jabouko wrote:
I think Peak Ryun in 2012 in the final would have been capable of 1:42mid or high, just like a bunch of 1:42 guys these days. Probably 1:42.7 and 3:30 on a modern track with modern spikes
The point is not what would Ryun have been capable of today - and 1.42 is entirely plausible - but how much improvement did he make from the age of 19. The answer is zero. The same might apply to any prodigy - and the argument here is that Mu is a prodigy.
You are incorrect. Most female runners drop about 10 seconds from senior year of high school to their lifetime PR. You are the poster who most dislikes facts.
"most female runners" are beside the point. Most male runners improve more between 15 and 20 as Jakob Ingebrigtsen did.
It is all speculation and we should really wait for a couple of races with Mu against other ~1:58 runners, but even the biggest skeptic will need to take into account her extraordinary 600m at 16 and 800m at 18-19 years old and not compare her to "most" teenage runners. The comparison to any other 16-18 yo HS or College freshman is irrelevant. The comparison has to be with runners like Ajee Wilson who are/were at a somewhat similar level at a fairly young age.
"more *than* Jakob I. did", of course. The point is that young prodigies don't follow the usual trends, that's why they are prodigies.
Aggie Track Fanatic wrote:
"I dont think a clean athlete - no matter how talented - could beat a dirty world record that has been impervious to assault for decades. If they could there would be no advantage in doping."
The last sentence has to be one of the worst inferences I've ever come across. It's bad even by internet message board standards. The implication is that unless doping would provide an athlete with the ability to run a faster time than all clean athletes (in history and still to come, presumably) that "there would be no advantage in doing it." Huh?
Doping gives athletes an advantage if it provides them with ANY additional performance enhancement that they could not have gotten without it. PERIOD.
For some dopers, this means they might make a national team that they otherwise would not have made or win a particular race they would not have won or simply do well enough to make a living at it. For others with a better genetic starting point and/or better coaching or training, etc., it might allow them to set national or world records they could not have set clean. The reasons why someone might dope (or believe that it advantages them) don't really matter to the question of whether it actually does provide them with an advantage. And, clearly, any athlete that utilized the best available science for doping would gain at least some temporary advantage over what THEY THEMSELVES could otherwise run.
But this advantage absolutely does NOT depend on them being able to thereby beat all clean athletes that might happen to populate the earth in its history, especially with developments in shoe and track technology, human physiology and performance, diet, and so on.
You seem to think pretty highly of Jim Ryun. I do, too (at least in the period before Keino shattered his confidence and left him an inconsistent shadow of himself). So, here's a little thought experiment for you:
What do you think peak-condition fully-confident Ryun could have run for 800m in super spikes with perfect weather conditions on the fastest modern track surface with a 2012 David Rudisha to race and the best possible 800m coach to train and prepare him?
To my mind, given how fast he ran in crappy spikes on slow cinder tracks against competition that is not at Rudisha's level and while racing far too often, it's not crazy to think Ryun could have run under 1:40.91 with all of those (legal) advantages that history denied him, and I assume we can all agree that he would have done so 100% CLEAN of any PEDs that have emerged after his peak period. If so, that would have made him the world-record holder for more than FIFTY YEARS, and faster than any known dopers (or to satisfy your cynical mind, potential dopers including Rudisha and Kipketer) have ever run for the distance.
Something to think about that just might challenge your assumptions here...
You have misunderstood my point above. I am not denying that even mediocre athletes will dope - and they will - to gain an advantage in lower tier competition, and nor am I saying that it will make them better than the most talented clean athletes. It will not. My point above however is that at the very top of professional sport (and not just running), where the differences between elite competitors are very fine, doping gives advantages that the clean athlete cannot match. I don't say this carelessly but from my contacts with international antidoping officials as well as professional athletes, who have made that conclusion all too clear to me.
This is one of the reasons why there are records in women's running that haven't been bested or even approached (Flojo) in over 30 years. That isn't saying that today's runners are clean - the sport is still rife with doping at the top - but that it isn't possible to dope to the degree that athletes could 4 decades ago and away with it. Jarmila's record falls within that category. If you ever saw her run she was truly formidable and was built more like a man than a woman. There is no way that I can see even a talented young woman like Mu being able to match that kind of performance, undertaken with the industrial-level doping of that era. The only athlete I have seen that might have threatened Jarmila's record was Semenya, and she had all the advantages of having a male physiology, such as male levels of testosterone. And yet she didnt take the record. (Would Mu beat peak Caster? That would be a bold claim.)
