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

i think it should remain 2:22

im all for 2:22

A lot of debate is occuring on this thread due to a lack of agreement among posters as to what should be considered the gold standard for which relative qualifying standards should be compared to. If you state that 2:47 is soft relative to 2:22, then you need to clearly state what time standard you are using to make this conclusion.

As others have suggested, I feel a logical choice would be the respective world records for each gender. The records should be used as the standard of comparison. If 2:47 is a greater percentage slower than the women's record vs 2:22 relative to the men's record, then 2:22 is a superior time. I believe the world record is the most "pure" standard for which to compare relative times and is the closest thing we can call a physiologic ceiling.

Globally, women's running may still not be up to par with men's running due to the recent incorporation of women in the olympics/professional sports. If we make the assumption that women's running still has to catch up to men's participation levels, then we can assume that the women's standard should be even faster. If this were the case, then the 2:47 would be an even greater percentage slower relative to the world record.

The Mercier tables do not accurately reflect physiologic equivalents since they are based on previous performances which inherently do not control for confounding variables such as participation. I have seen Jaguar1 try and talk about how previous studies have shown greater variability in physiologic parameters/measurements in elite women and how no one has been able to explain this. She has tried to use this as an explanation as to why top women's performances are more spread out relative to men. These studies have the same confounding variable as the Mercier tables, they don't account for participation and many other variables. At the end of the day, no standard, including the IAAF olympic standards or the Mercier tables, represent the physiologic ceiling as purely as the world record.

If you want to argue who has a tougher time achieving fast times due to cultural constraints, this thread will have no end. In summary, my arguments are:

1. 2:22 is a physiologically tougher to achieve than 2:47

2. The world record is the most pure representation of the physiologic ceiling

So did you take Kevin Hanson up on his bet? probably not.

1. drugs=not 'pure'

Are you a taker? wrote:

So did you take Kevin Hanson up on his bet? probably not.

Kevins argument that his B qualifiers will have a big impact only reinforces the arguement that women's running is less competitive than men's in the US. Why this is the case, I couldn't care less. Bottom line, 2:47 is physiologically weaker than 2:22. So to answer your question, no I did not bet against Kevin/my own argument.

agree wholeheartedly. I made the trials the same way, ran a hard 16 and then jogged the last 10.2 in 61+ min. if i can do that then the standard is waaaay to soft for us fella's. i wonder if the women's standards just sound soft because we're so spoiled with deena always running 2;2x:xx or O'Neal busting out a nice little 2:30 something as a debut, or.....etc, etc. not that it even matters because we as fella's still have the nicer setup, what with the 1/2 and 10k qualifying, now it's actually easier IMO for a guy to get into the thon trials.dude-

no one of consequence wrote:

Your logic is retarded. Anyone who has the ability to clear a standard by several minutes has cushion, whether they are man, woman or ape. For example, read the following interview:

http://www.nyrr.org/races/pro/interview/2008/sundell012208.asp

Sundell qualified by for the trials in a long run. He was pacing a friend, even going as far as getting water for his friend along the course. He qualified comfortably and then came back just a few weeks later to run 28:28 in the 10k. If Steve could go out for a easy long run and qualify for the trials, then it could easily be surmised, from your logic, that the men's standard is too soft.

Your entire argument falls apart right here...a) we all know the women's record is stellar, just because the depth might not be there doesn't mean there hasn't been one individual who advanced the sport by leaps and bounds - enter paula radcliffe, clearly her wr damn good.in fact her time would beat all but a handful of u.s. men in every yearb) if it is weaker - why would the standard be tougher... so that 3 women can make it? no you try to encourage more if women see other women making it they will go for it as well, once it has been sufficiently filled at one time, dip the standard a bit lowerbut trying to shock women into running hard times isn't going to increase the depth of the sport

2tonbrik wrote:

Globally, women's running may still not be up to par with men's running due to the recent incorporation of women in the olympics/professional sports. If we make the assumption that women's running still has to catch up to men's participation levels, then we can assume that the women's standard should be even faster. If this were the case, then the 2:47 would be an even greater percentage slower relative to the world record.

