I don't only consider the gold in a global championship - other achievements count - but the claim to be the best is reduced without global golds. There is a distinction there. That failure on Jakob's part for the last three years means he isn't the best, he is one of the current best. If he were to lower either of the world marks for the 1500/mile that would put him on top. But so it would for any of the other contenders.
He has the global gold, and nobody else has won more than one global gold. Hence he's still the best, because nobody else has been better when you factor in all the other factors I mentioned.
Centro has a global gold too. Is he the best right now?
Happens all the time. Messi and Ronaldo were the best in their event, professional soccer, for years with no Olympic medals. Does the best baseball player in the world have a medal? How many goals does Tom Brady have?
Messi did actually win the Olympic gold
Near the end of his career but it never was what made him the best.
Near the end of his career but it never was what made him the best.
2008 was not “near the end of his career”. But it is a silly comparison to talk about a soccer player vs track athlete in terms of Olympic gold weight.
He has the global gold, and nobody else has won more than one global gold. Hence he's still the best, because nobody else has been better when you factor in all the other factors I mentioned.
Centro has a global gold too. Is he the best right now?
Because a global gold is, on balance, a decisive factor. Hard for you to grasp nuances in an argument, I know. You should get a job as Ingebrigtsen's agent. No one spends as much time publicly talking him up.
Yes, global golds are a decisive factor. We're discussing people who have the same amount of global golds, so that isn't a factor. What decides who's the best when the most decisive factor is equal?
According to you, nothing, because you keep repeating that nobody is better than the other because they have the same amount of global golds, and yet you're telling other people that they don't understand nuance.
In philosophical terms there is a distinction between a "necessary" cause and a "sufficient" cause. You should look up the distinction some time.
It isn't just global golds that decide who might be the "best" in this case but it sways the argument - just as the lack of them is significant. My view, which I have tried to explain but you can't follow because of the way you see the argument, is that currently no one has a claim to being the clear "best" in the 1500/mile. There are several runners in contention. In the end it is a judgement call, an opinion, and not a mathematical equation, as much as some of you think it can be resolved with that kind of certitude.
No need to apologize, Arm. We all know about your hate, your blindness regarding any numbers, your incapablilty for rational reasoning.
Clarke
1962 CG dnf + 2 (age 25)
1964 OG 3 + 9 + 9
1966 CG 2 + 2 + dnf
1968 OG 6 + 5
1970 CG 2 + 5
Ingebrigtsen
2019 WC 5 + 4 (age 18)
2021 OG 1
2022 WC 2 + 1
2023 WC 2 + 1
2024 OG 4 + 1
Clearly anybod can see which enormous loser Ingebrigtsen is. Compared to a winner (hey, 4 silvers at the weak Commonwealths) like Clarke.
There's something quaint about the way some of you guys toss numbers about, as though you have discovered the meaning of life. The more numbers I see in a post the weaker I know will be the argument.
Yes, global golds are a decisive factor. We're discussing people who have the same amount of global golds, so that isn't a factor. What decides who's the best when the most decisive factor is equal?
According to you, nothing, because you keep repeating that nobody is better than the other because they have the same amount of global golds, and yet you're telling other people that they don't understand nuance.
In philosophical terms there is a distinction between a "necessary" cause and a "sufficient" cause. You should look up the distinction some time.
It isn't just global golds that decide who might be the "best" in this case but it sways the argument - just as the lack of them is significant. My view, which I have tried to explain but you can't follow because of the way you see the argument, is that currently no one has a claim to being the clear "best" in the 1500/mile. There are several runners in contention. In the end it is a judgement call, an opinion, and not a mathematical equation, as much as some of you think it can be resolved with that kind of certitude.
There is a way to determine who's the best because global golds are not the only thing that determines who's the best. It's the person who has performed the best in every single metric outside of number of global golds won, which is Jakob.
If you claim that you don't only consider global golds to determine who's the best, but don't let any other metric but global golds determine who's the best, then you don't actually consider anything but global golds.
Near the end of his career but it never was what made him the best.
