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

checkin in wrote:

abc123 123abc wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------

Great post... shame you forgot to note the weather conditions at Boston.

Way to mislead there chief!

checkin in wrote:

abc123 123abc wrote:

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.

Point taken. However, this still comes full circle because is does seem a little pathetic that there is such a large gap in common "competitive" performances among the women compared to the American record. Hall ran within a few minutes of the American record. Why aren't the women doing that?? LACK OF DEPTH! This is why the original thread was started.. 2:47 is soft. period.

This is for all of you that feel like the B standard women do not belong in this race.

In the men's trials, the top B Standard qualifier finished in 15th place (Steve Sundell). I am not including guys that qualified with a 10k time.

I am willing to bet $100 that the top B Standard female qualifier will finish better than that. Meaning that the B standard female qualifiers will play more of a factor than the B qualifier men did.

I am only willing to accept the first 50 takers. If I am wrong I am not willing to lose more than $5,000.

So here you go gentleman. It is easy to slam others anonymously on a message board. Put your money where your mouth is and man up.

Kevin Hanson

Hansons-Brooks Distance Project

hansonsrun@aol.com

Kevin I doubt you would get any takers because people would have to come out from behind their Mommy's skirts to take you up on the offer.

That and everyone would find out that they are 5 hour Marathoners calling 2:47 soft.

hmmm... Aren't Melissa, Desiree, and Dot all "B" qualifiers?

Training is going well I take it.

No bet.

P.S.: In MLB, this kind of behavior would get you suspended and likely keep you out of the Hall. You should consider a part-time gig as a ref at Pistons games though... Cheers.

Mr. Hanson is not guilty yet. Only if someone actually takes him up on this bet does he become guilty. I am certain that won't happen.

Ok, I started the thread and I was not thinking about Melissa, Desiree, and Dot. They are hard-working gals. Plus they have performances in the 10k/half-marathon range that show they belong.

They are not the ones who think the 2:39 runners are weird for putting off having kids and marrying their coaches. To the Hansons ladies, the 2:39 marathoners are prey to hunt.

dude you are an ass, show me one girl who makes the b standard who does not 'work' hardand I am willing to be that not a single one would use the weird to describe the A qualifiers -they might use the phrase 'different priorities than me'that does not mean weird by any stretch of the imagination

joking aside... wrote:

Ok, I started the thread and I was not thinking about Melissa, Desiree, and Dot. They are hard-working gals. Plus they have performances in the 10k/half-marathon range that show they belong.

They are not the ones who think the 2:39 runners are weird for putting off having kids and marrying their coaches. To the Hansons ladies, the 2:39 marathoners are prey to hunt.

Kevin Hanson wrote:

This is for all of you that feel like the B standard women do not belong in this race.

In the men's trials, the top B Standard qualifier finished in 15th place (Steve Sundell). I am not including guys that qualified with a 10k time.

I am willing to bet $100 that the top B Standard female qualifier will finish better than that. Meaning that the B standard female qualifiers will play more of a factor than the B qualifier men did.

I am only willing to accept the first 50 takers. If I am wrong I am not willing to lose more than $5,000.

So here you go gentleman. It is easy to slam others anonymously on a message board. Put your money where your mouth is and man up.

Kevin Hanson

Hansons-Brooks Distance Project

hansonsrun@aol.com

Maybe some believe they do not belong in the race. I'm not one of them. I think what most people are trying to explain or prove, if at all possible, is that the women's standard is softer than the men's.

I agree with you Kevin that B qualifiers will play a bigger role in the women's race. However, that fact is beside the point. The women's standard is still softer than the men's. Looking back at previous comments, I think the letsrun community agrees as well.

So let me get this straight.

The men's standard is more difficult but the women that hit the easier standard are more important in the results?

Got it.

