TUOHY ANY COMPETITION THIS XC SEASON

Say it ain't so wrote:

Hate to say it, but she is starting to look a bit "artificially enhanced."

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2mXPGfAZ9c/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

That's an insinuation of PED use. In the first photos I saw of her two years ago she had good muscle definition. She's tough. You're not. You're an idiot.

Please don't derail another thread about a female runner with comments about their appearance. "Too big, too small, too think, too thick, too musclar, not musclar enough, etc." always seems like someone feels the need to make snarky remarks to lesser or raise suspicion of someone's athletic ability or credentials.

Say it ain't so wrote:

Hate to say it, but she is starting to look a bit "artificially enhanced."

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2mXPGfAZ9c/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Nope. That's how she's looked for a long while already. But you're a real scumbag for throwing sh*t like that out there without any actual basis whatever.

So if that's what you were looking to show (what a scumbag you are), you succeeded.

The dumb thing is in that picture she doesn't even looked that ripped!

I mean she is in amazing shape cuz she works out really hard. But that picture is not even a great one

Obviously if you're running and someone's taking pictures they're going to capture a bunch of different images of your physique and in some of them you'll look incredibly strong and in others you might just look pretty regular. So you can just go buy one picture but obviously she works out really hard and it's pretty silly to insinuate any sort of artificial stuff because she has a steady digression

Indoor? wrote:

Ewert did get beat by Zofia Dudek yesterday at the MSU Spartan Invite, 17:08 for Dudek who also ran 4:41 to win the Brooks PR Mile last spring. Dudek is a beast as sounds like conditions were tough there yesterday.

This is currently rated as the season's best performance.

157.13 - Zophia Dudek

157 ----- Brynn Brown

155 ----- Marlee Starliper

154.27 - Taylor Ewert

154 ----- Katelynne Hart

153 ----- Carly McNatt

151.47 - Sydney Thorvaldson

151 ----- Jenna Hutchins

By the way after winning the mile at Brooks Dudek went on to win the 3000 at the Polish U20 championships and then won the 3000 at the European U20 championships.

top rated wrote:

Indoor? wrote:

Ewert did get beat by Zofia Dudek yesterday at the MSU Spartan Invite, 17:08 for Dudek who also ran 4:41 to win the Brooks PR Mile last spring. Dudek is a beast as sounds like conditions were tough there yesterday.

This is currently rated as the season's best performance.

157.13 - Zophia Dudek

157 ----- Brynn Brown

155 ----- Marlee Starliper

154.27 - Taylor Ewert

154 ----- Katelynne Hart

153 ----- Carly McNatt

151.47 - Sydney Thorvaldson

151 ----- Jenna Hutchins

By the way after winning the mile at Brooks Dudek went on to win the 3000 at the Polish U20 championships and then won the 3000 at the European U20 championships.

keep in mind the margin of error is about +/- 4 points at best

Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:

keep in mind the margin of error is about +/- 4 points at best

When sufficient data exists (which is the case for the majority of races I post speed ratings), the margin of error is typically +/- 1 to 2 points.

When significant uncertainty exists, I note the speed ratings are "Uncertain" and/or "Estimated" ... This most frequently occurs at the beginning or early in the season because seasonal data are limited and the race in question is new to my database or the quality of the race has been modified from previous years (e.g. significant number of different teams compete or the number runners changes significantly from previous years) ... But this becomes moot if I have enough seasonal speed ratings from a diverse segment of individuals.

The accuracy, or more correctly - the certainty, improves as the season progresses because more data are available. But even in the early season, many meets have very acceptable levels of accuracy ... A few are uncertain (and noted), but can be adjusted at a later time.

I make speed ratings for myself more than anybody else (because I'm interested) ... It's an extension of speed ratings for horses which I had done for over 20 years before adapting the method to high school XC ... I make the ratings accurate for the purpose intended which means information for betting money ... and here, biases and inaccuracies causes me to lose! Whenever possible, I make XC speed ratings with the intent of "betting the rent money". Inaccurate values are worthless to me ... Uncertain values must be treated as uncertain ... But ratings that adequately reflect the relative speed of a race are just what I want.