Your argument about Ryun also misses my point. I am not arguing that he wouldn't have run faster today - who knows what he might have achieved, he was good enough to be the world record-holder in his era - but that as talented as he was he ran no faster than he did at 19, an age similar to Mu is now. (He also wouldn't have run today's times in 1966 - but that is another point). Dramatic improvements are not a given - even with prodigies.
Bower Woman wrote:
You are incorrect. Most female runners drop about 10 seconds from senior year of high school to their lifetime PR. You are the poster who most dislikes facts.
She is not "most female runners" - and that is the point.
"10 seconds" - so you see a 1.47 on the cards? I am not sure which sort of "facts" you are relying on.
Jo72 wrote:
"most female runners" are beside the point. Most male runners improve more between 15 and 20 as Jakob Ingebrigtsen did.
It is all speculation and we should really wait for a couple of races with Mu against other ~1:58 runners, but even the biggest skeptic will need to take into account her extraordinary 600m at 16 and 800m at 18-19 years old and not compare her to "most" teenage runners. The comparison to any other 16-18 yo HS or College freshman is irrelevant. The comparison has to be with runners like Ajee Wilson who are/were at a somewhat similar level at a fairly young age.
Jo72 wrote:
"more *than* Jakob I. did", of course. The point is that young prodigies don't follow the usual trends, that's why they are prodigies.
Yep.
I merely stated a fact. It made you angry and you made the leap to Mu. I didn't predict a 10 second improvement. And I don't think she ran 1:57 in HS unless you witnessed a private TT.
Bower Woman wrote:
I merely stated a fact. It made you angry and you made the leap to Mu. I didn't predict a 10 second improvement. And I don't think she ran 1:57 in HS unless you witnessed a private TT.
I'm not angry. I read your point as a comment about Mu. If it isn't then it is irrelevant to this discussion. So what are you saying about Mu - if anything?
You have stated several times that 800 meter runners can't improve by 5 seconds. You then apply that misinformation to Mu. You start with a false premise. Now that you have been made aware that many runners improve by 10 seconds after high school, it should make you rethink your prediction. Five seconds would be below the average. You were provided an example of a well trained athkete named Kelsey Schweizer who has improved by more than 5 seconds in 2 years. Instead of considering that, you jumped to her sister and accused her of doping. Your thinking is very constrained. It does not permit you to have an open discussion and consider additional data so that you can revise your opinion.
Here are some stats from WA, you could generate different season data if you have full domestic/school data. I only counted seasons where they actually did an 800m.
National top 20 AT:
US: pb season 7 (range 2-15), age 27 (range 22-37)
UK: pb season 6 (range 1-10), age 24 (range 17-29)
I did earlier do the world AT top 10 list (as listed by WA i.e. including DSD athletes) and their average peak season was a mere 4, and three did it in season 1. The WR holder moved up late from 400.
Another complexity I ducked is pacing by DSD athletes. If you think Semenya and Nysonsaba shouldn't be counted then nor should any times 'paced' by them.
The reason no woman has approached the women's world record is because it was winded aided, women have gotten close to 10.61 her best wind legal time.
Look, the point of this entire thread is whether Mu has even the POTENTIAL to break or threaten the WR, not whether she actually will do so. There is no point in discussing that if you aren't willing to grant us the working assumption that a new WR would probably only be possible, if at all, under near ideal conditions that would be meticulously arranged for in advance.
Since there really is no other competition currently in that time neighborhood, it's going to be a race that in all likelihood is rabbited by another phenomenal runner or two that could get Mu at least through 500m on pace. It's going to be in a reliably nice weather venue like Monaco (or some similar European locale), Stanford, Los Angeles, etc. And the race will be scheduled--or her training designed--for her to be peaking within a given training period.
So if we want to accurately evaluate the gap between where she is now and the WR* you have to first start with an accurate number (even on paper, it's 4.45 seconds, not 5 seconds) and then you have to evaluate her performances to date in terms of how far they depart from those ideal conditions. And I'm going to argue that a 1:57.73 run in cold conditions into a 16 mph headwind on the backstretch against competition that finished more than 3 seconds behind you departs pretty damn far from those conditions.
