Stop lying to yourselves about ATHING MU, she has WR potential

Whoa, folks, we have our first budge! Armstronglivs is willing to grant Mu another second closer to the WR* for what she ran in terrible conditions last weekend, so we've now got the current gap--while Mu is still 18 years old--down to 3.45 seconds!

So, let's work with that gap for a second, even though I think the amount is actually less than that right now (and certainly expect it to be below 3.45 seconds even on paper by the end of the Olympics when Mu will be a mere two months into being 19).

Let's look at another American teen phenom and perhaps the best comp for Mu: Ajee Wilson, who ran 1:58.21 at Worlds in Moscow at the age of 19. Is that time still her PB? Did she fail to progress like the other 19 year old examples that Armstronglivs has cherry-picked in this discussion?

No, she did not peak out there. Wilson improved by 2.7 seconds over 4 years, running her best time in nice conditions in Monaco in 2017.

If Mu makes similar progress from where we're now all agreeing she is at currently (at the very least!)--1:56.73--then she will be right there with Jelimo and .75 away from the WR*.

And I think there is good reason to believe that, as good as Wilson is, Mu has superior physical tools (Wilson's 400 PB is 53.63) and a superior mental game that just might make up that tiny remaining gap. Guaranteed? No. Expected? Not exactly. Possible? Yes.

Aggie Track Fanatic wrote:

OMG, you STILL keep saying 5 seconds!

REPEAT WITH ME: There. Is. No. Five. Second. Gap.

Even on paper, the gap is no more than 4.45 seconds.

And as I've pointed out repeatedly, the ACTUAL gap is far less than 4.45 seconds...RIGHT NOW.

Please, for the love of God, go ask any track coach or serious track fan (particularly one who has ever run competitively at some level themselves) if an athlete that runs 1:57 in the middle of a training build-up in cold 16 mph winds by themselves is expressing anything near their full current potential for 800m. Then record how long they laugh at you.

I had said nearly 5 seconds. Yes - 4.45 seconds if you want to be exact - but you are talking about breaking the record, not equalling it, so a 5-second assumption is quite reasonable, unless you don't believe she can improve on Jarmila's time.

The "actual" gap is not less until she runs faster. She hasn't. Your speculation doesn't change that fact. You merely think she can run faster. That is speculation, not fact.

If you think she can beat Jarmila's record then I will show you a doper.

That circular logic means the clean world record is 2:30 from 1922. Otherwise, the women who at 17 or 18 ran 2:34 could never have dropped to 2:29 in their lifetime without doping. Maybe it is the 2:20 from 1928 because any other woman who was 17 or 18 and running 2:24 at that time could never get down to 2:19 without doping. Just where is this arbitrary world class level that is impossible to improve upon? Circular logic puts you right back where you started which means you have not progressed in knowledge. But we have all witnessed that from you on these boards. I am now convinced that hundreds of high school girls must be doping because they are running sub 2:20. After all 2:20 was once the world record.

You are a writer of fiction. I have not said that the gap between Mu and Jarmila has been reduced - by any margin. Whatever she is capable of she has yet to run a faster time than she has so far recorded.

I have not said she isn't capable of running faster. Earlier in the thread I indicated a 1.55 might be possible at some point in her career - like Ajee Wilson. I did however point put that some great runners in the past, who matured early, did not improve on their teen performances.

What I have not accepted is that Mu will at any point be able to beat 1.53 clean. No runner has. No runner will.

Badder than bad wrote:

That circular logic means the clean world record is 2:30 from 1922. Otherwise, the women who at 17 or 18 ran 2:34 could never have dropped to 2:29 in their lifetime without doping. Maybe it is the 2:20 from 1928 because any other woman who was 17 or 18 and running 2:24 at that time could never get down to 2:19 without doping. Just where is this arbitrary world class level that is impossible to improve upon? Circular logic puts you right back where you started which means you have not progressed in knowledge. But we have all witnessed that from you on these boards. I am now convinced that hundreds of high school girls must be doping because they are running sub 2:20. After all 2:20 was once the world record.

That is a very stupid argument. I made it clear that I am only talking about athletes running world-class times. Furthermore, the issue is not whether a given athlete can improve but by how much. I have expressed the view that it cannot be assumed that a runner who has achieved 1.57.7 is capable of beating 1.53.2, which has been an unreachable world mark for decades.

