Awesome Jakob Ingebrigtsen profile in The Times: When I'm done, I want there to be no doubt I'm the GOAT.

5555555 wrote:

Maybe we react to that guy's posts the way we do because of the way he insults and belittles people who don't agree with him or who correct him. From this thread alone:

Your English isn't the best.
The rest of your comment is as usual irrelevant flannel.
What a stupid and irrelevant comment.
You really are a stupid ****.
(...) with one as clueless about these things as you demonstrate yet again.
It is your usual stupid piffling point
You haven't a clue what you are talking about
you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point.
I don't agree with you and the other plodders
Nothing you write makes sense.
That would require any of you to write something comprehensible.
The more you write the less convincing you become. Desperate.
That you argue times for athletes decades apart confirms how clueless you are.
I understand that some arguments are simply too difficult for some of you to grasp.
I see you can't follow any argument except your own - and they aren't worth following.
You are really quite witless.
You are an ignorant prat.
Does your stupidity hurt? It should be agonizing.
I always enjoy reading the views of those who have just emerged from their egg.
If you were a little brighter (sadly, you aren't)
If I could put this waffle on paper I would have a toilet roll.
You are an utter moron.
What an idiot position.
What you moronic yobs simply don't get
the prattle issued on this thread by a bunch of geeks
You didn't explain anything, you jerk.
To recap, you are a moron.
Because of your unfortunate intellectual limitations
Arguments aren't within your skill-set. Maybe nothing is.
What a load of pointless piffle.
you are of course wrong. But you should be used to that.
A f*rt has more intellectual content than anything you have to say.
You're the "hobby jogger" of posters here.
That this matters to you proves what I say about your lack of intellectual content. Mere gas.
You are as dense as a row of bricks.
You're just a bag of wind.
You argue only with the voices in your own head. You can't follow mine. You simply waste thread space here.
You are a ******* moron.
You are an idiot.
the ill-informed drivel you spout
You are a tiresome and ignorant jerk.
Now go take a running jump, dickhead - the only thing you might be able to achieve.
Your points are valid - unlike those of the opinionated clod you are responding to.
You really are the most stupid ***** on these boards.
But you know everything about losing - that's your specialty.
You've had a lobotomy.
you are a textbook demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
You're like a dog the barks whenever I pass its kennel.
So - more of your drivel.

And to think that in the LetsRun.com Message Board Community Guidelines, the first Golden Rule is "Don't insult others posters."

5555555 wrote:

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I’m not here to judge other posters -not Armstronglivs, not you. But I got dragged into this because there were some concrete accusations (by yoyoc I believe) against Armstronglivs I felt were unfair.

Maybe we react to that guy's posts the way we do because of the way he insults and belittles people who don't agree with him or who correct him. From this thread alone:

Your English isn't the best.
The rest of your comment is as usual irrelevant flannel.
What a stupid and irrelevant comment.
You really are a stupid ****.
(...) with one as clueless about these things as you demonstrate yet again.
It is your usual stupid piffling point
You haven't a clue what you are talking about
you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point.
I don't agree with you and the other plodders
Nothing you write makes sense.
That would require any of you to write something comprehensible.
The more you write the less convincing you become. Desperate.
That you argue times for athletes decades apart confirms how clueless you are.
I understand that some arguments are simply too difficult for some of you to grasp.
I see you can't follow any argument except your own - and they aren't worth following.
You are really quite witless.
You are an ignorant prat.
Does your stupidity hurt? It should be agonizing.
I always enjoy reading the views of those who have just emerged from their egg.
If you were a little brighter (sadly, you aren't)
If I could put this waffle on paper I would have a toilet roll.
You are an utter moron.
What an idiot position.
What you moronic yobs simply don't get
the prattle issued on this thread by a bunch of geeks
You didn't explain anything, you jerk.
To recap, you are a moron.
Because of your unfortunate intellectual limitations
Arguments aren't within your skill-set. Maybe nothing is.
What a load of pointless piffle.
you are of course wrong. But you should be used to that.
A f*rt has more intellectual content than anything you have to say.
You're the "hobby jogger" of posters here.
That this matters to you proves what I say about your lack of intellectual content. Mere gas.
You are as dense as a row of bricks.
You're just a bag of wind.
You argue only with the voices in your own head. You can't follow mine. You simply waste thread space here.
You are a ******* moron.
You are an idiot.
the ill-informed drivel you spout
You are a tiresome and ignorant jerk.
Now go take a running jump, dickhead - the only thing you might be able to achieve.
Your points are valid - unlike those of the opinionated clod you are responding to.
You really are the most stupid ***** on these boards.
But you know everything about losing - that's your specialty.
You've had a lobotomy.
you are a textbook demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
You're like a dog the barks whenever I pass its kennel.
So - more of your drivel.