Serious question: have you ever run an all-out 800m in sub-50 wind chill with over 15 mph winds in your face for one entire side of the track where you had no competition and no one ahead of you even partially blocking it? Oh, and also while you're in the middle of a long training build-up designed to peak for races 6-10 weeks later? If so, how closely do you think that performance corresponded to your potential 800m fitness?
If you don't think those conditions and the lack of rabbiting/competition are worth at least a second if not closer to 2 seconds, then you really don't know (middle) distance running. I'm going to go with the wisdom of coaches and meet directors everywhere in concluding that good conditions and competition and timing of record attempts matters A LOT.
Now, to be fair, I agree with you that the perfect confluence of conditions for attaining a WR is very rare. And, if I was forced to bet all of my assets today on whether Mu will ACTUALLY break the WR in her career, I guess I would probably bet against it for that reason.
However, and this is a big "however", that is not the point of this discussion. Again, we're debating POTENTIAL, whether there are any set of conditions where her body makes it through 800m of distance in close vicinity to the WR. And I remain of the opinion that a body that at 16 could run 1:23 for 600m (indoors!) has the potential to run a relatively pedestrian (by elite middle distance standards) 30.4 seconds for an additional 200m with sufficient training, development, and under great conditions.
I think all of this will be even more abundantly clear in another month or two once Mu is further along in her NCAA and Olympic build-up assuming the conditions are good for her races. She'll be running in front of a home crowd for both SEC Outdoors and NCAA West Regionals and then at Heyward for NCAA Outdoors and the Olympic Trials. There will be a much faster than 1:57 time run at at least one of those meets. Mark it down.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm also very much looking forward to SEC Outdoors and agree that both individual 400m races should be very spicy...and that's even assuming that Mu does not choose that route over the 800m (if she does go open 400, then wow, just wow!).
The meet will be held at the new A&M facility and I think the home crowd (not sure about capacity yet, but there will be a decent number of fans in the stands besides just the teams and coaches) will definitely improve the odds of Aggie athletes. I'd like to think this will lead to Deadmon winning the 400, but Noah Williams is looking so good right now that it's hard to pick against him. I like Charokee Young's chances of winning the women's race (assuming Mu does not run), but she'll definitely have some stellar competition. I also like Brandon Miller's chances in the 800 with the home crowd and the way he's winning races lately and trending.
But I have to say I'm still most looking forward to seeing what Mu does both in whichever individual event she runs (I'm assuming 800) and anchoring the 4 x 400. It's hard to imagine that the conditions could possibly be any less favorable than she faced last weekend at Baylor when she ran 1:57 and she'll have a boisterous home crowd to give her energy. And in the 4 x 400 she may well get the stick behind Arkansas and/or LSU. So I expect a significant drop in the collegiate record for the 800 and probably a decent shot at a collegiate record in the 4 x 400 with Mu's split being faster than what she ran at NCAA Indoors (49.52).
Finger crossed for exceptional weather conditions, but should be quite the show to watch regardless!
Armstronglivs wrote:
jabouko wrote:
I think Peak Ryun in 2012 in the final would have been capable of 1:42mid or high, just like a bunch of 1:42 guys these days. Probably 1:42.7 and 3:30 on a modern track with modern spikes
The point is not what would Ryun have been capable of today - and 1.42 is entirely plausible - but how much improvement did he make from the age of 19. The answer is zero. The same might apply to any prodigy - and the argument here is that Mu is a prodigy.
Oh no, I was just making the thought exercise as in, what would he do in IDEAL (modern) conditions.
You keep bringing up that some athletes run their 800/1500/mile bests around age 19 and never progress.
AggieTrackFanatic, I, and others in this thread are of the opinion that Mu will continue to develop and get better. Some athletes who were EXCELLENT as juniors continue to develop! If its down to that difference of opinion, I guess we all just have to wait for four to five years (or longer)
Ps please stop bringing up Nijel Amos. That man ran 1:41 in 2012 and 2019.
Bower Woman wrote:
You have stated several times that 800 meter runners can't improve by 5 seconds. You then apply that misinformation to Mu. You start with a false premise. Now that you have been made aware that many runners improve by 10 seconds after high school, it should make you rethink your prediction. Five seconds would be below the average. You were provided an example of a well trained athkete named Kelsey Schweizer who has improved by more than 5 seconds in 2 years. Instead of considering that, you jumped to her sister and accused her of doping. Your thinking is very constrained. It does not permit you to have an open discussion and consider additional data so that you can revise your opinion.
