The Officially Unofficial Lane vs. Tuohy Thread

You have to look a bit more broadly.

An 11% factor converts Lane's 15:49 at Mt Sac to 14:15, already distinctly superior to the boys' record. Your 88.6 would put her all the way to 14:01. That doesn't wash.

Also, as set forth above, the 11% factor converts Tuohy's 16:52 at Bowdoin to 15:12, six seconds better than Principe's 15:18 CR. Your .886 would put Tuohy at 14:56, or 22 seconds superior. Principe has run a 4:00 mile and 3:44 1500m. Tuohy is not that much better.

At the elite level, the 11% factor converts 12:52 to 14:17. I think that's reasonable. Women are knocking on the door to improve the women's WR while the men aren't coming close to the M WR.

The point of a performance equivalence factor isn't to presume that the best male time of the moment (or a given race) must be equivalent to the best female time of the moment (or a given race). Rather, it should predict where the times are going. The 11% factor predicted that the girls' VCP record was very soft going into 2017 and Tuohy delivered the expected data point. The 11% factor also allows for Lane's considerable improvement in 2017 vis a vis 2016.

More boys than girls train to their full ability. A performance equivalence factor, properly employed, equates quality not quantity.

Not only is Lane better than Tuohy. Lane must be the best ever for HS XC. She ran 15:49 at Mt. SAC. That's beyond amazing. She would be the #1 runner on 99% of every HS boys team in USA.

yesstiles wrote:

Not only is Lane better than Tuohy. Lane must be the best ever for HS XC. She ran 15:49 at Mt. SAC. That's beyond amazing. She would be the #1 runner on 99% of every HS boys team in USA.

I meant 90%

Lane's Speed Rating at Mt. Sac is 166. Nowhere near as impressive as Tuohy's 172 at Bowdoin.

yesstiles wrote:

yesstiles wrote:

Not only is Lane better than Tuohy. Lane must be the best ever for HS XC. She ran 15:49 at Mt. SAC. That's beyond amazing. She would be the #1 runner on 99% of every HS boys team in USA.

I meant 90%

Settling the Debate wrote:

Lane's Speed Rating at Mt. Sac is 166. Nowhere near as impressive as Tuohy's 172 at Bowdoin.

How is her My SAC time rates 166? It's like 30 seconds faster than Amber Trotter ever ran there, and she was hustling. She's got a speed rating of like 180.

This doesn't smell right.

W wrote:

How is her My SAC time rates 166? It's like 30 seconds faster than Amber Trotter ever ran there, and she was hustling. She's got a speed rating of like 180.

This doesn't smell right.

Speed ratings are notoriously inaccurate, a biased ploy to prop up NY compared to the rest of the country.

sillyrunners wrote:

W wrote:

How is her My SAC time rates 166? It's like 30 seconds faster than Amber Trotter ever ran there, and she was hustling. She's got a speed rating of like 180.

This doesn't smell right.

Speed ratings are notoriously inaccurate, a biased ploy to prop up NY compared to the rest of the country.

Don't question speed ratings or Meylan is gonna come after you to say you don't understand how they work

Here is another reason why you can't look at the speed ratings between Lane and Tuohy. 10/20/01 Mt SAC Invitational Time & Speed Rating - 11/24/01 California State Meet Time & Speed Rating - 12/08/01 Foot Locker Orlando Time & Speed Rating Amber Trotter 16:16 (159) - 17:01 (153) - 16:24 (180) Julie Allen 17:39 (132) - 18:29 (123) - 17:50 (151) Yong Sung-Leal 14:43 (190) - 15:17 (187) - 15:03 (202) Billy Nelson 14:48 (188) - 15:22 (186) - 15:06 (201) Time difference in these races to Trotter: Allen +1:23 (108.5%), +1:28 (108.6%), +1:26 (108.7%) Sung-Leal -1:33 (90.5%), -1:41 (89.8%), -1:21 (91.7%) Nelson -1:28 (90.9%), -1:39 (90.3%), -1:18 (92.1%) What this shows is what most coaches tend to figure out: fitness changes very little throughout the season despite everyone hoping for a big peak at the end. Look at how Trotter and Allen's times track with one another, especially. All four of these athletes ran very consistently throughout the season and their times relative to one another prove as much. Which do you suppose is more likely: A) All four of these athletes had a huge jump in fitness at the very last race of the season B) Speed ratings at Nationals are a fantasy

W wrote:

How is her My SAC time rates 166? It's like 30 seconds faster than Amber Trotter ever ran there, and she was hustling. She's got a speed rating of like 180.

This doesn't smell right.

So your problem is that the top athletes peaked properly for nationals? Do you understand that speed ratings are set not by the top finishers, but by the field? Maybe the rest of the field slowed down to make Trotter et al look better? Who paid them off? Nike? Russia?

You aren't making any kind of case here other than that nationals matter more to the top runners than state meets and invites.

The most likely is: C) Speed ratings are legitimate because they are always relative to each other. Speed ratings at Championship races and major invites can be slightly higher than lower-level races because the overall average finish times for the race are a factor in the calculation. So, it makes sense that the athletes you mention here all have a higher speed rating for FL.

