Sheila Reid is losing It - Hilarity Ensues - Says switch from 1500 to mile is "male nostalgia"

M3thamph3tamin3 wrote:

The argument has no basis, and anyone backing the argument is just jumping on the bandwagon. It's drama for the sake of drama. Comical.

The presence of professional athletes posting anything other than what their sponsors suggest and/or require is absolutely sickening. It's immature, attention-seeking, and egotistical. Just another instance of a generation focusing on all the wrong things.

I don't have enough data to prove this, but I tend to observe that athletes who have strong personal-life presence on social media are the same athletes who have poor or inconsistent athletic performance.

If the argument has no basis, please show which of the propositions I set forth is incorrect, or how drawing the conclusion I set forth does not flow flow from my proposition.

*Sorry for the early post.

libs = liars wrote:

Those tweets came after the one we're discussing. But I guess that doesn't matter for a filthy liar like you.

I don't have time to play twitter sleuth for you. But you will see that those quotes were in direct reply to Sheila's initial tweet. I don't think they were made in response to Sheila's subsequent tweets.

libs = liars wrote:

Those tweets came after the one we're discussing. But I guess that doesn't matter for a filthy liar like you.

Oops, I did copy the wrong Brian Robinson tweet. His first one, directly responding to Reid's initial tweet was this:

Brian Robinson ‏@BrianBrxctf Dec 18

@shewolfruns @Phe800 really you're going to go there. #feminism

And looks who's now attacking the person making the argument (e.g., "filthy liar") instead of actually addressing my propositions or conclusions.

This is true, but it does not follow from this that the NCAA ought to do the same and hold 1500m races as well.

The NCAA has neither an obligation to follow the lead of the world championships and Olympic games, nor does the NCAA have an obligation to prepare athletes for competition after college (and this is to not even address the pathetically weak argument that running the mile instead of the 1500 puts runners at a disadvantage due to lack to 1500m experience).

The NCAA is an American association and holds competitions in the United States. The relevance of the mile in countries outside the United States is irrelevant as to the question of which event should be held in competitions inside the United States.

This is not the case. The majority of collegiate distance runners don't run under 4 minutes in the mile. It is a significant barrier still.

Further, this fails to address the fact that the existence of a barrier is not the only reason why the mile ought be held instead of the 1500. The mile should be held because it is a more relevant distance to Americans than the 1500m is.

Addressing these two points together because they are essentially the same claim.

I addressed this point in an earlier post so I'll just re-post my response here:

She claimed that women don't have an equivalent sub-4 barrier in the mile as men do in the mile, implying that the NCAA should therefore not switch from putting on 1500s to putting on miles.

And it's a bad argument for several reasons.

Do women have an analogous sub 4 barrier in the 1500 as men do in the mile? Her implication is yes, and it's the sub 4 1500.

Only one woman has ever broken 4 minutes in the 1500 while competing as a college athlete - Jenny Simpson in 2009, and only by one tenth of a second, and it was in a professional race, not an NCAA race. No woman has ever run under, or even gotten close to running under 4 minutes in an NCAA race. Here is the top-10 all time performers list for collegiate women over 1500m:

3:59.90............Jenny Simpson (Colorado)................06/07/09

4:06.19............Hannah England’ (Florida St).............06/14/08

4:06.67............Sally Kipyego’ (Texas Tech)................06/14/08

4:06.75............Tiffany McWilliams (Mississippi St).....06/14/03

4:06.87............Emma Coburn (Colorado)...................05/17/13

4:07.50............Sarah Brown (Tennessee)....................06/14/08

4:07.69............Lena Nilsson’ (UCLA)...........................05/24/03

4:08.26............Suzy Hamilton (Wisconsin)..................06/02/90

4:08.54............Brie Felnagle (North Carolina)..............05/17/08

4:08.90............Susan Kuijken’ (Florida St)...................05/02/09

In the history of woman's collegiate athletics, the fastest a woman has run in NCAA competition is 4:06.19, which is more than 1.65 seconds per lap slower than needed to sneak under 4 minutes.

There is no special draw to seeing women run 1500m in collegiate competition because no one is close to breaking 4 minutes in collegiate competition. And no one has ever been close.

As noted above, I don't think that you can claim that being a significant barrier is a former status of the mile. It is still significant today.

Further, again, this fails to address the fact that the existence of a barrier is not the only reason why the mile ought be held instead of the 1500. The mile should be held because it is a more relevant distance to Americans than the 1500m is.

The claim that this was done for nostalgic reasons is dubious. The Mile is more relevant today in the United States than the 1500 is.

Further, there is no evidence that "women's competition, international competition, or the current relevance of the mile" was not considered.

Lastly, as noted above, international competition and the current relevance of the mile outside the United States are irrelevant factors to consider when deciding what event the NCAA, an American association, ought to put on.

ceQXx - I must have replied to your post, but I meant to make a general comment. I'm referring to the 1500 vs. mile male/female argument that started this thread. I just don't see how people gathered that from the change the NCAA made. It seems really, really stretched.

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

The claim that this was done for nostalgic reasons is dubious. The Mile is more relevant today in the United States than the 1500 is.

Outside of indoor track and field, at which level of competition in the US is the mile the current standard distance?

It's not in high school.

