Her ability to grind down the pace in the final mile shows good fitness and will be interesting to see how she does in a more competitive race faster in the early laps. She looks ready to go quite a bit faster.
Alicia Monson is the only American we've had for awhile who was genuinely world class over 5000. Seems like she's gotten the OAC injury bug though. Hoping at least one of Valby, Tuohy, or Hedengren can make the jump in the next 3-4 years though. I really like this performance from Tuohy because she genuinely crushed the field and looked to have 20+ seconds in the tank - if she's on the uphill part of her improvement curve for a year or two she could definitely get down to 14:30 or faster. She's had a strong kick in her arsenal for awhile so I would feel a lot better about a 14:30 Tuohy's chances on the global stage than a 14:20 Monson.
That seems overly optimistic given the last two years. Her final 1600 was 4:39 pace which is good, but she grimaced closing in 68s... Its been 2 years since she pr'd so hard to predict anything.
I do think however if she had been right behind the pacer instead of donahue and the others she may have atleast broken 15 in this race or come close. The pacing was off (and the leaders fell off the pace) which messed things up.
Should probably clarify I don't think she's going to run 14:30 this year, or anywhere close...she closed in 4:39 which is around 14:30 pace, after going out slow. She can't run 14:30 now, and probably can't get within 10 seconds, but I DO believe she can run under 14:50 right now in a faster race, or at least by the end of the summer.
Another one who hasn't been mentioned yet is Emily Mackay. She's made her mark as a 1500 runner but she also very quietly has improved from 15:14 to 14:45 this year. I don't think 14:20s is out of her wheelhouse in the next couple years, especially if she goes to Flagstaff full-time. She's older but her "training age" is insanely low considering she only started to take running seriously over COVID.
talent is there but looked a little overweight for a world class distance runner...if going to the next level, she needs to be fit!
I was at the meet. She didn't look overweight at all. The noticeable thing about how she looked was that she was ripped. She was by far the most muscular of the women in that race.
My wife was the one who commented on the wide arm carriage and jacked shoulders. So no, not "overweight" at all in the usual definition. She just looked very, very strong.
She's run a lot of miles for a 23 year old. Perhaps going to a longer distance would make her more competitive. Because, at the moment, she's just another 2nd tier 5k runner who can't break 15 minutes. And now she's injury prone. This constant refrain "once she gets in shape" doesn't cut it. It's the middle of June and Nationals are right around the corner. She isn't going to make the world team and then what happens? Maybe it's time to hit the roads like Taylor Roe.
I would agree with this. She ain't ever running 14:30 or faster. She has been running like forever and you would already know what she is capable of. 14:50 is her max.
Very few US women have ever run 14:30 or faster. Only 4.
We can always count on the letsrun degenerates to find a problem with an American 23-year-old running 15:04. Ever heard of periodization and peaking? A 15:04 6 weeks weeks out from Eugene makes her a contender if she has the race of her life.
Not it doesn't. She has been racing for 10 years and hasn't really improved in 5. High school girls are faster. There is no chance she qualifies. And that is with Monson and Valby out.
Not it doesn't. She has been racing for 10 years and hasn't really improved in 5. High school girls are faster. There is no chance she qualifies. And that is with Monson and Valby out.
I don't know if you are really stupid or knowingly lying. 5 years ago is 1H 2020 during which the only races over 1500 she ran was a 9:32.9 3000. 6 years ago she ran 9:01.8 for 3000. 4 years ago she ran 15:47 for 5000. 3 years ago 15:14. "Girls" is plural. Hedengren is 1 girl. No others have run below 15:15.
Since I will assume you are not lying, that only leaves 1 alternative.
I used to think this was true then I watched the recent 1500 finals for both women and men at the NCAA's. They trotted around the track and then turned it into a 400. Awful races and the low points of the distance events. The 5k's were far more compelling as were all the distance events. Not sure why athletes don't talk to one another, agree that one and then another will take some fast laps and then prevent the 400 sprint finish where only 1-2 racers in the field have a legitimate chance of winning. I thought coaches at the elite level suggested tactics? How is is it tactical for most participants to race in a way that gives them no chance of winning?
