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”
If only it were that simple.
It can be. And it's well documented. Try reading the first chapter of Alex Hutchinson's "Endure". I am sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject.
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.
You show no grasp of the facts about the event. It hasn't progressed for decades.
It can be. And it's well documented. Try reading the first chapter of Alex Hutchinson's "Endure". I am sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject.
Her explanation “I was supposed to run the first lap at 1.56 pace but ran 1.53 pace instead” (quote)
She would be better moving up to the 1500m now that she has improved her endurance (32.56 10k) which would suggest sub 4 would be attainable.
Boffey will struggle to get under 2 mins this year if she has not also done the same. The second fastest ranked 800m woman last year was Muir, and Reekie can also run sub 4. She would need to lower her 1500m capability right down to low 4 mins to compete with these two and Hodgkinson.
It can be. And it's well documented. Try reading the first chapter of Alex Hutchinson's "Endure". I am sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject.
I don't buy into this implication, Armstrength and I'm going to put some deeper thought into my response, so if you'll allow me...
The placebo effect is amazing. It demonstrates that the mind can significantly impact physical outcomes. Athletes who deeply believe in their training, strategy, and ability can often outperform expectations. Can this, rather than doping, have aided Gill?
Everyone has untapped potential. Sometimes, a change in training, mindset, or even a specific race day can unlock abilities an athlete didn't realize they had. Phoebe Gill's rapid improvement might be a case of this. rather than doping, no?
Running a faster first lap isn't always detrimental. I've seen it help an athlete find a more efficient rhythm and 'lock in' on a time they'd not previously been set up to achieve.
That leads me to what I'll call a "flow state" where everything clicks, and an athlete performs beyond their usual capabilities. It's a recognized phenomenon that can lead to extraordinary results.
I'm with you here, though: Doping and/or illegal enhancements exist in sports. And, vigilance is necessary. However, dismissing every exceptional performance as suspicious is unfair to clean athletes and undermines exceptional performance.
In Gill's case, her significant improvement is remarkable but not unheard of, especially in young athletes who are still developing and learning to optimize their performance. It's worth celebrating her achievement while acknowledging the complex and sometimes mysterious nature of athletic breakthroughs.
It can be. And it's well documented. Try reading the first chapter of Alex Hutchinson's "Endure". I am sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject.
I don't buy into this implication, Armstrength and I'm going to put some deeper thought into my response, so if you'll allow me...
The placebo effect is amazing. It demonstrates that the mind can significantly impact physical outcomes. Athletes who deeply believe in their training, strategy, and ability can often outperform expectations. Can this, rather than doping, have aided Gill?
Everyone has untapped potential. Sometimes, a change in training, mindset, or even a specific race day can unlock abilities an athlete didn't realize they had. Phoebe Gill's rapid improvement might be a case of this. rather than doping, no?
Running a faster first lap isn't always detrimental. I've seen it help an athlete find a more efficient rhythm and 'lock in' on a time they'd not previously been set up to achieve.
That leads me to what I'll call a "flow state" where everything clicks, and an athlete performs beyond their usual capabilities. It's a recognized phenomenon that can lead to extraordinary results.
I'm with you here, though: Doping and/or illegal enhancements exist in sports. And, vigilance is necessary. However, dismissing every exceptional performance as suspicious is unfair to clean athletes and undermines exceptional performance.
In Gill's case, her significant improvement is remarkable but not unheard of, especially in young athletes who are still developing and learning to optimize their performance. It's worth celebrating her achievement while acknowledging the complex and sometimes mysterious nature of athletic breakthroughs.
You make some valid points. However my scepticism is that a runner of her age goes from 2:01 to 1:57 in a year, which puts her amongst the very best in the world. It is a huge leap to a very high level and at such a young age. At 17 it is reasonable to believe that rate of improvement may continue - which suggests at least 1:55 or better in the near future. She is better than many young men her age. Knowing what I do about the sport I suspect there is more to it than talent, training and self-belief. The sport has shown that again and again.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
It can be. And it's well documented. Try reading the first chapter of Alex Hutchinson's "Endure". I am sure he knows a lot more than you about this subject.
Her explanation “I was supposed to run the first lap at 1.56 pace but ran 1.53 pace instead” (quote)
Next year.
Read that chapter. It clearly explains how that can happen.
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".