And to think that in the LetsRun.com Message Board Community Guidelines, the first Golden Rule is "Don't insult others posters."

Armstronglivs wrote:

objectiveobserver wrote:

What will it take for Jakob to dethrone Bekele?

What does he say himself:

"
My goal was to be the best runner in history....”
“(It would take) Five or six [Olympic] gold medals, to be better than all the different runners in all the disciplines. That would be the end of the discussion. And the goal is never to have the discussion again."

So he wanted to be the best runner in history ................ in all disciplines. He is possibly thinking about 800m to Marathon as in the 2 threads mentioned in my previous post. But he is certainly not only thinking about the 1500m/ mile.

He mention 5-6 Olympic golds but I don´t think he believes that is sufficient. I think we have to see it in connection what he otherwise has stated in the last year or two, including that he wants to break all WRs from the 1500m to the Marathon.

I also think it is understood that he must take at least as many WC golds.

If he can do this he is close to be the new Goat, especially if he also can do something in X country and on the roads. BUT IS IT REALISTIC?

Let´s take the WRs first:

More than 5 years ago I predicted that he would take all the WRs between 1500m and 10,000m and I have of course not changed my mind since he now has taken a few and is much closer to the rest of them. PROVIDED HE OVERCOMES HIS INJURY PROBLEMS SO HE CAN TRAIN AS USUAL.

The 1500m and the mile:

I predict that he will have both of them at latest at the end of the next year´s season.

He could in my opinion have taken the mile WR in Eugene if the conditions had been better (no jetlag, no wind, better pacing, evening race) OR in Brüssel if he had run the mile instead of the 2.000m. His 2000m WR equals a mile in around 3:42 (the WR is 3:43.13).

In the 1500m he needs to run around 0.3 seconds faster per lap and he can do that when he has improved his aerobic capacity a bit more. His training has given him steady aerobic improvements for 15 years and there is no reason to believe it will stop soon.

3000m:

Many here will possibly agree that he could have taken it last year if he had run it in Paris instead of the 2 miles. And it will be even easier as he developes further aerobically.

5000m and 10,000m:

I believe him when he states that he gets relatively better as the distance increases so he can also break these WRs if he continues his efficient, mainly aerobic training.

---------------

If he is close to the WRs in the 1500m and the 5000m it of course makes him the favorite for gold in these 2 distances in Paris which would mean he can get 5 Olympic golds if he can keep up the steam until the 2028 Los Angeles OG. And possible a number of WC golds too.

Bekele has 3 olympic golds and 5 WC golds but Jakob must have more to try to equal Bekele´s 12 X country WC golds.

It would also help if he could take some X country golds (on not too hilly courses) and some road golds ( he would have run in Riga last year if not getting married and do anybody (apart from a few American patriots) doubt that he could have taken the mile gold?)

I also think he will be a monster on the HM if he end up running this distance (probably not before OG Los Angeles). I think that his current TRESHOLD PACE indicates a HM in under the current WR and that is why he considers the HM to be his best distance.

