Karissa and Elise ran 14:4x last night. ESP and Weini are in great shape. Valby only makes the Oly team this year if ESP doesn’t do the 5 or Elise doesn’t do the 10 because she is, in fact, not better than the top US pros.
Wrong again. After Cranny places in the 5, she may not even make top three in the 10. But I would definitely like to see Valby take her down in the 10.
fortunately, we no longer need to guess, as you are doing. There is a clock in track. She already better then US pros.
I like the way her fans think 30mpw with an arc trainer will eventually put her in the company of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians.
Nice try!!! You were doubting her against NCAA runners, then US runners, now its east africans or she's a failure? My how far she has come. If she does beat the E africans what would the next criticism be?
Karissa and Elise ran 14:4x last night. ESP and Weini are in great shape. Valby only makes the Oly team this year if ESP doesn’t do the 5 or Elise doesn’t do the 10 because she is, in fact, not better than the top US pros.
She is time-wise (until a night ago, but still right there) and that's with no competition and waiving at the jumbotron she is so bored. She is every bit as good as them (well, this year) and NOBODY predicted that 6 mo ago. Or even after indoor. US 5K pros are in a downcycle. Monson/Cranny are what 30 sec off american record? I would agree ESP doing 5000 would throw a spanner as they say. God help her if Karissa is hitting on all cylinders again.
You must assume someone running a time trial on the track in NCAAs can run 5 sec faster with competition. Maybe 10-15 in the 10000.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Karissa and Elise ran 14:4x last night. ESP and Weini are in great shape. Valby only makes the Oly team this year if ESP doesn’t do the 5 or Elise doesn’t do the 10 because she is, in fact, not better than the top US pros.
Cranny ran 14:46.49 and Schweizer ran 14:48.60 in a paced race full of professionals including Hassan. Valby ran 14:52.18 and crushed the field by 18 seconds.
Valby jogged the first 600 in 1:51.80 and then ran the next 4400 in 13:00.38. Cranny hit 600 in 1:47.36 and then did her next 4400 in 12:59.13. Schweizer came through 600 in 1:48.39 and did her next 4400 in 13:00.21.
Valby is right there with Cranny and Schweizer right now. We have not witnessed a race yet this year where Valby was pushed all the way to the line by competitors. We have no idea what she can potentially run. We will find out in two weeks.
Wow, great post. You also left out the part about Valby having a 10k tempo in her legs from two days prior.
I like the way her fans think 30mpw with an arc trainer will eventually put her in the company of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians.
Nice try!!! You were doubting her against NCAA runners, then US runners, now its east africans or she's a failure? My how far she has come. If she does beat the E africans what would the next criticism be?
A reporter out of Gainesville reported last week she is evidently sometimes up to 40 per week, in anddition to the intense Arc Training. She is breaking the mold, when people neglect what others like Grovdol, have been doing.
Her chances as a pro depend entirely on finding a coach and support team that can get her to 90 mpw of actual running, not cross-training. What she has achieved with heavy cross-training so far is good for her, but remember that the NCAA is not the most competitive place for distance running (unlike sprinting). The top 18-21 year-old distance runners are already out there on the pro circuit. You have Eisa (19 years old) 14:16, Alemeshete (18) 14:36, Wudu (19) 14:39, Mebratu (20) 14:22. Even Megan Keith (22) has run faster, 14:43.
I think Valby has obvious talent but nothing can replace the physiological stress that running places on the body, and the benefit that the body gets from adapting to that. Is there a single distance runner out there that has achieved anything at global level on low mileage combined with heavy cross training? All the examples I've seen are qualified successes at best (e.g. Elliot Giles). And please don't cite Neil Gourley coming off cross training for one good performance. He has years of on the ground running under his belt and one short period of cross training.
So, I don't have a good guess as to how her pro career will turn out, but I think the 2-3 years immediately after she leaves college will be a difficult transition and I wouldn't be surprised if she has to take a step back to move forwards.
Into the 6th page and still no definition of what a successful professional career would be, so we don't move the goalposts later.
I assume it's implied that success would mean winning on the world stage. Being the best in America is great, but when it comes to distance races it doesn't really mean anything.
Can she beat the Africans? I assume most would think hell no.
Also, for those who assume that all or most of the Africans and the other pros are doping, then of course she's not going to beat them, unless she dopes too.