Do you have any idea how fragile the current 1500 mode is, at the international level? I'm not sure this message board in general is willing to acknowledge.
There is no birthright to fast paced 1500 global finals. We are in a very rare era in which Jakob won't allow tactical races on the men's side, and beginning in 2019 the evolving Hassan/Kipyegon/Tsegay mindset has led to fast races on the women's side.
None of that is permanent or likely to withstand even a year or few once those runners are gone from the event. We'll be back to the 1500 looking like current 5000 global finals.
Not sure why athletes don't talk to one another, agree that one and then another will take some fast laps and then prevent the 400 sprint finish where only 1-2 racers in the field have a legitimate chance of winning.
Actually, it's the opposite. In a slow race with a fast finish, far more runners have a chance to win, and there's a much higher chance of an upset. That's why some coaches suggest making the pace hard if you're faster than most of the runners in the field, to ensure that only a few runners have a legitimate chance of winning instead of leaving it to a roll of the dice over the last lap.
Than you for pointing out that she made significant improvement after high school when runners start doping according to the 2 reaident experts on doping.
Should probably clarify I don't think she's going to run 14:30 this year, or anywhere close...she closed in 4:39 which is around 14:30 pace, after going out slow. She can't run 14:30 now, and probably can't get within 10 seconds, but I DO believe she can run under 14:50 right now in a faster race, or at least by the end of the summer.
Another one who hasn't been mentioned yet is Emily Mackay. She's made her mark as a 1500 runner but she also very quietly has improved from 15:14 to 14:45 this year. I don't think 14:20s is out of her wheelhouse in the next couple years, especially if she goes to Flagstaff full-time. She's older but her "training age" is insanely low considering she only started to take running seriously over COVID.
This is ridiculous. You suggest based on pure fantasy that she could have run 20s faster, then qualify it to say she could run 15s faster “in a faster race” now, or “by the end of the summer.” You’re veering dangerously close to saying she could have run faster if she had run faster, which is about the quality of your logic.
She ran a k at 15:05 pace, slowed for 2400m, and picked it up the last mile to run 15:04. It’s a great result given her past couple of years and suggests that she’s in … 15:04 shape. People on this board have a bizarre fetish for even splits and while certainly they’re going to help you in longer races there’s no guarantee that every runner will achieve their best possible 5000m time by clicking like a metronome.
Six weeks of hard work and sharpening and who knows what she could run. Probably faster, who knows how much. If we’re lucky and her training goes well, we’ll get to see. Ideally with everyone else on the line and ready to run fast. I like to see every runner be successful—that’s what’s genuinely good for the sport.
talent is there but looked a little overweight for a world class distance runner...if going to the next level, she needs to be fit!
I was at the meet. She didn't look overweight at all. The noticeable thing about how she looked was that she was ripped. She was by far the most muscular of the women in that race.
My wife was the one who commented on the wide arm carriage and jacked shoulders. So no, not "overweight" at all in the usual definition. She just looked very, very strong.
I think her ceiling is 14:50-14:55, and that would require perfect conditions. We’ll see if she ever gets there.
Seriously? She just ran a 15:04 off a modest start and had to run the last 1000m all by herself in a low-key meet with nobody to push her...
I have not seen her run in quite some time; couple observations. What is noticeably gone is that 'sluggish/tired' looking KT; she went through a window where she looked like she was running through molasses, just zero zip at all, and that seems to be gone. I thought she looked very strong, healthy, sharp. Wondering if she might be carrying too much muscle to run her optimal 5k? She looks like she could beat up the rest of the girls even if they all ganged up on her at once; I am not a professional coach by any means so am genuinely curious, but is it a thing to almost 'overbuild' someone physically returning from injury, get them super strong and balanced, and then cut back on the weight room and slice some of that off? It's one thing to be strong, I just don't think carrying that much extra muscle is going to help her. That said, I IN NO WAY suggesting she looks bad; she looks very fit and healthy, and I'd much rather see this version of her than her dieting herself into waifish oblivion.