It wasn't in NCAA outdoor track.

It's not for US national championships.

Or do you mean it has traditionally be more relevant and popular? Doesn't that suggest "nostalgia"?

ceQXx wrote:

Oops, I did copy the wrong Brian Robinson tweet.

I'll give you half a point for admitting you're a filthy liar.

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

The majority of collegiate distance runners don't run under 4 minutes in the mile. It is a significant barrier still.

The four minute mile was a "barrier" because only the best of the best could do it. In fact, it was initially a "barrier" because no one had done it. When 30 college kids do it a year, that's not a barrier, it's a qualifying standard. The 4 minute 1500m is, in fact, a barrier for women. Maybe we're arguing over what a "barrier" is here. Nevertheless, I would say once a time becomes the bare minimum for qualifying for NCAA, it ceases to be a meaningful "barrier."

libs = liars wrote:

ceQXx wrote:

Oops, I did copy the wrong Brian Robinson tweet.

I'll give you half a point for admitting you're a filthy liar.

I see you still haven't replied to any of my substantive points.

Sheila Reid is out of her god darn sheila mind is she sheila thinks that the mile is gender bias. Sounds like someone is desperately trying to stay relevant amidst a dying career. Jeez lady, leave the social outrage propaganda to Nick Symmonds.

The 1600 is run in most states at the high school level, though I believe Massachusetts holds the mile & 2 mile. Also, at the Michigan high school state championships this past spring, the 1600 had an extended finish line to the mile distance for Grant Fischer's race. In any case, the 1600 meters, while not 1 mile, is pretty close, to the extent that most people believe 4 laps of the track is 1 mile.

Further, it does not follow that because something is a standard distance, that it is more relevant. The standard distances could be changed to 1323 meters, but that wouldn't make 1323 meters a more relevant distance to Americans, or anyone else for that matter.

The mile is more relevant in the US because the US is not a metric country.

It has been more relevant historically, but it's also more relevant today.

It never stopped being more relevant than the 1500 meters.

ceQXx wrote:

The four minute mile was a "barrier" because only the best of the best could do it. In fact, it was initially a "barrier" because no one had done it. When 30 college kids do it a year, that's not a barrier, it's a qualifying standard.

The 4 minute 1500m is, in fact, a barrier for women. Maybe we're arguing over what a "barrier" is here. Nevertheless, I would say once a time becomes the bare minimum for qualifying for NCAA, it ceases to be a meaningful "barrier."

The sub 4 minute mile is still a significant barrier because the vast majority of college distance runners never break it, but some actually do. Indeed, T&FN still maintains a list of every person to run a sub 4 minute mile because it is a significant mark. Enough people do break it that it can actually be deemed a barrier. No woman has ever gotten close to running a sub 4 minute 1500 in NCAA competition.

To deny this is to implicitly hold that the sub 3:30 1500 is a barrier for men in collegiate competition. Indeed, the record in collegiate competition over 1500 for men (3:35.30) is closer to 3:30 than the record in collegiate competition over 1500 for women (4:06.19) is to 4:00.

And in denying this, you also weaken any claims that this change is biased towards men, because men have actually gotten closer to breaking the 3:30 barrier in an NCAA race than women have (incidentally, both marks set at the NCAA outdoor championships).

leave it to Nick Symmonds? This website makes me sad, guys. Can't we at least listen to women? We don't have to agree with them, but to shut her down like this completely validates her concerns.

Sexist wrote:

leave it to Nick Symmonds? This website makes me sad, guys. Can't we at least listen to women? We don't have to agree with them, but to shut her down like this completely validates her concerns.

"We" have listened. "We" merely came to a different conclusion.

No one has "shut her down."

Haha. If you consider those tweets to be 'attacks' you are going to have a tough time in life.

As someone else already pointed out those are not tweets that Sheila referred to as "old white men".

Plenty of people have posted downright misogynist things taking personal attacks at Sheila Reid, generalizing that all women are terrible, etc.

Thank you ceQXx for being one of the voices of reason in this thread.

uhhhhhhh wrote:

Plenty of people have posted downright misogynist things taking personal attacks at Sheila Reid, generalizing that all women are terrible, etc.

Examples of misogynist attacks / generalizations that all women are terrible? If plenty have done this, posting a few genuine instances of this occurance shouldn't be difficult. On the other hand, I've observed unprovoked anti-male, anti-white comments from "her side".

Here's one:

See posts by the user "fast but what else?" in this thread for more.

Further, if you think a few stupid comments from anonymous people are unique to this situation, you must be new to the internet. That's par for the course:

Since it looks like Phoebe Wright and others are reading this thread, you rock PW, calling it like it is:

https://twitter.com/Phe800/status/678956447682584576

Hi, "Fast but what else?" Welcome back.

Here's the dumbest argument.

"Jeremy Rae (twitter):

@FloTrack @themile i.e. Tactical 15 in 3:55- casual fan doesn’t understand that as slow. Tactical mile in 4:15- casual fan changes channel"

Right... That happens... Average track fan is dumb as bricks? OK.

source:

http://runningmagazine.ca/canadians-respond-to-ncaa-possibly-adopting-mile-over-1500m/

Is it me or is this a Canadian issue, not a gender issue? Canadians sure are intolerant of others these days.