They want equal participation from men and women. If women’s entry times happen to be less competitive overall, that doesn’t matter in the slightest in terms of achieving their equal participation goal.
They want equal participation from men and women. If women’s entry times happen to be less competitive overall, that doesn’t matter in the slightest in terms of achieving their equal participation goal.
troll under a bridge wrote:
Youareslowletthatsinkin wrote:
They want 50/50 women/men. It's that simple. Men are still in majority. You should get faster or stop complaining. It's true only a few men can hit the standard. But it's also true only a few women hit their standard.
The problem with this formula is that men are more competitive than women when it comes to road running. Women are more into running for the social aspects while men are more likely to compete against each other. So the qualifying standards for women always are going to be a bit softer if a woman really wants to get after it.
That said, I got into 1:18 half shape at age 30 after 10 years off from serious training and probably could have run a 2:50 marathon if I threw in a few long runs. 3 hours is easily doable if you do any kind of serious training.
So my point is that to reach a goal of 50/50 gender distribution at Boston, the men's standard will be harder to achieve than the women's standard. That's the way of things as long as men are out there running themselves into the ground and women are running at conversation pace.
Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:
I love the arm chair QB's that say running a sub-3 is easy. Until you actually do it, STFU. I ran a 1:18 half. Good for you! You didn't run a sub-3, though. When you get to mile 22 in a marathon and your body is revolting against you...you have no idea how it will respond. If you are really racing a marathon, that crushing feeling the last few miles is different than anything you've experienced in your running life.
After the half, I started training for a marathon and ran a 18-20 mile long runs at a relaxed 6:35 pace. Only fueling was a quick stop after an hour for a bit of water and gel or whatever. Lowered my half time to 1:15 and 10k to 34:00 while training for the marathon. Also trained with a guy that ran a 2:57 marathon, did less miles than me at lower intensity, and I would easily outpeform him on training runs. But then I got injured.
So yea, I'm very confident that my performances indicate a sub-2:50 marathon after a solid, injury-free training block. I had a gift for distance running.
troll under a bridge wrote:
Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:
I love the arm chair QB's that say running a sub-3 is easy. Until you actually do it, STFU. I ran a 1:18 half. Good for you! You didn't run a sub-3, though. When you get to mile 22 in a marathon and your body is revolting against you...you have no idea how it will respond. If you are really racing a marathon, that crushing feeling the last few miles is different than anything you've experienced in your running life.
After the half, I started training for a marathon and ran a 18-20 mile long runs at a relaxed 6:35 pace. Only fueling was a quick stop after an hour for a bit of water and gel or whatever. Lowered my half time to 1:15 and 10k to 34:00 while training for the marathon. Also trained with a guy that ran a 2:57 marathon, did less miles than me at lower intensity, and I would easily outpeform him on training runs. But then I got injured.
So yea, I'm very confident that my performances indicate a sub-2:50 marathon after a solid, injury-free training block. I had a gift for distance running.
Found the Seattle hobby jogger
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder"
Let that sink.
Gee, with the 4:52 cut off, I only qualified by 27:27 this year, not by 32:19.
3:00 hours is almost 50 percent slower than the world record.
"...you just gotta train harder."
Men are selfresponsible that they let women exploit them. Women have a higher quality of life, live much longer. They can have less skill and for example run slower for the same prices and benfits.
thiskid wrote:
troll under a bridge wrote:
After the half, I started training for a marathon and ran a 18-20 mile long runs at a relaxed 6:35 pace. Only fueling was a quick stop after an hour for a bit of water and gel or whatever. Lowered my half time to 1:15 and 10k to 34:00 while training for the marathon. Also trained with a guy that ran a 2:57 marathon, did less miles than me at lower intensity, and I would easily outpeform him on training runs. But then I got injured.
So yea, I'm very confident that my performances indicate a sub-2:50 marathon after a solid, injury-free training block. I had a gift for distance running.
Found the Seattle hobby jogger
Sure whatever, but we are all pretty much hobby joggers on this board.
My point is that if you can run a sub-17 5k, sub-35 10k, sub-1:20 half, and there abouts, you should be able to train yourself to a sub-3 marathon without going too crazy in your training. Obviously, I make this claim from conjecture, comparison and conversion charts rather than from experience, but I think it holds true for most people.
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder" Um, these times aren't even balanced. Also to all the morons saying "2:5X" is easy, go look up the statistics on it less than .9% of all marathoners ever run that fast. It's unreasonable considering overweight hobbyjogger women can hit a 3:30 so easily.
