OP ... come to London ... then you'll have some thing to complain about ...
18-39 year old women - sub 3hr45
59-year-old man ... sub-3hr20
OP ... come to London ... then you'll have some thing to complain about ...
18-39 year old women - sub 3hr45
59-year-old man ... sub-3hr20
Precious Roy wrote:
3:30 is not an overweight hobby jogger time for women. It is not an equivalent time to a 3:00 for men, but no one at the BAA ever said it was supposed to be. Most of the women in the 18-35 group have given up time running for having kids and have to balance their training with child care much more than men do. When I had kids, my wife wanted to go to yoga early in the morning. I offered to skip my run and take care of the kids when they woke up. That lasted about two weeks when the kids would start screaming for mommy in the morning even when I offered donuts and TV at breakfast. Women should absolutely get a softer standard to ensure their participation otherwise it is a race that punishes women for having children.
This a thousand times. An age-graded equivalent time to 3:30 for women is 3:10, not 3:00, but having children in one's 20s and 30s (something Paula Radcliffe did NOT do before running her WR time - if she had, she never would have run 2:15) has a huge impact on women's ability to train for and compete in Boston. My husband missed about three days of running in our child's first year of life while I was up all night breastfeeding and did most of my miles pushing the jogging stroller. There are other factors as well.
It would be one thing if men had to run 2:30 or something, but 3:00 is equivalent to 23 seconds per mile faster than 3:10. It's not like you're being asked to qualify for the Olympics. Many of the other Boston standards are unfair. It's practically impossible to qualify as an old woman, for example. Life is not fair. Train harder.
I think if there is one thing to take away from this thread its not that the Womens standards aren't alligned with the mens (because they aren't) it just feels bad to run a 2:59 marathon to Qualify as that is in the top 1% of ALL marathoners while other people can run stuff like a 4 hour when that's in the 50th percentile. That's the only thing to take away. Women standards will never been 3:00 or even 3:15.
life.isn't.fair wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
3:30 is not an overweight hobby jogger time for women. It is not an equivalent time to a 3:00 for men, but no one at the BAA ever said it was supposed to be. Most of the women in the 18-35 group have given up time running for having kids and have to balance their training with child care much more than men do. When I had kids, my wife wanted to go to yoga early in the morning. I offered to skip my run and take care of the kids when they woke up. That lasted about two weeks when the kids would start screaming for mommy in the morning even when I offered donuts and TV at breakfast. Women should absolutely get a softer standard to ensure their participation otherwise it is a race that punishes women for having children.
This a thousand times. An age-graded equivalent time to 3:30 for women is 3:10, not 3:00, but having children in one's 20s and 30s (something Paula Radcliffe did NOT do before running her WR time - if she had, she never would have run 2:15) has a huge impact on women's ability to train for and compete in Boston. My husband missed about three days of running in our child's first year of life while I was up all night breastfeeding and did most of my miles pushing the jogging stroller. There are other factors as well.
It would be one thing if men had to run 2:30 or something, but 3:00 is equivalent to 23 seconds per mile faster than 3:10. It's not like you're being asked to qualify for the Olympics. Many of the other Boston standards are unfair. It's practically impossible to qualify as an old woman, for example. Life is not fair. Train harder.
Most 20-30 year old women don't have children these days. Checkmate, SJW.
Oh Please wrote:
You just have to remember that Boston is still a mass participation race with moderate qualification times.
If you want elite, qualify for the Olympic trials (219) or Fukuoka (sub 240 I think). If you run those times you'll get in, unlike Boston.
I qualified for Boston with my first marathon, but will never run at OTQ.
Interesting goals for us sub-sub-sub-elites can include auto-qualifiers for majors that otherwise require a lottery: New York, Chicago, Berlin, London...
As well, New York sets up a great sub-elite support for pretty decent half/full qualifiers, like 1:12/2:30 or something?
Anyone who keeps their weight down for a year or two and gets in some healthy training blocks can run under 3:00.
Yawn
life.isn't.fair wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
3:30 is not an overweight hobby jogger time for women. It is not an equivalent time to a 3:00 for men, but no one at the BAA ever said it was supposed to be. Most of the women in the 18-35 group have given up time running for having kids and have to balance their training with child care much more than men do. When I had kids, my wife wanted to go to yoga early in the morning. I offered to skip my run and take care of the kids when they woke up. That lasted about two weeks when the kids would start screaming for mommy in the morning even when I offered donuts and TV at breakfast. Women should absolutely get a softer standard to ensure their participation otherwise it is a race that punishes women for having children.
This a thousand times. An age-graded equivalent time to 3:30 for women is 3:10, not 3:00, but having children in one's 20s and 30s (something Paula Radcliffe did NOT do before running her WR time - if she had, she never would have run 2:15) has a huge impact on women's ability to train for and compete in Boston. My husband missed about three days of running in our child's first year of life while I was up all night breastfeeding and did most of my miles pushing the jogging stroller. There are other factors as well.
It would be one thing if men had to run 2:30 or something, but 3:00 is equivalent to 23 seconds per mile faster than 3:10. It's not like you're being asked to qualify for the Olympics. Many of the other Boston standards are unfair. It's practically impossible to qualify as an old woman, for example. Life is not fair. Train harder.
+ 1
Try running with a thrice healed episteotomy third degree tear.
Give me just one, just one of your male advantages, even if its just the height, or the narrower hips, and I will whip the OP's ass.
Lets Run - the home of low achieving male runners to whine about women runners of all descriptions. Because those very few women might, just might, prevent their completely meaningless mid-race participation in one race at some time that no-one else is even remotely interested in.
