For another HS girl to touch her times in the future they need to be at least 6 foot, fast stride rate, and long legs.
First, she's not a "genetic anomaly" based on her height. She's taller than the average female, but there are lots of females as tall as her.
While Jane is the fastest HS girl ever in the USA (aided by the shoes of course), plenty of African women have run that fast at that age and they are all considerably shorter than 6 foot. Jane turns 19 in September. Here are just a few random examples:
- Genzebe Dibaba (5'6") finished 8th in Worlds in the 5000 at age 18 - Tirunesh Dibaba (5'5") won gold at Worlds in the 5000 at age 17 - Faith Kipyegon (5'2") ran 4:03 for 1500 and competed in the 2012 Olympics, at age 18 - Beatrice Chibet (5'0") won the U20 5000 at age 18. - Letesenbet Gidey (5'5") ran 14:45 for 5000 at age 18.
Jane is an American and I compare her to other Americans. I couldn’t care less how fast East-African teenagers have run.
I’m sticking with my theory that being tall for distance running isn’t actually a disadvantage. It’s just that tall people find early success sufficient to be recruited by friends and coaches to stick in team sports that reward a little height so their distance talent never gets developed to a high level.
This makes some sense. I commend you on your theory.
Speaking of insane, you are still ignoring the Hartman situation. Her progression is greater than that of Hedengren, Valby, and everyone else you have accused of doping. By your criteria she is a doper and thus so is Tuohy.
Being tall is a disadvantage. She is probably taller than any woman who who broken 15 minutes.
Guys are taller than women, yet they run faster. Being tall isn't a disadvantage. We don't find many super tall runners because they typically find their way to other sports where height is an advantage. There's zero reason why being tall is bad, otherwise the shortest people would be the fastest, and it would be clear that being short is an advantage. But the average height of people in general is the average height of good runners, because it doesn't matter how tall you are.
O'Sullivan is only 5'8". That is a world of difference. Jane is the tallest woman in history to break 15.
Being tall in women's running is still a bit of an outlier. When I was in college 20 years ago I felt like a giant at 5'9. That's not as uncommon now due to better nutrition and injury prevention, but still taller than most. The tallest pro runner I'm aware of is probably the Swiss athlete Fabienne Schlumpf (ironically Schlumpf also means Smurf in German).
Good start and good effort, but you are missing an important statistical concept.
Runners are not drawn from the same population as average male height globally, which includes many millions of people whose height is limited by deformities and/or malnourishment.
A better comparison would be Olympic 5k finalists vs a pool of runners, athletes more generally, or at least healthy adult males.
Ok, and do you have that number?
Since you ask, yes.
Pretty easy to find population data on cohorts such as military, which is a more appropriate comparison.
Tuohy was very strong and had excellent form. But I think being 5'3" is a big disadvantage. Tuohy set 4:33 mile record in HS, and Jane destroyed it at 4:23. Jane's HS times will never be broke. She blew away Mary Cain, Sadie Engelhardt, Tuohy, doper Wiley
There is no answer from the other girls. For another HS girl to touch her times in the future they need to be at least 6 foot, fast stride rate, and long legs. And, of course, basic talent.
She's taller, bigger, stronger than all her highschool competitors. Her physique looks 25 but she turned 18 in September 2024.
What set Usain Bolt apart, besides his talent, was his size. He was just totally different physique. We're seeing this with Jane.
There is no answer from the other girls. For another HS girl to touch her times in the future they need to be at least 6 foot, fast stride rate, and long legs. And, of course, basic talent.
It's all about the ratio of aerobic capacity (vo2 max) combined with the "size" of the athlete, and if it's utilized efficiently. Think in terms of an F-1 race car compared to a monster truck. One is smaller and lighter in weight with a super efficient high output engine which allows for 200 mph speeds over a longer distance. The other is larger and heavier in size and weight with an engine that is less efficient but very powerful and only capable of speeds of 60-70 mph at shorter distances. The hard part is combining both into one super racing machine with size, power, and efficiency. Jane's aerobic development is only going to improve so much, and in order for her to get the most out of her size and efficiency she MUST increase her workload via more training mileage at a higher intensity. What does higher mileage and more intensity increase the risk of? Yep, INJURY!!! The #1 concern for her injury wise will be hamstring and lower leg stress (achilles). She also needs to be diligent with her weight control, she's only 18 yrs old and is still growing, if the chassis of the race car can't support the engine, tires, etc...things start to breakdown.
Jane is wickedly talented and I hope she continues to improve and run faster over the next handful of years. Diljeet has a phenom on her hands, and how she manages her growth and development will determine Jane's success.
It's fine to discuss body types of pros, that happens all the time, it's crazy though, that a high schooler can be subjected to a 6 page thread about her body on a public facing page.
Enough women have discussed how these comments affected them, I am not sure why the brojos don't ban this sort of stuff when it's about high schoolers.
It's fine to discuss body types of pros, that happens all the time, it's crazy though, that a high schooler can be subjected to a 6 page thread about her body on a public facing page.
Enough women have discussed how these comments affected them, I am not sure why the brojos don't ban this sort of stuff when it's about high schoolers.
The reason why my post isn't "creepy" or "perverse" or "banned" is because the context of my post is based on athletic performance and professional observation (yes, professional). Never once did it enter my mind about Jane being in high school or how her body looked. If you actually read and understood what was written, it had nothing to do with body shaming at all. In fact, it seems pretty clear that my reference was in regard to her being 18 yrs old, 6ft tall, and still growing. Along with growth comes more height, more muscle mass, and MORE WEIGHT, which in turn could increase the risk of injury. I'm sorry, I don't see any reference to Jane being FAT or HEAVY or OVER WEIGHT.
Get off your woke sexist agenda!!! Not everyone views the world in a negative divisive way you do. Try understanding the message and maybe you'll learn something.
It's fine to discuss body types of pros, that happens all the time, it's crazy though, that a high schooler can be subjected to a 6 page thread about her body on a public facing page.
Enough women have discussed how these comments affected them, I am not sure why the brojos don't ban this sort of stuff when it's about high schoolers.
The reason why my post isn't "creepy" or "perverse" or "banned" is because the context of my post is based on athletic performance and professional observation (yes, professional). Never once did it enter my mind about Jane being in high school or how her body looked. If you actually read and understood what was written, it had nothing to do with body shaming at all. In fact, it seems pretty clear that my reference was in regard to her being 18 yrs old, 6ft tall, and still growing. Along with growth comes more height, more muscle mass, and MORE WEIGHT, which in turn could increase the risk of injury. I'm sorry, I don't see any reference to Jane being FAT or HEAVY or OVER WEIGHT.
Get off your woke sexist agenda!!! Not everyone views the world in a negative divisive way you do. Try understanding the message and maybe you'll learn something.
But it’s already been established that she’s 5’9”, yet you continue to spread the lie.
A bunch of media outlets list her at 6'0". Her father said she is 5"9" because he is an absent minded professor. We have 3 children who my wife has no idea how tall any of them are.
A bunch of media outlets list her at 6'0". Her father said she is 5"9" because he is an absent minded professor. We have 3 children who my wife has no idea how tall any of them are.
That's what I was suggesting on the last page too. My reasoning is that reporters don't pull specific numbers like 5'11" or 6' or just over 6' out of thin air and put it in print. They ask questions. Most likely of Jane if they interviewed her. Otherwise, they would have just left it at "tall" or synonyms to that in their articles. The difference between 5'11" and 6' and just over could be when they asked.
