The rankings aren't broken. They reflect performance at important meets. Milrose is a top tier international meet so more points should be riding on it. A BU meet of a thousand college kids in front of a sparse crowd doesn't deserve the same level of ranking points. The rankings reward competition, and rightly so.
Tuohy is ranked #35, Valby is only ranked #61. Tuohy got 1294 points for her 3k at Millrose (90 of them were a bonus due to her place). To compare, Valby's 14:56 5k only gets her 1207 (12 come from place).
This shows a clear flaw in the ranking process. 3k's are ranked too heavily when it's not even the event you'd even be competing in at the Olympics. Valby closed her 5k in 8:54 AFTER hitting 2k in 6:01, and she closed in 2:17. She was clearly in 8:35 fitness or faster.
Additionally, the place bonuses are not proportional. The 90 points for Tuohy's 3rd at Millrose makes her 8:35 equal points wise (1294) to an outdoor 3k of 8:06.00, faster than the world record.
+1000
This should be post of the day! It is wrong on many levels to have that 3k ranked above the 5k.
Good time at a competitive pro circuit meet > good time at college meet set up for time trialing.
3k times are a very reliable indicator of 5k ability.
Your last argument is flawed. Someone setting a world record would also get placement points for finishing first. Do it in a regular season Diamond League meet or Indoor Worlds and you'd get 200 place points. Do it at an Olympics or World Champs final and you get a whopping 375 points.
The issue is someone entering the season with a 15:20 PR gets screwed over because they don't get invited to Diamond League meets. Even winning NCAAs only got Valby 70 bonus points.
World Athletics made the system to get 50% to qualify via time, and 50% to qualify via world ranking. But for world ranking, it has less to do with what times you run and more to do with WHERE you run those times. But not everyone has access to the big point meets.
The 80 bonus points that Tuohy got is HUGE. 80 points is the difference between a 15:00 5k and a 14:20 5k. That's way too much, especially for 3rd place at Millrose which isn't a great meet.
Tuohy is ranked #35, Valby is only ranked #61. Tuohy got 1294 points for her 3k at Millrose (90 of them were a bonus due to her place). To compare, Valby's 14:56 5k only gets her 1207 (12 come from place).
This shows a clear flaw in the ranking process. 3k's are ranked too heavily when it's not even the event you'd even be competing in at the Olympics. Valby closed her 5k in 8:54 AFTER hitting 2k in 6:01, and she closed in 2:17. She was clearly in 8:35 fitness or faster.
Additionally, the place bonuses are not proportional. The 90 points for Tuohy's 3rd at Millrose makes her 8:35 equal points wise (1294) to an outdoor 3k of 8:06.00, faster than the world record.
OP: Parker is ranked 64th, do you not care about the other 62, or are you just concerned about the one flawed ranking? The other 62 flawed rankings are ok, just this one. So Parker should be ahead of Alicia monsoon since the system is flawed. When Parker beats kipyegon, they’ll revise the rankings.
It is a valid comparison because Valby just DOMINATED Tuohy twice this XC season, took Tuohy's NCAA outdoor title, and beat Tuohy's time by 6+ seconds.
Most people, myself included, would have expected Valby to be ranked higher.
This isn't an attack on Tuohy, but rather an attack on the world ranking system. you can stop crying, Mr. Tuohy.
Good time at a competitive pro circuit meet > good time at college meet set up for time trialing.
3k times are a very reliable indicator of 5k ability.
Your last argument is flawed. Someone setting a world record would also get placement points for finishing first. Do it in a regular season Diamond League meet or Indoor Worlds and you'd get 200 place points. Do it at an Olympics or World Champs final and you get a whopping 375 points.
The issue is someone entering the season with a 15:20 PR gets screwed over because they don't get invited to Diamond League meets. Even winning NCAAs only got Valby 70 bonus points.
World Athletics made the system to get 50% to qualify via time, and 50% to qualify via world ranking. But for world ranking, it has less to do with what times you run and more to do with WHERE you run those times. But not everyone has access to the big point meets.
