Should women's "elite" women's marathon times be marginalized because they are not really "elite"?

Are YOU kidding? Get back to us when you don't consider 2:47, finishing 5-6 miles behind Paula, an elite time.

Gen X wrote:

There are many, many societal barriers preventing women (individuals or as a group) from competing on the same scale that men enjoy. #1 societal barrier is that peak years for marathon training are also peak years for birthing babies. When it comes to athletic competition, women have much tougher choices to make than men.

Once again, it's a personal choice. I might also add, Paula, Grete and Ingrid Kristiansen managed to run WR marathons and have children. Kinda weakens your "societal barrier".

Side Burnzzzz wrote:

Physiologically the ATP-PCr system is equal (relatively) for men and women.

If you look at the WR in events from 100m to the marathon, you will see about a 10% difference in performance across the board. Some a little more, some a little less.

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Once again, it's a personal choice. I might also add, Paula, Grete and Ingrid Kristiansen managed to run WR marathons and have children. Kinda weakens your "societal barrier".

Thankfully, some women have had a support system in place that allows them to have children and race, but this option is not universally available to women to the degree that it is for men. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a barrier, but certainly a deterant for many women, thus the larger elite time gaps for women than men. The earlier poster was right, fewer women have access to both marathoning and family life in their twenties and thirties the way men do. More women feel compelled to make a choice between racing and family than men do.

You're not married to a runner are you?

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Once again, it's a personal choice. I might also add, Paula, Grete and Ingrid Kristiansen managed to run WR marathons and have children. Kinda weakens your "societal barrier".

Friend, granted, you've noted some individuals who've performed to the highest standard. Thing is, the OP was asking about why there aren't as many women running as well as men. I presented my reasons, what're yours?

The listed woman are <2:28 ladies hence the 2:09. Bump it to 2:10 if you want it doesn't add too many people.Larrieu Smith, Marla Runyan and Lisa Weidenbach and a few others could be added to the woman list. Add in Lawson, Morris, and Kempain and a few other for the men. Some of the early 80s might have been that fast but almost all of those times where at boston.There haven't been a ton of elite US woman marathoners. There haven't been a ton of men either. The mens depth is a a lot better once you get out of the top 10-20 or so but the top couple woman have been as competitive as the men.

wind measureerer wrote:

OR wrote:

How many men would be on your list? Since you are requiring a sub 2:30, it is safe to assume you are pretty much only looking at sub 2:09 guys and there are not a whole lot (assuming if you drop all the aided boston times). I have a list of 3: KK, Hall, Abdi. Throw in Meb, Spence, Plajitas for WC/Olympic medals and Salazar/Rodger for NYC/Boston victories and it isn't a big list. I would say that is a bit too exclusive definition of elite.

2:30=~2:12-2:13

don't be sucked into this Mercier tabe bullshit

[quote]OR wrote:

There haven't been a ton of elite US woman marathoners. There haven't been a ton of men either. The mens depth is a a lot better once you get out of the top 10-20 or so but the top couple woman have been as competitive as the men.

[quote]

What the hell are you inhaling? Joan Benoit wins a gold. Deena Kastor wins a bronze. Kara Goucher wins a bronze. Lynn Jennings wins a bronze, Shalane Flanagan wins a bronze. Besides Spence American-born men have done shit at major championships for the past 30 years. The men have been plain NOT competitive.

wind measureerer wrote:

2:30=~2:12-2:13

don't be sucked into this Mercier tabe bullshit

Don't be sucked into being ignorant.

Super Mario wrote:

[quote]OR wrote:

There haven't been a ton of elite US woman marathoners. There haven't been a ton of men either. The mens depth is a a lot better once you get out of the top 10-20 or so but the top couple woman have been as competitive as the men.

[quote]

What the hell are you inhaling? Joan Benoit wins a gold. Deena Kastor wins a bronze. Kara Goucher wins a bronze. Lynn Jennings wins a bronze, Shalane Flanagan wins a bronze. Besides Spence American-born men have done shit at major championships for the past 30 years. The men have been plain NOT competitive.

You have only proven that the the depth on the women's side is worse Internationally than it is in the United States.

Why are 10,000-meter bronze medals being brought into a discussion of the marathon?

scotth wrote:

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Once again, it's a personal choice. I might also add, Paula, Grete and Ingrid Kristiansen managed to run WR marathons and have children. Kinda weakens your "societal barrier".

Friend, granted, you've noted some individuals who've performed to the highest standard. Thing is, the OP was asking about why there aren't as many women running as well as men. I presented my reasons, what're yours?

We're still waiting, BRM.

While you're at it, explain what you mean by "personal". You've set this concept in opposition to history. Do you mean something like "free from all social influences"? Free from power relations? Free from all context? And if it is free from history, power, and local context, from what source does this "personal" choice derive its power?

Gen X wrote:

You're not married to a runner are you?

Yes I am. Don't really see how that affects the discussion since neither one of us is an elite marathoner.

scotth wrote:

Friend, granted, you've noted some individuals who've performed to the highest standard. Thing is, the OP was asking about why there aren't as many women running as well as men. I presented my reasons, what're yours?

Once again, it's because of personal choices. Fewer women thinks it's worth it to endure years of spartan living in the hope of making it big as a marathoner. Such a lifestyle is financially risky. Men are more likely to take risks than women are. Therefore more men than women will chose the lifestyle required to become an elite marathoner.

Gen X, I really wouldn't bother arguing here - most don't want to listen, just push their own opinion.

I for one agree with you. I see women's athletics as no different from any other male-dominated sphere that women participate in. As the differences that we believe to exist between the sexes disappears, inequality will too go away.

This will mean that women will perform more to their potential in all of society, including athletics.

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

[Once again, it's because of personal choices. ... Men are more likely to take risks than women are.

But wait, your argument is not based on choice at all.

It's based on a claim about human nature: that men are more likely to take risks than women. But isn't this a "world-historical" claim? How else would you know this fact if it is not demonstrated by history? And if it is demonstrated by history, then you've given up your argument that individual choice has no relation to history.

Am I confused or are you confused?

Merry Christmas Lia!

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Merry Christmas Lia!

Who the hell is Lia?

BRM is indeed confused.

BRM, Being married to a real runner, not an internet fantasy runner, might have given you an appreciation of the tough choices women make about athletic and other careers.

Thankfully I am in a marriage in which my husband shows some appreciation for what I gave up to build a family with him.

Yes, who the hell is Lia?

Merry Christmas Marty.