Take away the Russian cheats, the intersex athletes, and factor in the improved testing in Kenya, I would say it is progressing quite fast now.
She would be better moving up to the 1500m now that she has improved her endurance (32.56 10k) which would suggest sub 4 would be attainable.
Boffey will struggle to get under 2 mins this year if she has not also done the same. The second fastest ranked 800m woman last year was Muir, and Reekie can also run sub 4. She would need to lower her 1500m capability right down to low 4 mins to compete with these two and Hodgkinson.
Yeah I do think that’s right about Bell. She has been showing good form over the longer distances but I don’t think she can translate that fitness to the 800m. I’ve never actually seen her run a 1500m. It’s a ridiculously competitive field though in this country. Be interesting to see what she does next
I just don’t think Boffey should be selected. Hopefully Gill will get a shot to show what she can do on the world stage
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".
Take away the Russian cheats, the intersex athletes, and factor in the improved testing in Kenya, I would say it is progressing quite fast now.
You are effectively describing regressing, since the factors you mention were the reasons for the best performances. "Women" are now running women's times - once again. But no faster than they used to.
I don't buy into this implication, Armstrength and I'm going to put some deeper thought into my response, so if you'll allow me...
The placebo effect is amazing. It demonstrates that the mind can significantly impact physical outcomes. Athletes who deeply believe in their training, strategy, and ability can often outperform expectations. Can this, rather than doping, have aided Gill?
Everyone has untapped potential. Sometimes, a change in training, mindset, or even a specific race day can unlock abilities an athlete didn't realize they had. Phoebe Gill's rapid improvement might be a case of this. rather than doping, no?
Running a faster first lap isn't always detrimental. I've seen it help an athlete find a more efficient rhythm and 'lock in' on a time they'd not previously been set up to achieve.
That leads me to what I'll call a "flow state" where everything clicks, and an athlete performs beyond their usual capabilities. It's a recognized phenomenon that can lead to extraordinary results.
I'm with you here, though: Doping and/or illegal enhancements exist in sports. And, vigilance is necessary. However, dismissing every exceptional performance as suspicious is unfair to clean athletes and undermines exceptional performance.
In Gill's case, her significant improvement is remarkable but not unheard of, especially in young athletes who are still developing and learning to optimize their performance. It's worth celebrating her achievement while acknowledging the complex and sometimes mysterious nature of athletic breakthroughs.
You make some valid points. However my scepticism is that a runner of her age goes from 2:01 to 1:57 in a year, which puts her amongst the very best in the world. It is a huge leap to a very high level and at such a young age. At 17 it is reasonable to believe that rate of improvement may continue - which suggests at least 1:55 or better in the near future. She is better than many young men her age. Knowing what I do about the sport I suspect there is more to it than talent, training and self-belief. The sport has shown that again and again.
So who is administering the doping? Is it her coach, Deborah Steer at St.Albans Athletic Club, her family, someone else or maybe a combination of all three? Is St. Albans AC riddled with a doping culture and all Deborah Steer's young steads and senior athletes doped up to the eyeballs? And what about the two young ladies who comfortably defeated Phoebe Gill in the English Schools XC Champs in March? So many questions.
So it is reasonable to suggest that at 17 she may improve as much this coming year as last year, which would see her run 1:53?
No, that's not reasonable, it's just armdumb stupid.
Shortly after her 17th birthday, she has had an enomous improvement (3.0%) of her 800m PB from a time hardly of unternational calibre to world class. At this age, that's just astonishing (and hardly seen before for a European). Will she further improve? Regarding her age and that she achieved her time in early May, I would say most likely: yes.
But to assume that up to next year she will improv even more (3.9% to jump from her current 152 all-time position to 1) to challenge the WR is just ridiculous (and obviously just driven by pure armdumb hate).
As the aforementioned poster who mentioned Phoebe on this forum a couple of years ago after seeing her run 2.03 just after turning 15, I wanted to hop on and share a bit of knowledge RE Phoebe as I'd seen some questioning her progression and wanted to explain why I don't think we should necessarily regard her 2.01 PB as representative of her ability last year.
She was carrying a manageable but frustrating calf injury for most of 2023, April, May & June were pretty tough months. Come July, she ran a 54 flat 400 at her home track, I was there and it was mightily impressive. A few days later she ran a lone 4.11 1500m, which was a new British age group record. She then flew to the Caribbean in August to compete in the Commonwealth Youth Games, where she even split a 2.02 800 PB and again, won by a wide margin among her peers. Her 2.01 PB was set among older athletes a few days after returning from Tobago where the CYG were held. She raced exclusively in age group ranks and won every race by a wide margin aside from that race.
