You are lost in semantics, and that’s probably one of the reasons you think people who haven’t the exact same wording as you have are stupid…
I personally think “there’s zero chance Moe Berg breaks the 1500m WR in 2026” despite that he is young, and clearly in progress. And also despite, if I should bet my life on it, I would be more comfortable with predicting a far slower athlete than him to the zero chance, just to have a little more margin…
One cannot know with absolute certainty that Moe Berg has zero chances, but I think a lot of us, given how we use chance in a daily wording, don’t want to percentage grade his chances, given they obviously are so slim. The same with Armstronglivs, my self and many others probably -we don’t regard it as natural to grade chances between zero and a 100. We land on overwhelming indications for one or another outcome, and thus use the terms 100% or zero chance, or (as I often do) if we find the information to complex go for “I don’t know”. -We don’t find it natural to grade…
Armstronglivs clearly doesn’t mean zero chance for Jakob in an absolute sense. Like all of us he knows very few things are absolute. And you can tell by a slip in one of his posts: He uses the word probably. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot stand for the zero chance; it only means that he regards Jakob’s chances so slim that it’s natural to use the term zero, as most of us would do given how our language normally is functioning. But you clearly quarrel around the term (in stead of discussing the overall thread content) because the need of picking up an off topic fight, for some reason, despite that it’s obvious that both Armstronglivs and myself of course (like everyone else, maybe with you as an exception) know we can be wrong, and of course wouldn’t give our lives for and absolute term (f.x zero) that never never can fail, when the theme is only sport…
Armstronglivs’ zero is of course an overall estimate he has been summing up from weighting all the indications of Jakob not having a chance in 2026, well knowing he has been quite close (as you stress) time wise in the 1500m/mile in 2023/2024. So if you disagree, you should focus better on why you think there is a chance, instead of quarrel around how Armstronglivs and a lot of us use the term chance in our common language.
His way of telling he was wrong...
I'm using 0% and 100% in this non-literal sense you dishonest person.
Also in dishonesty you touch the terribly low level of your friend.
And now tell me: what could be the reasoning for the statement: "Jakob by 100% will get the 1500m WR next year" (in the meaning, it's almost a certainty.
And the same for 0% (in the meaning, it's almost impossible).
Small hint: you can't. The two statements are completely nonsensical.
To improve the own PB by 0.74 seconds at age 25 for sure is possible (and - to clarify again for a non-understander like you - : not in the sense of by 0.0001%).
I would say it's very unlikely, but for sure possible (to express something like this more easily, people use numbers; I would say his chances are something like 2% to 5% (clearly higher for the career)).
I give him a clearly higher chance for the Mile (weaker record and longer distance) and even higher for the 5000m (closer to his maybe best distance of 3000m). But for sure very far from "a given" (his achilees injury, 12:35.36 still is little bit stronger than 7:17.55 for me, he hasn't gone for a fast time in the event so far - so we just don't know his capabilities here).
Let me shift the question (a little) and the athlete involved here with two of his Norwegian compatriots, that run the same distances as Jakob, just to show you how strange your dismissal of zero/100% might look in another, not too dissimilar situation:
So let’s concentrate on only one of the WRs Jakob hope to break (to simplify a little): The 1500m. -Narve Nordås has a 3.29.47 PR, and Håkon Moe Berg, who is 19 years old: 3.30.28 PR. And here is the question: What is the chance for one of these two to break the 1500m WR in 2026?
Well, I’m pretty sure almost everyone who knows the sport would say “zero chance” (They are simply too far off 3.26.00).
So let’s compare these two uninjured Norwegians (neither has a history of injuries) with Jakob. -The latter has 2.74 sec better PR than Nordås, and 3.55 sec vs Moe Berg. But the question is: Are there any factors that can close this fitness gap the PR gap indicates between those three athletes in 2026, so Jakob will share their WR chance? Yes, there is: In the outdoor 2025 season Jakob wasn’t any better than these two countrymen (the WC showed this) because of his injury. Can this happen also in 2026? Again: Yes. -But the tricky part is of course how likely is it? And some -guys like you- will probably guess, and come up with a random graded percentage. But what if someone took a look on Jakob’s recurring severe injuries through two years now, and also thinks he even uninjured cannot break the 1500m WR (because of lack of speed talent, or age, worn down body and so on) and combines these, and therefore concludes with zero chance..? Does this person have to be stupid, or does he just weight Jakob’s problems a little differently than you do?