Everything you say about Jakob becoming the best in all running disciplines in years to come remains fantasy until it is accomplished. For now, it is largely his fantasy and those of running fans who simply do not recognise how difficult it is even for a very talented athlete to dominate one event let alone a range of them.

Jakob will be irrelevant in any event shorter than the 1500. At his age and with injuries the chances of gaining the world records in the 1500/mile are receding. He has been shown to be vulnerable in championship races at that distance. His best distances appear to be non-championship events from the 2k to 2miles. He has won a WC 5k title but there has been no indication that he could take the wr for that event and dominate it in Olympic and WC competition in years to come, as Bekele once did. There is nothing that puts him in contention with Bekele at any greater distance, such as the 10k.

If he is fit enough to compete at Paris - and doesn't have a "cold" - I would expect him to at least medal in one event, maybe two. But with the competition out there another gold is a longer shot. He's trying to talk himself into the history books. It won't happen.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

5555555 wrote:

Maybe we react to that guy's posts the way we do because of the way he insults and belittles people who don't agree with him or who correct him. From this thread alone:

Your English isn't the best.
The rest of your comment is as usual irrelevant flannel.
What a stupid and irrelevant comment.
You really are a stupid ****.
(...) with one as clueless about these things as you demonstrate yet again.
It is your usual stupid piffling point
You haven't a clue what you are talking about
you are too intellectually pedestrian to have followed my point.
I don't agree with you and the other plodders
Nothing you write makes sense.
That would require any of you to write something comprehensible.
The more you write the less convincing you become. Desperate.
That you argue times for athletes decades apart confirms how clueless you are.
I understand that some arguments are simply too difficult for some of you to grasp.
I see you can't follow any argument except your own - and they aren't worth following.
You are really quite witless.
You are an ignorant prat.
Does your stupidity hurt? It should be agonizing.
I always enjoy reading the views of those who have just emerged from their egg.
If you were a little brighter (sadly, you aren't)
If I could put this waffle on paper I would have a toilet roll.
You are an utter moron.
What an idiot position.
What you moronic yobs simply don't get
the prattle issued on this thread by a bunch of geeks
You didn't explain anything, you jerk.
To recap, you are a moron.
Because of your unfortunate intellectual limitations
Arguments aren't within your skill-set. Maybe nothing is.
What a load of pointless piffle.
you are of course wrong. But you should be used to that.
A f*rt has more intellectual content than anything you have to say.
You're the "hobby jogger" of posters here.
That this matters to you proves what I say about your lack of intellectual content. Mere gas.
You are as dense as a row of bricks.
You're just a bag of wind.
You argue only with the voices in your own head. You can't follow mine. You simply waste thread space here.
You are a ******* moron.
You are an idiot.
the ill-informed drivel you spout
You are a tiresome and ignorant jerk.
Now go take a running jump, dickhead - the only thing you might be able to achieve.
Your points are valid - unlike those of the opinionated clod you are responding to.
You really are the most stupid ***** on these boards.
But you know everything about losing - that's your specialty.
You've had a lobotomy.
you are a textbook demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.
You're like a dog the barks whenever I pass its kennel.
So - more of your drivel.

And to think that in the LetsRun.com Message Board Community Guidelines, the first Golden Rule is "Don't insult others posters."

I have no reason to think that your list isn’t accurate. But the problem is that one fairly easily could make a similar list of accusations and insults directed against Armstronglivs. And then we could debate who started the whole thing, and why. But I don’t care who started -people are different; some are irritating, some are a little of this and a little of that, some are very complex and interesting…

objectiveobserver wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Everything you say about Jakob becoming the best in all running disciplines in years to come remains fantasy until it is accomplished. For now, it is largely his fantasy and those of running fans who simply do not recognise how difficult it is even for a very talented athlete to dominate one event let alone a range of them.

