2:22 was debatable, but 2:47 is way too soft

Come on. Even with the most generous definition of 'good,' 2:47 doesn't qualify. The standard is a joke. Fast joggers are qualifying. It all boils down to females not being as interested in excelling at sports as men. It's OK that they are not interested - it's just a fact of life.

I wish the men's qualifier was 1:15 slower PER MILE than the world record. Per mile. I could have qualified - EVERY SUNDAY during my long run.

Men's World Record: 2:04 (2:15 A Standard, 11 minutes)

Women's World Record: 2:15 (2:37 A Standard, 22 minutes)

One might argue that the Men's "A" standard is twice as hard as the women's "A" standard.

The truth is there are more competitive men in sports and there is greater depth in all sports. This is what title 9 is all about, trying to bring the depth of women athetics to that of men. Now I am more on the "its in the DNA" side of why men are more competitive but the US women trials standard is set to encourage participation while the men's is set to discourage it and focus on the elite few.

A woman running 6:22 per mile for 26.2 miles is good, get over it. Why are we even talking about this - there is a reason there is women's sports and men's sports.They are biologically different. Perhaps the distribution of running talent in women is completely different than that of men - it may have much fatter tails, a higher dispersion, etc.Apples and oranges my friends. Why don't we leave it up to women to decide what is a good time for women.

really??? wrote:

Come on. Even with the most generous definition of 'good,' 2:47 doesn't qualify. The standard is a joke. Fast joggers are qualifying. It all boils down to females not being as interested in excelling at sports as men. It's OK that they are not interested - it's just a fact of life.

I wish the men's qualifier was 1:15 slower PER MILE than the world record. Per mile. I could have qualified - EVERY SUNDAY during my long run.

Ralph Wig wrote:

This has been argued a lot.

Men WR - 2:04

Women WR - 2:15

That's approximately 11 minutes different.

The trial's separation was between 2:22 and 2:47, which is 25 minutes. That is really messed up, but that really shows that depth and competition in women's running is much less.

________________________________

This pretty much sums it up. The only thing missing is that although the women's wr is 2:15, the spread between her and others is very far. The number of women running under 2:25 alone is very very small. The number of men under 2:12 is not so small.

Anybody who coaches guys and girls can tell you that guys are generally more driven and more interested in competing at the best level they can. Coach a guys team and if they perceive that you are being too easy on them in terms of, say, mileage, they will work harder on their own. Girls will just do exactly what you say and not nearlya s many have any interest in doing more than they have to.

This is why there is so little depth in women's running.

How many 15:00ish guys continue to train after college and race for fun and keep trying to run PR's knowing they will never be great and compared to 17:30ish girls? There is some difference here, but I don't know what drives it.

This is the same phenomena that sees YMCA's and playgrounds full of men playing pickup basketball on a Saturday while women, even female athletes, don't think of sports as recreation in this way. When I played HS basketball, we always got together to play informal games for fun in the summer. The women's team never did this. They wouldn't even think about calling all the girls up to get a pickup game going. Basketball as an activity apart from just being on the team and doing what you are told just wasn't on their radar Just different orientations to sports. If you area chick and play basketball at your HS or college, wouldn't it be weird if you got a call from a teammate trying to get a pickup game together on a Saturday? Not weird at all for guys. Who is more likely to informally arrange group running in the offseason when there iws no scheduled practice? Your guys team or your girls team?

Welcome to 2008... you might want to look around a bit and keep your eyes and ears open. Much has changed since 1954.

[quote]anEconomist wrote:

Welcome to 2008... you might want to look around a bit and keep your eyes and ears open. Much has changed since 1954.

Because every time anEconomist goes out to hoop it up there are tons of girls who are alerady using the court, right? You're so enlightened.

1)I was in college in the 90's and still run regularly with a group of college kids - the girls disappear from organized runs as soon as they are allowed whiel the guys schedule and arrange to run. They have no track team and guess who goes out of their way to enter meets unattached and continues training - the guys. Ask any other college coaches and you will find this trend. I have seen this at several other college programs. I am sure you will get some confirmation on this from others.

I am not saying there aren't some girls who are different (obviously there are), I am saying girls tend to have a different orientation toward sports, even those who compete formally.

How do you account for the utter lack of depth in women's races. Without fail at ever track or cross meet you see there will be a greater spread between the top ten among women than among men. It isn't sexismm or lack of opportunity. It is difference in rates of desire.

I'm curious why this discussion about the lack of depth in women's distance running hasn't mentioned one of the fundamental differences between men and women...in that women give birth. Particularly for post-collegiates who are in prime child bearing years, thats a good 9-12 months that a woman can't compete. While women run through pregnancies all the time, few to none of them run competitively while pregnant, which probably has some effect on thinning the ranks. Just a thought....

I hope you were joking with this post. If not you are retarded. So the only thing that motivates people to get faster it the OT standards?

I know many elite women who have children and continue to be great distance runners.

As a coach I have one girl out of 20 every year who wants to do push their limits. It is more like 15 of the 20 guys do.

Look at the play ground, the boys go out and play hoops, the girls stay and talk or watch the boys...hardly ever do you see a group of girls doing that. It is just what they like to do...that's all.