Sometimes I don't like my speed ratings of a race because they don't necessarily reflect how good or how bad some teams or individuals competed in the race (meaning visual impressions of their performance compared to others) ... But the numbers are accurate based on the stats.

This is my biggest source of complaints ... coaches or parents complaining that "Johnny" or "Mary" is better than my speed rating for the race (or that some rival is worse) ... But "Johnny" or "Mary's" speed rating was determined by how fast everybody else ran in relation to them ... If "Johnny" or "Mary" did run 30 seconds faster, maybe they were better, BUT if enough other runners ran 30 seconds faster as well, then in relation to other runners, nothing changed and their speed ratings stay the same as before ... and that's the concept that many in XC hate ... But when betting money, I want to know where horses finish in relation to other horses ... For XC, timing displacement between runners is measured and posted as final times ... and this displacement determines the speed ratings ... and making it a stat that is accurate is not that hard!

as a new york state high school xc coach, I just wanted to say thanks to bill meylan for all the work he puts into this every weekend. The coaches trust it. The athletes look for their ratings after every race, and their rankings at midweek. It means a lot. And I've even e-mailed Bill with a question about one of my athletes ratings, and received a prompt, clear, and polite explanation.

This guy will be missed by many when he is gone. And im guessing the doubters are just people who have no grasp of statistics, and more importantly, no grasp of what they have no grasp of!

Any ideas why the Northeast FL Regional race netted ratings so much higher on average versus how they ran at FLN? Was it a lot hotter than they were used to at FLN?

To keep others from having to look it up here is each runner preceded by their FL NE Region Speed Rating and then FL National Speed Rating and difference between the two

194 / 194 / 0 Jack Stanley

192 / 185 / -7 Lucas Aramburu

191 / 182 / -9 Devin Hart

191 / 182 / -9 Matthew Farrell

191 / 179/ -12 Patrick Anderson

190 / 178 / -12 Richard Sturtevant

191 / 178 / -13 Sam Lawler

191 / 178 / -13 Mustafe Dahir

191 / 177 / -14 Liam Murphy

191 / 166 / - 25 Connor Nisbet

That's really cool, interesting stuff!

Can you post a link or maybe post the top speed ratings for high school boys and girls including duplicates for runners who have many Fast Times

Yeah everytime I come across speed rating info it only list and athletes top time for the season or all-time

I'd love to see the top speed ratings for high school boys and girls including duplicate X maybe the top 1 or 200 all-time ratings and if an athlete has like 10 or 20 of those to have them listed 10 or 20 times

You can see all the ratings for Tuohy and the other top girls in this pre-season review:

http://tullyrunners.com/XC2019/NationTopXcGirls2019.htm

Boys here:

http://tullyrunners.com/XC2019/NationTopXcBoys2019.htm

Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:

To keep others from having to look it up here is each runner preceded by their FL NE Region Speed Rating and then FL National Speed Rating and difference between the two

194 / 194 / 0 Jack Stanley

192 / 185 / -7 Lucas Aramburu

191 / 182 / -9 Devin Hart

191 / 182 / -9 Matthew Farrell

191 / 179/ -12 Patrick Anderson

190 / 178 / -12 Richard Sturtevant

191 / 178 / -13 Sam Lawler

191 / 178 / -13 Mustafe Dahir

191 / 177 / -14 Liam Murphy

191 / 166 / - 25 Connor Nisbet

Foot Locker speed ratings have been my biggest source of criticism, but I understand and accept the skepticism as a valid concern. Last year’s Foot Locker Northeast (for boys) is an example. But it’s also a good example of considerations involved making speed ratings.

I wish speed ratings were 100% math and 0% subjective judgment, but that’s not the case … speed ratings are part math and part art (experience), as I have written in articles. While primarily math through much of the season, there are times when subjective judgment (based on experience) needs to be considered.

When first developing and making XC speed ratings, I noticed reoccurring anomalies at several end-of-the-year races .. namely the NY Federation and Foot Locker Northeast races. It was common that more teams than expected raced poorly at Feds compared to their seasonal performances … And at Foot Locker Northeast, I was disturbed that many individual runners raced abnormally slow … In contrast, some of the top runners had their best races of the season.