Exactly... if someone such as yourself, who has been generally been considered more of a 1500 - 10k type of guy, can cruise through the marathon qualifier, then all these so-called true long distance guys must not be working hard enough if they can't clear 2:22. Fortunately they have tightened things up a bit and I would support a 2:43-44 range for women's qualifying four years from now.On another note, I know some women who worked incredibly hard to barely clear the 2:46 mark. I also know a few women who worked sort of hard to cruise through in around 2:43. Who is more deserving of a place at the trials? Honestly, in my mind, it's the women who cruise through in 2:43 because they have the talent to make a larger impact in the actual race, as they have room to grow. The woman who gave it her all to squeeze in under the mark is likely not going to get any faster. Same for the guys who worked really hard to squeeze in under 2:22. They deserve to be there as a reward for their hard work, but a guy like Sundell, who cruise to a qualifier, is much more likely to make a future impact. somerandomdude, you don't deserve to be in any race, but that's a whole different story.

somerandomdude wrote:

agree wholeheartedly. I made the trials the same way, ran a hard 16 and then jogged the last 10.2 in 61+ min. if i can do that then the standard is waaaay to soft for us fella's. i wonder if the women's standards just sound soft because we're so spoiled with deena always running 2;2x:xx or O'Neal busting out a nice little 2:30 something as a debut, or.....etc, etc. not that it even matters because we as fella's still have the nicer setup, what with the 1/2 and 10k qualifying, now it's actually easier IMO for a guy to get into the thon trials.

dude-

You are trying to twist the argument. It is simple. WHO BELONGS IN THE TRIAL MORE? A 2:22 MALE OR A 2:47 FEMALE?

Kevin Hanson believes that a B Standard woman will play a larger role in the womens trials than any 2:22 male did in the mens trials.

I believe he is correct.

I think 2:22 is certainly achievable by many more americans and its too bad they moved it to 2:19:00 because for many american males the Olympic Trials IS their Olympics. That being said, there are those at the higher echelons of marathoning who may not see the 2:20-22 guys as having any real place in the Trials as times like those will not make the Olympic Team. I ran 2:19:35 shortly after the standard was changed to 2:19:00. Its all how you look at it. 2:19:00 should motivate the guys who REALLY want to be in the Trials all the more to qualify. Yes, its even faster but if you really want to run with the big boys you will make the necessary sacrifice to do so.

NP

Are you a taker? wrote:

Kevin Hanson believes that a B Standard woman will play a larger role in the womens trials than any 2:22 male did in the mens trials.

I believe he is correct.

Of course he is, but it is a disingenuous proposition. His proposition: a B qualifier will finisher higher than the highest B qualifier (15th) in the men's race. There are only sixteen A qualifiers in the women's race and two of them have yet to declare. There may not even be fifteen A qualifiers in the race.

A better proposition: Jason Lehmkuhle (47th) was the slowest qualifier to finish in the top ten. Will the slowest qualifier to finish in the top ten of the women's race be faster or slower than 47th fastest qualifier?

So if a female with a bib number larger than 47 finishes in the top 10 will you say that the women have more depth than the women? Or will you say that the women are so weak that a number so high can finish in the top 10?

This is just a way to play with numbers?

Kevin Hanson's assertion was roughly that the 2:47 B standard was valid because a B standard woman was likely to have more of an impact on the race than a B standard man. I was just saying that that was a flawed metric because of course a B standard woman will have an effect because of the lack of A standard women.

If a slow qualifier woman (slower than 47th) finishes in the top 10 that is a more legitimate reason to keep the B standard at 2:47.

For the record, I think the fairest would be to have for both the men and women, the top 100 fastest are A qualifiers and anyone else who has run under 2:22 and 2:47 without being an A qualifier can pay $1000 to run.

chaz22 wrote:

If a slow qualifier woman (slower than 47th) finishes in the top 10 that is a more legitimate reason to keep the B standard at 2:47.

Fair Enough. Now we can sit and wait.

First off, Paula is an outlier. Secondly, there isn't equality of variance between the genders. Thus, from a statistical standpoint, you'd have to rank-order the data, which is essentially what Mercier achieves.

Actually, my argument did not fall apart, you didn't interpret my post correctly. When I said, "...then we can assume the women's standard..." I was referring to the global standard (the WR) and not the Oly trials standard. Btw, I agree Paula's TIME is an outlier, but I don't believe she is as much of a genetic outlier as many have assumed. The talent is out there and once women's running becomes as competitive as mens, her time will not seem as much an outlier.

Additionally, Jaguar1, if you still believe that Paula is a genetic outlier, then why don't you simply throw out her time instead of utilizing a weaker system of comparison such as the Mercier calc which allows for many uncontrolled sociologic variables. Even if you throw out Paula, the second best performer makes 2:47 inferior to 2:22 when you compare these standards to their respective WRs.

Mr. Hanson,

Just out of curiosity, has this clown placed a $100 bucks down or is he just a blow hard?

2tonbrik wrote:

Even if you throw out Paula, the second best performer makes 2:47 inferior to 2:22 when you compare these standards to their respective WRs.

Again, your suggested method cannot be used because equality of variance doesn't exist between the genders.