The Officially Unofficial Lane vs. Tuohy Thread

Just because beats a bunch of slow runners, that doesn't make them the best.

Badger Fan wrote:

If they were racing at NXN, I'd bet on Lane. At Foot Locker, I'd bet on Tuohy. Might seem counterintuitive, but that's based upon their stride characteristics and the course terrain.

realllly? I actually would vote the opposite!

Stop dreaming up your own fantasy speed ratings! ... You don't know how to do it.

I have never posted speed ratings for the California State Meet 2001 or Mt SAC 2001 ... But I did post an article in 2014 that discusses them with some statistics ("Comparing Winning Girl & Boy Times at Footlocker & NXN and Other Stuff") ... and it discusses the time differences between Amber Trotter and Yong-Sung Leal in four races during 2001.

I could say "the Mt SAC course ran much slower in 2001 compared to 2012 and 2013", but respect to speed ratings, it is more appropriate to say "the Mt. SAC runners simply ran much slower overall in 2001 compared to 2012 and 2013" ... Amber Trotter's speed rating at Mt SAC was definitely not 159 (it was much higher) ... Amber Trotter was the fastest girl at Mt SAC 2001 by 60 seconds (20 speed rating points) ... the 9th-fastest Mt. Sac girl in 2001 was Shannon Rowbury and Amber Trotter ran 1:45 faster ... Please don't believe your 159 fantasy ... California had some very runners, and I know the 2nd-best had a higher speed rating than 139.

Amber Trotter's speed rating at the California State Meet was not 153 ... Amber Trotter was the fastest girl at the CA State Meet by 45 seconds (15 speed rating points) ... the 2nd fastest girl in CA was certainly higher than 138 ... Every year I've looked at in California has at least several or more girls in mid-to-upper 140s and (usually) low 150s.

Amber Trotter did not run 180 (or 170s) all the time ... She did it ONLY ONCE ... In 2001, she was at level similar to Caitlin Lane and Katelyn Tuohy as they are right now ... She then did something exceptional at Foot Locker Nationals ... something less exceptional than Bob Beamon's world record long jump at 1968 Olympics (extending the record by nearly 2 feet to 29 feet), but something exceptional for high school cross country.

My numbers support it ... Your numbers mock it.

And for the rest of the speed rating haters ... a 170 speed rating in NY is equivalent to a 170 in California and a 170 anywhere else ... and I know that really annoys the haters.

Bill Meylan

BMeylan wrote:

she was at level similar to Caitlin Lane and Katelyn Tuohy as they are right now

I understand your ignorance about the rest of the country but at least get the Champion's names right.

a 170 speed rating in NY is equivalent to a 170 in California and a 170 anywhere else

170 is 170, but not for the same class of performance, and therein is the issue.

Calling him ignorant for a simple mix-up of Caitlin and Claudia is a little rash I think. Caitlin Lane was a great runner on the super young Argyle team back in 2003 and then put up some great races for Saratoga in the following years. A NY person might just be typing fast and think about a former great C. Lane.

Also: I would think that Meylen has more of an authority on Speed Ratings than the random internet guy who just claims that they don’t work. Just my 2 cents.

Niles wrote:

Caitlin Lane was a great runner on the super young Argyle team back in 2003 and then put up some great races for Saratoga in the following years. A NY person might just be typing fast and think about a former great C. Lane.

New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias..........

Good grief..... wrote:

Niles wrote:

Caitlin Lane was a great runner on the super young Argyle team back in 2003 and then put up some great races for Saratoga in the following years. A NY person might just be typing fast and think about a former great C. Lane.

New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias..........

Hmmm. I thought it was NY knowledge, but I appreciate your opinion.

YMMV wrote:

Badger Fan wrote:

If they were racing at NXN, I'd bet on Lane. At Foot Locker, I'd bet on Tuohy. Might seem counterintuitive, but that's based upon their stride characteristics and the course terrain.

I tend to agree. Brie Oakley, the other queen of the turbo-shuffle along with Lane, destroyed Tuohy and the rest of the field last year, despite tripping and falling. On the other hand, FL tends to be more favorable to milers and kickers.

Tuohy might be strong enough to get Lane at both this year though.

Im not taking sides but apparently this is the first year that Tuohy has focused on xc. Last year she was pure track runner this is her first serious effort - both physically and mentally at XC.

Good grief..... wrote:

Niles wrote:

Caitlin Lane was a great runner on the super young Argyle team back in 2003 and then put up some great races for Saratoga in the following years. A NY person might just be typing fast and think about a former great C. Lane.