I don't think the OP, and some of the others in the "letsrun community" on this thread were really looking to have a civil debate on the perceived "softness" of 2:47. I read three pages of misinformed jealous guys (most of whom are probably deeply unsettled about their own failures in life) taking turns passive-aggressively lobbing insults at a group of athletes that, by and large, trained very hard (by anyone's standard) to get into the Trials field.

I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that's what Kevin has an issue with. If I coached a "B" qualifier, I would.

It has nothing to do with laziness...but more to do with cultural values. Remember that women were not allowed to run the marathon in the olympics until 1984. There are roughly the same number of qualifiers for men and women. I disagree with tightening the mens standards. MORE participation in the sport of running is a good thing. Keep the womens at 2:47 and the mens at 2:22. Men are actually lazier than women. Besides the real difference lies in the fact that both men and women have seperate commitees at USATF. They operate differently. Grow a pair guys.

Lehm wrote:

I don't think the OP, and some of the others in the "letsrun community" on this thread were really looking to have a civil debate on the perceived "softness" of 2:47. I read three pages of misinformed jealous guys (most of whom are probably deeply unsettled about their own failures in life) taking turns passive-aggressively lobbing insults at a group of athletes that, by and large, trained very hard (by anyone's standard) to get into the Trials field.

I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that's what Kevin has an issue with. If I coached a "B" qualifier, I would.

You can train very hard and still hit a soft 2:47 B standard. I'm critiquing the softness of that standard, not the softness of the athlete that works hard (extremely hard in most cases) to hit that standard.

Athlete = tough

B Standard = not as tough as men's

PLEASE do not conclude that I think the athletes that hit the women's B standard are 'less tough' than the athletes that hit the men's B standard.. I'm simply stating I believe, like most, that 2:47 is easier than 2:22 (now 2:19)

joking aside... wrote:

For the men who were fortunate to have enough talent to break 2:20, they knew that they had to run their best, if not before the trials then at least at it, to hold off that group of 2:20-2:21 guys. So basically everyone in the 2:16-2:25 range was training his ass off. With the women though, we have a ton of people who ran 2:43ish and are just happy to be at the trials. And there is a huge gap between them and the sub-2:39 types that might actually be in the top 10 in the race itself

You didn't say it, but this is what I'm talking about.

Did I count this correctly? So far, there are 19 Women's Trials qualifiers this year who are eligible for funding. Under the rules of the 2008 Men's Trials, there were 30 qualifiers who hadn't even met the world B standard prior to the trials who were eligible for funding (a total of 65 men were eligible for funding).

Seems the women have a stricter definition on who is elite.

Women have more qualifiers; men get more money. Call it even and stop complaining.

Lehm wrote:

joking aside... wrote:

For the men who were fortunate to have enough talent to break 2:20, they knew that they had to run their best, if not before the trials then at least at it, to hold off that group of 2:20-2:21 guys. So basically everyone in the 2:16-2:25 range was training his ass off. With the women though, we have a ton of people who ran 2:43ish and are just happy to be at the trials. And there is a huge gap between them and the sub-2:39 types that might actually be in the top 10 in the race itself

You didn't say it, but this is what I'm talking about.

Agreed Lehm... this guy has no idea what type of training the 2:43ish women go through and it is pretty shallow to assume they are "just happy" to be there.

It will be fun to watch you count your money Sunday night in Boston.

For the record, the B standard is not easy. Ann trained very hard in 2005 and fell flat on her face (literally) watching the clock go 2:47:05, 2:47:06 ... I will not be surprised if 5 of the top 10 women in Boston are B qualifiers.

Ed Alyanak

abc123 123abc wrote:

I'm simply stating I believe, like most, that 2:47 is easier than 2:22 (now 2:19)

What you and all the other male opposition 'believes' is moot. 2:22 is equivalent to 2:48:26.5 for a woman, according to the Mercier 2005 scoring table, which yes, is based on depth (~2001-2004 world rankings). So statistically, 2:22 is a 'softer' standard than 2:47. If anything, the number of qualifiers on the women's side (albeit a longer qualifying window) suggests that the depth of women's marathoning is getting stronger.