You make no sense. Had Valby run a shorter distance and say, 20 seconds faster, she would have won.
She wouldn't have gained 20 seconds or anything like it. Nor would Tuohy have let her build an uncatchable lead. However Valby would have run Tuohy would have run her down. She was so much faster over the latter stages of the race.
No. It is 10 meters further around 1 turn just going 3 feet wider. She ran 40 meters further than Tuohy in the race. I challenge you to watch the entire race and make an objective calculation.
Why pages and pages of Tuohy fans claiming how bad Valby is at running the shortest route if she ran only 15 meters further? That is better than most runners would do.
No. It is 10 meters further around 1 turn just going 3 feet wider. She ran 40 meters further than Tuohy in the race. I challenge you to watch the entire race and make an objective calculation.
Why pages and pages of Tuohy fans claiming how bad Valby is at running the shortest route if she ran only 15 meters further? That is better than most runners would do.
I have watched the entire race, several times. The first "180" turn was the worst and might have cost her 4-5 meters as she drifted right and had to correct to the left. There were other instances when she seemed to run 1-2 meters further than minimum, but unlike on a 100 m turn on a track, staying a little wide on a 25 m turn here is not as large of an effect. Why don't you point out on a turn by turn basis where the 40 m are (and also make sure you watch Tuohy's route which until the last 2K was not perfect either).
She ran a very smart race, in order to put the least amount of stress on her legs. This was great thinking on her part, which some people on here get quite upset about.
So she ran further than she needed - to put "less stress on her legs"? The mods won't allow me to say what kind of argument that is.
No. It is 10 meters further around 1 turn just going 3 feet wider. She ran 40 meters further than Tuohy in the race. I challenge you to watch the entire race and make an objective calculation.
Why pages and pages of Tuohy fans claiming how bad Valby is at running the shortest route if she ran only 15 meters further? That is better than most runners would do.
I have watched the entire race, several times. The first "180" turn was the worst and might have cost her 4-5 meters as she drifted right and had to correct to the left. There were other instances when she seemed to run 1-2 meters further than minimum, but unlike on a 100 m turn on a track, staying a little wide on a 25 m turn here is not as large of an effect. Why don't you point out on a turn by turn basis where the 40 m are (and also make sure you watch Tuohy's route which until the last 2K was not perfect either).
If the turn is a 180 degree semicircle, the radius is irrelevant. The extra distance you cover is 3.14 multiplied by how wide you went. If you run 2 meters wide, you ran an extra 6.28, regardless of whether it was a 20 meter or 200 meter turn.
The fans don't like facts. We have already estimated the difference close to 40 meters for the race. Astro now claims that it Was Tuohy who had the poor tactics.
The fans don't like facts. We have already estimated the difference close to 40 meters for the race. Astro now claims that it Was Tuohy who had the poor tactics.