Why was the women's time so slow? Was it hot or something over there?
Why was the women's time so slow? Was it hot or something over there?
OP: Why don't you set up your own elite marathon where there is no money for placing, only money paid out depending on what time you run. See how much success you have with that.
Op. So you want to turn every race into a time trial for your pleasure rather than a tactical race to win?
Go away.
You do realise that if you set the cut off at 2:21 only 13 women have ever run faster than that and it only happens a couple of times each year if that?
No, the weather was perfect. There was a little headwind but not enough to explain the relatively slow women's times.
Which finish was more exciting for spectators?
- sprint to the finish line in the women's race
- time trial by Deriba Merga
In newspaper stories of the race, which finish photo featured more pominently?
- The women's finish, where 3 women were actually racing against each other in the final mile, and where the final outcome was in doubt until the end
- The men's finish, where the leader was all by himself and the result was not in doubt
There are so many posts on this board complaining about the lack of popularity of running compared to other sports. Then when there's a race with a thrilling finish that ordinary people are actually talking about, people complain that it was too slow? Get real.
The top 3 women earned their prize money more than the top 3 men. They garnered more exposure and interest for the race sponsors than the men did. That's what it's all about.
Moore OK Runner wrote:
Can you imagine showing up to a professional football game and the players on both teams agreed that they would only play at 90% effort?
like NFL week 17, dumbass?
dwigt schrude wrote:
OP: Why don't you set up your own elite marathon where there is no money for placing, only money paid out depending on what time you run. See how much success you have with that.
paying only for time would be dumb, but as I already stated, major races are moving in the direction considering finishing times in their prize money pay-out. And this absolutely fair. If the women want to jog the first half, and run tactically, great, that is there prerogative, but they won't get ALL the prize money that is available for the place they finish. Also, if the men's field has more depth, as it often does, it makes sense to pay more for a 3rd place 2:05 than a 3rd place female running 2:36. ( I think those were the Rotterdam times).
Here are some examples of the new fairness doctrine:
Paris marathon:
"All top-10 mens finishers achieved the target cutoff time of 2:11:45 which entitled them to full prize money, while none of the womens achieved the full money time of 2:23:15."
And I saw this about the RAK 1/2 marathon:
"However, it is unlikely that the full prize money purse will be paid out. Race officials have implemented a prize money reduction system which stipulates that the full awards for each place will only be paid if very fast times are achieved. The top-5 men must break one hour to collect the full awards for each of those places, while the top-5 women must break 69 minutes to collect the advertised prize money. Moreover, women finishing 6th through 10th must break 71 minutes to collect the full prizes."
And one woman at least seems to agree with the OP somewhat:
"As De Reuck said in the post-race press conference (her comments are to the right and also in this Boston Globe article), "I was a little bit embarrassed. You come to a marathon -- and a big marathon like this -- you get paid a lot of money to come and run and I think you should race."
ExPhysRunner may not be too bright, but you (and the OP) are wrong, once again. We're all well aware of your myopic, misogynistic view on this topic.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
The guy might not have expressed himself perfectly, but he absolutely has a point. Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, many top race directors agree with him, and they only pay out full prize $ to runners who make certain cut off times for men and women. It happened in the recent Paris marathon (and I don't think any of the women got full prize $), and in a big half marathon (forget which one).
SO........ the guy has a point, and the trend is going in that direction. I think it is fair. It is absurd to pay the same prize money for 3rd place for a men's 2:05 and a women's 2:36, which I think were the times in Rotterdam. Hopefully they did not pay equal prize $ for those places.
They DID race. Where was De Reuck at the end? She's just bitter that nobody wants to pay her any appearance fee anymore.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
And one woman at least seems to agree with the OP somewhat:
"As De Reuck said in the post-race press conference (her comments are to the right and also in this Boston Globe article), "I was a little bit embarrassed. You come to a marathon -- and a big marathon like this -- you get paid a lot of money to come and run and I think you should race."
A race is not about the time,it is about the drama it takes to win. If you were in a track race with El G and he took the first 1/2 mile out in 2:45 then then the next in 1:45, he would own you! But it wouldn't be fair because that only comes out to a 4:30! So then why the F*CK DIDN'T YOU BEAT HIM!?!?!
Because,oh wait, a race is not about its final time! It's about racing, and seeing as there were only 3 women ready to take the tape it must've been a race.
How about this:
You show up at work in the morning and proceed to play solitaire on your computer in plain view of everyone for the next 5-6 hours. Finally at the end of the day you get your act together and finish whatever you were supposed to do.
What do you think your boss' reaction will be: Great lad, you did your work, and if all you needed for it was the last hour of the day, be it; or perhaps he might be less impressed?
I realize that these athletes were there for the placement, not for the time. Yet the complete lack of "let me show you what I am capable of" was embarrassing. Think of the enthusiasm that the Rotterdam men's finish generated. I am quite certain that this women's race yesterday is not one that anyone in the future will be talking about as a seminal moment in marathoning. A win is a win and congratulations to the top finishers, but the underachieving attitude of the whole women's field through most of the race left me pretty disappointed.
The comparisation of elite women and men is a bit unfair. Would the elite men have run that slow, there would have been 10-20 non-elite runners that would have pushed the pace since it was a joint start. The women's elite race was seperated though from the other female runners. I am sure there are some female runners that had better splits at 5k that didn't start with the elites.
But I don't really see a way to change this.
A 6:30 1st mile is a bit of a joke.
Big, big mistake by Kara. Wonder if it has something to do with the tendency of women to want to harmonize their energies with others before they make a decision. A kind of hypnosis - we are Borg.
Vintage Press: Moore as in Kenny Moore?
Nah, Moore as in Rudy Ray Moore.
The only woman that is going to set a world record in the marathon in the next 5 years is the woman with it.
Stop complaining about slow women marathons when you know its going to be slow without Paula running.
For those of you who think that the OP is nuts what is your take on his assertion that if the men ran 2:16 you would be going nuts?I’m unsure about putting time requirements on women’s prize money. I’ve come to realize that women just race differently than men. I do expect the men to put it on the line, time wise, every race though. This is probably because I’ve become accustomed to the aggressive racing style of the East Africans – win or blow up trying.I was thinking this as the race unfolded. Ryan got the party started, testosterone kicked in and the race was on early (1st mile). It doesn’t take much to get a group of men (especially if there are Kenyans and Ethiopians) racing hard.The women’s race seem to take a different tact; they started feeling a headwind, realized that they would be in for a tough time, estrogen kicked in, prudence became the better part of valor and they persevered through it together until Kara blinked at 21 miles.I’m in agreement with another poster though; time is immaterial when there are 3 girls going for the win down the stretch.
runbei wrote:
Big, big mistake by Kara. Wonder if it has something to do with the tendency of women to want to harmonize their energies with others before they make a decision. A kind of hypnosis - we are Borg.
browski wrote:
like NFL week 17, dumbass?
Yeah, like week 17. Boring, insignificant and uninspiring.