It’s very impressive - how many 17 year olds in the US are running sub 1.58? Or even over 17 year olds (apart from Mu) who else have you got? Yet it’s the European distance records that are weak. Right.
You probably also wonder if she'll do the same for the next four years. Rudisha watch out.
Maybe you also wonder if she'll do the same for the next 30 years. Einstein watch out.
No, I don't wonder that. But 4 seconds improvement from 16-17 easily suggests much of the same ahead. So you think she has peaked already?
Does it?
age 16: 2:01.50
age 17: 1:57.86
age 18: 1:53.27 - makes sense
Only you, again: onyl you, sees Kratochvilova's mark in danger by Gill in the next season.
In a forum like this, even the most stupid posters can make the most silly predictions. Come next year, all this is long forgotten. I would be extremely surprised if she runs sub 1:56.5 at age 18 (probably not sub 1:57).
No surprise. The women's 800 is changing more than any event in track and field. I have mentioned that many times. The doping dunces will have one new name after another to attack with their empty cynicism. The old standard of sub 2 minutes means absolutely nothing.
And it means the medal ranks can't come close to accommodating all the new talent. Names will be touted as medal contenders but will never come close, due to all the youngsters emerging behind them.
Maybe this prodigy will prove to be among the 1 or 2 extra special ones.
This is the most accurate and relevant post in the thread.
The women's 800 is not just changing. It's becoming a completely different event. The top veteran 800 women are figuring out for themselves what David Rudisha showed the men a decade ago. The young newcomers are now learning it that way in the first place. The 800, at the highest levels, is a lot more like the 400 than the 1500.
You can see it at all levels too. Pro, college, high school. The race is different. The training is different. The athletes are different. And none of that is a function of drugs or chromosomes.
No surprise. The women's 800 is changing more than any event in track and field. I have mentioned that many times. The doping dunces will have one new name after another to attack with their empty cynicism. The old standard of sub 2 minutes means absolutely nothing.
And it means the medal ranks can't come close to accommodating all the new talent. Names will be touted as medal contenders but will never come close, due to all the youngsters emerging behind them.
Maybe this prodigy will prove to be among the 1 or 2 extra special ones.
This is the most accurate and relevant post in the thread.
The women's 800 is not just changing. It's becoming a completely different event. The top veteran 800 women are figuring out for themselves what David Rudisha showed the men a decade ago. The young newcomers are now learning it that way in the first place. The 800, at the highest levels, is a lot more like the 400 than the 1500.
You can see it at all levels too. Pro, college, high school. The race is different. The training is different. The athletes are different. And none of that is a function of drugs or chromosomes.
Okay, great. You give off good kumbaya vibes. But Athing Mu and one or two other athletes will dominate the distance for the next decade or so.
This is what I alluded to, and really it’s kinda crazy this idea that an athlete who runs 1:57.86 should have to beat a medal contender in Reekie or Keely to reasonably expect selection. The discretionary pick should be there to pick a faster/higher-ceiling athlete, not to play favorites. If Boffey/Bell finishes 3rd then it’s a different conversation.
Yeah I also don’t think Boffey is showing great form this year (not that she did last year). I think maybe she’s reached her ceiling. Whereas Gill - very exciting to have her up there not far off Keeley and Jemma.
I’m a big fan of Alex Bell and I hate any injustice so I hope she was just a little tired in Doha (she’s been racing lots of longer races) and she’ll come back soon with some quicker times.
Alex Bell ran well in Tokyo 2021 but has done little since. Let’s be honest her best days are gone. Doha was typical of most of her performances these last couple years. unlikely she’ll be anywhere near Paris
Sometimes our sport defies logic. This being a time. A 17 year old girl (barely 17) who’s run 2.01 runs 1.57. Her explanation “I was supposed to run the first lap at 1.56 pace but ran 1.53 pace instead”
Sometimes our sport defies logic. This being a time. A 17 year old girl (barely 17) who’s run 2.01 runs 1.57. Her explanation “I was supposed to run the first lap at 1.56 pace but ran 1.53 pace instead”
Happened plenty of times in HS.. guy runs like 3 1:59s everything clicks and he runs 1:55. Mu dropped around 3s per year at that age. Remember Keely going from 2:01 to 1:56 in a year? Or Clayton Murphy.
But none of this suggests she is running sub 1:55. Look at how Max Burgin has struggled to take 2s off his PR at 17.
I don't care if it's slander to.suggest a minor is doping. Everybody is doping now. Most elites today were doped in the womb by their parents. It's all about greed. You.don't get to run a 3:43 mile like Jakob on so-called suppershoes or 150 MPW. You can only do it from doping. From the womb. Even before. Gjert was probably taking stuff to dope his sperm.
You think it is slander to suggest that at 17 she will continue to make big improvements? If she continues to make the same gains she made in one year she will beat a doped wr. How would you like to explain that?
Coming from you, a doping apologist, it's clear that you are implying she is doping already, at the age of 17. I would like you to explain how you think it's OK to slander children. You have done the same with Laros.
I asked a question. If she improves at the same rate this coming year as last year she will break Kratochvilova's wr. How would you view that?
No, I don't wonder that. But 4 seconds improvement from 16-17 easily suggests much of the same ahead. So you think she has peaked already?
Does it?
age 16: 2:01.50
age 17: 1:57.86
age 18: 1:53.27 - makes sense
Only you, again: onyl you, sees Kratochvilova's mark in danger by Gill in the next season.
In a forum like this, even the most stupid posters can make the most silly predictions. Come next year, all this is long forgotten. I would be extremely surprised if she runs sub 1:56.5 at age 18 (probably not sub 1:57).
So after a 4 second improvement in one year what is there to suggest her rate of progress will now slow at 17?
No surprise. The women's 800 is changing more than any event in track and field. I have mentioned that many times. The doping dunces will have one new name after another to attack with their empty cynicism. The old standard of sub 2 minutes means absolutely nothing.
And it means the medal ranks can't come close to accommodating all the new talent. Names will be touted as medal contenders but will never come close, due to all the youngsters emerging behind them.
Maybe this prodigy will prove to be among the 1 or 2 extra special ones.
This is the most accurate and relevant post in the thread.
The women's 800 is not just changing. It's becoming a completely different event. The top veteran 800 women are figuring out for themselves what David Rudisha showed the men a decade ago. The young newcomers are now learning it that way in the first place. The 800, at the highest levels, is a lot more like the 400 than the 1500.
You can see it at all levels too. Pro, college, high school. The race is different. The training is different. The athletes are different. And none of that is a function of drugs or chromosomes.
The best 800 times today remain far away from the best in the 80's and 90's. Runners have been achieving 1:55-57 for years. The event shows none of the progression that is being seen in the longer events today. That is how much it is "changing".
This is the most accurate and relevant post in the thread.
The women's 800 is not just changing. It's becoming a completely different event. The top veteran 800 women are figuring out for themselves what David Rudisha showed the men a decade ago. The young newcomers are now learning it that way in the first place. The 800, at the highest levels, is a lot more like the 400 than the 1500.
You can see it at all levels too. Pro, college, high school. The race is different. The training is different. The athletes are different. And none of that is a function of drugs or chromosomes.
The best 800 times today remain far away from the best in the 80's and 90's. Runners have been achieving 1:55-57 for years. The event shows none of the progression that is being seen in the longer events today. That is how much it is "changing".
Again, you show your horrible reading comprehension.
Sometimes our sport defies logic. This being a time. A 17 year old girl (barely 17) who’s run 2.01 runs 1.57. Her explanation “I was supposed to run the first lap at 1.56 pace but ran 1.53 pace instead”