Katelen Tuohy smashes VCP record

agip wrote:

say you're Tuohy's coach.

Or do you encourage patience and build up her strength and fitness, making her more durable for college and beyond?

No question about it wrote:

She has a good coach. I'm sure they'll keep doing exactly the same program.

agip wrote:

well maybe. Or the coach says 'holy cow that was way faster than I thought...we need to back off - she's going to peak in October'

Their program is working quite well. There is no reason to change it.

She's already broken many records, and this was just another of them.

Androgello Biafra wrote:

9:38.68i

The next fastest converted to full 2 miles is 9:51 by Brie Oakley. Mortensen ran 9:48 in the '90s for 3200, converts to 9:52.

That would be dumb. wrote:

agip wrote:

say you're Tuohy's coach.

Or do you encourage patience and build up her strength and fitness, making her more durable for college and beyond?

No question about it wrote:

She has a good coach. I'm sure they'll keep doing exactly the same program.

agip wrote:

well maybe. Or the coach says 'holy cow that was way faster than I thought...we need to back off - she's going to peak in October'

Their program is working quite well. There is no reason to change it.

She's already broken many records, and this was just another of them.

Nobody can keep doing the same thing over and over again. Mentally and physically that leads to stagnation.

NYS meet 1500 m finals (2017)

1 146 Katelyn Tuohy 9 North Rockland-1 4:18.51 3 10

2 405 Jessica Lawson 12 Corning-1 4:22.38 3 8

3 1156 Katherine Lee 11 Shoreham WR-1 4:23.48 3 6

4 150 Caroline Timm 11 Lourdes-2 4:25.94 3 4

5 847 Reilly Siebert 11 Syosset-1 4:29.08 3 2

6 241 Kelsey Chmiel 10 Saratoga-1 4:31.40 3 1

Good 1500 m too but legs were also fresh from skipping out of the 3000 m the evening before.

VCP is a challenging course, but is run basically on a crushed stone path. That is very different then grass. It a true and honest course but can be fast because of the surface

Of course...Like Rudisha ran 1:50.9 in the Olympic final but he had fresh legs from not competing the 1500 also. Or the steeple. He is Kenyan, should have run the steeple.

Kev2 wrote:

NYS meet 1500 m finals (2017)

1 146 Katelyn Tuohy 9 North Rockland-1 4:18.51 3 10

2 405 Jessica Lawson 12 Corning-1 4:22.38 3 8

3 1156 Katherine Lee 11 Shoreham WR-1 4:23.48 3 6

4 150 Caroline Timm 11 Lourdes-2 4:25.94 3 4

5 847 Reilly Siebert 11 Syosset-1 4:29.08 3 2

6 241 Kelsey Chmiel 10 Saratoga-1 4:31.40 3 1

Good 1500 m too but legs were also fresh from skipping out of the 3000 m the evening before.

Ronald Dump wrote:

I guess the girls record being, now, 1:25 slower than the boys record would make sense. It's probably been slow for a long time.

This is a good way of looking at it. I take the view that the mass of data supports an 11% rule for male/female performance equivalence.

Applying this rule, 13:21 converts to 12:02, near the top of the boys' best performances on the new course. Certainly very impressive for a soph girl.

I don't know if an effort was made at some point to remeasure the 2.5M course to a true 4K. If so, that would be worth 4-5 seconds (and 13:21 4K would convert to more like 12:06-07 for 2.5 miles).

For additional perspective, the 11% rule would convert a boys' 8:40 to a 9:37 for a girl (and 9:00 to 9:59). Which I think is about right.

Yes it does matter! Not probably enough to overcome a 4 second difference but statistically measurable yes. Lawson worked hard to capture the 3000 m state title the night before and you can't be serious if you think there was no residual fatigue. I am guessing fresh she would have run a 4:20 ish time. Not enough to beat Touhy but a measurable difference yes. Conversely, Touhy would be hard pressed to break 4:20 had she worked the 3000 m the night before--pure speculation though.

So we have Lawson overreaching and barely winning a state title but losing the next day as a senior, and Tuohy focusing on her best race and easily beating them all...as a 9th grader. Sounds like they are virtually the same talent level for sure.There is a reason there are several threads on Tuohy and not on Lawson or Chmiel.

Kev2 wrote:

Yes it does matter! Not probably enough to overcome a 4 second difference but statistically measurable yes. Lawson worked hard to capture the 3000 m state title the night before and you can't be serious if you think there was no residual fatigue. I am guessing fresh she would have run a 4:20 ish time. Not enough to beat Touhy but a measurable difference yes. Conversely, Touhy would be hard pressed to break 4:20 had she worked the 3000 m the night before--pure speculation though.

Kev2 wrote:

Yes it does matter! Not probably enough to overcome a 4 second difference but statistically measurable yes. Lawson worked hard to capture the 3000 m state title the night before and you can't be serious if you think there was no residual fatigue. I am guessing fresh she would have run a 4:20 ish time. Not enough to beat Touhy but a measurable difference yes. Conversely, Touhy would be hard pressed to break 4:20 had she worked the 3000 m the night before--pure speculation though.

I didn't realize titles were about how many events you entered and how close you got. I thought it was simply about winning.

I also didn't realize that just because one enters the 1500 they should also enter the 3000. Thanks for the update.

There's definitely a question wrote:

Nobody can keep doing the same thing over and over again. Mentally and physically that leads to stagnation.

and see how that works for you.

the maths wrote:

Ronald Dump wrote:

I guess the girls record being, now, 1:25 slower than the boys record would make sense. It's probably been slow for a long time.