New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias.......... New York bias..........

If they can throw the NYC marathon for Shalane, which they obviously did, then getting Tuohy ranked above Lane or Saratoga into NXN is child's play.

Damn Yankees.

Take a look at these numbers from the CA State Meet. The speed ratings versus actual times track on an almost perfect line, with very little change year to year. So tell me, why would Trotter's 17:01 at the state meet in 2001 be worth significantly more than the rest of these girls that ran as fast or faster than she did. Lane / 2017 / 16:30.3 / 162.90 Baxter / 2012 / 16:39.7 / 161.8 Baxter / 2013 / 16:42.7 / 158.77 Stamps / 1996 / 16:43 / race not speed rated Stamps / 1995 / 16:45 / race not speed rated Lane / 2016 / 16:45 / 158.0 TROTTER / 2001 / 16:55 / race not speed rated O’Keefe / 2014 / 16:56.9 / 155.03 Baxter / 2010 / 16:56.9 / 158.0 Collins / 2014 / 16:57.0 / 155.0 M. Denner / 2017 / 16:58.7 / 151.43 O’Keefe / 2013 / 16:58.8 / 153.4 Reedy / 2012 / 16:59 / 150.3 Siraki / 2000 / 16:59 / race not speed rated Baxter / 2013 / 17:00 / 155.0 Herberg / 2017 / 17:00 / 153.0 TROTTER / 2001 / 17:01 / race not speed rated Thanks for pointing out that Trotter was 1:45 faster than Rowbury at Mt. SAC in 2001. She was also 1:49 faster than Rowbury at the State Meet in 2001 (18:50). Rowbury had the 27th fastest time that day at the state meet, and CA was not nearly as deep as it is now, so it's not as if she was THEE Shannon Rowbury just yet, other than in the 800. She just wasn't that fast in XC her senior year, so who cares about her other than to show once again that fitness changes very little during the season, evidenced by the 4 second differential. Emily Vince ran 17:46 and had the second fastest time at the 2001 CA state meet. She ran 10:48 for 3200 during the '01 track season, which fits almost exactly with the many girls who have run around 10:45-50 for 3200 and ~ 17:45 at Woodward. Over the last 8 editions of the CA state meet 17:46 has netted a speed rating of 137-140. 45 seconds ahead of that ought to be 15 points, which is 152-155. As for Mt. SAC, what makes you think it would be so odd that the second placed girl in 2001 would have "only" a 139 speed rating? Look at your speed ratings at Mt. SAC the past few years. The second placed girl was 141 in 2016 and 140 in 2015. At the 2016 CA state meet the second placed girl got a speed rating of 144. Again, is it so unreasonable to think the current crop of runner could h As for not knowing "how to do it" when it comes to the speed ratings, why don't you enlighten us all?

Or in another thread, speed ratings at NXNYR and Feds were handled slightly differently than those at CA State.

In NY, Touhy's ratings are one point better than a boy who ran the same time. In CA, the ratings for the same time are the same for boys and girls.

Also pointed out once (or several times) earlier, 2017 CA State ran considerably slower than 2016 CA State (between 12 and 20 seconds, depending on how one looks at the results) - and yet the speed ratings are exactly the same. If the performance of fields matter, which is what Bill Meylan has stated in his essays and in many posts over the years, how can the 2017 and 2016 CA State speed ratings be exactly the same?

Georgian wrote:

Thanks for pointing out that Trotter was 1:45 faster than Rowbury at Mt. SAC in 2001. She was also 1:49 faster than Rowbury at the State Meet in 2001 (18:50). Rowbury had the 27th fastest time that day at the state meet, and CA was not nearly as deep as it is now, so it's not as if she was THEE Shannon Rowbury just yet,

The 2001 CA state meet was very rare in that it featured rain hence the extremely slow times that year.

Contrary to what you are saying, CA was still pretty deep in 2001 (not as deep as 2000 when four CA girls were in the top 7 but still quite deep.)

1/4" of rain fell that day. I wouldn't say that's "very rare" for late November in Fresno, but based upon where 19:00 was for girls and 16:00 for boys, the 2001 course looked to be running about 15 seconds slower than it did in 2000. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, that 15 seconds is 5 points going from 17:01 to 16:46. Based upon the past few years that would put Trotter at 157.5 and the second fastest girl that day in '01, Emily Vince at 142.5. Julie Allen's 18:29 would have been 128 with 5 more points. Despite no change in fitness their speed ratings would have jumped 22-23 points in two weeks, which is why 170 is not 170 no matter where you go.

