I think that the average male runner is more interested in being competitive (at his level) and thus train more than the average female runner at least for the 20% fastest runners of males and females.
In addition, there are more male runners than female runners in races.
So, if the Boston marathon organization wants to attract as many males and females, it has to be more elitist for men.
over on RW, i've seen posts by several stats guys who've run the numbers.
most predictions are coming in the between 1 and 2 minutes...1:40 to 1:40 below BQ....a bit faster than the cut off for 2012
a few say between 2 and 3 minutes.
oops.. more sloppy typing.. meant 1:30 to 1:40
Fem's have it way too easy at the lower age category. I run with what's a semi-competitive group of local hobby runners (most aged 25-50).
In interval practice, the men are running 3:07-3:40 per km. Hitting BQ's for those who doing mara training is easy enough.
The majority of women run like 4:00s-5:00 and yet still make Boston. Many of them can't break 20min in a 5k for their life. If you're under 50 and can't run a 5k under 20, then regardless of the marathon time, you shouldn't have a freebie.
Of course, there are also the women who excel in the group, so to speak, and run 17-18min 5k's. But there are a few too many who run a 22min 5k and get in.
Comparing WR times is dumb, because the woman's WR is such an outlier and obviously was run only on drugs. Most 3:30 female marathoners aren't on drugs.
Also, no one should care because this is LetsRun and we all run sub 2:30 and are in no danger of being left out of Boston.
Things in this country have always been EASIER for women. Their lives are a lot less stressful than mens lives are generally.
Wondering1 wrote:
Things in this country have always been EASIER for women. Their lives are a lot less stressful than mens lives are generally.
I wouldn't say always...things in the past have been pretty discriminatory...but now-a-days I would agree with this.
The Guru Matt James wrote:
Comparing WR times is dumb, because the woman's WR is such an outlier
Agreed.
Lets lookup 2012 results. Mens 3:05 for open (18-39) is place 695.
Now lets lookup place 695 in the womens 18-39.
Result: 3:37:09
BQ is 3:35:00
This means the current standard is over two minutes TWO HARD for women.
EPOpian wrote:
but now-a-days I would agree with this.
When men start popping babies out of their dicks, I'll start to believe this.
Africans, American peripheral elites [ritz hall] and bucket listers
they can have it
Nutella1 wrote:
Lets lookup 2012 results. Mens 3:05 for open (18-39) is place 695.
Now lets lookup place 695 in the womens 18-39.
Result: 3:37:09
BQ is 3:35:00
This means the current standard is over two minutes TWO HARD for women.
2012 was an extremely hot year. Look at 2011 or 2013. Bombing won't have an effect as everyone was in by that point that mattered for this theory.
I was around 446th place this year with a 2:44.
2013 results:
Men
3:05--- 2621 (Sex Overall) / 1834 (Age Group)
Women
3:35--- 2575 (Sex Overall) / 1930 (Age Group)
So that's pretty damn close.
If you go by sex overall, Women's 2621st place was 3:35:17. For age group, 1834th place was 3:33:58
So what, you drop the women's time a whole minute? Whoopty do.
illinoisphotographer wrote:
2013 results:
Men
3:05--- 2621 (Sex Overall) / 1834 (Age Group)
Women
3:35--- 2575 (Sex Overall) / 1930 (Age Group)
So that's pretty damn close.
Which is expected since the heat should affect women and men alike. Bottom line: if you use the measure as outline by me above, then the current 30min difference seems to make sense.
Actually, the heat should have a more adverse affect on men than women since, on average, women have a smaller body size.
Nutella1 wrote:
illinoisphotographer wrote:2013 results:
Men
3:05--- 2621 (Sex Overall) / 1834 (Age Group)
Women
3:35--- 2575 (Sex Overall) / 1930 (Age Group)
So that's pretty damn close.
Which is expected since the heat should affect women and men alike. Bottom line: if you use the measure as outline by me above, then the current 30min difference seems to make sense.
Actually, no wrote:
Actually, the heat should have a more adverse affect on men than women since, on average, women have a smaller body size.
how about comparing body fat that impedes heat dissipating?
Simply comparing body size makes no sense, since avg men also are taller than avg women, and thus the overall surface area of an avg man is larger, in terms of per unit weight, than that of an avg woman. And we all know that, w/o considering other physiological respects, larger skin surface area helps heat dissipation.
The heat should have a more adverse affect on women than men is more likely to be true.
Made a plot of the 2012 Chicago marathon.
X - Axis is time in minutes
Y - Axis is The differential between men and women
Differential is Women's time divided by mens time. They are scaled to the participation rate of each gender (The 100th man is compared to the 81st woman, for example)
ummn wrote:
Actually, no wrote:Actually, the heat should have a more adverse affect on men than women since, on average, women have a smaller body size.
how about comparing body fat that impedes heat dissipating?
Simply comparing body size makes no sense, since avg men also are taller than avg women, and thus the overall surface area of an avg man is larger, in terms of per unit weight, than that of an avg woman. And we all know that, w/o considering other physiological respects, larger skin surface area helps heat dissipation.
The heat should have a more adverse affect on women than men is more likely to be true.
Sounds good. But that's not what studies show.
larry solderstein wrote:
Slomodave wrote:Not sure about that. The percentage difference between 2:03 and 2:15 is ~9.75%. That would mean the "equivalent" female 3:15 time would be 3:49. I'm not saying that using percentage differences is the absolute best way to set the standards - and will obviously differ using different time standards - but in the case of your example it seems pretty accurate, even 4 minutes "unfair" to the female.
I hope your profession doesn't revolve around math.
Man, I sure screwed that up. I actually did the "calculation" just to see what the ratio was between the two, and when I got the "result" it didn't seem right. So I did it again and still got it wrong!
I'm gonna get laid!
Left Said Fred wrote:
EPOpian wrote:but now-a-days I would agree with this.
When men start popping babies out of their dicks, I'll start to believe this.
That sounds most unpleasant.
