You seem to ignore that when running that 15:15 she barely beat runners who she had beat by about 20 seconds 2 weeks earlier at XC Nationals, 1 of whom tried to match the move at 3500m but could not. It seems clear she was not at her best running the 15:15 (and lost to Rodenfels by 7 seconds). It also seems clear that the day she ran the 8:35 was probably her peak. What she could have run for 5,000 that day we will not know. But using the 15:15 result seems misleading and I would say less than meaningful. I would have liked to see Valby and Tuohy race the 5000 with both having their best day.
How can it not be a meaningful comparison when it's the exact same context? The problem we often see on this board when comparing different athletes is the comparisons often involve wildly different contexts: different eras, different shoe quality, wavelight vs no wavelight, different tracks, different competition, different weather for outdoor races, different time of year, etc. In this comparison, all the relevant contextual variables are the same. And, again, those weren't the only data points I used.
I just don't think the 15:15 is at all representative of Tuohy's peak fitness. What I would suggest is the two were basically equal at 3000 (Valby's 8:41 was the day after a 5000), Tuohy was probably faster at the mile (tho we never really saw what Valby could do at that distance at her peak), and thus Valby was likely a little faster at 5000. Which I think is basically how you originally summarized the 2. Interestingly, Valby's 3000 time is much closer to what one would predict based on her 5000 times than Tuohy. Thus, again I would suggest the 15:15 is meaningless, and even the 15:03 was probably not quite what she could have done at her best. To her credit Valby was pretty consistent throughout the Indoor and Outdoor seasons of her final year of college competition.
How can it not be a meaningful comparison when it's the exact same context? The problem we often see on this board when comparing different athletes is the comparisons often involve wildly different contexts: different eras, different shoe quality, wavelight vs no wavelight, different tracks, different competition, different weather for outdoor races, different time of year, etc. In this comparison, all the relevant contextual variables are the same. And, again, those weren't the only data points I used.
I just don't think the 15:15 is at all representative of Tuohy's peak fitness. What I would suggest is the two were basically equal at 3000 (Valby's 8:41 was the day after a 5000), Tuohy was probably faster at the mile (tho we never really saw what Valby could do at that distance at her peak), and thus Valby was likely a little faster at 5000. Which I think is basically how you originally summarized the 2. Interestingly, Valby's 3000 time is much closer to what one would predict based on her 5000 times than Tuohy. Thus, again I would suggest the 15:15 is meaningless, and even the 15:03 was probably not quite what she could have done at her best. To her credit Valby was pretty consistent throughout the Indoor and Outdoor seasons of her final year of college competition.
We can agree to disagree on the relevance of that 5k race. I don't want to belabor the point because it's not what this thread was supposed to be about. Just to clarify: I think peak collegiate Tuohy was better than peak collegiate Valby at 3k. I'll add that I think the 3k is Tuohy's best distance.
I don't know why Peach Pit made the comparison to begin with, given that Valby isn't running the 3k at Millrose. We should let Tuohy and Valby exist on their own without constantly comparing them to each other. Tuohy's 8:35 was a sensational performance. Yes, she benefitted from being able to run that race with pros, but we should also remember that she beat pros in that race, including Elise Cranny. Now that Tuohy is a pro herself, I'm looking forward to seeing what she can do in that event.
The Tuohy haters are maybe the weirdest and meanest groups on this site. There’s really nothing she’s ever said or done to justify the kind of vitriol she gets.
The only athletes who get hate like Tuohy are convicted dopers and Nikki Hiltz.
But the Tuohy crybabies complain when someone predicts that she will have a bad race. That is somehow saying bad things while they skewer Valby and Wiley.
Wiley may be the top American in the 800/1500 while Shelby leads the 5k/10k and Valby will make teams. But yes youvare correct that Tuohy is just another sub elite.
Wiley may be the top American in the 800/1500 while Shelby leads the 5k/10k and Valby will make teams. But yes youvare correct that Tuohy is just another sub elite.
Did Athing Mu retire? Has shelby ever even run a 10k before?
I found the quotes from Josette on this race, well, interesting
Typical delusions of grandeur.
Apparently in the interview she said she’s expecting to go for the win and didn’t even know who was in the field until the interviewer told her! Yao, Yao, Yao
Apparently in the interview she said she’s expecting to go for the win and didn’t even know who was in the field until the interviewer told her! Yao, Yao, Yao
Well Andrews should have finally learned to “put up or shut up”. Her lame Citius interview blabbing blindly about how she can win the Millrose 3K only to find out minutes later on who all the incredibly faster competitors than her will be in race makes her look ridiculous. Talk is always bigger than the action in people with low confidence.
Found it well, interesting to read about the several so called “headliners” named in this race. The only true headliner is Schweizer. The others are all equally NOT headliners.
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.