Yanqui wrote:
If Wright and Vessey both get the A, does Gall still go instead of Vessey?
In this case, Wright and Gall go. There are two As and one B. Vessey stays home.
Yanqui wrote:
If Wright and Vessey both get the A, does Gall still go instead of Vessey?
In this case, Wright and Gall go. There are two As and one B. Vessey stays home.
...or direct link (PDF)
Gall goes no matter what. Vessey and Wright are both trying to get the A. If Wright gets the A, Vessey is done no matter what. Vessey's only hope is if she gets the A and Wright doesn't.
Also if Gall gets the A, Vessey's out. She doesn't have as great an incentive to chase it, but she could ensure that the top 3 make it, similarly to what Teg did with his 13:07, getting Jager in with the B.
Gall returned to Michigan. I don't think she's racing again before the deadline.
cmhrunner wrote:
I don't know how Phoebe Wright isn't the story of the day/week!
2.5 years ago her PR was 2:15. She has one more year of eligibility.
In may of 2007 she went 208.01..4 months shy of 2.5 years ago. So while she has had large improvements. 2.5 years ago she was way better than 2:15 and was just months away from running it clearly.
No offense, but who cares? Different people progress at different rates. Sometimes, with a bit of experience or increasing volume of mileage, you have a bigger breakthrough. Personally, I went from 2:12 to 2:10 to 2:07 to 2:03 to 2:01, but you can't compare the progression to other people without knowing all the factors involved. Someone with a lot of talent may run fast early on and plateau out until they change something training-wise to get the next breakthrough. Someone else might start out a lot slower, but with a number of years of consistent training get that breakthrough. It's not a relavent statistic at all.
Ruth Wysocki wrote:
Personally, I went from 2:12 to 2:10 to 2:07 to 2:03 to 2:01
How old were you when you ran that 2:12? Just curious, since I want to see how physical maturity contributed to your performances.
my question wrote:
Ruth Wysocki wrote:Personally, I went from 2:12 to 2:10 to 2:07 to 2:03 to 2:01
How old were you when you ran that 2:12? Just curious, since I want to see how physical maturity contributed to your performances.
I think the 2:12 was at about 14. 2:10 at 16, 2:07 at 18, 2:03 at 19; 2:01.99 at 21. Sub-2:00 came at 27.
[quote]Montesquieu wrote:
NO--it's top four are candidates. If Gall or Wright get the "A", then they go along with Clark. If neither one gets the "A" and Vessey does not, then only Clark and Gall (only one "B" can go) go. If neither Gall nor Wright get the "A" and Vessey does, Clark, Gall, and Vessey go. In other words--Clark and Gall are in no matter what; Wright is in only with an "A"; Vessey is in only if she gets the "A" and Wright does not. Whew![quote]45uy45urtjr wrote:
Thanks. This makes it easy to understand. Care to take a shot at explaining the healthcare bill?
Mrr82 wrote:
cmhrunner wrote:I don't know how Phoebe Wright isn't the story of the day/week!
2.5 years ago her PR was 2:15. She has one more year of eligibility.
In may of 2007 she went 208.01..4 months shy of 2.5 years ago. So while she has had large improvements. 2.5 years ago she was way better than 2:15 and was just months away from running it clearly.
I wasn't going to respond but I was so sure that you were wrong and I was right, I looked it up.
2.5 years ago (January 22, 2007) Phoebe Wright's PR was 2:15.22 from the Rod McCravey invitational on January 20, 2007. If I meant 2.2 years ago, I would have said 2.2 years ago. I know she improved a ton. I was on the team when she started getting crazy good.
The fact is she has been racing her ass off since January and is still taking almost a full second off her PR at the end of July... in a low key meet in GA. I hope she goes to VA and gets the A Standard and gets to go to Berlin. Nothing against Maggie Vessey but Wright beat her at USAs and deserves to go (if she gets the time obviously).
cmhrunner wrote:
Mrr82 wrote:In may of 2007 she went 208.01..4 months shy of 2.5 years ago. So while she has had large improvements. 2.5 years ago she was way better than 2:15 and was just months away from running it clearly.
I wasn't going to respond but I was so sure that you were wrong and I was right, I looked it up.
2.5 years ago (January 22, 2007) Phoebe Wright's PR was 2:15.22 from the Rod McCravey invitational on January 20, 2007. If I meant 2.2 years ago, I would have said 2.2 years ago. I know she improved a ton. I was on the team when she started getting crazy good.
The fact is she has been racing her ass off since January and is still taking almost a full second off her PR at the end of July... in a low key meet in GA. I hope she goes to VA and gets the A Standard and gets to go to Berlin. Nothing against Maggie Vessey but Wright beat her at USAs and deserves to go (if she gets the time obviously).
Let's just say her last 731 days have been way better than Webb's.
mighty porn stache wrote:
Sopmething fishy with those Georgia Games results. How the hell do these girls face tough SEC and NCAA comp all year and run bests of @:04 and 2:05 (correct me if I'm wron[g]) and all of a sudden after ALL that pop these HUGE pbs of 2:00 and 2:01 at basically a high school meet? I don't doubt they were timed in that, but let's get a measurement on that track!
Being rested and running for time instead of place. PW had some pretty good 800s and the freshman was rather good in HS (look at the OG Trials race); certainly not out of reach for either of them.