Why are people saying that Tuohy is much faster than Lane on the track? Their mile PB's are less than 2 seconds apart

Tuohy: 4:45.95 Lane: 4:47.73

qz wrote:

Why are people saying that Tuohy is much faster than Lane on the track? Their mile PB's are less than 2 seconds apart

Tuohy: 4:45.95 Lane: 4:47.73

4:18 1500 bruh

My problem is speed ratings are being used in the national rankings and are potentially influencing who gets a bid to NXN. Yet, they don’t reflect ones fitness nor can speed ratings from different races be used to compare athletes because some races get inflated speed ratings and others don’t, even if the performance relative to fitness is the same. Someone stated Tuohy’s 172 is superior to Lane’s 166. My point was to show that someone can get a speed rating that is 15-28 points higher on one course versus another despite fitness not changing as can be seen with the example given. Therefore, speed ratings don’t tell us anything we couldn’t see from the actual results of a race already and in fact only serve to confuse the vast majority of people who think it’s something that can be compared between different courses.

YMMV wrote:

[quote]Georgian wrote:

So your problem is that the top athletes peaked properly for nationals? Do you understand that speed ratings are set not by the top finishers, but by the field? Maybe the rest of the field slowed down to make Trotter et al look better? Who paid them off? Nike? Russia?

You aren't making any kind of case here other than that nationals matter more to the top runners than state meets and invites.

Giver of Facts wrote:

qz wrote:

Why are people saying that Tuohy is much faster than Lane on the track? Their mile PB's are less than 2 seconds apart

Tuohy: 4:45.95 Lane: 4:47.73

4:18 1500 bruh

Yes, Tuohy has the faster wheels. Only a high school sophomore, she already has the physical build of an elite runner. Lane's running is impressive as well, but the horrid running form is cringe-worthy.

Lane's form is extremely efficient. You don't know what you're talking about.

Umm. 15-28 points different in speed ratings???? That’s both a random range and just flat out wrong. If they were that innnaccurate nobody would back them up. Again, outsiders from NY are skeptical of these ratings since they don’t see them often. People from Ny who see them very frequently see them, and think “that makes sense given my past results and what that race was”. So if most every race was rated, I think more people would understand just how surprisingly accurate they are. I’m hoping in the next 5 years they can be rapidly expanded. I also don’t think that speed ratings were a factor in at-large bids given who the committee selected, so I’m not sure where that idea came from.

Yes, 15-28 points differential in speed ratings in a two week period. It was not a random range at all. Look at the speed ratings for the CA state meet on 11/24/01 Amber Trotter 153 Julie Allen 123 Yong Sung-Leal 187 Billy Nelson 186 Two weeks later at Foot Locker Orlando on 12/08/01 Amber Trotter 180 (27 pts higher) Julie Allen 151 (28 pts higher) Yong Sung-Leal 202 (15 pts higher) Billy Nelson 201 (15 pts higher) 10/20/01 Mt SAC Invitational Time & Speed Rating - 11/24/01 California State Meet Time & Speed Rating - 12/08/01 Foot Locker Orlando Time & Speed Rating Amber Trotter 16:16 (159) - 17:01 (153) - 16:24 (180) Julie Allen 17:39 (132) - 18:29 (123) - 17:50 (151) Yong Sung-Leal 14:43 (190) - 15:17 (187) - 15:03 (202) Billy Nelson 14:48 (188) - 15:22 (186) - 15:06 (201) Time difference in these races to Trotter: Allen +1:23 (108.5%), +1:28 (108.6%), +1:26 (108.7%) Sung-Leal -1:33 (90.5%), -1:41 (89.8%), -1:21 (91.7%) Nelson -1:28 (90.9%), -1:39 (90.3%), -1:18 (92.1%)

Niles wrote:

Umm. 15-28 points different in speed ratings???? That’s both a random range and just flat out wrong. If they were that innnaccurate nobody would back them up. Again, outsiders from NY are skeptical of these ratings since they don’t see them often. People from Ny who see them very frequently see them, and think “that makes sense given my past results and what that race was”. So if most every race was rated, I think more people would understand just how surprisingly accurate they are. I’m hoping in the next 5 years they can be rapidly expanded. I also don’t think that speed ratings were a factor in at-large bids given who the committee selected, so I’m not sure where that idea came from.

Ok. I concede that they were not random. I also do not give too much merit to speed ratings at this time since they were just getting started. However, I would be interested in seeing if every other runner enjoyed that boost? Their ratings are dependent on how other runners run relative to how they previously have. In 2001 there were not as many previous results speed rated which means that it would be difficult to rate them based on Meylen's current system. I believe that this 2001 Footlocker meet was a graphical analysis used to determine the ratings, compared to future meets. Perhaps a more current example of these large fluctuations that appear random?

And just for the heck of it:

If they were racing at NXN, I'd bet on Lane. At Foot Locker, I'd bet on Tuohy. Might seem counterintuitive, but that's based upon their stride characteristics and the course terrain.

Alberto Saladczar wrote:

Speculate here because it won't happen for a while. I say Tuohy in a close one.