It's hard to be humble when you're not perfect in every way, I can't wait to look in the mirror cause my character flaws showed today, everybody was watching but had to stop anyway! Until today, racing and winning was easy, but when go hard I had to say....I QUIT!
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In sport, that shows lack of 'bottle'
What does your 10 posts in 24 hours on this thread alone show? 😂
Creeeeeeeeeepin.
So you're cool with countless posts from those trying to avoid saying they were wrong about it to protect their egos?
Jo72 wrote:
You are really overanalysing this. I snickered at the DNF because you rabid fans almost deserved this but I was stupid.
It would have been MUCH better if she had ran 4:29 or 4:32 (frankly, after the dnf, I don't believe more than ~4:29 would have been possible even with ideal pacing, so I was also wrong because I would have guessed closer to 4:25-26) because this should have ended speculations and shut you up.
Now you can fantasize and speculate at will because of a fast 1200m + DNF because she could not face getting ca. 8th place in around 4:30 although it would have been a respectable time.
And rehearse for them umpteenth time that there happens to be no good 20 yo US 1500m runner atm. Who cares?
I took it for granted in the whole debate, but apparently was wrong, that when we speak about potential of one of the ALL TIME top 3 female 400+800m runners, we are not bothering with Mu being better than current US sophomores.
And you can easily look up what you (or some other fans) wrote 3 days ago which were FAR more ambitious claims both for the race yesterday and for the near future potential, namely 1000m WR and 1500 AR. Not freaking 4:10/4:29 which was granted by most "naysayers" except for the most sceptical who'd guessed low 4:30s.
Sure, I don't know what might be in two years with different training. Maybe she can get a ca. 4:03-05 1500, like Brazier ran 3:35. But I doubt this because she is FAR better relatively speaking in the 400 than he is, thus more of the 400/800 type (of course I am aware that these types are simplifications, they still fit reasonably well, last night was another data point in favor of this "simplistic" scheme).
And why should she? She can dominate 800m, be very good in 400 and relay, why even bother with being 10th best 1500m in the US?
It’s not just the “current US sophomores” we’re talking about; it’s every US woman ever who was 19 or younger.
Only Ephraimson and Cain ever ran faster than 4:07 before the age of 20.
But you can spin yourself into knots here denying the obvious: Mu blows up the model with her range from 300 to 1400.
Armstrongleave wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your predictions for what she was going to achieve were shown to be clearly wrong. You said on an earlier thread you would "bow out". Instead you're back to double-down. You should have taken your own earlier advice. But you can't. There's too much ego at stake, isn't there?
Soooo, that’s a hard, HARD pass on defending your simplistic model of runner physiology and citing an American 19-year old that can run faster than Mu at ANY distance between 300 and 1400 meters?
Remind me, what did you argue for twenty pages about what she was going to run at Millrose? A "world-class" mile time, wasn't it? I don't recall that her splits to the 3/4 mark was the substitute goal. I would be unsurprised if a 1.55 runner over 800 couldn't run a respectable 3/4. But it isn't a mile, is it - which was the subject being discussed.
I recall your declaring you were going to put your credibility on the line over your pre-race prediction. I said she would be lucky to finish better than 4.30. (I didn't pick she wouldn't actually finish). So where is your credibility over your proud prediction of a world class performance? Oh, right - you shift the goal posts again - like you always do - it wasn't really a mile race at all, it was a 1409 time trial. You really are full of it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
fisky wrote:
I don't see the DNF as a big deal. We don't know why she stepped off. It's possible she had a nagging injury and the extra distance was too much for it. I've DNFd a race when I thought that finishing might result in an injury.
It's easy to say she quit, but we don't know what her and her coach's goals were for the race. It might have been "hang with the leaders as long as possible, but if you can't hang, don't worry about it." As a 800m runner myself, 1409 meters is a LONG way past 800 meters. Mu is a very rare talent, being a 400/800 runner. She could potentially win gold in the 400 and 800 in the next Olympics. I don't think that has ever been done by a woman. The mile can wait until 2028 or 2032.
In short, it was a learning experience to race against some of the best milers in the world. It lets her know where she stands as a 19-year-old miler. I commend her for stepping up to test herself at the longer distance and I don't have a problem with the DNF.
Not finishing a race like this is what you might expect of a schoolgirl who has badly misjudged the distance. It's lamentable for an Olympic champion and showed she would rather bail than lose badly. So she elected to look like a poor loser.
Lol so what if she closed on 45 seconds the last 200m you'd probably call her the same thing.
Armstrongleave wrote:
Jo72 wrote:
You are really overanalysing this. I snickered at the DNF because you rabid fans almost deserved this but I was stupid.
It would have been MUCH better if she had ran 4:29 or 4:32 (frankly, after the dnf, I don't believe more than ~4:29 would have been possible even with ideal pacing, so I was also wrong because I would have guessed closer to 4:25-26) because this should have ended speculations and shut you up.
Now you can fantasize and speculate at will because of a fast 1200m + DNF because she could not face getting ca. 8th place in around 4:30 although it would have been a respectable time.
And rehearse for them umpteenth time that there happens to be no good 20 yo US 1500m runner atm. Who cares?
I took it for granted in the whole debate, but apparently was wrong, that when we speak about potential of one of the ALL TIME top 3 female 400+800m runners, we are not bothering with Mu being better than current US sophomores.
