How out of this world is Tuohy's time at NY NXN Regionals

This post is ridiculous you correctly spell out what happens to the women but blame people on message boards for ruining them. I'm sorry if saying it's not likely they will succeed long term is being negative but it's the truth. The problem is both mentally and physically these athletes are not benefited by the fact that they train so hard so young. They shouldn't be this fast at that age, it shouldn't be a focus. I'm sure Footlocker, NXN, New Balance are all somewhat to blame. But it's not going to get better until we as a whole understand that and stop getting excited about the next phenom. There shouldn't be as many phenoms as there have been, and the truth to that is because they aren't phenoms, they sell out to get somewhere quick and it hurts long term. So sorry if calling for some reason in training and racing makes it sound like personal attacks on these kids, it's not, it's asking their coach to be patient and not ruin their career.

I'm a big fan of Tuohy. This runner has a heart of gold, but I literally get bored seeing results like this from newer runners. I regret saying but, I'm not sure if we are going to see to many improvements, as good is this runner is now. Bekele done it properly. He didn't go chasing pbs at 10 years old. He did play literally football, and looked for inspiration before focusing on running(Haile is his inspiration). We all know he became the best runner. But I'm not sure about Tuohy, to young to burn out soon.

fortune teller. wrote:

Will Lane go NXN to race against the best or avoid her and run footlocker?

How I see it is Touhy is avoiding Lane (not really as she probably planned NXN a while ago).

Lane is the defending Footlocker Champion. You don't just ditch when you're the defending champ. You have to defend your title.

Has there ever been anyone who won a FL or NXN title as a FR, SO, or JR title and then went on to do the opposite meet the next year? (not including doubles as Verzbicas doubled the year after winning FL) I can't recall.

Touhy didn't win NXN last year so she has nothing to defend. The best thing to hope for is that they square off at NB Indoor Nationals.

Banana Bread wrote:

I'm a big fan of Tuohy. This runner has a heart of gold, but I literally get bored seeing results like this from newer runners. I regret saying but, I'm not sure if we are going to see to many improvements, as good is this runner is now. Bekele done it properly. He didn't go chasing pbs at 10 years old. He did play literally football, and looked for inspiration before focusing on running(Haile is his inspiration). We all know he became the best runner. But I'm not sure about Tuohy, to young to burn out soon.

You did not just compare Tuohy to Bekele and Gebresellasie, this is comical

Too many threads on this right now.

Lane has indicated she will run Edinburgh. It's up to Tuohy and her coach if she wants to take Lane on there, and at FL next year.

coach wrote:

Yes, more people should watch the video interview with coach Diglio on milesplit ny.

Nothing seems to show up on Milesplit anymore.

Too many threads wrote:

Lane has indicated she will run Edinburgh. It's up to Tuohy and her coach if she wants to take Lane on there, and at FL next year.

Induction and prediction--used in science and statistics--is fundamentally based on the idea that the future will be like the past. Past race performance is the best predictor of future performance; however, it's a probabilistic model, not a deterministic predictor. This is true for the boys and the girls, although it's a better predictor for the boys it seems (due to how girls tend to develop into women with boobs and all of that, which I approve, although I like the fit look to, but let's not make this about my personal fetishes.)

Consider the two large populations of high school girls, denoted by A and B, where population A consists of girls who have ran around 10:00 in the 2 mile and population B consists of girls who have ran around 10:10 in the 2 mile. The conditional probability that a randomly selected girl 4 years later from group A runs faster than a randomly selected girl 4 years later from group B is greater than 50%. (If it were less than 50%, this would also be a predictor, but in the negative direction.) In other words, Pr[y ultimately runs faster than t | A] > Pr[y runs ultimately faster than t | B] for any t.

So, this high school girl has a better chance than most to be successful in running in the future. However, since nothing is certain in this world, if she doesn't she also has in a sense more to lose since she's built up to many expectations.

I want to be respected and agreed with here. I wasn't saying that Tuohy is literally like Bekele, because I said I think this will be another burn out like Mary Cain. I was saying the opposite of this. I think Tuohy will become the opposite of Bekele. I only mentioned that Bekele is more clever and smarter then Tuohy. He is a genius because he started at the perfect time, and rose at the perfect rate to become the best he is today. Tuohy raised to fast, unlike Bekele who timed his break through's better, to become the world's greatest runner.

Banana Bread wrote:

I want to be respected and agreed with here. I wasn't saying that Tuohy is literally like Bekele, because I said I think this will be another burn out like Mary Cain. I was saying the opposite of this. I think Tuohy will become the opposite of Bekele. I only mentioned that Bekele is more clever and smarter then Tuohy. He is a genius because he started at the perfect time, and rose at the perfect rate to become the best he is today. Tuohy raised to fast, unlike Bekele who timed his break through's better, to become the world's greatest runner.

You do realize that Bekele was a silver medalist at world youth (HS junior) and ran 7:46 as a HS senior

Did you actually run the stats on this to prove it or is that just mathematically what should happen? I do not think your example is accurate.

Banana Bread wrote:

I'm a big fan of Tuohy. This runner has a heart of gold, but I literally get bored seeing results like this from newer runners. I regret saying but, I'm not sure if we are going to see to many improvements, as good is this runner is now.

Me too. I get SO bored seeing fast times in the sport I love.

I wish these top runners could just slow down!

Indoor? wrote:

Did you actually run the stats on this to prove it or is that just mathematically what should happen? I do not think your example is accurate.