The 80 bonus points that Tuohy got is HUGE. 80 points is the difference between a 15:00 5k and a 14:20 5k. That's way too much, especially for 3rd place at Millrose which isn't a great meet.
on the other hand if all athletes run the major meets it should work out fine...if your heroine runs Millrose this year all will be good.
Good time at a competitive pro circuit meet > good time at college meet set up for time trialing.
3k times are a very reliable indicator of 5k ability.
Your last argument is flawed. Someone setting a world record would also get placement points for finishing first. Do it in a regular season Diamond League meet or Indoor Worlds and you'd get 200 place points. Do it at an Olympics or World Champs final and you get a whopping 375 points.
The issue is someone entering the season with a 15:20 PR gets screwed over because they don't get invited to Diamond League meets. Even winning NCAAs only got Valby 70 bonus points.
World Athletics made the system to get 50% to qualify via time, and 50% to qualify via world ranking. But for world ranking, it has less to do with what times you run and more to do with WHERE you run those times. But not everyone has access to the big point meets.
The 80 bonus points that Tuohy got is HUGE. 80 points is the difference between a 15:00 5k and a 14:20 5k. That's way too much, especially for 3rd place at Millrose which isn't a great meet.
You can say that 3rd place at Millrose isn't great, but that same weekend Valby chose to go to BU and run in a worse 3k where she finished 6th place, 14 seconds back of Tuohy.
Parker Valby hasn't shown a ton of interest to this point in anything but college running. She could have run Millrose or Dr. Sander if she wanted (They let Chelengat and McCabe in so you cant tell me they wouldnt let Valby in). She could have challenged herself at USA's if she wanted, but she didn't and thats ok. But fans dont get to turn around and complain about a world ranking list because you ran a good time in a glorified time trial against college kids one time. Tuohy has lined up against and beaten decent pros, Valby hasn't done that.
The issue is someone entering the season with a 15:20 PR gets screwed over because they don't get invited to Diamond League meets. Even winning NCAAs only got Valby 70 bonus points.
World Athletics made the system to get 50% to qualify via time, and 50% to qualify via world ranking. But for world ranking, it has less to do with what times you run and more to do with WHERE you run those times. But not everyone has access to the big point meets.
The 80 bonus points that Tuohy got is HUGE. 80 points is the difference between a 15:00 5k and a 14:20 5k. That's way too much, especially for 3rd place at Millrose which isn't a great meet.
You can say that 3rd place at Millrose isn't great, but that same weekend Valby chose to go to BU and run in a worse 3k where she finished 6th place, 14 seconds back of Tuohy.
Parker Valby hasn't shown a ton of interest to this point in anything but college running. She could have run Millrose or Dr. Sander if she wanted (They let Chelengat and McCabe in so you cant tell me they wouldnt let Valby in). She could have challenged herself at USA's if she wanted, but she didn't and thats ok. But fans dont get to turn around and complain about a world ranking list because you ran a good time in a glorified time trial against college kids one time. Tuohy has lined up against and beaten decent pros, Valby hasn't done that.
But since the worm has turned, she’s dominated Tuohy.
Only a corrupt back room sport like WWF would favor meets tied to insider agents, versus athleticism.
Forgetting the bonus points, Tuohy's 8:35.2 (1214) is rated higher than Valby's 14:56.11 (1195); Tuohy's next best 15:03.12 (1157) is rated higher than Valby's next best 15:25.03 (1115) and Tuohy's 3rd best 15:15.26 (1134) is rated higher than Valby's 3rd best 15:30.57 (1104). Once again, if Valby runs fast times more time she will move up. These rankings are not just based on most recent, or single best performance. And certainly not NCAA XC.
U.S. Olympic Trials will occur soon enough. XC is XC. Some XC athletes race well on the track, 5000m outdoors, others do not. Indoor season? You must be kidding. Fast indoors, more often than not means a not so great outdoor season. It is tech feasible to pump pure oxygen into indoor arenas. I don't trust indoor performances greater than 1000m.
You can say that 3rd place at Millrose isn't great, but that same weekend Valby chose to go to BU and run in a worse 3k where she finished 6th place, 14 seconds back of Tuohy.