Jakob will be irrelevant in any event shorter than the 1500. At his age and with injuries the chances of gaining the world records in the 1500/mile are receding. He has been shown to be vulnerable in championship races at that distance. His best distances appear to be non-championship events from the 2k to 2miles. He has won a WC 5k title but there has been no indication that he could take the wr for that event and dominate it in Olympic and WC competition in years to come, as Bekele once did. There is nothing that puts him in contention with Bekele at any greater distance, such as the 10k.

If he is fit enough to compete at Paris - and doesn't have a "cold" - I would expect him to at least medal in one event, maybe two. But with the competition out there another gold is a longer shot. He's trying to talk himself into the history books. It won't happen.

You mean it is FANTASY when I predict that Jakob can be the best ever over distances from 1500m to HM.
I would call it predictions supported by facts. And that is what I and many other posters are doing all the time here on Letsrun.
The distances between 1500m and 5000m: His mile, 2000m and 2 mile PBs suggest that he can take the rest of the WRs (the 1500m, the mile, the 3000m and the 5000m) because the IAAF ranking points for his 2000m and 2 mile indicates that.
And I also predicteded that he will be even better over the next years - PROVIDED HE OVERCOMES HIS INJURY PROBLEMS AND CONTINUES WITH HIS EFFECTIVE MAINLY AEROBIC TRAINING - because that is how it goes when you train right aerobically, you -surprise, surprise - improve your aerobic capacity.

I acknowledge that my predictions for the 10,000m and the HM are more uncertain but I believe him when he states that these distances will be his best.

You on the other hand have no real arguments for your "fantasies" (that Jakob will not break any more WRs) and you have already been wrong several times when you doubted that Jakob would break WRs/ WBs and that he would improve much further.
I will you give some of my fantasies from earlier years
1.
Before the 2020 season I predicted that Jakob at least would achieve 1 of the following times:
sub 3:30 in the 1500m
sub 7:30 in the 3000m
sub 12:50 in the 5000m.
I don´t think you know, but he ran 3:28.68 and 7:27.05 in that season and 12:48.45 in the early season of 2021.
2.
After Cheptegei´s gold in the 5000m in Tokyo 2021 I predicted that Jakob would be the man to beat in the future in the 5000m. I also stated that Jakob could run as fast as Cheptegei over the last 1600m. You apparently don´t know but he has now won the WC final in the 5000 twice (and not only one time as stated by you) AND he has run a last 1600m which was much faster than Cheptegei´s in Tokyo.
3.
I predicted that Jakob could go close to 59 per lap in the 2 mile in Paris and consequently break the WB with a significant margin. He did even better: He ran sligthly faster than 59 per lap.
4.
I predicted he would go under 4:44 in the 2000m in Brüssel if he was in his 2miles WB shape. He ran to your information 4:43.17 and broke the 1500m Goat´s WR with more than 1.5 seconds.
------------------
Your "fantasies":
Just one, but there are possibly many since you probably never have predicted Jakob would win an Olympic or WC gold or even a DL race:
In March 2023 you endorsed a post from "code5800" with some rather pessimistic predictions about Jakob´s potential in various distances:

3:27.50in the 1500m. He has now run 3:27.14

3:45.90 in the mile. Now 3:43.73

4:50.01 in the 2000m. Now 4:43.10

7:25.60 in the 3000m. Now 7:23.63 but he ran 7:21.5 in the last 3000m of the 2miles WB which further indicates a 3000m in sub 7:20 (the 2000m WR indicates a 3000m in close to 7:19).

2 miles 8:03. Now 7:54.10

So who do you consider the FANTASIST?

----------------

Finally I will give you a little exrcise. I will give you some quotations regarding running relevant for the prediction of Jakob´s potential.

Can you guess which famous coach stated the following

A.The anaerobic capacity is limited. You should train it for about 4 weeks per season and then back off.

B. The aerobic capacity is unlimited. With the right training you can put a new layer on the aerobis foundation each year for many years.

