VALBY's 5k world ranking is LOWER than TUOHY

You think Frerichs is even going to run the 5k?

She has been posting some really great workouts on IG and seems to be getting back into her former shape. She ran a 14:48 in 2022. This past year she was injured. Definitely a possibility for 5K or 10K.

Frerichs is a steeplechaser, why wouldnt she run her event?

It looked to me like the OP was crying about Valby currently (emphasize currently) being ranked lower than Tuohy. No mention of qualifying that I saw in that post.

"Tuohy is ranked #35, Valby is only ranked #61. Tuohy got 1294 points for her 3k at Millrose (90 of them were a bonus due to her place). To compare, Valby's 14:56 5k only gets her 1207 (12 come from place).
This shows a clear flaw in the ranking process. 3k's are ranked too heavily when it's not even the event you'd even be competing in at the Olympics. Valby closed her 5k in 8:54 AFTER hitting 2k in 6:01, and she closed in 2:17. She was clearly in 8:35 fitness or faster.
Additionally, the place bonuses are not proportional. The 90 points for Tuohy's 3rd at Millrose makes her 8:35 equal points wise (1294) to an outdoor 3k of 8:06.00, faster than the world record."

Only Cranny and Monson have the 5k standard this point. Lots of new blood coming in. Just because you ran one fast time doesn’t mean you will do it again the following year. You need to be consistent and do well in important races not some local track

But for someone that can actually steeple, the steeple team should be a lot easier to make than the 5k team. Its standard is lower, relatively, and getting the standard is, practically, of necessity for either the 5k or steeple teams. And the talent pool for the steeple team is usually less, because of its technical requirements and because it inherently has more injury risk.

I guess figure skating and boxing have a lot in common with those rules. Artistic scores next?

I like running, time is time...no judgement, Valby is faster period. She didn't run on antigravity. I am sure 100% of us would be mildly tweaked if in her shoes.

3k isn't an event anyway.

But actually running sub-14:45 in the past year, regardless of where it was done, is a much better indicator of them doing it again, versus an athlete that hasn’t yet broken 14:55, (unless the latter is a younger athlete on a steeper trajectory.)

No. Time is not time if track technology is significantly different. Some tracks are notably faster than others. BU was known as a very fast indoor track before they resurfaced it. That is why, year after year, so many indoor ncaa qualifying times come from BU meets. Then just this year they resurfaced the track. Again three seprate college runners broke the prior 5000m ncas record in the same meet. Cannot hand wave that away.

For the women’s 5k distance, a nebulous WA ‘ranking’ that is dependent upon selective preference of 3k performances on indoor tracks, would not be expected to provide as good of trajectory predictive value, versus a rigorous mathematical analysis of collegiate cross country performances that cross-correlates hundreds of athletes over a multitude of races, over many years. Here are projected trajectories from one such mathematical analysis, LAACTIC:

ibb.co

0249-BFAC-4-F70-4-E2-B-8930-9218-C8-ED96-E5

Image 0249-BFAC-4-F70-4-E2-B-8930-9218-C8-ED96-E5 hosted in ImgBB

Open link

rbtrackfan is too DENSE to realize that the world ranking process IS the qualifying process.

oh silly me thought the country trials and qualifying times were important

No, for an event like the 5k where at least a few athletes can get the standard for Oly24, the world ranking is not even relevant.

But I agree with a previous poster that if they keep ratcheting down the qualification times, then the nebulous WA ranking will more significantly impact team selection, which deviates from the historical team selection process that was primarily determined by who podiumed at the Trials race.

Neither Valby or Tuohy currently has the 14:52 Olympic standard for 5k.

Presumably they will both have it by the time the trials rolls around in June.

The world ranking will slowly correct, as they both post more times during 2024.

This will be Tuohy s 3rd Usatf meet and Valby's 1st (if she runs). Valby is a great addition to the field, as she virtually guarantees an honest race.

To the Norris hater, although she is very inconsistent, she will also most likely post an Olympic qualifying time. If one of her good races happens to coincide with trials, of course she is a factor.

Yeah the only runners with the standard right now are Monson and Henes (Cranny doesn't have it).

Andrews was 4th at USATF and did not have her best race, I don't understand writing her off. Yes she had some disappointing DLs but there is time to correct for it.

The runner that everyone should be concerned about is Schweizer. Who is beating her if she is healthy other than Cranny or Monson?

Cranny, Monson and Schweitzer would be heavy favorites, but it would be historically unusual for all 3 to be healthy at the same time for trials.

Also chance that someone runs a different race. 1500 for Cranny, 10k for all. 10k seems daunting with tough q, but few will make that, so spots will be based on Usatf finish plus world ranking.

Anyway, my guess is an opening at the #3 spot to be fought for by Henes, Rogers, Kelati, Norris, Valby, Touhy etc.

It doesn't matter if 5 in the USA have the world standard, because if Tuohy or Valby don't have the standard but 1 of them places third, it shakes everything up. Or an event like the 10k where very few will be able to hit the world standard.

These 2024 qualifying times were set in 2022, and then in 2023 times EXPLODED everywhere due to shoes, nice tracks, and wavelight. World Athletics couldn't predict that. I could see the women's auto standard being 14:40 pretty soon.

Tuohy has no chance.