Stearns dropped 3:30 in the 5000 from 2017 to today while Tuohy dropped 1:15. Stearns dropped more than twice what Tuohy dropped. Simple math puts Stearns far ahead of Tuohy within a year.
Stearns dropped 3:30 in the 5000 from 2017 to today while Tuohy dropped 1:15. Stearns dropped more than twice what Tuohy dropped. Simple math puts Stearns far ahead of Tuohy within a year.
emphasis on "simple", and by the same "simple math" ie extrapolation, in another 2 1/2 years Stearns will break 14
No. Simple as in Stearns has progression similar to people like Schweizer and Monson while Tuohy has progression similar to all of the other women who plateaued.
No. Simple as in Stearns has progression similar to people like Schweizer and Monson while Tuohy has progression similar to all of the other women who plateaued.
Let us know when Stearns gets to Tuohy's plateau. 4:06/8:54/15:14
No. Simple as in Stearns has progression similar to people like Schweizer and Monson while Tuohy has progression similar to all of the other women who plateaued.
Well yes. We told you that her improvement would be less than her peers due to this. Valby and Stearns have essentially caught her and will pass her by like she is standing still. Cook will be next.
NO ONE this good, or even close to this good in high school experienced the success in college that she has so far. Maybe Dathan---maybe. She worked her way up from a rocky injury laden freshman year, to an All American finish in XC, to 2 runner up finishes in indoor and now not one but TWO NCAA titles, and she's just a junior. She has surpassed every standard of expectation for someone this good in high school.
Simple for most. Not sure how you can't see it. Pretty sure you do but don't want to plot the next 6 months for Tuohy, Stearns, and Valby based on 5 year progression and comparison to elite Americans.
Simple for most. Not sure how you can't see it. Pretty sure you do but don't want to plot the next 6 months for Tuohy, Stearns, and Valby based on 5 year progression and comparison to elite Americans.
Pretty sure you can cherry pick any example you want. Did you see Cranny's progression in college? Oh, wait...
Stearns dropped 3:30 in the 5000 from 2017 to today while Tuohy dropped 1:15. Stearns dropped more than twice what Tuohy dropped. Simple math puts Stearns far ahead of Tuohy within a year.
You can name everyone and say they all improved more than Katelyn Tuohy and yet they still WILL NOT BEAT HER FACE TO FACE.
Idk about your running improvement calculator but my common sense calculator tells me you haven't improved.
No. Simple as in Stearns has progression similar to people like Schweizer and Monson while Tuohy has progression similar to all of the other women who plateaued.
Let us know when Stearns gets to Tuohy's plateau. 4:06/8:54/15:14
No. Simple as in Stearns has progression similar to people like Schweizer and Monson while Tuohy has progression similar to all of the other women who plateaued.
THERE'S NO RUNNER YOU CAN COMPARE TUOHY TO
NO OTHER AMERICAN ELITE RUNNER TODAY OR BEFORE THAT RAN 4:06 and 15:14 and 8:54 at 19-20 YEARS OLD
ONLY TUOHY HAS HER NUMBERS AND IF YOU LOOK AT KATELYN, SHES HEALTHY AS FUUU AND WILL NOT HAVE TROUBLE WITH EATING DISORDER, MILEAGE AND BONE DENSITY ETC
Well yes. We told you that her improvement would be less than her peers due to this. Valby and Stearns have essentially caught her and will pass her by like she is standing still. Cook will be next.
You mean Tuohy will pass them like they are standing still like EVERY RACE? hahahah
There will never be enough KT2E threads, but this is a tired stupid point of view, and it needs to be retired.
There's just been no one like Katelyn--on the men's OR the women's side. She was a generational talent and a certified prodigy. She set three of the major high school records (mile, 5K and 2 mile). Truly only a HANDFUL of runners can even be mentioned in the same sentence as her when it comes to her high school successes, and none were flash in the pan. She was consistently dominant.
NO ONE this good, or even close to this good in high school experienced the success in college that she has so far. Maybe Dathan---maybe. She worked her way up from a rocky injury laden freshman year, to an All American finish in XC, to 2 runner up finishes in indoor and now not one but TWO NCAA titles, and she's just a junior. She has surpassed every standard of expectation for someone this good in high school.
What does Katelyn have to do on here to prove herself? Remember when she won her THIRD national high school title, and Rojo posted a tacky thread comparing her to Nico Young, who had won his first title, saying he believed Young is the better future prospect? The girl won for a third time, and because the margin of victory was less than a second, Rojo was frothing at the mouth ready to pounce on her demise. Imagine what would be said about her if she finished 2nd or 3rd? At nationals?
So now she is without a doubt the most dominant NCAA runner in the game, and we are trashing her because her margin of improvement isn't good enough for us? What is it about Tuohy--about girls in general that make it so when a girl isn't "burning out" on time, people get agitated and impatient? Why do we cling to the burnout narrative so much?
Hoping tuohy would get tired of winning, toying and owning their favorite runners
I hope you are right but the numbers just don't support it. Taking the top 10 5000 meter American women and plotting their improvement from age 16-20, Tuohy improved 1/2 of what they did. I fear that she had maximized her ability.
Cherry picking is the opposite of how data analysis is performed. Cranny is one of the top 10 all time. Plotting the improvement of the top 10 from age 16-20, Tuohy only improved 1/2 as much while Stearns, Cook, and Valby were right on target. Cranny is in the dataset. You are correct that cherry picking can be used to prove anything.
I hope you are right but the numbers just don't support it. Taking the top 10 5000 meter American women and plotting their improvement from age 16-20, Tuohy improved 1/2 of what they did. I fear that she had maximized her ability.
How about if you plot just where they were at age 16? I suspect Tuohy is an outlier, having alread run so fast, so of course her progression from that point will be slower.
Cherry picking is the opposite of how data analysis is performed. Cranny is one of the top 10 all time. Plotting the improvement of the top 10 from age 16-20, Tuohy only improved 1/2 as much while Stearns, Cook, and Valby were right on target. Cranny is in the dataset. You are correct that cherry picking can be used to prove anything.
Cranny is actually an interesting comparison as she was very accomplished in hs. In the 1500 Cranny ran 4:15 at age 17, while Tuohy ran that time at age 16. By age 20, Tuohy was at 4:07, while Cranny was "only" at 4:10 (and still there at age 23). Between age 18 and 23 Cranny had almost no 1500 time improvement. But at age 26 Cranny got to 3:59. Most if not all of Cranny's hs 3200 times were in CO presumably at altitude so her time of "only" 10:17 might seem slow, but she was probably faster than that at sea level.
But plotting Tuohy's improvement from age 16-20 should be done against a bunch of women who had similar improvement and then plotting her improvement against what they did for the next 4 years. If anything, her improvement would be less than the average because she started faster than they did. The results certainly don't show that she will end up elite.
But plotting Tuohy's improvement from age 16-20 should be done against a bunch of women who had similar improvement and then plotting her improvement against what they did for the next 4 years. If anything, her improvement would be less than the average because she started faster than they did. The results certainly don't show that she will end up elite.