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
3:30 is not an overweight hobby jogger time for women. It is not an equivalent time to a 3:00 for men, but no one at the BAA ever said it was supposed to be. Most of the women in the 18-35 group have given up time running for having kids and have to balance their training with child care much more than men do. When I had kids, my wife wanted to go to yoga early in the morning. I offered to skip my run and take care of the kids when they woke up. That lasted about two weeks when the kids would start screaming for mommy in the morning even when I offered donuts and TV at breakfast. Women should absolutely get a softer standard to ensure their participation otherwise it is a race that punishes women for having children.
Semenyagoat wrote:
Men are selfresponsible that they let women exploit them. Women have a higher quality of life, live much longer. They can have less skill and for example run slower for the same prices and benfits.
I'm fine with them having weaker standards if it means more of them and less of you.
That's my point. On paper, everything is easy. Sure, your times at shorter distances indicate you COULD run sub-3, but until you ACTUALLY do it, please refrain from commenting about how easy it actually is.
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder"
Yup.
Semenyagoat wrote:
Men are selfresponsible that they let women exploit them. Women have a higher quality of life, live much longer. They can have less skill and for example run slower for the same prices and benfits.
But the costs of a fast time for women are much higher than for men. As a guy, you can run a sub 3 thon and still look really good (low fat, fair amount of muscle, athletic build). But as a girl, you can't typically run the equivalent thon without, well, looking more like a skinny boy: you sacrifice your curves and your breasts. It's a way bigger ask imo.
How would you guys/gals like to set the qualifying time?
as a % of the world record of each respective sex (2:01/2:15)
as a % of age graded time for each 5 year increment
equal entries for both men and women
other ways?
Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:
That's my point. On paper, everything is easy. Sure, your times at shorter distances indicate you COULD run sub-3, but until you ACTUALLY do it, please refrain from commenting about how easy it actually is.
I'll train for a few months, run sub-3 as training run, Yuki style, and get back to you.
Jeremy R wrote:
How would you guys/gals like to set the qualifying time?
as a % of the world record of each respective sex (2:01/2:15)
as a % of age graded time for each 5 year increment
equal entries for both men and women
other ways?
Please and thanks.
baa baa wool wrote:
Jeremy R wrote:
equal entries for both men and women
Please and thanks.
That’s basically what it is now. In recent years it’s been 50-55% men.
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
The men's OTQ standard is 2:19. The women's standard is 2:45. That means women get a 15.8% 'discount' at the elite level.
The mens BQ standard is 3:00. The women's standard is 3:30. That means women get a 14.3% 'discount' at the hobby level.
Sounds about right...if anything it's harder for a 18-34 woman to qualify for Boston (relative to her male peers) compared to the OTQ.
math professer wrote:
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
The men's OTQ standard is 2:19. The women's standard is 2:45. That means women get a 15.8% 'discount' at the elite level.
The mens BQ standard is 3:00. The women's standard is 3:30. That means women get a 14.3% 'discount' at the hobby level.
Sounds about right...if anything it's harder for a 18-34 woman to qualify for Boston (relative to her male peers) compared to the OTQ.
pretty fair standards in my opinion-for a younger male sub 3 isn't a big ask...can't please everyone!
Look, with Boston's history of excluding women, the get over it argument isn't completely lost on me. The race is designed to get an equal number of qualifiers across the age groups. I mean I think the better question is how can we get more women in the sport and staying competitive in the sport and then their time would have to drop. The men's time would have to stay the same if the number of qualifiers has stagnated.
Boston is one of the few races you have to qualify for. Sub-3:00 is tough but what a barrier to strive for -- seeing 2:59:xx on the finish line clock! It's something to get excited about. Instead of getting mad at women, be mad at all of the men who have pushed the barrier down to 3:00. Boston used to be even more stringent back in the day. I like the standards because they match the number of qualifiers to have equal participation.
If the complaint is that it should be even faster... you have auto qualifier for NYC, Fukuoka, comped entry/elite standards at other marathons, OTQ, etc., to aim for.
Jeremy R wrote:
How would you guys/gals like to set the qualifying time?
as a % of the world record of each respective sex (2:01/2:15)
as a % of age graded time for each 5 year increment
equal entries for both men and women
other ways?
It's fine now.
The BQ times encourage women to catch up in terms of representation in the field...they haven't yet, but it's a good goal. There are too many whining guys in here, "ohhh it's so unfair," believing they're entitled to a spot. The BAA can do whatever they want with their marathon. Don't like it, run somewhere else.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC