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

Typo: stated 2:49 in the post that should have read 2:47.

Perhaps the best solution would be to pick a fairly soft time as a qualifier. Say men: 2:30 or better, Women 2:50 or better.

Then out of those qualifiers only allow xx number into the trials race. That way the ones on the cusp would be forced to run their best race possible.

The 2:20 is way easier than 2:39. So what we need to do is change the mens A standard to about 2:16:30 to keep it in line (percentage wise).

Olympic A standard is 2:15 for men and 2:37 for women. This is done on a global equivelancy. That means that the womens trials standard is only 2 minutes slower than the Olympic Standard.

My understanding, and it comes from someone who helped make the decision, is that the women's Trial standard is actually going to be dropped just one minute, to 2:46, for 2012. The women's LDR apparently likes the size of the field they have now.

There are indeed more relatively fast male runners than female runners in the U.S; easier qualifying standards are therefore necessary to ensure roughly equal numbers of participants.

The sex difference in depth holds true in essentially all running events, although it seems more pronounced in the longer distances. Remarkably, the pattern has been stable for about 20 years. You can access my publications on the topic here:

http://www.gvsu.edu/psychology/index.cfm?id=5FA88B73-D3D6-5B74-66B17C5AB4640467

I’m still researching this issue, both in running and other sports. One of the most interesting things I’ve found (and haven’t yet published) is that the sex difference in depth has disappeared in competitive swimming.

Robert Deaner

_______________________________________________________________________

Lordy wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________________________________

On a similar subject, how many of these same loser men (and, I am a guy) work in running stores until they are 30 thinking they are Pre or actually good b/c they can run 14:50 at the local road race. One could conclude that many of these running dorks that were somewhat recluses in high school and college are one dimensional whereas the ladies have since moved on to “bigger and better” things.

There are sooooo many guys who continue to run post-college, and in all actuality are really quite pathetic. Get a job.

Was I praising that decision? You inferred that I was saying that was a smart decision or a better decision. Did anything in my observation say it was? I just said it was a difference.

The pint is that women, in college or otherwise, tend to view sports is something that is fun when it is organized, but not so much worth bothering with when it isn't. Not judging that decision, but simply saying that Trials standards should reflect equal rigor, not differing demographics between men and women's seriousness about sports.

At this point, I am not sure how what I see most people doing with their time (ie, working in some office 60+ hours a week so they can live 1 step abover their means on credit addicted to the "needs" of ever more extravagent lifestyles) as necesdsarily better than what I do with mine (working a professional job a strict 40 hours a week and preferring free time to redundant useless money). Better for some, clearly worse for others by the way they can't get enough of buying things and scarfing Prozac to ease their quiet misery. Yoou know, it is quite possible in this country to have a middle class life on 40 hours a week, save money, avoid debt, and have time to train. I guess I should just be glad there are idiiots out there who go into debt to buy McMansions and new cars so I can quietly live a frugal enjoyable life and have an ever higher net worth and free time.

Lordy wrote:

Not judging that decision, but simply saying that Trials standards should reflect equal rigor, not differing demographics between men and women's seriousness about sports.

I think previous posts have shown that they are of equal rigor. You must compare men and women's standards for this year's trials, as the women have not run their trials and have yet had a chance to change their standards for the 2012 Games. Thus, here is the comparison.

2008 Women's Standards Olympic v. U.S. Trials

A: 2:37; 2:39

B: 2:42; 2:47

2008 Men's Standards Olympic v. U.S. Trials

A: 2:15; 2:20

B: 2:18; 2:22

Thus, American Men had an additional 5 minutes to achieve the A standard for their trials (when compared to the Olympic A Standard); American women had two. There is a five minute differential between B standards (Olympic v. Trials) for the women, as opposed to four minutes for the men for this year's trials - a whopping 1 minute extra for the women.

How would it benefit US Distance Running to have more difficult qualification standards for the women than the Olympics have? If you want to make standards equal to that of the Olympics for U.S. women, then it should be the same for men. That would require U.S. men to run 2:18 or better to qualify for the Trials. Fair is fair.

Also... reserve judgment on all of this, please. The Women have yet to run their trials. I would think any decision to drop the B standard won't be made until after the trials are run.

The best time by an american male was 2:08 in the previous 12 months before the trials. That means that a 2:22 is 14 minutes behind.

The womens best was 2:35 over the previous 12 months. If we used the soft male standard of 14 minutes, the women should only have to run 2:49.

No matter what you think of the current standard, a 2:47 is infinitely faster than a "fast jogger" description and is an insult. A lot of pretty good guys can only dream of running that time.

“The pint is that men, in college or otherwise, tend to view women is something that is fun when they are organized, but not so much worth bothering with when it isn’t. Not judging that decision, but simply saying that Trials standards should reflect equal rigor, not (white) male privilege between men and women’s seriousness about sports.”