Parker Valby hasn't shown a ton of interest to this point in anything but college running. She could have run Millrose or Dr. Sander if she wanted (They let Chelengat and McCabe in so you cant tell me they wouldnt let Valby in). She could have challenged herself at USA's if she wanted, but she didn't and thats ok. But fans dont get to turn around and complain about a world ranking list because you ran a good time in a glorified time trial against college kids one time. Tuohy has lined up against and beaten decent pros, Valby hasn't done that.
But since the worm has turned, she’s dominated Tuohy.
WA has been clear that they dont value placing in a college race very highly, and I dont think they even score Cross Country races. So while thats all well and good to show what she could do, its irrelevant to the matter at hand. Show up to a pro race and do well and beat some pros and the ranking will reflect that. If you only want to run in college races when you have every opportunity to challenge yourself then you dont have room to complain.
Only a corrupt back room sport like WWF would favor meets tied to insider agents, versus athleticism.
Forgetting the bonus points, Tuohy's 8:35.2 (1214) is rated higher than Valby's 14:56.11 (1195); Tuohy's next best 15:03.12 (1157) is rated higher than Valby's next best 15:25.03 (1115) and Tuohy's 3rd best 15:15.26 (1134) is rated higher than Valby's 3rd best 15:30.57 (1104). Once again, if Valby runs fast times more time she will move up. These rankings are not just based on most recent, or single best performance. And certainly not NCAA XC.
The 3k really shouldn't count, it's a totally different event. There are people like Drew Hunter who can race a good 3k but can't race a 5k to save their lives. Drew could qualify via world rank with a 13:28 in the 5k but with a couple good 3ks.
Tuohy is likely always going to be a better 3k runner than 5k runner. Should she continue to steal Olympic 5k spots from people who would crush her in a 5k? Tuohy has a higher world rank than Josette Norris who ran 14:43.
Forgetting the bonus points, Tuohy's 8:35.2 (1214) is rated higher than Valby's 14:56.11 (1195); Tuohy's next best 15:03.12 (1157) is rated higher than Valby's next best 15:25.03 (1115) and Tuohy's 3rd best 15:15.26 (1134) is rated higher than Valby's 3rd best 15:30.57 (1104). Once again, if Valby runs fast times more time she will move up. These rankings are not just based on most recent, or single best performance. And certainly not NCAA XC.
The 3k really shouldn't count, it's a totally different event. There are people like Drew Hunter who can race a good 3k but can't race a 5k to save their lives. Drew could qualify via world rank with a 13:28 in the 5k but with a couple good 3ks.
Tuohy is likely always going to be a better 3k runner than 5k runner. Should she continue to steal Olympic 5k spots from people who would crush her in a 5k? Tuohy has a higher world rank than Josette Norris who ran 14:43.
splain me please how Tuohy is going to steal someone's Olympic 5k spot?
Tuohy's ran 15:03 post-peak on a regular outdoor track without any bells and whistles. Valby's 14:56 was on the BU superdelux complete with Rodenfels pacing her for 7/8th of the race. Valby is about as fast as she was at the end of XC last year. Tuohy at her best was just faster.
Forgetting the bonus points, Tuohy's 8:35.2 (1214) is rated higher than Valby's 14:56.11 (1195); Tuohy's next best 15:03.12 (1157) is rated higher than Valby's next best 15:25.03 (1115) and Tuohy's 3rd best 15:15.26 (1134) is rated higher than Valby's 3rd best 15:30.57 (1104). Once again, if Valby runs fast times more time she will move up. These rankings are not just based on most recent, or single best performance. And certainly not NCAA XC.
The 3k really shouldn't count, it's a totally different event. There are people like Drew Hunter who can race a good 3k but can't race a 5k to save their lives. Drew could qualify via world rank with a 13:28 in the 5k but with a couple good 3ks.
Tuohy is likely always going to be a better 3k runner than 5k runner. Should she continue to steal Olympic 5k spots from people who would crush her in a 5k? Tuohy has a higher world rank than Josette Norris who ran 14:43.
There you go. A 14:43 on a real outdoor track, vs a 3k indoor. Shim-sham.
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.