That's barely a minute behind the very soft boys' course record. Maybe, just maybe, their speed ratings are wildly wrong?
http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/224852-favorites-emerging-in-week-6-speed-rating-national-merge
That's barely a minute behind the very soft boys' course record. Maybe, just maybe, their speed ratings are wildly wrong?
http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/224852-favorites-emerging-in-week-6-speed-rating-national-merge
On the Balboa park course, 16:53 puts her with Cuffe, but 30 seconds behind Trotter, and also well behind Stamps and Fairchild. If anything, that is a conservative assessment.
This simply can not be wrote:
That's barely a minute behind the very soft boys' course record. Maybe, just maybe, their speed ratings are wildly wrong?
http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/224852-favorites-emerging-in-week-6-speed-rating-national-merge
Ivo Lucien wrote:
On the Balboa park course, 16:53 puts her with Cuffe, but 30 seconds behind Trotter, and also well behind Stamps and Fairchild. If anything, that is a conservative assessment.
This simply can not be wrote:That's barely a minute behind the very soft boys' course record. Maybe, just maybe, their speed ratings are wildly wrong?
http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/224852-favorites-emerging-in-week-6-speed-rating-national-merge
Agreed!
Ivo Lucien wrote:
On the Balboa park course, 16:53 puts her with Cuffe, but 30 seconds behind Trotter, and also well behind Stamps and Fairchild. If anything, that is a conservative assessment.
This simply can not be wrote:That's barely a minute behind the very soft boys' course record. Maybe, just maybe, their speed ratings are wildly wrong?
http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/224852-favorites-emerging-in-week-6-speed-rating-national-merge
You can't compare times from Orlando with those at Balboa Park.
15:29 at Mt. Sac is not on par with 16:53 at Balboa. That is ridiculous to even suggest.
Mt Sac, I would say sub-16, but 15:29 is way to generous. If you do a quick search on some of the boys who ran around 15:29, you are basically saying Tuohy can run 9:30 in a track 2-mile and we aren't halfway into the season. Her track times from last year doesn't indicate she has anywhere near that capability. I know its not likely she cut the course, but she was so far ahead that is it possible she inadvertently missed a turn somewhere?
TrackCoach wrote:
Mt Sac, I would say sub-16, but 15:29 is way to generous. If you do a quick search on some of the boys who ran around 15:29, you are basically saying Tuohy can run 9:30 in a track 2-mile and we aren't halfway into the season. Her track times from last year doesn't indicate she has anywhere near that capability. I know its not likely she cut the course, but she was so far ahead that is it possible she inadvertently missed a turn somewhere?
She already looked like she inadvertently missed a turn about 400 meters into her race. This girl is amazing, but not 15:29 amazing. Sarah Baxter’s course record of 16:00 at Sac is also her lifetime best performance over any distance in cross or track.
Crest complete wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
Mt Sac, I would say sub-16, but 15:29 is way to generous. If you do a quick search on some of the boys who ran around 15:29, you are basically saying Tuohy can run 9:30 in a track 2-mile and we aren't halfway into the season. Her track times from last year doesn't indicate she has anywhere near that capability. I know its not likely she cut the course, but she was so far ahead that is it possible she inadvertently missed a turn somewhere?
She already looked like she inadvertently missed a turn about 400 meters into her race. This girl is amazing, but not 15:29 amazing. Sarah Baxter’s course record of 16:00 at Sac is also her lifetime best performance over any distance in cross or track.
Touhy's Manhattan preformance has already been analyzed in other threads, and relative to other girls and boys' performances and her own, it is clear she is in sub-9:50 2 mile shape at the very least. I don't know about speed ratings for Mt SAC, but the Balboa estimate seems conservative. She is up there with any of the greats right now, excepting Trotter.
I think 15:40s is easily possible
as some people mentioned above have done compared to boys running a similar time on the course she is in 9:30s 3200m shape at the moment
Ivo Lucien wrote:
Crest complete wrote:
She already looked like she inadvertently missed a turn about 400 meters into her race. This girl is amazing, but not 15:29 amazing. Sarah Baxter’s course record of 16:00 at Sac is also her lifetime best performance over any distance in cross or track.
Touhy's Manhattan preformance has already been analyzed in other threads, and relative to other girls and boys' performances and her own, it is clear she is in sub-9:50 2 mile shape at the very least. I don't know about speed ratings for Mt SAC, but the Balboa estimate seems conservative. She is up there with any of the greats right now, excepting Trotter.
I don't why everyone calls this a Manhattan course. Van Cortland Park is in the Bronx!!!
Geography major wrote:
I don't why everyone calls this a Manhattan course. Van Cortland Park is in the Bronx!!!
Take it up with the race organizers of the Manhattan Invite.
I’d like to point out this entire thread is based off the false premise that Speed Ratings indicate a 15:29. Based on last years results from Mt SAC her 166.33 is worth a 15:53. Does this make more sense to you?
Niles wrote:
I’d like to point out this entire thread is based off the false premise that Speed Ratings indicate a 15:29. Based on last years results from Mt SAC her 166.33 is worth a 15:53. Does this make more sense to you?
Ok, I should have read the article first, but I don’t know why they said that her 166 was suddenly a 170... anyways, even a 170 would indicate 15:42, not 15:29. Overall, I do like speed ratings, but I’m not a big fan of this article.
Who cares about Mt SAC? Tuohy isn't running it anyway.