No, I don’t clearly disagree with Armstronglivs. -I’m only giving him some support and some opposition to see if that gives some new ideas to him or to me… (Or anybody else).
If it turns out that Jakob is finished clearly it was right to claim that he had zero chances to break the WRs (and that might very well be the outcome). But if Jakob on the other hand progresses and excels clearly the claim was wrong.
The term chances is something we put into a sentence most often because of our lack of information and details. I, f.x, don’t know if Jakob’s training (to break 3 WRs) is compatible with not being injured in the process. But if I had all the details about how he plans to train, and I had superb experience and insight in training physiology, I could maybe claim: “zero chance not to be injured by that history of injuries and that extreme strain on the body through this training” or on the contrary: “zero chance to have another Achilles incident with these smart adjustments in the training and the competition schedule”.
Most people view chances in a slightly different way ( because of the lack of reliable information). -Instead one chooses to estimate chances in per cent, based on statistical lightly hood, or experience. But this is a kind of guessing, or statistically judgment that doesn’t have to apply well to the case we are investigating. Meaning: If 5 out of 10 with reoccurring Achilles problems never come back to peak shape we could claim Jakob’s WR goal to be something around 50% (if we believe he can break them being healthy). But this just hides our lack of information, because if we knew more we could ideally claim zero per cent or a hundred per cent, because he can’t break a record 50%, but only zero or a hundred….
Armstronglivs clearly thinks he knows enough about Jakob’s situation to claim zero chance. And I think that claim is as good as any, because the only reel alternative is a hundred per cent chance, and who has good enough information to claim that (well, some will say they have, and that is likely fair, but one then will have to put up a better reasoning than Arms, and I haven’t seen much of that in this thread). But again: There’s only two options: He will either break the records (a 100% probability) or he will not (zero chance)….
So I am looking for new ideas: What if I can find athletes that have had likely or even worse reoccurring injuries than Jakob, and still have come back in peak shape and even threatened WRs..? Well, let me start very narrowly and carefully with Jakob’s injury ridden brothers, who despite their hardship have PB’ed in the 3000m (and Henrik also in the 5000m, and Filip even managed a time close to his 1500m PB and a new 3000m PB in the same injury/sickness ridden season)…. But sure, we’re not talking WRs here, so let’s instead jump to the Goat that Jakob challenges: Bekele. -As far as I know he has had a lot of severe injuries after his transition to Marathon, but still managed to come back and run 2 sec behind the WR! So does that mean hope for Jakob? -Yes, maybe, statistically, in the sense that somebody has done it (close) before him. But one can always say no -no injury situations are completely alike….
Maybe Bekele’s story gives some hope for Jakob, maybe not. And maybe there are others that have come back in WR shape. But we really don’t know how this applies to Jakob. -I think a hundred per cent chance is as good as zero chance, and vice versa. It has to be either, and no graded percentage.
So what do I think? -I don’t know. I think I give Armstronglivs right in his claim that a lot of us here is marked by our hopes and feelings, so I will follow Jakob to everything is said and done…