I didn't say 800m runners can't improve by 5 seconds. I said those who are already running world class times - like Mu, or a man who is running an equivalent 1.44x - won't improve by 5 seconds (unless they are doping).
jabouko wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The point is not what would Ryun have been capable of today - and 1.42 is entirely plausible - but how much improvement did he make from the age of 19. The answer is zero. The same might apply to any prodigy - and the argument here is that Mu is a prodigy.
Oh no, I was just making the thought exercise as in, what would he do in IDEAL (modern) conditions.
You keep bringing up that some athletes run their 800/1500/mile bests around age 19 and never progress.
AggieTrackFanatic, I, and others in this thread are of the opinion that Mu will continue to develop and get better. Some athletes who were EXCELLENT as juniors continue to develop! If its down to that difference of opinion, I guess we all just have to wait for four to five years (or longer)
Ps please stop bringing up Nijel Amos. That man ran 1:41 in 2012 and 2019.
He never ran faster than when he was supposedly 18. Injuries aside, I dont think he would have run as fast as Rudisha, ever.
Prodigies don't necessarily improve. That is the point.
Aggie Track Fanatic wrote:
Look, the point of this entire thread is whether Mu has even the POTENTIAL to break or threaten the WR, not whether she actually will do so. There is no point in discussing that if you aren't willing to grant us the working assumption that a new WR would probably only be possible, if at all, under near ideal conditions that would be meticulously arranged for in advance.
Since there really is no other competition currently in that time neighborhood, it's going to be a race that in all likelihood is rabbited by another phenomenal runner or two that could get Mu at least through 500m on pace. It's going to be in a reliably nice weather venue like Monaco (or some similar European locale), Stanford, Los Angeles, etc. And the race will be scheduled--or her training designed--for her to be peaking within a given training period.
So if we want to accurately evaluate the gap between where she is now and the WR* you have to first start with an accurate number (even on paper, it's 4.45 seconds, not 5 seconds) and then you have to evaluate her performances to date in terms of how far they depart from those ideal conditions. And I'm going to argue that a 1:57.73 run in cold conditions into a 16 mph headwind on the backstretch against competition that finished more than 3 seconds behind you departs pretty damn far from those conditions.
Serious question: have you ever run an all-out 800m in sub-50 wind chill with over 15 mph winds in your face for one entire side of the track where you had no competition and no one ahead of you even partially blocking it? Oh, and also while you're in the middle of a long training build-up designed to peak for races 6-10 weeks later? If so, how closely do you think that performance corresponded to your potential 800m fitness?
If you don't think those conditions and the lack of rabbiting/competition are worth at least a second if not closer to 2 seconds, then you really don't know (middle) distance running. I'm going to go with the wisdom of coaches and meet directors everywhere in concluding that good conditions and competition and timing of record attempts matters A LOT.
Now, to be fair, I agree with you that the perfect confluence of conditions for attaining a WR is very rare. And, if I was forced to bet all of my assets today on whether Mu will ACTUALLY break the WR in her career, I guess I would probably bet against it for that reason.
However, and this is a big "however", that is not the point of this discussion. Again, we're debating POTENTIAL, whether there are any set of conditions where her body makes it through 800m of distance in close vicinity to the WR. And I remain of the opinion that a body that at 16 could run 1:23 for 600m (indoors!) has the potential to run a relatively pedestrian (by elite middle distance standards) 30.4 seconds for an additional 200m with sufficient training, development, and under great conditions.
I think all of this will be even more abundantly clear in another month or two once Mu is further along in her NCAA and Olympic build-up assuming the conditions are good for her races. She'll be running in front of a home crowd for both SEC Outdoors and NCAA West Regionals and then at Heyward for NCAA Outdoors and the Olympic Trials. There will be a much faster than 1:57 time run at at least one of those meets. Mark it down.
It seems that "potential" is now a somewhat more conservative estimate. However, I would grant you that Mu may be currently able to run faster in better conditions than she experienced in her 1.57.7 race. I wouldn't go as far as 2 seconds - that's a very big jump for an elite at this distance - but maybe about a second is possible. We will see.
But I still hold to the view that regardless of her potential Jarmila's world record will remain out of reach for any clean athlete.
USADAWADA wrote:
The reason no woman has approached the women's world record is because it was winded aided, women have gotten close to 10.61 her best wind legal time.
Flojo's 100m record and her 200m time are on another planet. They were both wind assisted?