C. Don´t train a young athlete too hard anaerobically.

D. Give me a young boy and I can develop him to a world class runner right longterm aerobic training.

----------

And which famous runner and later scientist in human performance/ exercise physiology said the following

E. I didn´t have a wonderful talent. But I had a good talent and I trained right

F. I became a runner because of what I believed I could achieve in this sport.

G. If I should chose a young athlete for a running career I would look at his mental capacity - his wish to achieve.

H. You can develop your finishing power through aerobic training either by running longer than an hour with good intensity OR by running rather high intensity aerobic reps. The mechanism is that after a certain amount of aerobic exercise the slow muscle fibres get exhausted and then some rarely used fast muscle fibres are activated.

objectiveobserver wrote:

objectiveobserver wrote:

You mean it is FANTASY when I predict that Jakob can be the best ever over distances from 1500m to HM.
I would call it predictions supported by facts. And that is what I and many other posters are doing all the time here on Letsrun.
The distances between 1500m and 5000m: His mile, 2000m and 2 mile PBs suggest that he can take the rest of the WRs (the 1500m, the mile, the 3000m and the 5000m) because the IAAF ranking points for his 2000m and 2 mile indicates that.
And I also predicteded that he will be even better over the next years - PROVIDED HE OVERCOMES HIS INJURY PROBLEMS AND CONTINUES WITH HIS EFFECTIVE MAINLY AEROBIC TRAINING - because that is how it goes when you train right aerobically, you -surprise, surprise - improve your aerobic capacity.

I acknowledge that my predictions for the 10,000m and the HM are more uncertain but I believe him when he states that these distances will be his best.

You on the other hand have no real arguments for your "fantasies" (that Jakob will not break any more WRs) and you have already been wrong several times when you doubted that Jakob would break WRs/ WBs and that he would improve much further.
I will you give some of my fantasies from earlier years
1.
Before the 2020 season I predicted that Jakob at least would achieve 1 of the following times:
sub 3:30 in the 1500m
sub 7:30 in the 3000m
sub 12:50 in the 5000m.
I don´t think you know, but he ran 3:28.68 and 7:27.05 in that season and 12:48.45 in the early season of 2021.
2.
After Cheptegei´s gold in the 5000m in Tokyo 2021 I predicted that Jakob would be the man to beat in the future in the 5000m. I also stated that Jakob could run as fast as Cheptegei over the last 1600m. You apparently don´t know but he has now won the WC final in the 5000 twice (and not only one time as stated by you) AND he has run a last 1600m which was much faster than Cheptegei´s in Tokyo.
3.
I predicted that Jakob could go close to 59 per lap in the 2 mile in Paris and consequently break the WB with a significant margin. He did even better: He ran sligthly faster than 59 per lap.
4.
I predicted he would go under 4:44 in the 2000m in Brüssel if he was in his 2miles WB shape. He ran to your information 4:43.17 and broke the 1500m Goat´s WR with more than 1.5 seconds.
------------------
Your "fantasies":
Just one, but there are possibly many since you probably never have predicted Jakob would win an Olympic or WC gold or even a DL race:
In March 2023 you endorsed a post from "code5800" with some rather pessimistic predictions about Jakob´s potential in various distances:

3:27.50in the 1500m. He has now run 3:27.14

3:45.90 in the mile. Now 3:43.73

4:50.01 in the 2000m. Now 4:43.10

7:25.60 in the 3000m. Now 7:23.63 but he ran 7:21.5 in the last 3000m of the 2miles WB which further indicates a 3000m in sub 7:20 (the 2000m WR indicates a 3000m in close to 7:19).

2 miles 8:03. Now 7:54.10

So who do you consider the FANTASIST?

----------------

Finally I will give you a little exrcise. I will give you some quotations regarding running relevant for the prediction of Jakob´s potential.

Can you guess which famous coach stated the following

A.The anaerobic capacity is limited. You should train it for about 4 weeks per season and then back off.

