Shannon Rowbury just misses. Comes up .04 short from becoming 5th woman in history at sub-2 and sub-15.

Barely jumping into this thread and we've already got this sort of rubbish going on.

almost there wrote:

You have a different definition of accurate than what is commonly accepted.

ac·cu·rate

ˈakyərət/

adjective

1.

(of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

"accurate information about the illness is essential"

synonyms: correct, precise, exact, right, error-free

"Comes up .04 short from becoming 5th woman in history at sub-2 and sub-15" Is this statement correct, exact, and error-free? I believe it is, although I did not look it up as I trust Rojo on this one.

Is this a meaningful accomplishment? That is really a matter of opinion, as there are certainly others capable of the same accomplishment.

No, I'm using the same definition. For some reason you are not understanding what I am saying. You are confusing "accurate" with "literally" and or "officially".

FifthPlaceHerNiche wrote:

Fastest woman in all three events never to finish first in any race at a world or national level.

Rowbury won the 3000m at USA indoor nationals in 2008. She also won national titles outdoors at 1500m in 2008 and 2009.

Prosper wrote:

almost there wrote:

How is it inaccurate?

...

Are there other runners who are more than capable of sub-2 and sub-15? No doubt.

You answered your own question. Mentioning her rank (5th) makes it inaccurate. It would have been more accurate to just leave it at "Shannon Rowbury joins the sub 2/sub 15 club". Including 5th carries additional weight as if she is the 5th most able.

First of all, she would be the 5th chronologically, not the 5th best ("most able"). Second of all, it would be inaccurate (at least subjectively) to say that she's the 5th woman capable of running sub 2 and sub 15. However, it would be objectively accurate to say that she would be the 5th woman to have a sub 2 and a sub 15 PR. Like others have said, that might be misleading or meaningless, but it would be accurate.

Les wrote:

Also, Rowbury's career is on an upswing. Simpson's isn't. Rowbury has had the better season, is very likely to be #1 American. Next year's Trials should be interesting.

You seem to be mistaking the difference between "season" and "race". Rowbury had the better race in Monaco, where 4th place got an American Record. Simpson will finish with the better season with a Diamond League and USAs win, a better ranking on the DL circuit, and more wins head-to-head.

Her getting the USA record in the next few weeks isn't off the table either.

Jenny will win the trials next year unless someone pulls off her shoe again.

Ol Mo Fo wrote:Dang just looked up Slaney and she has both a 1:56 and 8:25. Pretty sick coverage right there. Shannon is nowhere near either and yet she has a faster 1500

exactly

mary was in 3'54 shape back then but got crap pace

she ran a 3'57.2 solo off ridiculous 61.9 opener

she really shouda buried the american record in '85 but crap pacing on offer

Jenny FTW wrote:

Les wrote:

Also, Rowbury's career is on an upswing. Simpson's isn't. Rowbury has had the better season, is very likely to be #1 American. Next year's Trials should be interesting.

You seem to be mistaking the difference between "season" and "race". Rowbury had the better race in Monaco, where 4th place got an American Record. Simpson will finish with the better season with a Diamond League and USAs win, a better ranking on the DL circuit, and more wins head-to-head.

AR for Rowbury and higher placings in Monaco and WCs trumps Simpson's win at Pre and USAs win. Bigger meets count for more in rankings. Head to head, it's 2-2. Simpson's higher 3k finish does not count toward 1500m rankings, obviously. Higher Diamond League points has no bearing on US rankings. It's close, but I think the AR will be the difference in the year end rankings.

Mary in '85 shape coulda medaled at both 800 and 1500 at this past WCs. Crazy.

Ok, I'm dying to know, Rojo, who were the four women?

Les wrote:

FifthPlaceHerNiche wrote:

Fastest woman in all three events never to finish first in any race at a world or national level.

Rowbury won the 3000m at USA indoor nationals in 2008. She also won national titles outdoors at 1500m in 2008 and 2009.

Shannon is a 6 time national champion

2008 3000 m indoors

2008 And 2009 1500m outdoors

2009 USATF national road mile

2015 1500m and 3000m indoor

I believe Regina is the only other American.

I neant the only American

just one injection away for roid rage rowbury

How does someone with a 3:56 pr not break 2?

3:54.11 wrote:

';lkj wrote:

The girls that have gone sub 2 and sub 15 are?

Sonia O'Sullivan. The others?

To note also Genzebe Dibaba with a sub 1:57 last 800m in Beijing...

O'Sullivan hasn't broken 2 over 800m, sorry.

But Sifan Hassan has run sub 8 and sub 15.

Who are the others?

Mary Decker has run 1:56,90 and has set a WR over 5000m, but not sub 15.

3:54.11 wrote:

3:54.11 wrote:

Sonia O'Sullivan. The others?

To note also Genzebe Dibaba with a sub 1:57 last 800m in Beijing...

O'Sullivan hasn't broken 2 over 800m, sorry.

But Sifan Hassan has run sub 8 and sub 15.

Who are the others?

Mary Decker has run 1:56,90 and has set a WR over 5000m, but not sub 15.

As someone already mentioned, Regina is 1:58.06 and 14:45 (AR at the time).

bugman wrote:

As someone already mentioned, Regina is 1:58.06 and 14:45 (AR at the time).

Sifan Hassan and Regina Jacobs.

Who are the others???

Maryam Jamal is another:

1:57.8 and 14:51

YEAH BUDDY wrote:

First of all, she would be the 5th chronologically, not the 5th best ("most able"). Second of all, it would be inaccurate (at least subjectively) to say that she's the 5th woman capable of running sub 2 and sub 15. However, it would be objectively accurate to say that she would be the 5th woman to have a sub 2 and a sub 15 PR. Like others have said, that might be misleading or meaningless, but it would be accurate.

No, you are all wrong about this. You are confusing "literally" and "officially" with "accurate". You contradicted yourself in your final sentence: if it is misleading then it is not accurate. A statement can be literally accurate while being practically inaccurate. This is the case in here where including her rank carries additional implications that go past what is literally written. Thus it is true that the statement is inaccurate.

I don't know what your "first of all sentence" has to do with me. I'm guessing you were replying to someone else with that.