And you can easily look up what you (or some other fans) wrote 3 days ago which were FAR more ambitious claims both for the race yesterday and for the near future potential, namely 1000m WR and 1500 AR. Not freaking 4:10/4:29 which was granted by most "naysayers" except for the most sceptical who'd guessed low 4:30s.
Sure, I don't know what might be in two years with different training. Maybe she can get a ca. 4:03-05 1500, like Brazier ran 3:35. But I doubt this because she is FAR better relatively speaking in the 400 than he is, thus more of the 400/800 type (of course I am aware that these types are simplifications, they still fit reasonably well, last night was another data point in favor of this "simplistic" scheme).
And why should she? She can dominate 800m, be very good in 400 and relay, why even bother with being 10th best 1500m in the US?
It’s not just the “current US sophomores” we’re talking about; it’s every US woman ever who was 19 or younger.
Only Ephraimson and Cain ever ran faster than 4:07 before the age of 20.
But you can spin yourself into knots here denying the obvious: Mu blows up the model with her range from 300 to 1400.
But we do see she blows up if it's any longer than this.
westsouthrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not finishing a race like this is what you might expect of a schoolgirl who has badly misjudged the distance. It's lamentable for an Olympic champion and showed she would rather bail than lose badly. So she elected to look like a poor loser.
Lol so what if she closed on 45 seconds the last 200m you'd probably call her the same thing.
You completely miss the point. I wouldn't call her a poor loser if she finished even last. I would instead say she ran a brave but poorly-judged race.
Literally. Great point.
Armstronglivs wrote:
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
What does your 10 posts in 24 hours on this thread alone show? 😂
Creeeeeeeeeepin.
So you're cool with countless posts from those trying to avoid saying they were wrong about it to protect their egos?
Only one person in this thread appears to be having an ego-driven breakdown....
Engels and Murphy ran over 4 minutes yesterday. We know that they both can run 10 seconds faster in a meet next week. One meet for Mu and some of you base her mile potential on it. Kessler ran 3:59 even though he ran much faster as a high schooler. Fogg ran more than 10 seconds slower yesterday than he did one week ago. Again, one race and one week.
Mu is incredible. Olympic Gold in 800m and 4x400. The 1500/mile for at least the next 7 to 10 years, or even ever, for her should be an off season training race event. She should live on 400/800 golds at the highest level and set her sights on some WRs. Longer distances for her should be reserved for when she can no longer win and compete at 400/800 and she hasn't reached her potential at those race distances yet.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstrongleave wrote:
Soooo, that’s a hard, HARD pass on defending your simplistic model of runner physiology and citing an American 19-year old that can run faster than Mu at ANY distance between 300 and 1400 meters?
Remind me, what did you argue for twenty pages about what she was going to run at Millrose? A "world-class" mile time, wasn't it? I don't recall that her splits to the 3/4 mark was the substitute goal. I would be unsurprised if a 1.55 runner over 800 couldn't run a respectable 3/4. But it isn't a mile, is it - which was the subject being discussed.
I recall your declaring you were going to put your credibility on the line over your pre-race prediction. I said she would be lucky to finish better than 4.30. (I didn't pick she wouldn't actually finish). So where is your credibility over your proud prediction of a world class performance? Oh, right - you shift the goal posts again - like you always do - it wasn't really a mile race at all, it was a 1409 time trial. You really are full of it.
Hmmm, I’m still not hearing any names of other runners that could support your physiological dogma….Can you try saying them louder? Or, you know, at all?
There are none.
Armstronglivs wrote:
the macdaddy og yoo wrote:
What does your 10 posts in 24 hours on this thread alone show? 😂
Creeeeeeeeeepin.
So you're cool with countless posts from those trying to avoid saying they were wrong about it to protect their egos?
Armstronglivs: "2 + 2 = 5"
Everyone: "No. No, it doesn't."
Armstronglivs: "Oh, so you're cool with people thinking that 2 + 2 = 3?"
Petition the federations to designate the 1409m as a new event. Another American medal at OLY and worlds!
macdaddy, the wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you're cool with countless posts from those trying to avoid saying they were wrong about it to protect their egos?
Only one person in this thread appears to be having an ego-driven breakdown....
I agree. It's Armstrongleaves. Who is still here.
Hmmm, I’m still not hearing any names of other runners that could support your physiological dogma….Can you try saying them louder? Or, you know, at all?[/quote]
I don't have any physiological dogma. But you do. It was that Mu is a world-class miler. But you keep trying to change the subject because you were and are completely wrong and you arrogantly sneered at anyone who disagreed with you. You are a bag of wind, proven out of your own mouth to have no credibility.
a little too invested wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you're cool with countless posts from those trying to avoid saying they were wrong about it to protect their egos?
Armstronglivs: "2 + 2 = 5"
Everyone: "No. No, it doesn't."
Armstronglivs: "Oh, so you're cool with people thinking that 2 + 2 = 3?"
Basic arithmetic is beyond you. Along with a few other things.
To call a 19 year old who just won the 800m Olympic gold medal and set the American record a quitter is beyond the pale. She quit a race. That doesn't make her a quitter as a person. She ran at the pace of a 16 second pr for 7/8 of a mile. No wonder she dropped. She should have held on for the big 8-10 second pr but this shows what great potential she has at a distance that she does not train for. With the added endurance, I bet she runs low 1:54 this year, maybe even touching on 1:53 high. This is the most talented middle distance runner we have had for a long, long time, maybe ever, on the women's side.
Thanks OP, I will definitely tune in for A thing's next 1409m race. She'll win for sure!