B. The aerobic capacity is unlimited. With the right training you can put a new layer on the aerobis foundation each year for many years.

C. Don´t train a young athlete too hard anaerobically.

D. Give me a young boy and I can develop him to a world class runner right longterm aerobic training.

----------

And which famous runner and later scientist in human performance/ exercise physiology said the following

E. I didn´t have a wonderful talent. But I had a good talent and I trained right

F. I became a runner because of what I believed I could achieve in this sport.

G. If I should chose a young athlete for a running career I would look at his mental capacity - his wish to achieve.

H. You can develop your finishing power through aerobic training either by running longer than an hour with good intensity OR by running rather high intensity aerobic reps. The mechanism is that after a certain amount of aerobic exercise the slow muscle fibres get exhausted and then some rarely used fast muscle fibres are activated.

.......a world class runner WITH THE right longterm aerobic training.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

7765656747863 wrote:

So Beccali's 3:49.0 will get no adjustment for the era (too different) but Lovelock's 3:47.8 will be adjusted? Something like this?

What is it that draws this line? - Athletics went professional?

Man, you are giving my opinion here far too much attention -I haven’t even thought these things through. But I don’t think one simply can count medals or WR’s without also adding a certain cultural / time frame context. And of course the subjective criteria: F.ex Coe’s two Oly golds mean almost nothing to me (I would place Cram far above Coe just on mile potential; what saves Coe in my view is his 800m all out, and his 1000m pb, and of course that I liked his toughness). Everything is subjectivity here -I know almost nothing about Herb Elliott, but his two fastest 1500meters impressed me so much that I maybe put two much into them…

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

7765656747863 wrote:

It seems you have some "problem" for me calling Armstrong "dumb". But not that he calls countless other posters by bad names since years, in hundreds or thousands of posts (because you are not insulted by him - what an argumentation)..

I have posted under just one username in this thread. Someone is unfair against Armstrong? But you don't want to read (or make any comment to) some concrete issues?

He is destroying thread after thread. No problem to you? Ignoring any arguments which challenge his - mostly wrong - claims. Calls others to be liars for just stating correct facts which he don't like. And so on. In well over 27000 posts. All this is not problematic to you?

You ask ME what I try to achieve - but not him what HE want's to achieve with all of this? I can't take you serious anymore.

I’m not against insults. -I myself have been called an idiot multiple times; sometimes unfairly, sometimes very called for…

You call Armstronglivs a liar and insulter, and he calls you the same. -Why on earth would I engage in this, and be the judge. -I’m not God; I have my own flaws…

OK -I have defended Armstronglivs a couple of times against another poster. But that was pretty much because this defence was so easy to formulate, and also called for (when f.ex his age is used as an argument against him it’s only natural that another old timer like myself reacts). So what should I do -smear up some critic of him just to seem balanced. I don’t do things like that -I can be both sarcastic and critical to some of his sayings, but my agenda isn’t to evaluate other posters as persons. -I’m much more interested in my own development in dialogue with other posters (I am a little narcissistic); f.ex if I would engage in a new doping debate with Armstronglivs now, I would be much more interested in changing my own views than changing his. And if I should debate with rekrunner I think I would challenge his usage of the term “objectivity” rather than debating things we agree on…

I don’t mind your repeatedly use of “dumb”. But you seem to have some interest of communicating with Armstronglivs. And you seem to be frustrated when he is not listening good enough to your arguments, and when he insults you. So let me stress the following: Armstronglivs has said that he insults when it’s called for. My question to you is therefore: Do you think you would get less insults and more positive attention from Armstronglivs if you stopped calling him dumb and a liar..?