The top runners at a Foot Locker regional are trying to qualify for Nationals and have something very tangible to make them race their best if that’s needed to qualify … they have competition, desire and that typically yields higher speed ratings. For some, their main goal is to make it to Nationals (rather than do well at Nationals). Many individual runners simply want the season over and have little incentive to race hard (so they run relatively slow). For some teams, NY Federation is just a nice over-night excursion which is reflected in their slow performances.

Looking at National races … Most teams do not race their best at NXN Nationals … Some top runners race abnormally well at Nationals while others have typical races and some race poorly. The 2018 Northeast boys raced poorly at Foot Locker Nationals … with the exception of Jack Stanley who finished 7th, most of the other guys had their poorest speed rating of the year (but they probably had a good time)! … With respect to the speed ratings of the Foot Locker Northeast, they were formulated in combination with the girls … and at Foot Locker Nationals, the Northeast girls placed 6 girls in the top 14 … I don’t like being critical, but subjective judgement suspects the Northeast boys were "far less than their best" for some reason, but they did earn their trip to San Diego!

Subjective judgement in speed ratings primarily denotes the experience to select and reject data points as outlier data. At Foot Locker Nationals 2018, I excluded 9 of the 10 Northeast boys as outlier data.

Thanks that's cool. But that only gives ratings for current runners. I'd love to see an all-time list of the top hundred speed ratings and if an athlete has 10 of those times have them listed 10 times

Haven't seen anything like that maybe it's just due to the sheer number of Runners and meats that it just hasn't been compiled that way

BMeylan wrote:

Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:

To keep others from having to look it up here is each runner preceded by their FL NE Region Speed Rating and then FL National Speed Rating and difference between the two

194 / 194 / 0 Jack Stanley

192 / 185 / -7 Lucas Aramburu

191 / 182 / -9 Devin Hart

191 / 182 / -9 Matthew Farrell

191 / 179/ -12 Patrick Anderson

190 / 178 / -12 Richard Sturtevant

191 / 178 / -13 Sam Lawler

191 / 178 / -13 Mustafe Dahir

191 / 177 / -14 Liam Murphy

191 / 166 / - 25 Connor Nisbet

Subjective judgement in speed ratings primarily denotes the experience to select and reject data points as outlier data. At Foot Locker Nationals 2018, I excluded 9 of the 10 Northeast boys as outlier data.

9 of the 10 NE boys should be considered outliers? That's 90%. Wouldn't the outlier be the 1 out of 10 pretty much by definition?

I'm not trying to say your ratings are off or biased or whatever else. I'm just curious why the NE boys had such a tough time in San Diego last year.

Chris P wrote:

Thanks that's cool. But that only gives ratings for current runners. I'd love to see an all-time list of the top hundred speed ratings and if an athlete has 10 of those times have them listed 10 times

Haven't seen anything like that maybe it's just due to the sheer number of Runners and meats that it just hasn't been compiled that way

If I was you I would go to Bill's website (tullyrunners.com) from which you can email him, and ask if he has what you want.

He may likely not, in which case if you are really interested you can gather the info yourself from all of the races he has rated over the years via links to the data on his site. A fair amount of work, but again if you are interested the data is out there.

He put together something in 2015 which shows what appears to be a number of the top speed ratings through that year, mostly for FLN, but also some other races. It is roughly the top 15 at FLN plus another 5 or so from other races.

Some of the top speed ratings for current HS Girls runners are provided here.

He has similar preseason rankings with speed ratings for Boys and also other years as well, with very conveniently the same file name format so just change Girls to Boys or 2019 to 2018 for example

Today, Richard Springs Invite, in IL, Katelynn Hart broke the course record, ran 16.00 flat. Second place was 16.44, third 16.53.

greenliner wrote:

Today, Richard Springs Invite, in IL, Katelynn Hart broke the course record, ran 16.00 flat. Second place was 16.44, third 16.53.

Based on last year (16:15 = 149) I would expect a speed rating in the mid 150s for the 16:00 time. Methner at 14:12 should be around 190 (last year was 14:38 = 181)

Junior Sydney Masciarelli easily wins the Canterbury Invite today just shy of her first ever varsity xc race 2018 which shattered the course record 17:04.