So Tuohy's tactics were better? Does that mean if Valby ran better tactics, she would have won? Seems like Astro has been saying that Tuohy had to overcome the deficit she created. But now you are claiming that Tuohy's tactics were superior. I wich you guys would come up with the consensus opinion.
Was Tuohy using tactics that she thought would best serve her to pick up the win, or was she holding back to make sure she did not blow up, and cost her team a chance at the title?
It is pretty likely that race would have looked a bit different if she were running for herself as Valby was.
Just one more ting that shows Tuohy is not a very smart runner. She chooses an average school. She spots Valby a huge lead. She thinks hills pay bills. Track is what pays bills. Hills pay no bills. Ask any sponsor which events they focus on. USA champs. Olympics, World champs. Diamond League. But poor little Tuohy will be stuck in her HS cross country mentality when Valby is earning a nice living on the track.
Nothing about this makes any sense. First, Tuohy chose a school she is very happy at and clearly making big improvements in her running. Second, spotting Valby the lead was obviously an intentional strategy to help Tuohy win the individual title and help her team as well. Tuohy has much better speed than Valby - just look at her 4:06 1500 time vs some 4:36 1600 DMR anchor Valby ran (many of the NC State women could easily run that in a DMR). It’s also much easier psychologically to be the hunter than the hunted in a race. Tuohy used to be the hunted at one time but she has completely flipped the script on that and just walked Valby down. This also had the benefit of keeping the chase pack together longer into the race which benefited the rest of her teammates. Chmiel was able to close fast and get third and also kept Bush and Mareno in range for low scores. Finally - hills do pay the bills (Adidas - please put this on a Tshirt and sell it) as evidenced by Tuohy’s NIL deal.
My other point also stands. The conclusion that in XC someone at top NCAA should have a fitness level 20 sec. faster than their track times before (in June) or after (in december) is sufficiently unlikely to let the claims that someone was in that shape appear highly dubious.
To be clear so that your latter point/question is understood, are you saying it is dubious for a 20yr old to take 20secs (as an example) off their 5k time in a year or less?
Your reading comprehension is pathetic. As his earlier post (#243) makes clear, he's dubious about people who "extrapolate" from XC times to track times and get nonsensical results. As an example of a dubious answer, he points to people who say Tuohy's XC times show she can run a faster 5k than she did in the spring, or two weeks later.
Whether you agree with it or not, the point is simple and Jo72's explanation of it clear.
thanks. My point was that it is very implausible to have e.g. Tuohy in 15:15 shape in summer (or grant 15:05-10 in a imagined perfect race) AND in early december (BU) but in 14:50 shape in mid-November (as suggested by the crazy extrapolations from XC). Fitness usually does not oscillate so wildly within a few weeks, even less in a strength based long distance type, unless there are other factors (illness, altitude, heat etc.) involved. I am pretty sure, a healthy Tuohy would run 15:25-30 in the midst of winter base training without tapering or sharpening. It's very implausible that the difference between base and peak is smaller (~15 sec) than differences within a few weeks around peak. (Again, Tuohy's overall results tend towards stability not to sharp peaks and poor shape off-peak.)
20 sec. improvement from one year to another is possible at that age but rare for an athlete who has frequently run that distance before and is running already high mileage. It's more likely when someone shifts focus e.g. from 800/1500 to 5000 and increases mileage etc.
And despite more fast times in the last years due to supertalent and supershoes, people also seem to underestimate that 14:50 and faster is considerably better than 15:10s. Only 7 years ago the US record was 14:44!
thanks. My point was that it is very implausible to have e.g. Tuohy in 15:15 shape in summer (or grant 15:05-10 in a imagined perfect race) AND in early december (BU) but in 14:50 shape in mid-November
. I am pretty sure, a healthy Tuohy…
. (Again, Tuohy's overall results
So you just clarified that earlier you were specifically referring to Tuohy, as “a top NCAA athlete”, when you conclude her BU performance was not dubious, and that Tuohy was likely not in 14:50 shape in mid-November. Great. 🙄
Why you felt you needed, in a confusing verbose manner, to bring something that obvious to the discussion twice earlier, is itself a bit ‘dubious’, or curious, or whatever.
20 sec. improvement from one year to another is possible at that age but rare for an athlete who has frequently run that distance before and is running already high mileage.
And yet, not only did Tuohy do exactly that, but, as FastTuohy pointed out, she also lowered her 3000m time by 24.5secs in 10months time!
20 sec. improvement from one year to another is possible at that age but rare for an athlete who has frequently run that distance before and is running already high mileage.
And yet, not only did Tuohy do exactly that, but, as FastTuohy pointed out, she also lowered her 3000m time by 24.5secs in 10months time!
And actually, it was over 30sec that 19-20 yr old Tuohy dropped from her 5000m time “from one year to another”. (Apr ‘21 -Apr ‘22).
You cannot read or are highly confused and try to turn around what I wrote (while others were able to understand it perfectly). Tuohy had a PB of 15:37 at 16, so she has not even improved 30 secs in almost 5 years, even less within one year.
I am not going to respond to that drivel anymore, it's an utter waste of time.