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder" Um, these times aren't even balanced. Also to all the morons saying "2:5X" is easy, go look up the statistics on it less than .9% of all marathoners ever run that fast. It's unreasonable considering overweight hobbyjogger women can hit a 3:30 so easily.
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
I'm 25 pounds heavier than my college race weight and still can run 3 hours. Get better, son.
running commenter wrote:
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder" Um, these times aren't even balanced. Also to all the morons saying "2:5X" is easy, go look up the statistics on it less than .9% of all marathoners ever run that fast. It's unreasonable considering overweight hobbyjogger women can hit a 3:30 so easily.
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
I'm 25 pounds heavier than my college race weight and still can run 3 hours. Get better, son.
I agree. If he's 18-35 years old and can only run a 3 hour marathon he's pretty pathetic. No Boston for you.
lol dafuq wrote:
Why do women live their lives in this victim mentality?
The whole point of this thread is a man blaming other people for the fact that he’s too slow to get into Boston. If that’s not a victim mentality I don’t know what is.
332 at 235 Body Weight? How tall are you?
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder" Um, these times aren't even balanced. Also to all the morons saying "2:5X" is easy, go look up the statistics on it less than .9% of all marathoners ever run that fast. It's unreasonable considering overweight hobbyjogger women can hit a 3:30 so easily.
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
Stop blaming other people because you’re slow.
A fat male friend has run Boston 3 times and I don’t think he’s a good runner.
He’s never run under 3 though has come really close but then again he’s a couple of decades past his prime.
And 2:5x is easy if you ‘re a good runner with good endurance - clearly you are not one.
american petite wrote:
yourunwith24%bodyfat wrote:
Are you kidding me? I'm a petite woman and I weigh more than Kipchoge.
Well, you may be "petite" in America. Or, only inside your head..
It's true I am in America and am told I am tiny all the time.
Kipchoge weighed 117 lbs at Berlin.
life.isn't.fair wrote:
This a thousand times. An age-graded equivalent time to 3:30 for women is 3:10, not 3:00, but having children in one's 20s and 30s (something Paula Radcliffe did NOT do before running her WR time - if she had, she never would have run 2:15) has a huge impact on women's ability to train for and compete in Boston. My husband missed about three days of running in our child's first year of life while I was up all night breastfeeding and did most of my miles pushing the jogging stroller. There are other factors as well.
It would be one thing if men had to run 2:30 or something, but 3:00 is equivalent to 23 seconds per mile faster than 3:10. It's not like you're being asked to qualify for the Olympics. Many of the other Boston standards are unfair. It's practically impossible to qualify as an old woman, for example. Life is not fair. Train harder.
I don't get your point, the women's standard is 3:30. Ingrid Kristiansen set a world record after giving birth. Up all night breastfeeding? You must have had a hungry kid. (It also sounds like you let your husband get away with murder.)
When guy like OP starts to whine about women BQT I am just laughing my ass out.
3:00 is a bs time, just get out and train.
yob wrote:
When guy like OP starts to whine about women BQT I am just laughing my ass out.
3:00 is a bs time, just get out and train.
It's too bad that when you post on an article it doesn't post your MArathon PR next to your name. Letsrun should require upon registration they verify you're Marathon PR via Marathonguide.com - I'm willing to be 99.999% of the people who claim a sub 3 is easy as hell, have never and will never do it.
+1.
A 2010 article on marathonguide.com showed that > 9000 /500.000 marathon finishes were sub 3 hours.
So only about 2% of finishers do so in less than 3hours.
Some food for thought for the keyboard warriors who claim sub3 is easy.
Charlesvdw
5k PR 18:20 @ age 44
Marathon PR 3:19:18 @ age 44
Agree. Want the women's standards to come down? Then help grow the women's sport. More female runners = more race entrants and a more competitive race. You'll get your 50/50 split and faster qualifying times for women. The alternative attitude - "Why do women have it so easy?" - does nothing to help grow their sport. On a similar note, what is the sport's status regarding equal cash pay-out for female winners?
averagejoe_retired wrote:
Agree. Want the women's standards to come down? Then help grow the women's sport. More female runners = more race entrants and a more competitive race. You'll get your 50/50 split and faster qualifying times for women. The alternative attitude - "Why do women have it so easy?" - does nothing to help grow their sport. On a similar note, what is the sport's status regarding equal cash pay-out for female winners?
Regarding equal pay - The problem is that women want equal pay and get mad and throw a fit/go to the news if they don't get equal pay but they don't have equal standards, it's funny how that works now isn't it? They want equal until they have to put in some work.
running not swimming wrote:
make them equal wrote:
Agree there should be the same cut off time for both men and women. Make it around 3 hours for both sexes. Men may have the advantage of being a bit more powerful on average than women for distance running, but women have the advantage of weighing less than men on average which is a big help for the marathon distance. There is absolutely no rational justification for dividing the sexes when it comes to qualifying times for marathons.
We know females get closer by percent to male world records, swimming 50 metres to 1500 metres. We cannot say that for running. Women are about 12% slower than male world records from 100m to Marathon. Some events between 100m and Marathon, women are further or closer to men times, basically statistical noise. The average women has roughly x 2 body fat than average man; athletic women are roughly x 2 body fat than athletic man. Boston Marathon is not a 26.2 mile swim. I think it would be fair in a 26.2 mile swim to have equal standards. I do not understand this whining? Men who want to race Boston Marathon know there are different time standards by gender before they train for a Marathon. When it's time to attempt to race Boston, then men complain about women.
OP is a whining clown who needs to run more and whinge less. £10 says I could guess his age and demographic profile, I'll just say that.
However I don't agree with your analysis here. As you get closer to max human performance it gets harder and harder to improve. Max human performance is different for men and women. So by the time you get down to hobby joggers the relative difficulty for men and women evens out