Exactly. The final lap pace at 4:20 is is not going to be the same sub 4:10.
My thoughts are some people are reading too much into what happened in the Wake Forest meet. Sure, she didn’t break the CR, 3:59 is crazy fast, but it’s not like she’s no longer capable of winning the 1500. No one was saying that when she was crushing it during the indoor season. But that one race seemed to change many people’s opinion for some reason.
As typical for fans they tend to oscillate wildly. The very strong indoor races had them hoping for close to 4 min this spring, but in fact 4:08 with an overambitious start is very good. OTOH winning a prelim with a ~64 (4:00 pace) last lap when the first 1000m were not even at Tuohy's 3k pace is not saying much either.
As typical for fans they tend to oscillate wildly. The very strong indoor races had them hoping for close to 4 min this spring, but in fact 4:08 with an overambitious start is very good. OTOH winning a prelim with a ~64 (4:00 pace) last lap when the first 1000m were not even at Tuohy's 3k pace is not saying much either.
You can't seriously be criticizing a prelim win, when goal is to advance as slow as possible. You will see the same on Saturday with 5k following that heat. She'll have the 4:06 when she needs it.
As typical for fans they tend to oscillate wildly. The very strong indoor races had them hoping for close to 4 min this spring, but in fact 4:08 with an overambitious start is very good. OTOH winning a prelim with a ~64 (4:00 pace) last lap when the first 1000m were not even at Tuohy's 3k pace is not saying much either.
You can't seriously be criticizing a prelim win, when goal is to advance as slow as possible. You will see the same on Saturday with 5k following that heat. She'll have the 4:06 when she needs it.
This is spot on. It's funny that someone would comments on the times and splits of a prelim. The only thing better would have been advancing with a slower time - perhaps a 5:00 1500 and a 70 last lap.
All that matter in heats is advancing. Winning a heat or even running a fast time is irrelevant. Some people have very little knowledge of the sport.
You can't seriously be criticizing a prelim win, when goal is to advance as slow as possible. You will see the same on Saturday with 5k following that heat. She'll have the 4:06 when she needs it.
This is spot on. It's funny that someone would comments on the times and splits of a prelim. The only thing better would have been advancing with a slower time - perhaps a 5:00 1500 and a 70 last lap.
All that matter in heats is advancing. Winning a heat or even running a fast time is irrelevant. Some people have very little knowledge of the sport.
Advancing is definitely #1 goal. But, I don't totally agree that times/splits are completely irrelevant in all cases. In the west prelim yesterday for example Barnett led wire to wire in 4:09 and 5 runners set PBs, one by 8 seconds. Performances in a prelim heat ( or in any race for that matter) can certainly inform perceptions of who may ultimately win.
As typical for fans they tend to oscillate wildly. The very strong indoor races had them hoping for close to 4 min this spring, but in fact 4:08 with an overambitious start is very good. OTOH winning a prelim with a ~64 (4:00 pace) last lap when the first 1000m were not even at Tuohy's 3k pace is not saying much either.
You can't seriously be criticizing a prelim win, when goal is to advance as slow as possible. You will see the same on Saturday with 5k following that heat. She'll have the 4:06 when she needs it.
I thought Tuohy looked very comfortable in the prelim and it was an easy win for her.
But the point (at least how I read it) is that we just don't have any different information about Tuohy this season. Her season best is 4:08. Yes I think she can run 4:06, probably faster.
To me, if she had closed in a 61s final lap like some of the others have off the similar slow pace it would have been good to see. (However that is really not the point of the prelims since she was far ahead so makes no sense to push it).
As it stands it's still not clear that she has the last lap closing speed to win a tactical race in the finals. Since a lot of championship races are tactical, or you can get boxed in, this lessens her chances.
You can't seriously be criticizing a prelim win, when goal is to advance as slow as possible. You will see the same on Saturday with 5k following that heat. She'll have the 4:06 when she needs it.
I thought Tuohy looked very comfortable in the prelim and it was an easy win for her.
But the point (at least how I read it) is that we just don't have any different information about Tuohy this season. Her season best is 4:08. Yes I think she can run 4:06, probably faster.
To me, if she had closed in a 61s final lap like some of the others have off the similar slow pace it would have been good to see. (However that is really not the point of the prelims since she was far ahead so makes no sense to push it).
As it stands it's still not clear that she has the last lap closing speed to win a tactical race in the finals. Since a lot of championship races are tactical, or you can get boxed in, this lessens her chances.
all she did was run like Centro - got to the lead, kept it slow, responded to any challenges. Nothing to conclude regarding fitness.
4:09 for Barnett ways really fast. Too fast? Probably. The thing that impressed me is how easy it looked. Maybe she has more? Still in peaking process? Even if she can chop off a second or two might not be enough.
This is spot on. It's funny that someone would comments on the times and splits of a prelim. The only thing better would have been advancing with a slower time - perhaps a 5:00 1500 and a 70 last lap.
All that matter in heats is advancing. Winning a heat or even running a fast time is irrelevant. Some people have very little knowledge of the sport.
