning, it was already clear that those percentages were pulled out of thin air.” Duplantis then went on to do exactly what many expected him to do. He won the pole vault after clearing 6.20m, while Karalis finished second with 6.15m.
Karalis also featured in another prediction that left fans questioning the system. “Then there was also a 45% chance of Karalis winning with his jump at 6.20. Absurd. In my opinion, they simply made the differences between the athletes too small, as if they didn’t want to hurt the feelings of the weaker ones. If it’s supposed to be calculated this badly, then for me it’s a disgrace,” a fan commented.
The reaction continued with another fan summing up the frustration: “World Athletics ‘innovative’ win probabilities are really off to a strong start.”
The criticism does not necessarily mean fans were against the idea of bringing more data into track and field broadcasts. In fact, some acknowledged that showing athletes’ chances of winning and projected finishing positions could make races more interesting. The problem, they argued, was the accuracy of the numbers and how closely they appeared to reflect the actual form of the athletes.