Conclusion: If we think there are zero chance for WR breaking from the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026, that Jakob couldn’t out run in 2025, why would people who say the same about Jakob (based on his current problems) have to be stupid for saying the same thing about him..!?
(I’m not saying what I mean about Jakob’s chances here, just posing a reasoning un stupid people might do).
What are "the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026" ?
El Guerrouj's PB before his WR: 3:28.91
Phanuel Koech's PBs before his 3:27.72: 1:46.93 and 3:32.26
Narve Nordas' PB until 2022 (year before 3:29.47): 3:36.23
Hakon Moe Berg improved from 3:37.25 to 3:30.28 (shortly after he turned 19)
No, there chances are not zero.
And Jakob doesn't have a PB of 3:29.47, and he is not 19. He is the forth fastest 1500m runner in history with 3:26.73 and turned 25 two months ago.
Can he be injured again in 2026? What a stupid question: for sure he can. Is the "chance" for this 100%? For sure not.
Is his chance for breaking the 1500m WR in 2026 zero? For sure not. Only a stupid person tries to argue for the opposite.
And, just because you have implied something different in a previous post: for sure your friend can't be proved to be correct. If Jakob doesn't break the 1500m WR next season (what most observers - myself included - might think to be very likely) for sure this wouldn't prove him to be correct. If something doesn't happen it doesn't tell us it was not possible.
People who say his chances are zero have to be stupid, yes. Why? Because his chances are - obviously to anybody - not zero.
You simply do not understand what "for sure" means. It means without doubt, or with complete certainty. Nothing you argue is "for sure" - including your own arguments. You are only arguing what you think might be possible. What is possible, by definition, is not for sure. You appear to have missed out on a basic education.
You appear to have missed out on a basic education.
He speaks more than one language. More than you ever will.
And you are wrong about the absolute meaning of "for sure".
Sadly, no language works for him. That's why he - and you - don't know what "for sure" means. It doesn't mean "maybe", "possibly" or "there's a chance", or even "probably" - and all the nonsense that you illiterates are trying to maintain when you misuse "for sure". In the context of this thread what is only "for sure" is what will inevitably happen. None of it will. It is the future and future events are almost never "for sure". Looking at his career decline following injuries I am almost certain he won't break the records. I don't see him surpassing his previous best form so the chances are almost zero. As good as.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I'm using 0% and 100% in this non-literal sense you dishonest person.
Also in dishonesty you touch the terribly low level of your friend.
And now tell me: what could be the reasoning for the statement: "Jakob by 100% will get the 1500m WR next year" (in the meaning, it's almost a certainty.
And the same for 0% (in the meaning, it's almost impossible).
Small hint: you can't. The two statements are completely nonsensical.
To improve the own PB by 0.74 seconds at age 25 for sure is possible (and - to clarify again for a non-understander like you - : not in the sense of by 0.0001%).
I would say it's very unlikely, but for sure possible (to express something like this more easily, people use numbers; I would say his chances are something like 2% to 5% (clearly higher for the career)).
I give him a clearly higher chance for the Mile (weaker record and longer distance) and even higher for the 5000m (closer to his maybe best distance of 3000m). But for sure very far from "a given" (his achilees injury, 12:35.36 still is little bit stronger than 7:17.55 for me, he hasn't gone for a fast time in the event so far - so we just don't know his capabilities here).
I will try to stop my role in this (a little off) debate quite soon I think, since you seem to struggle to hold a coherent line in your logic when it comes to the term “chance” -in post after post you seem to be obsessed about how use of zero/100% is “stupid” , and how we all need to grade the chances, and when I show you the consequence of this attitude you act like you never repeatedly has stressed this non zero/100% thing, and even admit you yourself are using it (zero/hundred) in this non-literal sense we all do, also here… And then you are calling me dishonest as if I could know that you too use this language, after all your ranting about the need of grading (but not zero/ a hundred)….