"The "actual" gap is not less until she runs faster. She hasn't. Your speculation doesn't change that fact. You merely think she can run faster. That is speculation, not fact."

Wrong. This is not speculation. It's physiology and physics. Not claiming that I'm an expert in either, but it's simply a scientific fact that muscle contractions and lung function are limited by the temperature of the environment they are operating within and that wind (especially a significant wind) produces drag and reduces performance. Those are 100% undeniable facts. She is currently (much!) faster than her time on paper, and that's the only thing that is relevant to a discussion of the gap between where she is currently in realizing her potential and the WR*.

Also, you've kind of been all over the place with how you refer to the gap, sometimes including "nearly" and other times not. It doesn't really matter, though in a context where hundreths of a second can make a huge difference, you really should try to be precise and not exaggerate the gap even in the slightest if you want people to think you're arguing in good faith.

Again, I'm not arguing that Mu will actually break the world record; if I had to be anything significant on it today, I would bet against it just because of all the variables needing to come together right (though I reserve the right to change my mind when she breaks 1:56 during the NCAA season!).

My point is that you and anyone else here who thinks it's preposterous that any clean athlete could even potentially get anywhere near the WR* are mistaken. Mu was not doping when she ran 1:23 at age 16. I have no reason to think she is doing so in one of the highest integrity NCAA programs run by one of the most respected coaches of all-time. By all accounts, Mu is an exceptional young woman grounded in her faith, family, friends, and communities in Trenton and College Station. She is already closer to the WR* than any other clean 18 year old in history, and barring some major calamity with her health, will soon be much closer as a newly minted clean 19 year old.

You are really lacking when it comes to logic. Do you understand that 2:20 was once the world record? So the women who were running 2:24 were running world class times. When the world record was 2:10, there were 18 year olds running 2:12 who couldn't possibly cut 5 seconds without doping. You can't seem to grasp that 50 years from now the women's world record will be 1:51. At that time, 1:57 will not sound so fast but then people like you will be saying that 1:54 runners can't possibly improve to 1:50 without doping.

I might add the obvious, that no 1.55 runner has gotten near 1.53. It remains a bridge too far. (Jelimo's time I don't trust. Too many Kenyan performances have been overshadowed by doping busts.)

Badder than bad wrote:

You are really lacking when it comes to logic. Do you understand that 2:20 was once the world record? So the women who were running 2:24 were running world class times. When the world record was 2:10, there were 18 year olds running 2:12 who couldn't possibly cut 5 seconds without doping. You can't seem to grasp that 50 years from now the women's world record will be 1:51. At that time, 1:57 will not sound so fast but then people like you will be saying that 1:54 runners can't possibly improve to 1:50 without doping.

You are seriously trying to compare performances of a century ago, when women didn't officially compete over the distance, with today? The women's 800m only found its way on to the Olympic programme in 1964.

The basis for comparison has to be the existing world record and the performances subsequently to the present. What you are unable to grasp is that a record set nearly 40 years ago has remained out of reach ever since. The conclusion is simple: either that no runner in nigh on 40 years has had anything like the ability of the record holder, or she was doped.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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?

The 200m is insane, but the one hundred had a 3m/s wind at least. You could see the runner's hair blowing, flags blowing in the back round, and the long jumps happening around the same time were wind aided.

You keep confusing potential - as you see it - with what she has so far accomplished. Her potential - whatever it is - doesn't give her a faster time than her current best. I am not denying she has the potential to run faster but until she does so it is simply speculation and not fact.

Your attempt to reduce the margin she has to achieve to attain or break the world record is quite beside the point. Whether it is 5 seconds - which would be to clearly break the record, which is what is being argued here - or 4.45 seconds, and thus only equal it - is all hypothetical. Either way, it is a huge improvement that cannot be assumed and I would further rule it out for the reasons I have given previously, that it is a doped performance than no one has been able to get near in decades of trying. If Mu is clean she will have no more success than anyone else in breaking it.

Also, a 600m time is not a determinant of 800m performance. A very good 400m sprinter could do well over the former distance but not the latter.

OK, one last try and then I give up...

We are debating whether the gap between (1) what Mu's body is currently capable of running for 800m under the kind of idealized conditions that will be needed to run a new WR and (2) the current WR*.