This is a good way of looking at it. I take the view that the mass of data supports an 11% rule for male/female performance equivalence.

Applying this rule, 13:21 converts to 12:02, near the top of the boys' best performances on the new course. Certainly very impressive for a soph girl.

I don't know if an effort was made at some point to remeasure the 2.5M course to a true 4K. If so, that would be worth 4-5 seconds (and 13:21 4K would convert to more like 12:06-07 for 2.5 miles).

For additional perspective, the 11% rule would convert a boys' 8:40 to a 9:37 for a girl (and 9:00 to 9:59). Which I think is about right.

9:00 for boys doesn't equal 9:59 for girls. Look how often boys break 9:00 versus girls breaking 10:00. 8:40 is worth 9:47. 9:00 is worth 10:10.

Correct. Just as 3:59 boys = 4:30 girls13:21 is more like 11:50

Themathsman wrote:

the maths wrote:

This is a good way of looking at it. I take the view that the mass of data supports an 11% rule for male/female performance equivalence.

Applying this rule, 13:21 converts to 12:02, near the top of the boys' best performances on the new course. Certainly very impressive for a soph girl.

I don't know if an effort was made at some point to remeasure the 2.5M course to a true 4K. If so, that would be worth 4-5 seconds (and 13:21 4K would convert to more like 12:06-07 for 2.5 miles).

For additional perspective, the 11% rule would convert a boys' 8:40 to a 9:37 for a girl (and 9:00 to 9:59). Which I think is about right.

9:00 for boys doesn't equal 9:59 for girls. Look how often boys break 9:00 versus girls breaking 10:00. 8:40 is worth 9:47. 9:00 is worth 10:10.

Themathsman wrote:

the maths wrote:

This is a good way of looking at it. I take the view that the mass of data supports an 11% rule for male/female performance equivalence.

Applying this rule, 13:21 converts to 12:02, near the top of the boys' best performances on the new course. Certainly very impressive for a soph girl.

I don't know if an effort was made at some point to remeasure the 2.5M course to a true 4K. If so, that would be worth 4-5 seconds (and 13:21 4K would convert to more like 12:06-07 for 2.5 miles).

For additional perspective, the 11% rule would convert a boys' 8:40 to a 9:37 for a girl (and 9:00 to 9:59). Which I think is about right.

9:00 for boys doesn't equal 9:59 for girls. Look how often boys break 9:00 versus girls breaking 10:00. 8:40 is worth 9:47. 9:00 is worth 10:10.

Performance quality equivalence does not reduce to the simplistic "how often" question. There are evident societal reasons why more boys than girls may train to their ability levels. The fact that Tuohy won her race by such an enormous amount is an indicator of how much of the potential girls' ability curve was "missing" on the day. And the same can be said of the gap between Cain's 9:38i and the rest of the all time girls' list.

the maths wrote:

Themathsman wrote:

9:00 for boys doesn't equal 9:59 for girls. Look how often boys break 9:00 versus girls breaking 10:00. 8:40 is worth 9:47. 9:00 is worth 10:10.

Performance quality equivalence does not reduce to the simplistic "how often" question. There are evident societal reasons why more boys than girls may train to their ability levels. The fact that Tuohy won her race by such an enormous amount is an indicator of how much of the potential girls' ability curve was "missing" on the day. And the same can be said of the gap between Cain's 9:38i and the rest of the all time girls' list.

You can hold onto your completely arbitrary 11% rule and apply it however you want, but the fact of the matter here is that reality is not on your side.

Here are the track PRs for five boys finishing 13:17-13:22 at the same meet:

2:04/4:27/9:37

2:04i(no outdoor) 16:10 5k xc

1:57/4:27

1:58/4:19

4:34

Also, Lawson's record probably was worth at least 10:10 on the track (esp considering other runners like Blood, Cuffe, Cain etc were slower) and Tuohy broke that by over 30 seconds.

Keep in mind that Katelyn was running essentially a time trial with no other close competitors.

She seems to be on track for sub-4:30/9:40.

SMTR wrote:

Here are the track PRs for five boys finishing 13:17-13:22 at the same meet:

2:04/4:27/9:37

2:04i(no outdoor) 16:10 5k xc

1:57/4:27

1:58/4:19

4:34

Also, Lawson's record probably was worth at least 10:10 on the track (esp considering other runners like Blood, Cuffe, Cain etc were slower) and Tuohy broke that by over 30 seconds.

Keep in mind that Katelyn was running essentially a time trial with no other close competitors.

She seems to be on track for sub-4:30/9:40.

Lawson's track PBs support the 10:10 equivalence. Her 9:24 3000m outdoor PB in the spring season following her VCP record converts to 10:09 for two miles. And she followed that up with a 10:12 two mile indoors the following year.

With that as baseline, the percentage difference between Tuohy's record-breaking VCP performance and Lawson's would put Tuohy at 9:42-3 for 3200m, 9:46 for two miles. Seems reasonable.

The mile can be a different animal, on an individual basis, so less confidence of predicting that.

We are agreement.

Another way to triangulate her fitness is to consider her **49-second** improvement on the course from last year (14:12). This was after an 8th grade season which included a 4:24 for 1500 and 10:33 for 3200.

Lane is going to have her hands full at Footlocker.

SMTR wrote:

Lane is going to have her hands full at Footlocker.