2008 was not “near the end of his career”. But it is a silly comparison to talk about a soccer player vs track athlete in terms of Olympic gold weight.
Nothing in the title or first post talked about track. It was a question about all sports.
2008 was not “near the end of his career”. But it is a silly comparison to talk about a soccer player vs track athlete in terms of Olympic gold weight.
Nothing in the title or first post talked about track. It was a question about all sports.
God you Letsrun people are insufferable in explicit vs implicit meaning.
In philosophical terms there is a distinction between a "necessary" cause and a "sufficient" cause. You should look up the distinction some time.
It isn't just global golds that decide who might be the "best" in this case but it sways the argument - just as the lack of them is significant. My view, which I have tried to explain but you can't follow because of the way you see the argument, is that currently no one has a claim to being the clear "best" in the 1500/mile. There are several runners in contention. In the end it is a judgement call, an opinion, and not a mathematical equation, as much as some of you think it can be resolved with that kind of certitude.
There is a way to determine who's the best because global golds are not the only thing that determines who's the best. It's the person who has performed the best in every single metric outside of number of global golds won, which is Jakob.
If you claim that you don't only consider global golds to determine who's the best, but don't let any other metric but global golds determine who's the best, then you don't actually consider anything but global golds.
Sorry - I'm bored with going around your mulberry bush. You can hold your view and I will hold mine. Yours doesn't change mine.
This post was edited 18 seconds after it was posted.
There is a way to determine who's the best because global golds are not the only thing that determines who's the best. It's the person who has performed the best in every single metric outside of number of global golds won, which is Jakob.
If you claim that you don't only consider global golds to determine who's the best, but don't let any other metric but global golds determine who's the best, then you don't actually consider anything but global golds.
Sorry - I'm bored with going around your mulberry bush. You can hold your view and I will hold mine. Yours doesn't change mine.
As usual, you can't cope with more than 2 sentences in a post. Especially when they expose your ignorance.
As usual, you can't cope with more than 2 sentences in a post. Especially when they expose your ignorance.
Are you interested in the thread subject yet? Of course not.
The next thousend is completed. This was hard it seems, but still well done. 726 of those 1000 are about your favourite runner JI. But you call others fixated. Pure madness.
No need to apologize, Arm. We all know about your hate, your blindness regarding any numbers, your incapablilty for rational reasoning.
Clarke
1962 CG dnf + 2 (age 25)
1964 OG 3 + 9 + 9
1966 CG 2 + 2 + dnf
1968 OG 6 + 5
1970 CG 2 + 5
Ingebrigtsen
2019 WC 5 + 4 (age 18)
2021 OG 1
2022 WC 2 + 1
2023 WC 2 + 1
2024 OG 4 + 1
Clearly anybod can see which enormous loser Ingebrigtsen is. Compared to a winner (hey, 4 silvers at the weak Commonwealths) like Clarke.
There's something quaint about the way some of you guys toss numbers about, as though you have discovered the meaning of life. The more numbers I see in a post the weaker I know will be the argument.
Almost no stronger arguments in athletics than well presented correct numbers - like here. For sure you don't like it - like you always do when confronted with facts which destroy your view.
In your view, Clarke is by far the biggest loser in the history of athletics.
Are you interested in the thread subject yet? Of course not.
The next thousend is completed. This was hard it seems, but still well done. 726 of those 1000 are about your favourite runner JI. But you call others fixated. Pure madness.
3,000 posts since June 19th! Not even 3 months! He lives for Letsrun, Jakob Ingebrigtsen and Parker Valby.
Are you interested in the thread subject yet? Of course not.
The next thousend is completed. This was hard it seems, but still well done. 726 of those 1000 are about your favourite runner JI. But you call others fixated. Pure madness.
Yet you read them all and respond to them. Pure madness.
The next thousend is completed. This was hard it seems, but still well done. 726 of those 1000 are about your favourite runner JI. But you call others fixated. Pure madness.
3,000 posts since June 19th! Not even 3 months! He lives for Letsrun, Jakob Ingebrigtsen and Parker Valby.
Apparently you live for my posts. I'll keep you posted.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.