I'm claiming that it makes ZERO sense to think that the correct answer to #1 is 1:57.73.

I thought you agreed with this when you said "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."

But now you're backtracking. Or simply confused. I can't tell.

At any rate, my point is that the best answer to #1 would consider the context of her recent performance within her current training cycle (which is not anywhere close to peaking her), the weather conditions in which it was run (highly non-ideal for muscle function and reducing wind drag), the lack of competition or rabbiting for the race, and so on.

With that more sophisticated analysis (which could probably be enhanced further by scientists who could tell us just how much the cold temperatures and twice breaking a 16 mph wind on the backstretch would decrease speed and performance), I feel fully confident in concluding that the best answer to #1 is at least 1:56.73 (and likely faster).

This is absolutely a crucial point to debating a question of athletic potential and the gap between where someone actually is right now and some target goal.

If you seriously disagree with that point, and are unwilling to grant it for purposes of argument, then I think we're at that point of bidding each other adieu on this one.

The 800m record may have been untouched for decades, but we have never see an athlete like my running this fast this young. You might only get an athlete like this every few decades.

USADAWADA wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Flojo's 100m record and her 200m time are on another planet. They were both wind assisted?

The 200m is insane, but the one hundred had a 3m/s wind at least. You could see the runner's hair blowing, flags blowing in the back round, and the long jumps happening around the same time were wind aided.

Her 100m time was ratified. Your claim is only speculation.

Both of Flojo's marks are insane. The reason is drugs.

The argument here, as the thread topic indicates, is the Mu has the potential to take the world record. It isn't that she simply has the potential to improve on her present level. That isn't at issue.

You are arguing an irrelevance. It doesn't matter whether Mu is currently able to run faster than her present best time - she may be - or that she will run faster in her career - she might; the only question on this thread is whether she can beat Jarmila's record. My short answer is - not unless she dopes.

paris2024hawk wrote:

The 800m record may have been untouched for decades, but we have never see an athlete like my running this fast this young. You might only get an athlete like this every few decades.

We have seen runners like this. As I pointed out, Ryun was faster at a similar age in his era. So was Amos. Amongst the women, Wilson was only marginally slower over the 800m than Mu at the same age.

Hey, all I can say is that you have some incredible patience.

paris2024hawk wrote:

The 800m record may have been untouched for decades, but we have never see an athlete like my running this fast this young. You might only get an athlete like this every few decades.

Correct me if I have this data wrong but again as per official WA lists

Outdoor

U20 Mu is 8th AT

U18 Mu is 15th AT

Indoor

U20 Mu is 1st (Keely was 1st under 2 min earlier this year and now 2nd)

U18 Mu is 6th

At first I thought you were just being the kind of contrarian that lives on internet message boards, but now I'm seriously starting to think you're just obtuse. Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if she had run the 800m up a steep hill whether you would still cite the time as the full measure of her current fitness on a flat track...

So, one last time, I'm not focused primarily on Mu's ability to improve on her most recent performance; I think everyone here agrees she has the potential to run faster than 1:57.73 in an actual race at some future date.

I'm pointing out what should be an EXCEEDINGLY OBVIOUS point: that her most recent performance is not in itself an accurate representation of HER CURRENT FITNESS unless you make the necessary and scientifically valid deductions for wind drag, etc. along with fair estimates of how much she would have been aided by pacers or competition.

Again, it isn't just her time itself that is crucial for a discussion of her potential to challenge the WR*, but the time interpreted properly within the context in which it was performed. Only that more sophisticated analysis of the time within a context tells us what her current fitness actually is. (Again, if she had run the 800 uphill or at 10000 feet of altitude, we should all be able to agree that her fitness is not accurately captured by the final time in the abstract; the same applies with times run with lots of wind or severely non-ideal temperatures.)

From that exceedingly obvious point, I'm making an inference about her potential: namely, that the gap between where she currently is at and the WR* is much smaller than you seem to realize.

If you really can't grasp that not-particularly-subtle point like everyone else seems to, I don't think I can help you any more.

At any rate, you're probably going to reply with some further point that indicates that you still don't get it, but I'm going to ty to refrain from extending this out any further. I'll just conclude by saying that your estimation of even 2021 Athing Mu is likely not going to age well as of...[checks dates for SEC Outdoors]...May 15th.