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.
I doubt ESP does that 5K. She has an outside shot at a medal in the 1,500, so she is 100% going to focus on that.
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.
The Valby defenders keep pointing to likely dopers as a potential model for her going forward. There is A TON of smoke around Grovdal doping.
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.
Your thread needs a hard and fast definition of "successful" so we can determine whether we agree with the definition, and so we can determine later whether she met your threshol or not.
So, what is professional success?
OP here. Sorry, wasn't on the boards over the weekend.
I actually don't think a specific time or place in a global final determines what I mean by won't "have a successful pro career," because my point was that I think she might have 1 or 2 periods of peak fitness but that she will struggle to come back from lackluster performances. That said, I'll commit to something concrete:
* Won't break 14:40/30:30 more than twice in her career
* Won't win more than one national title
* Won't make more than two national teams
* Won't finish top seven in outdoor WCs/Olympics more than once
I guess you can debate whether the above resume is "successful" or not.
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?
I didn't make that argument but you can't read. I was responding to the claim she will be soon able to foot it with the best in the world.
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.
The bullcr*p is yours. An arc trainer is not the equivalent of running 90mpw. The only equivalent to that is 90mpw.
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.
14:39 and 68 in an era where the very top women are regularly running 14-low and 64. Cross training has a ceiling, and it's pretty low
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.
She's in an environment where relatively modest times lead to big successes. She is currently the best collegiate GOAT, but as I've pointed doubt already, globally, within her age category, she's already some way behind the curve - 20-30 seconds over 5k. That's the gap she somehow has to bridge as a pro. Again, show me just one distance runner that has finished top 6 in the world or Olympics with a high volume of cross training. Grant Fisher came off a lot of cross training and ran some solid times last year, how much time do you think he spends on the bike/arc these days?
I'm fully with Canova on this: there are no miracles in distance running
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.
14:39 and 68 in an era where the very top women are regularly running 14-low and 64. Cross training has a ceiling, and it's pretty low
Nonsense, just compare their times at the same ages, which is going back 11-12 years for KG. Valby is a superior athlete.
14:39 and 68 in an era where the very top women are regularly running 14-low and 64. Cross training has a ceiling, and it's pretty low
Nonsense, just compare their times at the same ages, which is going back 11-12 years for KG. Valby is a superior athlete.
You missed the point. Go back to my first post: the best athletes in the 18-21 age bracket are already running 14:16 to 14:35. Cross training isn't getting anyone to those times
the other interesting thing we'll have to see about valby is how she takes losing...she hasn't done a lot of losing for a few years.
But at some point soon she'll be at full Valbythrottle and other women will just run away from her. by a lot. Valby will completely empty the tank but it won't be enough - she'll bomb and finish in a painful stiff legged canter. And she will be sore for days after.
If that makes her think 'oh man that was awesome let's do that again' then she might make a good pro. But if she is shattered by the experience of getting crushed...then she will struggle to PR as a pro.
Your thread needs a hard and fast definition of "successful" so we can determine whether we agree with the definition, and so we can determine later whether she met your threshol or not.
So, what is professional success?
OP here. Sorry, wasn't on the boards over the weekend.
I actually don't think a specific time or place in a global final determines what I mean by won't "have a successful pro career," because my point was that I think she might have 1 or 2 periods of peak fitness but that she will struggle to come back from lackluster performances. That said, I'll commit to something concrete:
* Won't break 14:40/30:30 more than twice in her career
* Won't win more than one national title
* Won't make more than two national teams
* Won't finish top seven in outdoor WCs/Olympics more than once
I guess you can debate whether the above resume is "successful" or not.
You sound like a chick who lost her BF to Parker. Why not cheer for a woman who is doing some great things now?
Your thread needs a hard and fast definition of "successful" so we can determine whether we agree with the definition, and so we can determine later whether she met your threshol or not.
So, what is professional success?
OP here. Sorry, wasn't on the boards over the weekend.
I actually don't think a specific time or place in a global final determines what I mean by won't "have a successful pro career," because my point was that I think she might have 1 or 2 periods of peak fitness but that she will struggle to come back from lackluster performances. That said, I'll commit to something concrete:
* Won't break 14:40/30:30 more than twice in her career
* Won't win more than one national title
* Won't make more than two national teams
* Won't finish top seven in outdoor WCs/Olympics more than once
I guess you can debate whether the above resume is "successful" or not.
total of above accomplishments: 1 (2024 Olympic team)
OP here. Sorry, wasn't on the boards over the weekend.
I actually don't think a specific time or place in a global final determines what I mean by won't "have a successful pro career," because my point was that I think she might have 1 or 2 periods of peak fitness but that she will struggle to come back from lackluster performances. That said, I'll commit to something concrete:
* Won't break 14:40/30:30 more than twice in her career
* Won't win more than one national title
* Won't make more than two national teams
* Won't finish top seven in outdoor WCs/Olympics more than once
I guess you can debate whether the above resume is "successful" or not.
total of above accomplishments: 1 (2024 Olympic team)
Yeah, she already got one of those massive accomplishments most Pros dream of in her first few months being a pro…
Obviously her being injured this year isn’t good for her career, but it’s her first year as a pro and she’s already run a PR and made an Olympic team. Some pros go years after college without doing that. Plus an injury year 1 as a pro isn’t too atypical. Let’s see how she’s doing a few years from now and then we can judge.