You two in your little echo chamber make a cute pair.
Sure. But I think we two aren’t the only ones that think Jakob’s injuries might end his career. And even if Armstronglivs and I differ a little when it comes to the details here, this may even be only a theoretical disagreement, because I’m not sure Jakob has it in him to do the right adjustments, even if they’re theoretically available…
I have always thought that Jakob has an extraordinary running ability that he step by step is unveiling, year after year. And the seasons 2023 and 2024 made me even more confident of him being a future WR threat, at least in a couple of more events (yes maybe several). And I didn’t see his injuries as a threat here (they were simply not severe enough). But the following situation may have changed all that:
1. Jakob seems to have a personality that doesn’t align good with avoiding injuries -it’s extremely important to him to shine almost outer earthly. But his risk taking can therefore also become outer earthly….
2. Both Jakob’s Achilles injuries have come without any bodily warnings. That makes them extremely hard to avoid, even with the right kind of careful personality.
3. Jakob really needs good running results to overshadow the strain from the family conflict he is in. That might make him too impatient when it comes to stretching the string…
4. I have no doubts about Jakob’s huge potential. But he’s not the only one, and very few get to realise all of it. Again the Goat Bekele is a good example: Prior to, and also after, his 2.01.41, I think he easily could have broken the Marathon WR, and maybe also the HM, but injuries messed up all his hard efforts.
Can Jakob come back? Theoretically -clearly. But I have to admit (and repeat) that I for now have dropped the positive theories, and refrain to hope alone…
Everything you say is the opposite of "for sure". It is about possibilities. But that is because you understand what you are speculating about and you aren't one of the morons here.
Sure. But I think we two aren’t the only ones that think Jakob’s injuries might end his career. And even if Armstronglivs and I differ a little when it comes to the details here, this may even be only a theoretical disagreement, because I’m not sure Jakob has it in him to do the right adjustments, even if they’re theoretically available…
I have always thought that Jakob has an extraordinary running ability that he step by step is unveiling, year after year. And the seasons 2023 and 2024 made me even more confident of him being a future WR threat, at least in a couple of more events (yes maybe several). And I didn’t see his injuries as a threat here (they were simply not severe enough). But the following situation may have changed all that:
1. Jakob seems to have a personality that doesn’t align good with avoiding injuries -it’s extremely important to him to shine almost outer earthly. But his risk taking can therefore also become outer earthly….
2. Both Jakob’s Achilles injuries have come without any bodily warnings. That makes them extremely hard to avoid, even with the right kind of careful personality.
3. Jakob really needs good running results to overshadow the strain from the family conflict he is in. That might make him too impatient when it comes to stretching the string…
4. I have no doubts about Jakob’s huge potential. But he’s not the only one, and very few get to realise all of it. Again the Goat Bekele is a good example: Prior to, and also after, his 2.01.41, I think he easily could have broken the Marathon WR, and maybe also the HM, but injuries messed up all his hard efforts.
Can Jakob come back? Theoretically -clearly. But I have to admit (and repeat) that I for now have dropped the positive theories, and refrain to hope alone…
You are always arguing against something nobody has ever questioned.
Why no comment from you to the fact that your friend can't understand what "for sure ... can happen..." means?
It really needs a very special character to defend the nonsense which Armstronglivs posts again and again. You are a very special character.
He is way more intelligent than you dolts, who become obsessed with a simple English phrase you don't understand.
I argued against a poster that claimed that Jakob always gets the WRs he “officially” is going after, and that he therefore almost automatically will break 3 new ones…
So to the semantics: If you prefer to focus on the semantic stuff, quarrelling, and going after the person instead of the ball, that’s fine by me. But I’m interested in the sport, and not your perspective.
And this “your friend Armstronglivs” -sure, there’s a lot about him I like. But also about others. That doesn’t mean that he and I agree on everything; we clearly don’t. But as I have stressed: This is only sport (important enough for the athletes of course), and I have also underlined that in almost every disagreement I have with Armstronglivs I might be wrong and he right -I’m not very knowledgeable in this field, and am here also to learn and evolve. In addition to the fact that it’s fun to read/ trying to express one self in, the world language English.
