simple, by where they measure the course from....ie, I have seen courses where certain corners were measured on the 'outside' of the running path rather than the middle or inside. This can lead to a 10 or 15 meter shortage from one corner alone. Have 2 or three corners like this, and do 2 loops around and you are now easily short 100m. Not a big deal, since everyone is running the same distance...but definitely affects the final time splits.
The SEC course had several corners where the course map was well off of where the runners actually ran. Again, makes no difference to the race results...but certainly affects the times.
Did you actually see how those courses were measured or were you guessing that's what happened? It is hard to believe that the course is not measured from shortest point to shortest point, and that the person doing it would veer wide on the corners and bends. Why would they do that?
Sorry, let me be clear, I have no idea what the SEC situation was...I'm telling you what I believe in that case. I can tell you that the two corners after the 2.12 split (especially the second) were wrong when comparing the course map vs the actual race. The second corner could easily have made the course 30-40m shorter on each loop. If the course map was indicative of what they measured, then it certainly was short.
My own experience was with a group that used a quad to drive a course to measure. But they always drove the outside to measure as they did not want the course to exceed the stated distance. But since runners do not run the outside of the path, the courses ended up always being somewhat short.
Did you actually see how those courses were measured or were you guessing that's what happened? It is hard to believe that the course is not measured from shortest point to shortest point, and that the person doing it would veer wide on the corners and bends. Why would they do that?
Sorry, let me be clear, I have no idea what the SEC situation was...I'm telling you what I believe in that case. I can tell you that the two corners after the 2.12 split (especially the second) were wrong when comparing the course map vs the actual race. The second corner could easily have made the course 30-40m shorter on each loop. If the course map was indicative of what they measured, then it certainly was short.
My own experience was with a group that used a quad to drive a course to measure. But they always drove the outside to measure as they did not want the course to exceed the stated distance. But since runners do not run the outside of the path, the courses ended up always being somewhat short.
Thanks for explaining that. However, if it occurred the way you say it is bogglingly incompetent. 40m per loop is a huge discrepancy. Runners take the shortest route when they can, and not the path dictated by the drivers of a quad. The organisers may as well have guessed the length of the course.
After her run at Texas A&M, people were wondering what she was capable of. We thought, "Well we'll find out at SECs." That race just ended. Well before the 10 minute mark, she broke free of 2020 NCAA xc champ Mercy Chelangat. She ended up winning in 18:25.9 with Chelangat 8 seconds back.
John Kellogg and I were watching it together in the office and he was super impressed.
He thinks if that was a legitimate 6000 that someone could almost run a full 10,000 on the track at that pace (she was running 30:40 pace today). I asked him what could she do for 5000 and he's saying something about 14:40s. I'm hearing him talk about Sally Kipyego running stuff like this. In case you dont' remember, Kipyegon ended up being pretty darn good as a pro (Olympic silver).
The collegiate records are 15:01/31:18.
If those marks are crazy, please realize the 10th placer today has a 16:00 5000 pb and ran 20:00 so Valby beat her by more than 90 seconds.
Wow.
So I am curious about your thoughts now. You implied she would be crushing the 5000 & 10000 next year based on a SEC XC result on a likely short course. PV had a great XC Natty race...but was beaten by Tuohy. Do you still think she will be the 5000/10000 m champ next season? Not sure why the 10k ever came into this discussion, has she ever run that?
After her run at Texas A&M, people were wondering what she was capable of. We thought, "Well we'll find out at SECs." That race just ended. Well before the 10 minute mark, she broke free of 2020 NCAA xc champ Mercy Chelangat. She ended up winning in 18:25.9 with Chelangat 8 seconds back.
John Kellogg and I were watching it together in the office and he was super impressed.
He thinks if that was a legitimate 6000 that someone could almost run a full 10,000 on the track at that pace (she was running 30:40 pace today). I asked him what could she do for 5000 and he's saying something about 14:40s. I'm hearing him talk about Sally Kipyego running stuff like this. In case you dont' remember, Kipyegon ended up being pretty darn good as a pro (Olympic silver).
The collegiate records are 15:01/31:18.
If those marks are crazy, please realize the 10th placer today has a 16:00 5000 pb and ran 20:00 so Valby beat her by more than 90 seconds.
When Valby was at her (we are told) peak fitness early last year (8:53) she ran a 4:36 DMR anchor, or ~4:38 mile. Are we to believe she could run 5K at 4:43/mile pace? 8:53 also happens to be pace for 14:48. 14:40 looks like a tremendous leap. If that estimate was derived based on Thorvaldson, it ignores that Thorvaldson had mono and was probably not in 16:00 shape in October.
Predicting a race time for a differnet from one race in a different season makes a lot of sense. Tuohy's 10,000 ceiling is about 34 minutes based on her USA 5000. The one thing we know is that Tuohy is not nealry good at the 5000 as what her fans were predicting. The excuses were that it was too hot in the summer or that she ran to win or that she ran solo. We now know what she can do in a paced race on the fastest track in the world where she gets droped by a D3 runner. Valby is not nearly as good at hills as Tuohy. Her 5000 right now would be 14:50.
When Valby was at her (we are told) peak fitness early last year (8:53) she ran a 4:36 DMR anchor, or ~4:38 mile. Are we to believe she could run 5K at 4:43/mile pace? 8:53 also happens to be pace for 14:48. 14:40 looks like a tremendous leap. If that estimate was derived based on Thorvaldson, it ignores that Thorvaldson had mono and was probably not in 16:00 shape in October.
Your numbers (4:43/mile) seem to be off; but granted, my post did not specifically show how I arrived at my conclusion (3.1sec/k slower).