So I say define success as being a factor on the world stage. That's what really matters, doesn't it?
Parker Valby I imagine will make a lot of money because of the obvious reasons, her NCAA performance and her appearance. And that's great for her, but beyond that... I mean, does anyone think she'll ever be factor at the World Championships or the Olympics?
Her chances as a pro depend entirely on finding a coach and support team that can get her to 90 mpw of actual running, not cross-training. What she has achieved with heavy cross-training so far is good for her, but remember that the NCAA is not the most competitive place for distance running (unlike sprinting). The top 18-21 year-old distance runners are already out there on the pro circuit. You have Eisa (19 years old) 14:16, Alemeshete (18) 14:36, Wudu (19) 14:39, Mebratu (20) 14:22. Even Megan Keith (22) has run faster, 14:43.
I think Valby has obvious talent but nothing can replace the physiological stress that running places on the body, and the benefit that the body gets from adapting to that. Is there a single distance runner out there that has achieved anything at global level on low mileage combined with heavy cross training? All the examples I've seen are qualified successes at best (e.g. Elliot Giles). And please don't cite Neil Gourley coming off cross training for one good performance. He has years of on the ground running under his belt and one short period of cross training.
So, I don't have a good guess as to how her pro career will turn out, but I think the 2-3 years immediately after she leaves college will be a difficult transition and I wouldn't be surprised if she has to take a step back to move forwards.
yeah good post
predictable that she'll get hurt in the first year or two trying to get under 14:30...and then we'll see what happens. If luck and a coach can keep her from that injury for the first couple years then Valby could do some great things.
Into the 6th page and still no definition of what a successful professional career would be, so we don't move the goalposts later.
I assume it's implied that success would mean winning on the world stage. Being the best in America is great, but when it comes to distance races it doesn't really mean anything.
Can she beat the Africans? I assume most would think hell no.
Also, for those who assume that all or most of the Africans and the other pros are doping, then of course she's not going to beat them, unless she dopes too.
So I say define success as being a factor on the world stage. That's what really matters, doesn't it?
Parker Valby I imagine will make a lot of money because of the obvious reasons, her NCAA performance and her appearance. And that's great for her, but beyond that... I mean, does anyone think she'll ever be factor at the World Championships or the Olympics?
That's the definition of success, isn't it?
success is winning national outdoor championships and making national teams for the Olympics or Worlds. Hard to ask much more than that to define a successful US pro career.
Her chances as a pro depend entirely on finding a coach and support team that can get her to 90 mpw of actual running, not cross-training.
This is absolutely, unequivocally, bull-crap, so I don’t need to read the rest of your post.
You fail to realize Valby is already training at the level of a 90mile/wk equivalent.
If that training has allowed her to make the necessary adaptions and come away from collegiate distance as the G.O.A.T, then it stands to reason that if she just stays patiently with it, she will continue to adapt and improve, with or without going to altitude, though the latter might be even more beneficial.
Her chances as a pro depend entirely on finding a coach and support team that can get her to 90 mpw of actual running, not cross-training.
This is absolutely, unequivocally, bull-crap, so I don’t need to read the rest of your post.
You fail to realize Valby is already training at the level of a 90mile/wk equivalent.
If that training has allowed her to make the necessary adaptions and come away from collegiate distance as the G.O.A.T, then it stands to reason that if she just stays patiently with it, she will continue to adapt and improve, with or without going to altitude, though the latter might be even more beneficial.
It is a really stupid idea, that when Valby turns pro, she then needs to join a pro club and increase her running mileage to 90mikes/wk, whereby she will be run into the ground and injured, just because the pro club thinks they need to maximize her adaptions as soon as possible in order for the pro sponsor to feel better about themselves that they are maximizing their return-on-investment. 🙄
Alicia Monson had a "successful" pro career. Karissa Schweizer had a "successful" pro career. Shelby Houlihan had a "successful" pro career. Abby Cooper had a "successful" pro career.
You fail to realize Valby is already training at the level of a 90mile/wk equivalent.
The other thing that seems to be completely lost on the simple- minded old school high-mileage trope, is that Valby’s current 90miles/wk equivalent includes 5-7 hours of crucial aerobic full-body functional strength training . The body can tolerate only so much loading within an optimal supercompensation recover and adapt window. So if Valby suddenly adds more mileage, then some of that beneficial Arc Training would likely need to be dropped, which might be deleterious.