No, in most issues he not "might be wrong". He is. A fact.
He can't understand such an easy claim as "for sure... you can". Just an example of many.
But write more long essays why it's not a given that Jakob will break another (or three) WR(s).
That's obvious and nobody apart from 1 poster has said otherwise.
Again: are his chances (for 1 or 3 records, that's unimportant) ABOUT ZERO as your friend claims?
Small hint for you: don't start your answer again with IF. The first time it already showed that you are stupid. Try to learn.
You are a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
No, in most issues he not "might be wrong". He is. A fact.
He can't understand such an easy claim as "for sure... you can". Just an example of many.
But write more long essays why it's not a given that Jakob will break another (or three) WR(s).
That's obvious and nobody apart from 1 poster has said otherwise.
Again: are his chances (for 1 or 3 records, that's unimportant) ABOUT ZERO as your friend claims?
Small hint for you: don't start your answer again with IF. The first time it already showed that you are stupid. Try to learn.
Why this focus on stupid? -Don’t you know that LetsRun also is design for the unintelligent ones?
So you have a rule that one cannot start a post with the word “if” without being stupid? -Fine, but if I’m stupid do you really think I will change, and learn from an educating like that?
So it’s not good enough for me to respond to a poster because he is only one person (contrary to you who are many behind your unregistered handles)? Again fine, but last time I checked this poster had gotten 10 upvotes and only one down, so there might be more than just one (or than none as you initially claimed) that are a goal group for the “ too obvious “/uncontroversial things I wrote.
So if you are so concerned with factual things, and “stupidity” based on a breach here -why do you yourself do errors on errors like this?
And your consistency: It’s bad that I write long essays with too obvious and uncontroversial content, while you based on the same “essays” criticise me for backing Armstronglivs and his controversial points with the same content… Do you really think you are a leading star for how to post by all this..?
No, in most issues he not "might be wrong". He is. A fact.
He can't understand such an easy claim as "for sure... you can". Just an example of many.
But write more long essays why it's not a given that Jakob will break another (or three) WR(s).
That's obvious and nobody apart from 1 poster has said otherwise.
Again: are his chances (for 1 or 3 records, that's unimportant) ABOUT ZERO as your friend claims?
Small hint for you: don't start your answer again with IF. The first time it already showed that you are stupid. Try to learn.
Why this focus on stupid? -Don’t you know that LetsRun also is design for the unintelligent ones?
So you have a rule that one cannot start a post with the word “if” without being stupid? -Fine, but if I’m stupid do you really think I will change, and learn from an educating like that?
So it’s not good enough for me to respond to a poster because he is only one person (contrary to you who are many behind your unregistered handles)? Again fine, but last time I checked this poster had gotten 10 upvotes and only one down, so there might be more than just one (or than none as you initially claimed) that are a goal group for the “ too obvious “/uncontroversial things I wrote.
So if you are so concerned with factual things, and “stupidity” based on a breach here -why do you yourself do errors on errors like this?
And your consistency: It’s bad that I write long essays with too obvious and uncontroversial content, while you based on the same “essays” criticise me for backing Armstronglivs and his controversial points with the same content… Do you really think you are a leading star for how to post by all this..?
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
Why this focus on stupid? -Don’t you know that LetsRun also is design for the unintelligent ones?
So you have a rule that one cannot start a post with the word “if” without being stupid? -Fine, but if I’m stupid do you really think I will change, and learn from an educating like that?
So it’s not good enough for me to respond to a poster because he is only one person (contrary to you who are many behind your unregistered handles)? Again fine, but last time I checked this poster had gotten 10 upvotes and only one down, so there might be more than just one (or than none as you initially claimed) that are a goal group for the “ too obvious “/uncontroversial things I wrote.
So if you are so concerned with factual things, and “stupidity” based on a breach here -why do you yourself do errors on errors like this?
