USA women’s distance is really bad right now

The runners with the best combination of speed and endurance make the team, and that type of runner has the best chance of being competitive in the Olympics.

The fastest Americans in history at the NCAA level are Wiley and Valby.

How is Wiley faster than Mu?

How many times can you folks tell the same "joke" or dig at Hiltz and still find it novel? We've seen this post 1000x times. We get it. Let it go.

Is it easy to make a US team? I actually think we have a very competitive women's field in just about every event at USAs. The problem, as others have mentioned, is that our best women are just a little behind the rest of the world in key events. The 1500 is the most clear example where all the trials was historically fast, we sent three great athletes, but then the Olympic final is a 3:50 low race and that's just beyond Nikki and ESP. The only real weak event that I see is the 10k but that's also the case on the men's side and Grant's medal is patching over the crack that we don't have much depth behind him and Nico.

Also the injuries hurt our ladies this year while all our best guys were pretty much 100% fit. Adding Athing Mu, even at a lower level than her usual, we have another medal threat at 800 and Monson could be someone to replicate Grant in one of her events. Karissa made two teams and she seemed to be just coming back from injury so she could certainly close the gap towards the medal conversation with a year of healthy training and a bit of luck. To me this more reminds me of how it was in the 2010s, rather than the 90s. We have a few people who can snag a medal on the right day (Rupp, Centro, Manzano, Infeld) but if those key players are injured or not 100%, then the chance fades away and we get no medals. The men greatly over performed expectations but I don't know if it's fair to say the women underperformed that massively.

🤡 durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I guess she is more talented.

What do you expect when our best 10k runner only runs 3 days a week lol

Even with Monson it wasn't likely. The top medal contenders are running around 29 flat, minimum 29:30. Monson hasn't run under 30. So even if our runners are near the front with a lap to go, it's only because these other runners aren't full out running yet and they're going to be fresh for a massive kick because they haven't been maxing out yet during the race. On the men's side we had runners in the mix because Grant is a 26:32 guy running against other 26:30 ish guys. And Nico was close because he's a 26:52 guy, which is pretty close to those 26:30's guys.

My question is why the gap between the East Africans and the whole rest of the world, not just Americans, seems to be larger on the women's side, at least at 5k/10k. The only woman who could even stay close in either race was Battocletti, who's one of the most obvious dopers I've ever seen. Notably this wasn't the case in the 1500. On the men's side, even if you exclude Jakob and Grant, the relative margin is smaller.

Believe it or not, her best collegiate time is, in fact, faster than Athing Mu's. 1:57.64 vs. 1:57.73. There is the obvious caveat that Mu left collegiate running after only 2 seasons and was heavily involved in relays as well as the 400 while running that 800 time. Wiley ran her time while pretty much just focused on the 800.

It's a body type and training issue. The Ethiopian and Kenyan women have naturally thinner frames than European/American women. If American women try to train exactly like the Ethiopians/Kenyans, they get hurt due to their larger frame. If they try to get thinner to match the Ethiopians/Kenyans body types, then they develop health issues and get hurt. This seems to be an issue at 10K and marathon in particular.

I don't think the American women are terribly far off in the 1,500 and 5,000 and I think the double threshold/high frequency/high cross training/don't overdo mileage approach is working very well for Americans in those events. Nikki and Elle just finished 7th and 8th at the Olympics running 3:56 and 3:57 respectively. They lost to 3 East Africans, the best European women's 1,500 runner of all time (Muir) and two high likelihood dopers (Bell and Hull). That's pretty good! Elise and Karissa also finished 7th and 8th in the 5,000, losing only to East Africans and a likely doper (Battocletti, although I would mention that it is also likely Elise and Karissa were/are doping too). Again, pretty good!

I keep telling friends that she is afflicted with the Ryan Hill syndrome. Not quite fast enough to be a medalist in the 1500 and not quite strong enough to hang in global 5000s. Both have been global indoor medalists in the 3000 though.

I mean top 10 at your first Olympics sounds pretty good if you ask me. Were you unimpressed by Nico's 12th place or are you logically inconsistent?

Agreed. But reading the Valby Mania threads, you'd never know it. One would think she is the present and the future of Women's running in the USA.

Valby ran an ok race. She certainly didn't catch the Olympic Spirit and outperform expectations.

Why are all the USA athletes doping except for female distance? Did they actually think they could make it on their own? What a joke.

You must be her biggest fan if you expected a medal. I ex0ected about 20th place.