It has taken years of training to get Karoline Grovdal to the point of being able to run a 14:39 5000m, and then two days later run a 1:08 Half. Her yearly training includes a large number of hours cross-training on skis. But one cannot be expected to quickly change volumetric and type of loading without potentially very bad consequences.
It has taken years of training to get Karoline Grovdal to the point of being able to run a 14:39 5000m, and then two days later run a 1:08 Half. Her yearly training includes a large number of hours cross-training on skis. .
I assume it's implied that success would mean winning on the world stage. Being the best in America is great, but when it comes to distance races it doesn't really mean anything.
Can she beat the Africans? I assume most would think hell no.
Also, for those who assume that all or most of the Africans and the other pros are doping, then of course she's not going to beat them, unless she dopes too.
So I say define success as being a factor on the world stage. That's what really matters, doesn't it?
Parker Valby I imagine will make a lot of money because of the obvious reasons, her NCAA performance and her appearance. And that's great for her, but beyond that... I mean, does anyone think she'll ever be factor at the World Championships or the Olympics?
That's the definition of success, isn't it?
success is winning national outdoor championships and making national teams for the Olympics or Worlds. Hard to ask much more than that to define a successful US pro career.
I appreciate that two people are willing to take a stab at the question "what defines success?" and the fact that they differ on where they set the bar supports that it is a reasonable question to ask.
I tend to think more like slothrop, that if she makes multiple teams for the Worlds and Olympics over many years, that is success. I would add that I would want her to make the finals in those events and have top 10 finishes. I also would want to see her compete and have finishes in Diamond League meets that are credible (top 6 or 8, frequently?).
I think that winning Gold medals in the Olympics and Worlds is beyond "successful" and gets out to "fantastic" and "legendary" status.
Either way, at least some people are willing to answer the question!
Last night showed a side of her that I think makes her vulnerable at the pro level. No problem with the silliness, expressiveness and charisma. What I noticed is that she was constantly looking around and observing how people in the stands were reacting to her. Very focused on what others think of her. When she's working hard in a race she obviously doesn't have the energy to physically show this, but I think this hyper-awareness of others' perceptions of her is a fatal flaw at the elite level. There will always be others better than you (at least for some periods of time) and you will experience set backs. If you're constantly thinking about how that seems to your fans, I think that's a recipe for stress, pressure, self doubt, etc. Flame me if you want, but I'll re-up this in a few years when she's struggling to come back from injury and/or running no better/worse than this year.
She is gonna make more money in 1 year than you will make in at least 10 so if thats not successful then you are the epitome of the most likely to never leave his moms basement award they gave you in high school
I appreciate that two people are willing to take a stab at the question "what defines success?" and the fact that they differ on where they set the bar supports that it is a reasonable question to ask.
I tend to think more like slothrop, that if she makes multiple teams for the Worlds and Olympics over many years, that is success. I would add that I would want her to make the finals in those events and have top 10 finishes. I also would want to see her compete and have finishes in Diamond League meets that are credible (top 6 or 8, frequently?).
I think that winning Gold medals in the Olympics and Worlds is beyond "successful" and gets out to "fantastic" and "legendary" status.
Either way, at least some people are willing to answer the question!
Of course, we have to take each athlete individually.
In regard to Parker Valby, what she did in the NCAA was beyond "successful," what she did was "fantastic" and "legendary." Can she carry that to the pro level? I don't think most people believe she will.
Most people I assume believe what you believe, if she can just make Worlds and Olympic teams, then that's success for her. And realistically, that's probably what’s going to happen. She'll make the teams and never come close to medaling. And that's apparently what we consider success when it comes to distance athletes.
I'm assuming the OP meant something different, but maybe they didn't. And I guess I'm thinking wrong, because I'm thinking in the terms of sprinters.
For instance, someone like Sha'Carri Richardson making a Worlds or an Olympic team is kind of a given. And it is a measure of success. But if she doesn't win gold it's almost a disappointment. She will go home devastated, as it were.
So that's why I say we have to take each athlete individually. And if Parker Valby isn't at that level, and most people I assume don't believe she is or will ever be, then sure, simply making Worlds and Olympic teams is success for her, despite her stellar NCAA career.