And your consistency: It’s bad that I write long essays with too obvious and uncontroversial content, while you based on the same “essays” criticise me for backing Armstronglivs and his controversial points with the same content… Do you really think you are a leading star for how to post by all this..?
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
1500m: 10% (5%)
1 Mile: 20% (10%)
5000m: 35% (20%)
And you?
Thank you. You have just shown that none of that is "for sure", but in fact, according to your estimates, only a mere possibility. Yet you have still not taken into account his decline through recurring injuries.
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
1500m: 10% (5%)
1 Mile: 20% (10%)
5000m: 35% (20%)
And you?
I don’t think posters claiming Jakob’s chances of breaking one WR or more are about zero, are stupid. Not at all.
And I neither think there’s something wrong with the intelligence of people who go for a hundred per cent, or those who land somewhere in between.
And I don’t think you are unintelligent -I think there’s something else that is driving you…
It’s hard to estimate Jakob’s chances, simply because there are too many variables, and we aren’t well informed about all of them. And because we have very few other relevant athletes to compare with.
I think one could make a case for zero chances if one think one has enough relevant information to make a judgement, and this information suggests zero chances. So does it? -I don’t know; I think that depends on how people weight the pros and cons.
I also think one could make a case for the hundred per cent chance, if one weight the information in that direction.
Zero chance/100% chance -it is only one of these alternatives (if one has all the necessary information). But in lack of knowledge/facts one can of course speculate, and give a graded %. but that only says that you have that percentage of good information, and that you are guessing a chance based on how much you think you know or don’t know. But if you knew enough you would of course land on a 100% or a zero chances, depending on what your information is saying.
In my view there’s only one way of debating Jakob and WRs: We have to evaluate details -1. Will he be reasonable, and cut his Achilles exposing training. 2. If he does adjust his training in the way suggested above, will he still get good enough quality to break WRs? 3. Will he change his commitment to races (when, and how many) in a way that prevents injuries good enough? 4. Will he take less risks? 5. Will his body endure the training necessary for new WRs? 5. Does he have the talent, age, likelihood to relax properly, and avoid too damaging mental challenges? Do Athletes with recurring severe injuries normally (or at all) come back for multiple new WR? +++
-Armstronglivs has addressed some of these challenges, and concluded with zero chance. -If you disagree, you should argue which facts and details you view differently and why, instead of (so boringly and predictably) going after the man…
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
1500m: 10% (5%)
1 Mile: 20% (10%)
5000m: 35% (20%)
And you?
Thank you. You have just shown that none of that is "for sure", but in fact, according to your estimates, only a mere possibility. Yet you have still not taken into account his decline through recurring injuries.
I have taken this into account.
For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records.
Thank you. You have just shown that none of that is "for sure", but in fact, according to your estimates, only a mere possibility. Yet you have still not taken into account his decline through recurring injuries.
I have taken this into account.
For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records.
For sure his chances are not about zero.
You are stupid.
You have to stop using "for sure", because the way you are using means the opposite - it only means maybe. And that is for sure.
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
1500m: 10% (5%)
1 Mile: 20% (10%)
5000m: 35% (20%)
And you?
I don’t think posters claiming Jakob’s chances of breaking one WR or more are about zero, are stupid. Not at all.
And I neither think there’s something wrong with the intelligence of people who go for a hundred per cent, or those who land somewhere in between.
And I don’t think you are unintelligent -I think there’s something else that is driving you…
It’s hard to estimate Jakob’s chances, simply because there are too many variables, and we aren’t well informed about all of them. And because we have very few other relevant athletes to compare with.
I think one could make a case for zero chances if one think one has enough relevant information to make a judgement, and this information suggests zero chances. So does it? -I don’t know; I think that depends on how people weight the pros and cons.
I also think one could make a case for the hundred per cent chance, if one weight the information in that direction.
Zero chance/100% chance -it is only one of these alternatives (if one has all the necessary information). But in lack of knowledge/facts one can of course speculate, and give a graded %. but that only says that you have that percentage of good information, and that you are guessing a chance based on how much you think you know or don’t know. But if you knew enough you would of course land on a 100% or a zero chances, depending on what your information is saying.