It's true that there is not as much depth, and we do have a problem with women not trying the marathon sooner (only a few, like Joan Benoit-Samuelson, spend there entire careers as a "marathoner"). However, perhaps the powers that be are making up for not allowing women to run any distance over 1500 meters in the Olympics until 1984. For some, that might seem a long time ago. For some of us, it's not. Beijing will be only the 7th Women's Olympic Marathon. We are almost there, but I do think we are still in a phase of trying to lure women into the longer distances. Men have a wealth of history in the marathon... women really don't, yet (at least when compared to the men). The Women's Olympic Trials is really the place where a wild card could nab a spot. That indicates to me not enough depth yet.

This is an interesting statement. I'm a female masters runner and I see a definite lack of depth in the women's events, too. Whereas the men master's national xc race will have 300-400 guys, the women's masters race will have 50-100. Yes, I know that Title 9 (and it's resultant opportunities for women's athletics) did not exist for the women who are over 48, but that can't totally explain the lack of depth among the younger masters and sub-masters.

The other interesting thing I've noticed is that of the women who still continue to compete as past college (including masters) , a large proportion of them seem to have coaches, as opposed to being self-coached. Most of my peers (locally and nationally competitive women runners) do not plan their own training, but rely on and often pay for, someone to tell them what to run and even watch them run.

A lot of women, though, continue to run, but cease to run competitively or to push themselves once they get past their twenties. Sometimes the pressures of life, kids, job takes its toll & it is no longer a priority.

Just my perspective, but there does seem to be a gender difference.

Your perspective is very narrow. As a female member of two different post-collegiate teams over the past few years and a 33 min 10k runner who works full time, I have the perspective to say that the difference is clearly not lack of competitive desire or discipline. Talented female distance runners commonly continue to compete while pursuing other goals simultaneously, with many able to qualify for world XC teams, USATF finals or Oly trials with a day job, children or both. If you were exposed to running at that level, you would realize that it is discipline and desire driving that success.

Men tend not to be multi-taskers, possibly because traditional gender roles allow for their singular focus. Regardless of why, they often focus on one objective at a time, often deciding not to run a step after "retiring" to focus on career and/or family. Unfortunately, in the case of the elite or developing athlete, the singular running focus for 10 years post-college can be a detriment to career and social development. To each his or her own. Some may only succeed with a singular focus, others need balance and a reassurance that running is not the end all be all goal in life. If you aren't aware of these differences, I'd say you should open your eyes beyond your preconceived notion of those women who "disappear from organized runs as soon as they are allowed". I would definitely agree that fewer female distance runners pursue the running dream in the traditional sense, but not for the reasons you've mentioned.

As for 2:47, I don't think the specific number matters much, but have some respect for those who do pursue it seriously, most while tackling many other things.

I think the whole point of this thread is that it's not possible for men to have the day job, family, and competitive running. A man with a day job and family is probably looking at 2:27 or slower for the marathon (maybe 2:19-2:20 if he's really talented). Whereas a woman with a day job and family has a legit shot at 2:43ish (maybe 2:35 if she's really talented).

Yes I have respect for the woman who runs 2:47 despite having a job and kids. But what about the man in the same situation who runs 2:27? He gets no respect at all.

There were a few men in that situation who ran 2:22. But what it took for them to pull it off was insane (ie, doing most training from 430-630 am, then spending the rest of the day with the kids and the job, sleeping 6-7 hours, then doing it again).

You have been reading Letsrun too long if you think a guy who runs 2:27 gets no respect - I would venture to say that this board is one of the few places they don't get respect.

I don't think there is any question that 2:22 is statistically a harder time to hit that 2:47. That means there will be fewer people to make the more difficult time with additional responsibilities, not that it is easier for women with a family to train - if anything I would argue its harder.

Generally that can be chalked up to three things:

1. Less depth in women’s running (men make up about 2/3's women about 1/3 historically but that is moving towards 60/40 split) That difference effects the number of elites (say top 3%) more dramatically than the middle. This means the standard needs to be a bit slower and broader to capture the same number of runners.

2. Women’s running does not have the history and even though the standard has made its way down (I think it started at 2:50?) USATF has been hesitant to bring it down too much (esp since, I think twice in the last 12 years a female runner who qualified in the 2:40's made the team - Jen Rhines (I think official qual was 2:41) and Jenny Spangler (though she had run 2:33 as a JR i don't think she broke 2:40 to get her qualifying time in '96)

3. Just as the Men's marathon has been treated differently then the Men's track trials the women’s race is seen and marketed differently then the Men's marathon trials (and track trials). My impression is that they want greater numbers and that qualifying is celebrated as much as being up there trying to make the team. Remember, from a marketing perspective your target audience is different then the men's trials. Just as you would not market the WNBA in the same way as the NBA. I think the marathon trials are as much as marketing tool for our sport as they are a way to select the team. Keeping the women's trials qualifying time attainable has been seen as good marketing towards women runners.

I think this is a smart way to go. Whether it is psychological or cultural or biological differences in their approach to running, to keep the sport healthy among women allowances need to be made and a more attainable trials qualifier is just one of those allowances. Maybe in 50 years it will not matter but for now I think it helps more than hurts.

This does not mean that elite women are any less dedicated, competitive, or worthy of praise then guys just that they are different events with slightly different goals.

You would probably call them a dyke if they did. I tried to train like the boys and my coaches (men) never supported it. Just my experience.

Man you are piling up the stupid questions in here. It is very possible for men to run your times listed with a job. There are several examples of men that have done it.

Yeah a job and a sub-2:19 marathon is ok.

A job, a sub-2:19, and a family is really tough. Unless your wife is cool raising the kids entirely on her own.