Tell the truth, do you really care about Women's Track / Running

MY fave runner is LOLO JONES- the Satch of womens track-and a lot better athlete- I was better looking when I was her age .see attached picture.

I find it interesting that some of us old-schoolers are more supportive of womens running, then some of the youngsters on this board.

I loved seeing the exploits of Joan Benoit, Julie Brown, Ingrid Kristiansen, Grete Waits and all the runners that followed. My current running hero is Paula Radcliffe, not just because of her records, but how she persevered for years despite getting outkicked in many major events. She has been at the top of her game since she was a Junior. She and Joanie are also class acts.

I ran a lot with women throughout the years, and even today, its harder for a women to be a fully dedicated runner.

I appreciate a Dibaba victory just as much as a Gebreselassie one, in fact even more, because despite the success in Ethiopian running, women have more hurdles to overcome to make it a career.

not even a little bit.

No.

I do care about and follow women's running although not to the same level as I do the men's side.

The depth of men's track and field is much more impressive, and the athletic prowess is much more entertaining to watch. I would much rather watch a high quality high school boys competition than pretty much any women's competition, with the exception being IAAF Worlds and the Olympics.

I do enjoy some women's events, and respect some of the female athletes, but certainly not to the same level as the men's events. Track and Field and Tennis are the only two sports where I have respect for female athletes. I do think it is unfair to men that females receive the same prize money in both those sports.

I was at a CIS meeting a few years back and a new and naive female coach was asking about the distance of the races (In the Canadian Interuniversity Sport the men race 10km and the women race 5km). The female coach was wondering if we thought it was sexist that the men race a different distance. One long time coach said "Yes, it's very sexist that we make these poor fellows race 10km." It silenced her.

Not at all.. .women's running is just boring. Have you ever watched a women's 5k immediately after the men's? I'm a fan of the sport because I like to see people run fast. If the men are running way faster then they have the bigger appeal to me. Its just more interesting to see people running 3:45 1500's than 4:30 1500's. One of the few women I actually really enjoyed watching was Brenda Martinez from UCR- such a talented runner with a great strong stride. Beyond her though, most female runners I've seen are just boring to watch unless they got some big tits or something.

random wrote:

... I do think it is unfair to men that females receive the same prize money in both those sports.

Yeah, me too. And I really think that it is totally unfair that men receive even more prize money than cheetahs and pronghorns.

The younger posters don't have their world figured out yet. Maturity, learning to respect, and simply enjoying simple things comes with life experiences. Experiences younger people simply don't have.

All of them? That means 10.49 in the 100 and a 2:15 marathon.

saf... wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

The type of person that starts this kind of thread is probably someone who's PR's would not win the NCAA chick's meet... DIII...

How clever does your post sound if you are wrong?

--Which you are. Very Wrong. My PR's are all below the women's world records.

NeenerNeener.

"Its just more interesting to see people running 3:45 1500's than 4:30 1500's."This makes no sense to me. Why does it matter. Obviously in a race it is relative speed that matters. Do you have instantaneous velocity detectors in your eyes?Who cares what the eff'ing numbers are... it is the competition. Was racing that much less exciting to watch in the 70s because they were going slower. Of course not.72 munich 5k, and the one where lasse battles it out with the ethiopians were awesome races... do I enjoy watching them less because they weren't running a sub 13 velocity. Of course not.

friedduck wrote:

Not at all.. .women's running is just boring. Have you ever watched a women's 5k immediately after the men's? I'm a fan of the sport because I like to see people run fast. If the men are running way faster then they have the bigger appeal to me. Its just more interesting to see people running 3:45 1500's than 4:30 1500's. One of the few women I actually really enjoyed watching was Brenda Martinez from UCR- such a talented runner with a great strong stride. Beyond her though, most female runners I've seen are just boring to watch unless they got some big tits or something.

BITCHES AINT SHIT BUT HOES AND TRICKS. They're good for fcuking though.

Yep! I care a lot. I lost a lung when Shalane Flanagan got the bronze in the Olympics and then shed a small tear watching Kara Goucher get emotional after Boston.

I like men's just as much, especially during Olympic years at at WC.

I do have to admit at the HS, local level I am more into the girls races mostly from my former experiences as a HS girl, so I am reminiscing on my old glory days.

I can understand what some guys are saying about there being lack of depth in the field of women's running so it not being as exciting, but have you thought about WHY there are fewer women out there? It's still not considered that 'womanly' to want to beat the crap out of all other runners. So the women that have that competitive fire have something special.

thecomebackqueen,

Regardless of WHY, since the women themselves generally (even at an advanced D1 level, the highest level I've personally competed) don't really care much, it is hard for anyone to care about what they're doing.

If you watch a college conference meet, the girls themselves care more about the guys' competition. It will always be more interesting to watch athletes who are giving it their all, versus those who are just out there to justify their inclusion in a social circle.

Some of the sexist comments on here are really shocking... I'm pretty sure all of the cowards on this board are the pimply faced losers who would cower to say these things in real life. That being said, there are definitely a good amount of mature people on here as well... the older ones it seems.

Shrek II wrote:

Yeah, me too. And I really think that it is totally unfair that men receive even more prize money than cheetahs and pronghorns.

Male athletes in other sports get paid more, not just because they put up better marks, but because they are more entertaining. Events that are more entertaining draw a bigger audience, a bigger audience means more money.

On a side note cheetahs and pronghorns don't race professionally.

HS boys races are usually much faster and interesting to watch than most women's running. Plenty of sub 2 800's and sub 4:30 miles. Women's track has the depth of a wading pool.

Steve Adkisson wrote:

This has to be among the most retarded questions I've read posted at LRC, and that the includes the goofy political stuff that shows up here from time to time.

I hate to be the one giving a history lesson that I lived through, but fyi - Title IX was only passed in 1974 and you would find it hard to believe but few schools had women's cross country or track before that. I'm just an old redneck from Kentucky but the mere mention that somehow women track athletes are somehow less than the men is as knuckle dragging a comment as I have ever heard.

Hey girls, kick this guy in the nuts first chance you get. Oh yeah, that's right - he can hide behind an alias here.

The OP isn't asking if you think women's track is "less", the thread is asking if you care about it. And just because title IX says so, doesn't mean they are equal. fyi, many men's cross country programs are being cut these days because of title IX. That makes sense...