Ohyeahh wrote:

The 2001 CA state meet was very rare in that it featured rain hence the extremely slow times that year.

Contrary to what you are saying, CA was still pretty deep in 2001 (not as deep as 2000 when four CA girls were in the top 7 but still quite deep.)

I was at the CA State Meet in 2001. As the rain continued to fall, the later races had very muddy, slow conditions.

As Has Been Pointed Out Earlier wrote:

Or in another thread, speed ratings at NXNYR and Feds were handled slightly differently than those at CA State.

In NY, Touhy's ratings are one point better than a boy who ran the same time. In CA, the ratings for the same time are the same for boys and girls.

Also pointed out once (or several times) earlier, 2017 CA State ran considerably slower than 2016 CA State (between 12 and 20 seconds, depending on how one looks at the results) - and yet the speed ratings are exactly the same. If the performance of fields matter, which is what Bill Meylan has stated in his essays and in many posts over the years, how can the 2017 and 2016 CA State speed ratings be exactly the same?

This is a valid observation that does require an explanation.

My first process when speed rating most races is to graphically plot the results of the current race versus the same race in previous years (I used the merged California results for both boys and girls 2017, 2016, 2015 to start) ... Initial look the graphs (what I call a race profile) said the 2017 race ran slower than 2016 or 2015 ... in the range of runners I'm interested in, I thought the difference might be in the range of 2 to 5 speed rating points.

My only concern was this ... the profile for 2017 was slightly different than previous years (more so for the boys than the girls) ... the slope of the 2017 profile "might" suggest (1) a slight difference in quality from previous years, (2) some weather-related factors affecting final times, (3) some pacing issues with more than one of eight races making the races slow compared to others, (4) some parts of the course got muddier or deterioarted, or (5) some other factor ...... Merging races can cause problems for speed rating ... and I will not rate each race separately unless absolutely necessary.

I hear concerns from California coaches every year about the change in temperature affecting times during the meet ... and that can certainly happen (and does).

No surprise, my main focus in speed rating the California State Meet is to determine the relative speed of the top teams that might be attending NXN, so that puts some limitations on which races get evaluated more closely than others.

The next process in my speed rating method involves using the prior seasonal speed ratings of individual runners to determine the speed ratings for CA State Meet ... this method always takes precedence over the graphical method ... typically, the results of both methods are very similar, but not always.

Much to my surprise, the speed ratings for the Division 1 and Division 2 races (a bit more for Division 1), as determined by known and/or expected speed ratings of individual runners, yielded race adjustments for 2017 that were the same as 2016 ... initially, I thought it was an error ... But re-checking by other criteria confirmed the numbers ... the numbers for my specific purpose (who are the fastest relative teams at NXN, and I want these relative numbers for betting and morning-line purposes).

Race adjustments are always determined separately for boys and girls, and are commonly different ... due to difference in speed, quality, etc.

Briefly to Amber Trotter ..... in 2001 entering Foot Locker Nationals, she was running at a cross country level almost identical to Claudia Lane this season at this point in time ... she then raced three runners who were near or approaching that performance level at FLN (Molly Huddle being one of them) ... Amber Trotter incredibly beat them by 40-55 seconds, while the other runners ran at their prior or expected levels).

So the times at the 2017 CA state meet are clearly slower, with 50% more girls breaking 19:00 and 50% more boys breaking 16:00 in 2016 versus 2017, and the race adjustments are "always different between boys and girls", yet the ratings for 2016 and 2017 for both boys and girls turned out to be identical. Not just close, but identical. That sounds like you have a serious problem with your ratings system, no? What results/numbers are you using to determine that aside from Trotter there were 3 girls at the same level of fitness or very near to Claudia Lane's current fitness? I'm still not understanding how Julie Allen can have a near identical difference to Trotter all season, including at Mt. Sac, CA state meet and Foot Locker, yet you think Trotter had a magical leap in performance.

Tuohy would humiliate Lane... what a run at NXNs.

trooth wrote:

Tuohy would humiliate Lane... what a run at NXNs.

Haha nice try. Not a chance.

Tuohy beat Castillo by 52 seconds in the same race at NXN.

Lane beat Castillo’s time by 45 seconds on the same course but running with temps about 10 degrees hotter in the mid 70s versus mid 60s.

There has been nothing to indicate anything other than these two girls being very close to one another in fitness.

I believe the reason people think Tuohy would destroy Lane is simply because Tuohy has a more aesthetically pleasing stride. The clock doesn’t care about that.