Advancing is definitely #1 goal. But, I don't totally agree that times/splits are completely irrelevant in all cases. In the west prelim yesterday for example Barnett led wire to wire in 4:09 and 5 runners set PBs, one by 8 seconds. Performances in a prelim heat ( or in any race for that matter) can certainly inform perceptions of who may ultimately win.
I remember 2 years ago, I think it was in the ACC 1500 prelim, that freshman Tuohy ran a pretty aggressive race and the LR hive mind of Tuohy critics went nuts about it, saying she expended too much effort, terrible strategy. She then struggled in the final.
Now, with more experience and lessons learned, she approaches prelims with more of a pro strategy to conserve energy for the final. And still with all of her success, nothing has changed with regard to the criticism. Doesn’t matter what she does - with all due respect, WTAF?
4:09 for Barnett ways really fast. Too fast? Probably. The thing that impressed me is how easy it looked. Maybe she has more? Still in peaking process? Even if she can chop off a second or two might not be enough.
I thouht it was odd she did that but maybe after her Pac 12 result they wanted to a confidence booster.
Advancing is definitely #1 goal. But, I don't totally agree that times/splits are completely irrelevant in all cases. In the west prelim yesterday for example Barnett led wire to wire in 4:09 and 5 runners set PBs, one by 8 seconds. Performances in a prelim heat ( or in any race for that matter) can certainly inform perceptions of who may ultimately win.
I remember 2 years ago, I think it was in the ACC 1500 prelim, that freshman Tuohy ran a pretty aggressive race and the LR hive mind of Tuohy critics went nuts about it, saying she expended too much effort, terrible strategy. She then struggled in the final.
Now, with more experience and lessons learned, she approaches prelims with more of a pro strategy to conserve energy for the final. And still with all of her success, nothing has changed with regard to the criticism. Doesn’t matter what she does - with all due respect, WTAF?
How is it criticizing Tuohy to say other runners threw down some strong performances yesterday? There are other runners in the race she will be competing against. To say Barnett looked strong (which she did) or some runners look to be very competitive is a comment about them and their chances.
I remember 2 years ago, I think it was in the ACC 1500 prelim, that freshman Tuohy ran a pretty aggressive race and the LR hive mind of Tuohy critics went nuts about it, saying she expended too much effort, terrible strategy. She then struggled in the final.
Now, with more experience and lessons learned, she approaches prelims with more of a pro strategy to conserve energy for the final. And still with all of her success, nothing has changed with regard to the criticism. Doesn’t matter what she does - with all due respect, WTAF?
How is it criticizing Tuohy to say other runners threw down some strong performances yesterday? There are other runners in the race she will be competing against. To say Barnett looked strong (which she did) or some runners look to be very competitive is a comment about them and their chances.
My comments were only about Tuohy developing as an athlete and learning a better way to race competitively and now having the results to back it up. No need to constantly second guess her strategy. At the end of the day, it’s just a no-win no matter what she does, Just more of the same passive aggressive BS. I never once mentioned other runners, nor was there a reason to.
Advancing is definitely #1 goal. But, I don't totally agree that times/splits are completely irrelevant in all cases. In the west prelim yesterday for example Barnett led wire to wire in 4:09 and 5 runners set PBs, one by 8 seconds. Performances in a prelim heat ( or in any race for that matter) can certainly inform perceptions of who may ultimately win.
What perceptions though? Often the 'also rans' who pr have shot their shot and disappear in the next round. Rarely and it's one of the most beautiful things in track, someone prs and prs and prs for an upset championship. Barnett (and Appleton) is a known commodity and runs most 'Touhy like' - go from the gun, close hard, but not a 100m sprinter. She could well run 4:06 in the final. The trick is trying to figure out what to think about each of the 8 prs.
In the final, I believe Touhy will hit 1100 in 3:00 and close in 64. Can that hold off Barnett and Appleton? Will Whitaker and Howell close in 59 to pass them all? That's why this is such a great matchup.
Advancing is definitely #1 goal. But, I don't totally agree that times/splits are completely irrelevant in all cases. In the west prelim yesterday for example Barnett led wire to wire in 4:09 and 5 runners set PBs, one by 8 seconds. Performances in a prelim heat ( or in any race for that matter) can certainly inform perceptions of who may ultimately win.
What perceptions though? Often the 'also rans' who pr have shot their shot and disappear in the next round. Rarely and it's one of the most beautiful things in track, someone prs and prs and prs for an upset championship. Barnett (and Appleton) is a known commodity and runs most 'Touhy like' - go from the gun, close hard, but not a 100m sprinter. She could well run 4:06 in the final. The trick is trying to figure out what to think about each of the 8 prs.
In the final, I believe Touhy will hit 1100 in 3:00 and close in 64. Can that hold off Barnett and Appleton? Will Whitaker and Howell close in 59 to pass them all? That's why this is such a great matchup.
that is a fast pace and i think at most there is one runner in the field that could handle that. Barnett was about 3:05 yesterday.