Nonetheless, accepting for a minute that my conclusion is fair, it would imply Valby (based on her SEC fitness) could run ~14:55 on the BU indoor track. That is:
((18*60) + 25.9)s -(3.1s/k * 6k) = 1087.3s=18:07.3 for an equivalent 6k on the BU indoor track. Plugging that time into the Jack Daniels Calculator gives an equivalent 5k of 14:55. That is 4:48/mile pace, not 4:43/mile.
So could Valby run ~14:55 on the BU track with her SEC fitness? Not with those BU Invite pace setters; they would have been in the way.
Valby doesn't use pacers. People love her because she runs like Pre. People don't like Tuohy because she leeches off of others. It works when she runs a XC race against college runners but not when she is on a track against fomer D3 runners.
FastTuohy wrote: If that estimate was derived based on Thorvaldson, it ignores that Thorvaldson had mono and was probably not in 16:00 shape in October.
I included the following five athletes in my analysis:
Olemomoi, Chelengat, Thorvaldson, Cochran, and Tyynismaa (who ran the 3000m at BU.)
After looking at each of their time conversions, I threw out the high (Thorvaldson) and low (Chelengat), and averaged the results of the remaining three, resulting in 3.1s/km slower.
I'll fall for your stupidity. Tuohy is the most fearless racer we've ever seen. Watch her portfolio of hammering from the gun since high school. Valby has proven to be a poor racer in championship racing: fit enough to win, but blows her load at the wrong times in a race and that is established. Don't compare her to Pre because Pre won, never lost his last 3 years in college in any event.
Most fearless ever? Come on now, you can’t believe that. Are you new to running?
Fit enough to win? Are you saying that Valby could have won with different tactics at xc champs? I’ve been told that Touhy could just keep going faster if she wanted. Which I agree is bs, she was maxed out. I guess we agree that Valby could’ve won if she saved 4 seconds on the tangents.
I'll fall for your stupidity. Tuohy is the most fearless racer we've ever seen. Watch her portfolio of hammering from the gun since high school. Valby has proven to be a poor racer in championship racing: fit enough to win, but blows her load at the wrong times in a race and that is established. Don't compare her to Pre because Pre won, never lost his last 3 years in college in any event.
Most fearless ever? Come on now, you can’t believe that. Are you new to running?
Fit enough to win? Are you saying that Valby could have won with different tactics at xc champs? I’ve been told that Touhy could just keep going faster if she wanted. Which I agree is bs, she was maxed out. I guess we agree that Valby could’ve won if she saved 4 seconds on the tangents.
Horses for courses, son. Let’s see what the track brings in the future.
Go back 2 years, and you will see that KT was the most famous front runner of all time, and of course was criticized here for only having '1 race tactic' and 'no closing speed'. In fact during freshman track she became the ultimate rabbit, forcing honest fast races, but getting her doors blown off on last lap.
Credit to her and her coaches, she has improved her closing 400 speed, learned to wind up the pace on last mile and now runs with pack early, getting good position on the rail. Surprisingly, all the old front running is now forgotten and KT is now a 'kicker'.
The pacers at bu were for Aisha Praught-Leer, but I am sure KT enjoyed the chance to work with former NCAA stars Coburn and Jones.
Yes she used to front run on high school when she was better than everyone. She tried in college and it didn't wok because she wasn't as good as the competition. She now runs scared and hopes that others will die. It didn't wok at BU. It didn't work in the NCAA 3000. It didn't work at USATF. She used to be fearless but now throws in the towel when she is beaten.
FastTuohy wrote: If that estimate was derived based on Thorvaldson, it ignores that Thorvaldson had mono and was probably not in 16:00 shape in October.
I included the following five athletes in my analysis:
Olemomoi, Chelengat, Thorvaldson, Cochran, and Tyynismaa (who ran the 3000m at BU.)
After looking at each of their time conversions, I threw out the high (Thorvaldson) and low (Chelengat), and averaged the results of the remaining three, resulting in 3.1s/km slower.
fair enough, but the base assumption has to be that neither Tyynismaa not Olemomoi have improved since SEc and I suspect their times relative to Chelangat says otherwise.
I included the following five athletes in my analysis:
Olemomoi, Chelengat, Thorvaldson, Cochran, and Tyynismaa (who ran the 3000m at BU.)
After looking at each of their time conversions, I threw out the high (Thorvaldson) and low (Chelengat), and averaged the results of the remaining three, resulting in 3.1s/km slower.
fair enough, but the base assumption has to be that neither Tyynismaa not Olemomoi have improved since SEc and I suspect their times relative to Chelangat says otherwise.
Of course these athletes will fluctuate in fitness through their seasons, and Chelangat is more of a distance-type athlete than the others. Nonetheless, the analysis was constrained to the limited, but relatively valuable, data available. I think it is much more solid than what John Kellogg had to work with at the time.
accepting for a minute that my conclusion is fair, it would imply Valby (based on her SEC fitness) could run ~14:55 on the BU indoor track. That is: ((18*60) + 25.9)s -(3.1s/k * 6k) = 1087.3s=18:07.3 for an equivalent 6k on the BU indoor track. Plugging that time into the Jack Daniels Calculator gives an equivalent 5k of 14:55. That is 4:48/mile pace, not 4:43/mile.
So could Valby run ~14:55 on the BU track with her SEC fitness? Not with those BU Invite pace setters; they would have been in the way.
Valby's indoor 8:53 for 3k was at 4:46 mile pace, with minimal training and while working through injuries. Comparatively, running 5k's at 4:48 pace and faster with good fitness nearly a year later is quite reasonable.
Valby's indoor 8:53 for 3k was at 4:46 mile pace, with minimal training and while working through injuries. Comparatively, running 5k's at 4:48 pace and faster with good fitness nearly a year later is quite reasonable.
How do you call yourself a Valby fan? Valby said in an interview that her 8:53 was after a solid training block.