So a couple of examples that you maybe will call “dishonest” since you won’t like them: Imagine Haile Gebrselassie in the summer of 1995. -You meet his coach or a training buddy of his that claims “zero chance Haile won’t smash the 5000m this season”. Your answer then is of course “nothing is zero chance, and nothing is a hundred %; if you don’t understand that you are stupid”. Haile goes on smashing the record by 11 seconds (something probably possible to predict for those who knew what he had done in the training sessions of course -but you don’t tolerate an overall certainty based on this, you demand a graded percentage). And even after this new WR, you keep on saying, as you did in one of your posts, that it doesn’t matter if one’s prediction was right -one isn’t allowed to use the zero/100% terminology. Because who knows: Haile could have had a car accident, or one could have misinterpreted his training results, or he could have caught a cold before the race, or an injury in the warm up. Therefore you hang over his coach/training buddy for years with repeatedly claims of how stupid they were saying this zero chance thing, whereas everybody else prefer to talk about Haile and his prospects , and not if one is allowed to use zero chance/100% wordings…
Yes, I exaggerated a little for you to get the point. But a last example: Jakob answered in an interview prior to his 3000m WR to the question if he thought he could do 7.18. His answer was: “Not in this century!” Well, according to you he must have been stupid to state a thing like that with that level of certainty in his answer, must he not -because according to your previous posts we must not, right or wrong. And Jakob’s answer can be interpreted to “zero chance”, don’t you think..?
PS. Your question to me about Jakob amd a hundred % certainty when it comes to breaking WRs next year - of course I wouldn’t say so. But there are fans that would -they will then weight his strengths up against his weaknesses/injuries, and if they conclude that the chances are overwhelming good they might go for 100%. And I respect that -doesn't mean I won't debate it though, or ask some questions or agree…
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
I'm using 0% and 100% in this non-literal sense you dishonest person.
Also in dishonesty you touch the terribly low level of your friend.
And now tell me: what could be the reasoning for the statement: "Jakob by 100% will get the 1500m WR next year" (in the meaning, it's almost a certainty.
And the same for 0% (in the meaning, it's almost impossible).
Small hint: you can't. The two statements are completely nonsensical.
To improve the own PB by 0.74 seconds at age 25 for sure is possible (and - to clarify again for a non-understander like you - : not in the sense of by 0.0001%).
I would say it's very unlikely, but for sure possible (to express something like this more easily, people use numbers; I would say his chances are something like 2% to 5% (clearly higher for the career)).
I give him a clearly higher chance for the Mile (weaker record and longer distance) and even higher for the 5000m (closer to his maybe best distance of 3000m). But for sure very far from "a given" (his achilees injury, 12:35.36 still is little bit stronger than 7:17.55 for me, he hasn't gone for a fast time in the event so far - so we just don't know his capabilities here).
I will try to stop my role in this (a little off) debate quite soon I think, since you seem to struggle to hold a coherent line in your logic when it comes to the term “chance” -in post after post you seem to be obsessed about how use of zero/100% is “stupid” , and how we all need to grade the chances, and when I show you the consequence of this attitude you act like you never repeatedly has stressed this non zero/100% thing, and even admit you yourself are using it (zero/hundred) in this non-literal sense we all do, also here… And then you are calling me dishonest as if I could know that you too use this language, after all your ranting about the need of grading (but not zero/ a hundred)….
So a couple of examples that you maybe will call “dishonest” since you won’t like them: Imagine Haile Gebrselassie in the summer of 1995. -You meet his coach or a training buddy of his that claims “zero chance Haile won’t smash the 5000m this season”. Your answer then is of course “nothing is zero chance, and nothing is a hundred %; if you don’t understand that you are stupid”. Haile goes on smashing the record by 11 seconds (something probably possible to predict for those who knew what he had done in the training sessions of course -but you don’t tolerate an overall certainty based on this, you demand a graded percentage). And even after this new WR, you keep on saying, as you did in one of your posts, that it doesn’t matter if one’s prediction was right -one isn’t allowed to use the zero/100% terminology. Because who knows: Haile could have had a car accident, or one could have misinterpreted his training results, or he could have caught a cold before the race, or an injury in the warm up. Therefore you hang over his coach/training buddy for years with repeatedly claims of how stupid they were saying this zero chance thing, whereas everybody else prefer to talk about Haile and his prospects , and not if one is allowed to use zero chance/100% wordings…
Yes, I exaggerated a little for you to get the point. But a last example: Jakob answered in an interview prior to his 3000m WR to the question if he thought he could do 7.18. His answer was: “Not in this century!” Well, according to you he must have been stupid to state a thing like that with that level of certainty in his answer, must he not -because according to your previous posts we must not, right or wrong. And Jakob’s answer can be interpreted to “zero chance”, don’t you think..?