Robert Deaner (or the person pretending to be),

So does this mean your hypothesis that females are less competitive than males is wrong? How can you read this board and not see the social/cultural influences that female distance runners are up against TODAY…Lordy! On a side note, what is your stance on the use of IQ test in scientific research. I noticed you make significant use of it in other studies. I just don’t understand why such a narrow form of measurement is used to try to measure something as complicated as the mind. From what I understand, IQ test are heavily biased towards white males (and animals that most closely exhibit white male behaviors). Instead of trying to come up with theories about females in support of your social agenda, why don’t you come up with an accurate measure of intelligence first? Make no mistake, I do appreciate the fact that you are not so narrow minded that you think the culture around distance running is the same as other sports, not that my opinion matters.

-Some body who does not associate names or degrees with authority because I know everything. ahh the contradiction

bestest betty wrote:

The best time by an american male was 2:08 in the previous 12 months before the trials. That means that a 2:22 is 14 minutes behind.

The womens best was 2:35 over the previous 12 months. If we used the soft male standard of 14 minutes, the women should only have to run 2:49.

This is completely irrational logic. If Deana Kastor or Kara Goucher would have raced a marathon this year against a competitive field, either would have been under 2:25 without a doubt. Add 14 to that!

Finally..someone bringing up the fact that women get pregnant, give birth, nurse and have to get back in shape. Lets also add that we're usually the ones taking care of the household, transporting kids to activities, making dinner...etc.... I'm training for the trials and it's very difficult. The top elite women wait to have kids, marry their coach, and have a fleet of people who give them massages, stretch them etc....

And don't lump us all in with a lack of desire...I've worked my ** off trying to qualify..

abc123 123abc wrote:

bestest betty wrote:

The best time by an american male was 2:08 in the previous 12 months before the trials. That means that a 2:22 is 14 minutes behind.

The womens best was 2:35 over the previous 12 months. If we used the soft male standard of 14 minutes, the women should only have to run 2:49.

This is completely irrational logic. If Deana Kastor or Kara Goucher would have raced a marathon this year against a competitive field, either would have been under 2:25 without a doubt. Add 14 to that!

Deena ran a competitive 2:35 in a losing effort (by 10 minutes) during the year at Boston. Next uneducated argument please.

thank you wrote:

Finally..someone bringing up the fact that women get pregnant, give birth, nurse and have to get back in shape. Lets also add that we're usually the ones taking care of the household, transporting kids to activities, making dinner...etc.... I'm training for the trials and it's very difficult. The top elite women wait to have kids, marry their coach, and have a fleet of people who give them massages, stretch them etc....

And don't lump us all in with a lack of desire...I've worked my ** off trying to qualify..

The top elite men also wait to have kids, and usually get married to other runners who don't mind all the time they spend training. Their situation isn't much better.

thank you wrote:

Finally..someone bringing up the fact that women get pregnant, give birth, nurse and have to get back in shape. Lets also add that we're usually the ones taking care of the household, transporting kids to activities, making dinner...etc.... I'm training for the trials and it's very difficult. The top elite women wait to have kids, marry their coach, and have a fleet of people who give them massages, stretch them etc....

And don't lump us all in with a lack of desire...I've worked my ** off trying to qualify..

This perspective is exactly the problem I was talking about before. There is a dichotomy between the "A" and "B" qualifiers on the women's side. The 2:47ers think the 2:39ers are a bunch of obsessive weirdos, and they harbor no desire to become one of them.

Do you ever hear 2:22 guys saying "man that guy who runs 30 more miles per week than me and ran 2:19 is weird, I'd never want to be like him"?

I understand though that women are more family-oriented than men and they want to have kids. So we need an easier standard for them. I guess that's ok.

I just feel bad for those 18 "A" qualifying women who have the lonely task of improving US women's marathoning.

I totally disagree with the premise of this thread. It seems like WLDR has it about right.

They have created a far more difficult A standard than the men. This means that they have to pay less athletes expenses than the men.

The B standard is slightly easier, but so what? None of these athletes are costing them anything and each and every one adds to the media coverage of the event.

I wish that MLDR had this same attitude. Make the A Standard 2:16 and leave the B standard at 2:22 and we then keep everyone happy. To me that is a better system than 2:19 and only one standard. It has been debated for 2 months the benefits of allowing developing athletes to participate in the trials, with several great points made.

All men that are 2:20-2:24 marathoners that are bitching about the fact that the women have it easier, are providing yourselves a disservice. What you should be doing is hoping that one of these B women make the team. This would help in proving the reason for your inclusion in the trials.

Only on LetsRun is a sub 2:30 marathon for a woman considered sub-elite. In response to the blatant disrespect of the 2:40 types, most of them have REAL jobs and would certainly run faster if they were "fully-funded" like so many of our friends in Oregon. Anything can happen in the trials, so don't count out the future Jenny Spanglers and Christine Clarks.