7765656747863 wrote:

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I’m not against insults. -I myself have been called an idiot multiple times; sometimes unfairly, sometimes very called for…

You call Armstronglivs a liar and insulter, and he calls you the same. -Why on earth would I engage in this, and be the judge. -I’m not God; I have my own flaws…

OK -I have defended Armstronglivs a couple of times against another poster. But that was pretty much because this defence was so easy to formulate, and also called for (when f.ex his age is used as an argument against him it’s only natural that another old timer like myself reacts). So what should I do -smear up some critic of him just to seem balanced. I don’t do things like that -I can be both sarcastic and critical to some of his sayings, but my agenda isn’t to evaluate other posters as persons. -I’m much more interested in my own development in dialogue with other posters (I am a little narcissistic); f.ex if I would engage in a new doping debate with Armstronglivs now, I would be much more interested in changing my own views than changing his. And if I should debate with rekrunner I think I would challenge his usage of the term “objectivity” rather than debating things we agree on…

I don’t mind your repeatedly use of “dumb”. But you seem to have some interest of communicating with Armstronglivs. And you seem to be frustrated when he is not listening good enough to your arguments, and when he insults you. So let me stress the following: Armstronglivs has said that he insults when it’s called for. My question to you is therefore: Do you think you would get less insults and more positive attention from Armstronglivs if you stopped calling him dumb and a liar..?

I'm against insults.

I call Armstrong a liar if it's completely obvious that he lies. He calls me a liar for stating facts which he don't like.

Exactly, why on earth should you engage in this if you are not interested to hear concrete issues? Why do you make a single comment on it if you are not interested in the facts?
I can be concrete about any single issue which I have had with him just in this thread. From the first time something was stated from him or me and all the responses to this. Any time he changes the subject, he misquotes what something has said, he changes by 180 degrees and so on. I'm fact orientated and I know what I'm talking about. There is the point when any rationality on his side has gone and then it's extremely difficult to still show some respect.
And - no - nothing will change if I wouldn't call him to be dumb. I have tried this before in similar threads. With absolutely the same result.

And before you come again with the same nonsensical statement: I'm not talking about something where people can have different opinions. I'm talking about pure facts like race results, number of medals, records and so on. If he doesn't LIKE THE FACT (like the one that Elliott has lost many times outside the 1500m/Mile) he went mad.
Now he tries to look reasonable in this last posts after he was attacked from several sides. Talking reasonable to objectiveobserver and so on. Whereas in the thread when confronted with a lot of true facts about Ingebrigtsen's career, he just talks about roll of toilet paper.

7765656747863 wrote:

I'm against insults.

I call Armstrong a liar if it's completely obvious that he lies. He calls me a liar for stating facts which he don't like.

Exactly, why on earth should you engage in this if you are not interested to hear concrete issues? Why do you make a single comment on it if you are not interested in the facts?
I can be concrete about any single issue which I have had with him just in this thread. From the first time something was stated from him or me and all the responses to this. Any time he changes the subject, he misquotes what something has said, he changes by 180 degrees and so on. I'm fact orientated and I know what I'm talking about. There is the point when any rationality on his side has gone and then it's extremely difficult to still show some respect.
And - no - nothing will change if I wouldn't call him to be dumb. I have tried this before in similar threads. With absolutely the same result.

And before you come again with the same nonsensical statement: I'm not talking about something where people can have different opinions. I'm talking about pure facts like race results, number of medals, records and so on. If he doesn't LIKE THE FACT (like the one that Elliott has lost many times outside the 1500m/Mile) he went mad.
Now he tries to look reasonable in this last posts after he was attacked from several sides. Talking reasonable to objectiveobserver and so on. Whereas in the thread when confronted with a lot of true facts about Ingebrigtsen's career, he just talks about roll of toilet paper.

7765656747863 wrote:

Man?

For sure you HAVE to look at the achieved times in respect to the era the times were achieved.

It's just - for example - silly to say 540 athletes have run faster than Elliott did (and therefore to imply he wasn't any special). For sure he was. But 3:27 for him for me is unrealistic.