I'm confident good research would support my thesis, and my confidence means a lot. A real lot of lots.

belial wrote:

Indoor? wrote:

Did you actually run the stats on this to prove it or is that just mathematically what should happen? I do not think your example is accurate.

I'm confident good research would support my thesis, and my confidence means a lot. A real lot of lots.

Well considering there aren't that many who run 10 or 10:10 it's a little odd.

Let's look at 2012.

No one even ran 10:00. Randomly we'll pick the 2nd girl. Laura Hollander, she ran 10:10.

Randomly we'll pick the 10th girl, who ran 10:21. Molly Seidel. You say there is a greater than 50% chance that Laura Hollander would end up faster than Molly Seidel.

I want to be your friend and agree with me, but that reply just insluts me. I know it is sarcasm. I know what I'm saying, but maybe I'm been misunderstood. I like seen fast times, but I get bored of seeing fast times(for some one new), but then get your hopes up, and they aren't as fast as you expect when they are grown up. So it would be boring if someone was a fast junior, and then barely improved as a senior, only to disappear and disappoint you. Make Jacob Ingrebegstein is different tough. I'd like to think he will improve, and if he does he will be like a second, Bekele almost.

Indoor? wrote:

belial wrote:

I'm confident good research would support my thesis, and my confidence means a lot. A real lot of lots.

Well considering there aren't that many who run 10 or 10:10 it's a little odd.

Let's look at 2012.

No one even ran 10:00. Randomly we'll pick the 2nd girl. Laura Hollander, she ran 10:10.

Randomly we'll pick the 10th girl, who ran 10:21. Molly Seidel. You say there is a greater than 50% chance that Laura Hollander would end up faster than Molly Seidel.

Population A was constructed from female runners that have a PR that is around 10:00. Each time we randomly draw a runner from this population for a race, the runner will realize an uncertain race time denoted by the random variable X. X has a distribution of values such that a random race time X = x will be realized with some probability p(x).

Population B was constructed from female runners that have a PR around 10:10 and we denote the population's uncertain race times by the random variable Y.

What can we say about each of these populations as defined? Not much. We don't know the shape of either distribution of X and Y, e.g., we don't know Pr[X < Y] -- it could theoretically, given what we know so far, take on any value in the range (0,1). The only thing we can really say at this point is that the PRs are different, but each time we draw a value from either distribution (each time a runner races), a new PR may result. However, intuitively, we assume that, given populations A and B, a randomly chosen runner from A is expected to do better than a randomly chosen runner from B, i.e., Pr[X < Y] > 0.5. That is to say, we assume that the PR metric that we constructed the populations from is generally a good indicator of racing ability, even though, for instance, some of the runners in A just had a fluke PR.

Finally, since we assume the future will be like the past, we assume that in the future Pr[X' < Y'] > 0.5 also, where X' is the uncertain race times of future runners from population A and likewise for Y'.

Now, I've stated my assumptions: (1) the PR is a good indicator of racing ability and (2) the future is like the past. Both of these assumptions are loaded with ambiguity and uncertainty, e.g., the future is like the past may take the form "exceptional HS runners tend to do worse in the future than simply very good HS runners." However, all things else being equal (i.e., I have no did any research to tell me otherwise), my conclusions seem to follow from the stated assumptions.

A randomly selected girl from population A is expected to do better than a randomly selected girl from population B. Also, note that it doesn't matter whether any HS girls have ran these PRs since the populations were given by a definition, not by an actual sample.

You can use all of that math but then not have statistically data to back it up.

My point in all of this is basically running incredible fast in high school is a bad thing. Now 10 and 10:10 are hardly different so I don't know if enough data in those ranges to really research. But I'll say the NCAA champion is just as likely if not more likely to be someone who ran slower than 10:10 than someone who ran 10:00. Part of that isn't fair because the sample size of kids running slower than 10:10 is much much bigger.

I just don't think pushing kids to be this fast this young is good for them in the long term. I also don't think anyone is purposing doing it and also knows it's only going to last a year. This girl is a Sophomore, her body hasn't changed yet, if she is running enough miles she may hold it off for a while, and maybe she won't change a ton. But something is going to happen. If she is aware it's coming and is ready for a plateau or a setback then it's a whole lot easier to get through it mentally and then eventually improve. But usually the ones that had gotten crazy fast before this have a rough time. I hope she is different. But I was in argument so on here with people like you about Mary Cain saying the same thing.

My position on this is only a prior belief absent any other evidence. That is to say, I'm applying a Bayesian interpretation of probability, where the prior is updated by evidence and any prior one might have -- assuming it is not degenerate -- will eventually converge to the true distribution given a sufficient sample size.

We generally have very little confidence in priors (I was speaking earlier tongue in cheek when I said my confidence counts for a lot of lots...), and if you're a frequentist you'll reject this out of hand. (I'm actually a Fisherian, which is a lesser well-known interpretation of probability and likelihood.)

Well, whether it's good for you or not -- according to whatever criterion of 'good' we're applying -- is somewhat tangential unless this is with respect to harming one's potential in running to the point that exceptional young runners are expected to do worse than their peers in the long run (which is certainly a possibility -- like you said, we don't really have the data and I still subscribe to my previous prior).

Wow, just saw the Touhy interview on mile split. She did an 8 mile run on Thursday, two days before the NXN meet and did two workouts this week. She is a soph in HS? Is the coach a little crazy?

Guessing we should enjoy what we see now, because this is going to begin to turn in a year or two.