In my view there’s only one way of debating Jakob and WRs: We have to evaluate details -1. Will he be reasonable, and cut his Achilles exposing training. 2. If he does adjust his training in the way suggested above, will he still get good enough quality to break WRs? 3. Will he change his commitment to races (when, and how many) in a way that prevents injuries good enough? 4. Will he take less risks? 5. Will his body endure the training necessary for new WRs? 5. Does he have the talent, age, likelihood to relax properly, and avoid too damaging mental challenges? Do Athletes with recurring severe injuries normally (or at all) come back for multiple new WR? +++
-Armstronglivs has addressed some of these challenges, and concluded with zero chance. -If you disagree, you should argue which facts and details you view differently and why, instead of (so boringly and predictably) going after the man…
To say 100% and 0% both is utterly stupid (and for sure wrong). It's neither a given he will get any of those records nor is it impossible (he just turned 25, is the 4th fastest ever in the 1500m and 3rd fastest ever in the Mile and by some margin the fastest in history over 2000m, 3000m and 2 Miles as well as a 2 times world plus Olympic champion in the 5000m - and he didn't have both legs amputated because of his injuries.).
You have no clue about probabilities and sound more and more as stupid as your friend
Someone who doesn't understand the sentence "For sure ... something can happen" is stupid ("for sure you can win when playing Roulette" is too hard for your friend to understand).
For sure someone who claims Jakob's chances to break 1 (or 3, it's irrelevant) WR(s) are about zero, is stupid.
What do you think his chances are?
For his career, I would estimate the numbers are something like this (for next season):
1500m: 10% (5%)
1 Mile: 20% (10%)
5000m: 35% (20%)
And you?
Thank you. You have just shown that none of that is "for sure", but in fact, according to your estimates, only a mere possibility.
It only took you a few days to understand what everyone else understood immediately! Well done, dumbo!
To say 100% and 0% both is utterly stupid (and for sure wrong). It's neither a given he will get any of those records nor is it impossible (he just turned 25, is the 4th fastest ever in the 1500m and 3rd fastest ever in the Mile and by some margin the fastest in history over 2000m, 3000m and 2 Miles as well as a 2 times world plus Olympic champion in the 5000m - and he didn't have both legs amputated because of his injuries.).
You have no clue about probabilities and sound more and more as stupid as your friend
One can come up with a graded %, just to be safe -if your estimate of what turns out to be the outcome was below 50% you can still underline that you didn’t rule out this outcome totally, and if the outcome went the other way (your way, that you f.x had a 60 or 70% estimate of), you can claim you were on to something…
But another way to do this is to be honest and to stand for what you believe in and really think after having studied a likely case scenario. This is what I think Armstronglivs has done -he has thought through every thing around Jakob’s situation that he thinks is relevant for his future fitness, and concluded: He has way too many things against him, no way he has a chance in hell…. That doesn’t mean that Arms is God and can’t be wrong -it only means that he thinks that the indications and evidence for his conclusion are so strong that there’s almost zero chances of a WR. So why shouldn’t he stand for it, and take it as a man if he turns out to be wrong..? Why is it so extremely important to you that everybody view this like you, and have the same definition of chance and “surely/sure”. Have you forgotten that it is sport we are debating, and not life and death!? And do you really think you can get others/opponents to see things through your lenses by trying to be a bully with the word “stupid” as your arsenal?
This isn’t a case of statistical probability. It’s too complex, and there are too few athletes for comparison. So we have to weight subjectively, and do our reasoning as good as possible. But of course the opinions will differ. That doesn’t mean people are stupid -if someone thinks Jakob, as good as he has been, as how young he is, and how un fatal an Achilles tendon is opposed to a rupture, and how talented he is, +++, certainly (e.g meaning almost a 100%) will come back on WR breaking level, I don’t think this is stupid. But maybe too optimistic not to give more attention to all that has and might go wrong…?
Again -why are you so focused on stupidity? Do you really think you can get rid of stupidity by gluing it to us who don’t think like you, in something after all so harmless as sport..?