But then I'm astonished that you wouldn't rank Nurmi in your top 500. He has set WRs in the 1500m, 1 Mile, 2000m, 3000m, 2 Miles, 5000m, 10000m - all by some good margin. He was Olympic champion in 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, 12km Cross Country. In the 1920s it was just NOT POSSIBLE to think to run 1500m in 3:35.6.

There was an enormous improvement of the level of performence between his era and Elliott's. But why shouldn't there be any athlete of the 1920 who also would excel today?

To draw a line somewhere in the 1930s sounds strange to me.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

7765656747863 wrote:

I'm against insults.

I call Armstrong a liar if it's completely obvious that he lies. He calls me a liar for stating facts which he don't like.

Exactly, why on earth should you engage in this if you are not interested to hear concrete issues? Why do you make a single comment on it if you are not interested in the facts?
I can be concrete about any single issue which I have had with him just in this thread. From the first time something was stated from him or me and all the responses to this. Any time he changes the subject, he misquotes what something has said, he changes by 180 degrees and so on. I'm fact orientated and I know what I'm talking about. There is the point when any rationality on his side has gone and then it's extremely difficult to still show some respect.
And - no - nothing will change if I wouldn't call him to be dumb. I have tried this before in similar threads. With absolutely the same result.

And before you come again with the same nonsensical statement: I'm not talking about something where people can have different opinions. I'm talking about pure facts like race results, number of medals, records and so on. If he doesn't LIKE THE FACT (like the one that Elliott has lost many times outside the 1500m/Mile) he went mad.
Now he tries to look reasonable in this last posts after he was attacked from several sides. Talking reasonable to objectiveobserver and so on. Whereas in the thread when confronted with a lot of true facts about Ingebrigtsen's career, he just talks about roll of toilet paper.

Sorry for the late response…

I sense that you are hurt, and I feel bad for that…

You seem to be very concerned about wrong and right. And I can empathise with that -I myself is alike you (or what I suspect you to be: overly sensitive) outside of the theme running and athletics. But you shouldn’t forget that this is only sport, and we do these debates as a hobby and for fun..!

I think Armstronglivs also has sensed that you are hurt. -In one of his last posts he says that you shouldn’t take things so seriously. And I think that’s a good advice…

I think you show very good knowledge and ability to formulate your agenda. But I also think you have a perspective that really hurts you: No way you will get away with an attitude that says that your insults and claims of others being liars are objective, (because they are true), whereas your opponents always are wrong in their insults and “truth”. -The world just doesn’t function that way -no way you (or any) can sit as a supreme judge over what’s wrong and right (not even when you factually are right can you get away with that sort of attitude!) And just for the record: You are factually wrong sometimes: Armstronglivs is not dumb, he is intelligent. I’m pretty sure if he took an IQ test, and sent you a transcript, you would see that he is way above average. (And I say this as a gay who his whole work life has had evaluations of grown ups IQ as an important part of my job instruction -your attitude really are hurting you; you should try to adjust it. Not for my sake, or Armstronglivs’, but for your own…).

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

7765656747863 wrote:

Man?

For sure you HAVE to look at the achieved times in respect to the era the times were achieved.

It's just - for example - silly to say 540 athletes have run faster than Elliott did (and therefore to imply he wasn't any special). For sure he was. But 3:27 for him for me is unrealistic.

But then I'm astonished that you wouldn't rank Nurmi in your top 500. He has set WRs in the 1500m, 1 Mile, 2000m, 3000m, 2 Miles, 5000m, 10000m - all by some good margin. He was Olympic champion in 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, 12km Cross Country. In the 1920s it was just NOT POSSIBLE to think to run 1500m in 3:35.6.

There was an enormous improvement of the level of performence between his era and Elliott's. But why shouldn't there be any athlete of the 1920 who also would excel today?

To draw a line somewhere in the 1930s sounds strange to me.

I wrote “man” because you seem to be a little edgy and tense,