It's time to have a conversation about Keely Hodgkinson

Yes you are right and I think it should be obvious by now that women distance running in particular isn't just experiencing the same boom as on the mens side just because of footwear, pacing lights and training/race philosophy, it's also going through a massive period of catch-up and correction which is making this all seem more dramatic than it really is.

The depth on the womens side has never been the same as on the mens side for one. Ever. And depth is created by your top end performers pulling every level up from below them, and then those lower levels keeping the pressure on the top to constantly improve. The women just never seemed to break through that threshold - we always had the top performers, but never those talent heavy up-and-coming levels like the men had since the 90's in particular.

That was reflected in even small things like pacing. Depth on the mens side meant that even the pacers were world class in their own rights and knew how to race and what the athletes needed. I'll give a good example of that. Look at the mens 8 and 15 in the late 90's, the era of El G and Kipketer. Kipketer had guys like Tengelei (1.43.5) and David Kiptoo (1.43.38 and Olympic finalist) pacing him. These were guys that had the ability to get to 600m exactly the way a guy like Kipketer wanted. El G had guys like Noah Nygeny and William Tanui pacing him (both Olympic champions!) and even a guy like David Lelei who was a sub 1.44/sub 3.32 runner in his own right. These guys could pull him through 1200m at WR paces at pretty even paces considering no wavelight. Think back to the women in the same era (Mutola, Szabo etc) and even as recently as the 2010's - the pacing was abysmal compared to the mens. When Dibaba ran 3.50.07 she had Chanelle Price pacing her who was an out and out 800m runner that took her through in 60.31 and then 2.04.52 and ran 830m before dropping off. As the depth on the womens side increases, you now see an athlete like Huerta-Klecker (a high talent 800/1500 runner herself) pacing. And once she's out of the race the pacing never stops because wavelight is right there. These factors have had a much bigger impact on the womens side then on the mens side.

I said this in another thread re Hodgkinson - shes the first womans 800m runner I have EVER seen that runs the break to pole correctly (a simple straight line) - the shortest distance, which means a lot when you are trying to run your absolute best - even if it's a meter. It also means she runs clean in that first 200 not needing to chop her pace at any point to slot into a pack. These small things matter and she's the only one who does them. Watch her execute an 800m vs Athing Mu - it's ridiculous the difference.

Just a lot of catch-up happening which we need to put into perspective.

Agreed and for whatever reason I think the 800/1500 was notably far behind (outside of Faith). Outside of Faith, none of the 1500m runners would make any noise in a global 5,000. Not Hull, GHB, Hiltz, Welteji, F. Hailu (who might be better at the 5,000). Meanwhile if you asked me the inverse, I think that with 100% focus these athletes would be factors in the 1500 (some already are): Battocletti, Chebet, Tsegay, Hassan, N’getich (the greatest stretch but I think she could solo a 3:55).

On the mens side, the events are far more balanced. Nobody who’s doing the 5,000 primarily would be considered a major factor in the 1500.

The eyebrow-raising bit isn't that Keely was hurt, it's that she suffered two severe hamstring injuries in four months, then in her return to competition ran the 9th fastest 800 of all time.

I don't think it's as suspicious as some other people here. She's a huge talent who was probably in 1:54 low shape after the Olympics last year, she's young enough to bounce back from injuries quickly, and a "Grade 3" tear in the UK is a "Grade 2" in the USA, so the injury wasn't as bad as it seemed. But any performance that spectacular immediately after a long layoff is gonna make people wonder, that's just the nature of the sport.

insightful post as always and I agreed. Though I would add that since women are slower, they also have different energy contributions compared to men. For the 800m, IIRC, men's energy contribution is around 60% to 40% (aerobic to anaerobic), compared to women's 70/30; men's 1500m is around 75/25, compared to women's 82-83/17-18, so women's 800m is actually pretty close to men's 1500m in terms of energy contribution, while women's 1500m is close to men's 3000m. I think that plays a part in the likes of Hassan's seemingly crazy range aside from the depth of the field.

I think you make a good point about the lack of depth. Compared to the top men in the 800m, the top women in that event should be running faster. In the 400m, Paulino was 11% slower than Quincy Hall last year. In the 1500m and mile, Kipyegon is about 11% slower than El G. In contrast, Keely's world-leading time in the 800m last year was 13.35% slower than Wanyonyi. Even if she ran 1:53.50, that would be 12.25% slower than Wanyonyi. Statistically, the top 800m women really should be running 1:53 if the top men are running 1:41.

Re: the top 1500m women moving up and 5k women moving down, I think it's noteworthy that many of the top female 1500m runners have been more 800m-1500m types than 1500m-5k types. The ones you listed wouldn't be competitive in a global 5k, but we've seen them hold their own in 800m races. Muir and Jamal are other examples. Hassan is a rarity as someone who focused on the 800m-1500m earlier in her career and then had great success moving up to 5k and 10k, followed by the marathon.

1. She had to use transvestite foundation to hide her facial stubble, true story. (FW)

That should have been the entirety of the thread. I have no idea what occupied the prior 6 pages

One question is about shoes and who responds more to what shoe. This has not been studied as far as I know.

Also, the men are running times that are seriously questionable - does one person respond to bi-carb better than another?

Do some people benefit more to the newer and better rubber tracks than others just as we don’t really know who responds more from super shoes.

not trying to redirect the subject matter here but add more to the equation (possibly).

Because she either 1) had a grade 2 or grade 3 tear and used a prohibited substance to make it heal faster, or 2) has been misleading about her injuries.

Let's say Trevor Painter is correct and that the grade 3 tear was overstated. Fine. But it would've at least had to have been a grade 2 tear, because no doctor/technician could possibly mistake a grade 3 tear for a grade 1 tear. And a grade 2 tear takes weeks-months to heal. The timeline just doesn't add up without it either being altered by illegal drugs or based on a lie.

Has anyone asked her if she got PRP injections in hamstring (or both)? It works well for hamstring tears and many athletes and others use it heal more quickly from injuries.

I'm quite sure her doctor would have given her the most state-of-the-art treatments, if she did actually have hamstring issues.

Nonsense. Trevor Painter has clearly said she did NOT have two grade 3 tears. Whether the media misreported this or whether he was not completely truthful originally (based off a misdiagnosis or intentionally misleading) so friggin what? Clearly she did not have two tears.

And for what it's worth, I've had the Head Physio of a huge NHS Regional Trust - one of the biggest health authorities in the UK - misdiagnose me. Sh1t happens.

What is clear now is that Hodgkinson wintered well, kept her base fitness, and has chosen to compete when she felt she was able to lay down a marker, not ease herself into great form.