You cannot read or are highly confused and try to turn around what I wrote (while others were able to understand it perfectly). Tuohy had a PB of 15:37 at 16, so she has not even improved 30 secs in almost 5 years, even less within one year.
I am not going to respond to that drivel anymore, it's an utter waste of time.
So by your narrative, Tuohy topped out for a few years, and then, BOOM, catches ‘lightning-in-the-bottle’ (a figure of speech) and drops over 30secs from her 5000m, and 24secs from her 3000m in the ‘21-‘22 time frame. Yet, you were saying for something like that to occur, with a quite seasoned athlete, no less, would be “dubious”; but now you are not saying that?
Or is it the case that you are quite “duplicitous” when picking and choosing which athletes have understandable excuses or reasons to explain what you would otherwise see as a “dubious” progression?
So Tuohy's tactics were better? Does that mean if Valby ran better tactics, she would have won? Seems like Astro has been saying that Tuohy had to overcome the deficit she created. But now you are claiming that Tuohy's tactics were superior. I wich you guys would come up with the consensus opinion.
Tuohy just showed she can beat Valby running any way she wants.
You cannot read or are highly confused and try to turn around what I wrote (while others were able to understand it perfectly). Tuohy had a PB of 15:37 at 16, so she has not even improved 30 secs in almost 5 years, even less within one year...
So by your narrative, Tuohy topped out for a few years, and then, BOOM, catches ‘lightning-in-the-bottle’ (a figure of speech) and drops over 30secs from her 5000m, and 24secs from her 3000m in the ‘21-‘22 time frame. Yet, you were saying for something like that to occur, with a quite seasoned athlete, no less, would be “dubious”; but now you are not saying that?
Or is it the case that you are quite “duplicitous” when picking and choosing which athletes have understandable excuses or reasons to explain what you would otherwise see as a “dubious” progression?
Sorry, Slick, but you are still confused.
As I pointed out earlier, Jo72 is not saying that Tuohy's progression, real or imagined, is dubious. He is saying that claims about Tuohy's progression based on her XC times are dubious. In other words, it's the claims, not the progression, that is dubious.
This isn't rocket science. Jo72 is criticizing people who make claims about how fast Tuohy could run a 5000 by:
1) looking at Tuohy's XC times;
2) comparing Tuohy's times to other runner's XC & 5000m times;
3) using those comparisons to claim that Tuohy's 5000m potential (or "fitness") right now is much faster than her actual PB.
Jo72 says this claim -- that extrapolating from her XC time shows that she is not running up to her potential in the 5000 -- is dubious.
Put another way, Jo72 is asking which provide better evidence for Tuohy's potential in the 5000:
a) her race results from last spring and BU a few days ago; or,
b) an "extrapolation" from her XC times, which is based on a long chain of comparisons of XC and track times.
You obviously think I'm missing something, Slick. What is it?
I generally agree about extrapolating track times from XC times, particularly due to the uncertainty regarding XC courses. That said, at Nationals Tuohy showed herself to be substantially stronger than runners who just ran below 15:20 at BU. It clearly indicates that she can run better than 15:15, and talking about sub 15 was not wishful thinking but likely what her workouts are showing. Historically when has an NCAA distance runner's XC dominance not translated to track? I you think she is only a couple of seconds fatser than the Alabama runners, fine. And if people want to discount that she was physically or emotionally drained after winning Nationals a couple weeks prior even though she said she was feeling run down, fine again. But people were doing the same thing after indoors last year, extrapolating what she could run. I thought 15:15 and truth be told I underestimated her, because give her better pacing at the Virginia Invite and she would have run sub 15:10 at that meet. I guess we will see later in the season.
We will just stick to her 5000 meter time which was equivalent to the 3000 meter runners at BU. So no prediction is needed. We know that she is equivalent to the women on the track. we also know that Valby beat those women in XC and she is terrible at hills so she will not only continue to beat those women on the track but will likely pull further away from them. Valby is likely to run 14:40 in track. Tuohy is stuck at 15:15 as you said.
Amazing that she was so much more drained than every other runner at BU. I guess she exertemd much more energy during the cross coutnry season than they did. Clearly, Valby would have run sub 15 at BU.
You are in a Valby thread. How could the estimate be anything other than 15:00 if comparing her performance to the performances of the runners in the 3000 and 5000 at BU and at the NCAA XC meet?
You are in a Valby thread. How could the estimate be anything other than 15:00 if comparing her performance to the performances of the runners in the 3000 and 5000 at BU and at the NCAA XC meet?
It is a stretch to claim that Tuohy ran to her full potential at BU while simultaneously claiming that Valby is in 15 shape. Tuohy beat most of thos BU runners by 15- 20 seconds plus over 6k at XC, and Valby by 3 seconds. If Valby is in 15 min shape based on her XC times, then so is Tuohy and Tuohy had an off day at BU.
If you are going to claim that Valby is in 14:40 to 15 min shape based on SECs, well then boy did the alabama runners have a bad day at BU. Chelangat should have run 14:40's to 15 and Olemomoi should have run much better as well. See how it makes no sense?