I just wanted to share that, as I don't think looking at a young athletes PB in isolation is necessarily representative of their ability. We will all hold different opinions, but I'm of the opinion that Phoebe was in 1.59 shape last summer.
I don't buy into this implication, Armstrength and I'm going to put some deeper thought into my response, so if you'll allow me...
The placebo effect is amazing. It demonstrates that the mind can significantly impact physical outcomes. Athletes who deeply believe in their training, strategy, and ability can often outperform expectations. Can this, rather than doping, have aided Gill?
Everyone has untapped potential. Sometimes, a change in training, mindset, or even a specific race day can unlock abilities an athlete didn't realize they had. Phoebe Gill's rapid improvement might be a case of this. rather than doping, no?
Running a faster first lap isn't always detrimental. I've seen it help an athlete find a more efficient rhythm and 'lock in' on a time they'd not previously been set up to achieve.
That leads me to what I'll call a "flow state" where everything clicks, and an athlete performs beyond their usual capabilities. It's a recognized phenomenon that can lead to extraordinary results.
I'm with you here, though: Doping and/or illegal enhancements exist in sports. And, vigilance is necessary. However, dismissing every exceptional performance as suspicious is unfair to clean athletes and undermines exceptional performance.
In Gill's case, her significant improvement is remarkable but not unheard of, especially in young athletes who are still developing and learning to optimize their performance. It's worth celebrating her achievement while acknowledging the complex and sometimes mysterious nature of athletic breakthroughs.
You make some valid points. However my scepticism is that a runner of her age goes from 2:01 to 1:57 in a year, which puts her amongst the very best in the world. It is a huge leap to a very high level and at such a young age. At 17 it is reasonable to believe that rate of improvement may continue - which suggests at least 1:55 or better in the near future. She is better than many young men her age. Knowing what I do about the sport I suspect there is more to it than talent, training and self-belief. The sport has shown that again and again.
But isn't this is when you see massive improvements? There is an awful lot that younger athletes learn about their event and themselves and when they "get it" you see incredible jumps in performances. Agreed she was already a 2:01 runner and now she's World Class so this is trending in an unbelievable direction. But maybe, just maybe she's THAT girl. Maybe she's a generational talent. Maybe she will take the 800 to a place we didn't think was likely.
You really have to hate this sport if your first (and only) reaction to every great performance is "...to the Gills."
So it is reasonable to suggest that at 17 she may improve as much this coming year as last year, which would see her run 1:53?
No, that's not reasonable, it's just armdumb stupid.
Shortly after her 17th birthday, she has had an enomous improvement (3.0%) of her 800m PB from a time hardly of unternational calibre to world class. At this age, that's just astonishing (and hardly seen before for a European). Will she further improve? Regarding her age and that she achieved her time in early May, I would say most likely: yes.
But to assume that up to next year she will improv even more (3.9% to jump from her current 152 all-time position to 1) to challenge the WR is just ridiculous (and obviously just driven by pure armdumb hate).
Would you have picked last year that she would have improved 4 secs on her pr this year? Why are you so confident that at 17 she won't make a similar jump in the next year or two? She must be at least 4 years from her ultimate peak.
You make some valid points. However my scepticism is that a runner of her age goes from 2:01 to 1:57 in a year, which puts her amongst the very best in the world. It is a huge leap to a very high level and at such a young age. At 17 it is reasonable to believe that rate of improvement may continue - which suggests at least 1:55 or better in the near future. She is better than many young men her age. Knowing what I do about the sport I suspect there is more to it than talent, training and self-belief. The sport has shown that again and again.
But isn't this is when you see massive improvements? There is an awful lot that younger athletes learn about their event and themselves and when they "get it" you see incredible jumps in performances. Agreed she was already a 2:01 runner and now she's World Class so this is trending in an unbelievable direction. But maybe, just maybe she's THAT girl. Maybe she's a generational talent. Maybe she will take the 800 to a place we didn't think was likely.
You really have to hate this sport if your first (and only) reaction to every great performance is "...to the Gills."
Every outlier performance on these threads is justified by the "talent" argument. I might accept that argument if doping wasn't throughout sport today. But it is.