PS. Your question to me about Jakob amd a hundred % certainty when it comes to breaking WRs next year - of course I wouldn’t say so. But there are fans that would -they will then weight his strengths up against his weaknesses/injuries, and if they conclude that the chances are overwhelming good they might go for 100%. And I respect that -doesn't mean I won't debate it though, or ask some questions or agree…
I'm absolutely coherent here.
I don't call everybody stupid for not using accurate language. I call your friend stupid, yes. A grown up man who is a native english speaker who can't understand an easy quote like "for sure it's not for sure some runner will break a world record..." IS stupid. Why don't you try to explain it to him?
Several times I have added an (almost) in front of 0% or 100% to clarify that for sure it's not about those real absolute numbers. But for sure it's still stupid to argue for it.
Your friend has changed to PROBABLY after even he has realised how stupd his view is. You are bringing an extreme phrase from some INTERVIEW? Which turned out to be WRONG? To show what?
If Geb's coach would have been absolutely sure that Geb will break the record in the summer 1995 - that's fine. He probably would have had good reason for it. When he would have been questioned if it's really an absolutely certainty that he WILL do it (not that he CAN do it) and he confirms - well, than he would be wrong about it.
But we are here in a forum, in a "discussion" which takes several days. You have had any chance to realise how stupd your take is - you didn't. Now you try to change everything - you are extremely dishonest, yes.
Accusing another poster for childish insults, in your two sentence post, where one of them is a childish insult (“past your bedtime”) -must be the top of psychological projection.
Just watched the recent Born to Run documentary. Pretty crazy that he ran the champs in that condition. Constant acchilles problem and only a couple of specific sessions. Still 13:03 in Tokyo's heat.
Hopefully he can get healthy again. It's going to be difficult.
Just watched the recent Born to Run documentary. Pretty crazy that he ran the champs in that condition. Constant acchilles problem and only a couple of specific sessions. Still 13:03 in Tokyo's heat.
Hopefully he can get healthy again. It's going to be difficult.
I think your last line contains three key words: Hope, healthy, difficult…
Jakob is one of my heroes, along with guys like Cheptegei and Moorcroft, but quite a few others too..
My sympathies for Jakob is even higher after the court trial (where I think he and his siblings were betrayed for their justice), and the conflict that goes on and on. I’m also impressed by his moral when being injured, despite a feeling of being given false hopes prior to Tokyo.
I am a hundred % on Jakob’s side in the conflict with Gjert, Nordås and Pinto (despite being an anti-nationalist I find my self so «weak» that I get to root at least a little for those three on the track). And in the “debate” with Kerr I’m 99% for Jakob -a minus 1% for Jakob’s very unfair, but understandable given all the trash talk, saying that Kerr is false.
Jakob ran 13.02.00 in the finale in Tokyo -the second fastest 5000m by a Norwegian ever, only beaten by his own time from his DL win in 2021. And only 1.5 sec behind Moorcroft’s stellar WR race! (That I viewed from the tribune -totally un prepared).
My take from the paragraph above is this: I like athletes that stand tall even facing huge challenges and adversity. Moorcroft is of course one, but still had this gutsy running style even in the (for him too short) 1500meters; Cheptegei is another (watch his race in the WC xc in Uganda) -his hardship in the HM and the Marathon will make him even bigger when he eventually comes out strong… And the list goes on and on -Pekka Vasala (in his autobiography) tells about how low one’s fitness can drop because of injuries -couldn’t even break 2 in the 800m, and bang; there he won the OG gold!
If Jakob comes back, and that is really important to me, especially since I have started to root for him above only being a runner (because of the court trial and the conflict), that would be a level of performance even hard to believe. But the situation around Jakob is so exciting, but also fearful (given the stakes here -the potential that might get lost)! But maybe that’s only me..?
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Accusing another poster for childish insults, in your two sentence post, where one of them is a childish insult (“past your bedtime”) -must be the top of psychological projection.
Or maybe, you could have done some quick calculations, and realized it was 2 or 3 a.m. in New Zealand, where he claims to live. For most 72 year olds it is past bedtime. It was not unreasonable to point that out.
But you always have to defend the indefensible when it comes to your buddy.