Womens Oly Trials Marathon Standards

I did qualify for the 2008 Trials. And I ran. And I had the time of my life doing it (all of it: training, trying and failing at first, finally qualifying, and ultimately competing at the Trials). And I will do it again (God and health willing) in 2012! I am just protective of all of my training partners who did not make it. Of course not everyone can make it, and I don't think anyone who tried and failed is throwing a pity party for herself (I certainly never did on the occasions in which I came up short).

I do think that some people on this thread have made counter-arguments that have merit. For instance, if the same number of females meet the 2:47 standard as males meet the 2:22 standard, then they are either equally "tough" or "soft," providing that the same number of males and females are gunning for the standards. I don't think we can know whether or not that is the case, but we certainly can't assume that it's not.

No pity,

The Tigress

136 men met the 2:22 standard for the 2007 Trials.

169 women met the 2:47 standard for the 2008 Trials.

24% more women qualified.

fact checker wrote:

136 men met the 2:22 standard for the 2007 Trials.

169 women met the 2:47 standard for the 2008 Trials.

24% more women qualified.

The women had a longer qualifying window.

Airbear, I like your style both written and running, atleast what you have shared in terms of your running:O)

I would guess I am a good bit "older" than you but am still inspired to train again and try to hit that B.

After 96 when I qualified I had 4 tries and 4 misses leading up to 2000 and another round of 4 tries and 4 misses going up to 2004, after that I thought hmm maybe I need a break from the marathon.

After recovering from an injury I feel like there are all sorts of possiblities out there, and I say the more the merrier for 2012, regardless of the nay-sayers.

It would be great if there were an unprecedented amount of qualifiers for this next Trials, to include some of the Master Blasters out there.

Congrats on qualifying in 2008 and all the best to you and your training partners in your continued quest!

My feeling, as an informed and knowledgeable observer, is that Avocado's Number is very out of touch with the reality on the ground for female marathoners in the USA and as such his estimations aren't even worth the bytes they are written on. He can grind his ax and fling his sour grapes from his ivory tower in Colorado Springs all he wants, it won't change that basic truth.

Jefe in the CO calls for a return to the facts, so I bit the bullet and did some research and will present them here in an effort to lend credibility to my argument--free of insults! :)

Below is a tediously typed out list of the top 15 finishers from the 2008 Trials along with their Trials times, qualifying times, and approximate improvement in MINUTES:

Name:/ Trials time:/ Qualifying time:/ Improvement:

1.Kastor/ 2:29:35/ 2:19:36/ NA

2.Lewy-Boulet/ 2:30:19/ 2:42:38/ 12

3.Russell/ 2:32:40/ 10K/ NA

4.Gomez/ 2:33:53/ 2:35:26/ 1.5

5.Moody 2:33:54/ 2:46:40/ 13

6.Johnson-Lane/ 2:34:17/ 2:36:15/ 2

7.Alyanak/ 2:34:42/ 2:38:55/ 2

8.McMahon/ 2:35:02/ 2:43:27/ 8

9.Friedman/ 2:35:02/ 2:39:19/ 4

10.Moeller/ 2:36:51/ 2:40:21/ 3.5

11.Enman/ 2:37:14/ 2:44:06/ 7

12.Hepp/ 2:37:29/ 2:45:10/ 7.5

13.Davila/ 2:37:50/ 2:44:56/ 7

14.White/ 2:37:53/ 2:39:21/ 1.5

15.Reddy/ 2:38:08/ 2:41:30/ 3

Amazing stuff. Thirteen of the top 15 not only improved on their qualifying times, but also set a new PR. Six of the top 15 improved by 7 MINUTES OR MORE. If I had carried out this exercise to the top 20, you would find that only 20 women broke 2:40 at the Trials, and only 17 runners qualified under the A standard of 2:39. Of those original 17 A qualifiers, only 4 finished in the top 15. So, had the women decided to set only one "stringent" A qualifying standard in 2008, similar to what the men have done this year, we would have missed out on 11 of our top 15 (10, really, because Blake Russell qualified based on her 10K time). I think this would have been a shame, don't you all? Clearly the two genders need different ways to choose our qualifying standards. Ten of our top 15 did not meet the A standard prior to the Trials, and instead qualified by running some pretty "soft" times.

The Airbear has spoken (written, actually).

Sarah,

I like your style, too. Keep living the DREAM! Remember that it's still worth trying, regardless of the outcome. It's fun to train and compete and travel and meet people and dream.

(And for the record, I'm probably a lot older than you think!)

Airbear

Avocados Number wrote:

know more than you do wrote:

according to the valid, but yes, somewhat out-of-date Mercier calculator

According to the "valid, but yes, somewhat out-of-date Mercier calculator" of 2005, Paula Radcliffe's performance at the London marathon of 2003 was the equivalent of a man's 1:59:49, and women you've never heard of are better marathoners than any male marathoner in human history.

According to Mercier (assuming I'm using it right) 2:03:59 is equivalent to a female 2:21:12, which makes you one of the 14 fastest women ever. If you have a reasonable knowledge of the sport you have heard of them. I agree that that seems a little generous, however, and I'm not buying 1:59:49 for "Paul" Radcliffe.

I prefer the "badass" scale. If you are a man running under 2:06 you are badass. For a woman it's 2:20 (only one woman has ever run under 2:20 in a race and not placed first).

airbear wrote:

Wow! I did not realize that you went to M.I.T., or that you completed such difficult math courses--at the tender age of 17, no less!

As you know, I was responding to your remarks -- you would call them insults and assumptions, which they undoubtedly were -- that I'm "certainly NOT a mathematician" and I "don't understand the concepts underlying these mathematical models." Otherwise, I never would have mentioned my background in mathematics, just as I never would have mentioned having already run under 2:19 if I hadn't been accused of being some guy who was simply upset about the new 2:19 standard for men and who needed to "grow a pair" and train harder to meet that standard. I have absolutely no interest in impressing you or anyone else who repeatedly insults me on this or any other thread. There are a number of people on this site who can engage in interesting and sometimes spirited discussions without personal attacks, and I prefer communicating with them.

As for your feeling that I look down on your athletic accomplishments, or your educational background, or your apartment, or your two obese cats, or some other aspect of your life, I don't think that I can help you with any of that, except to say that I also have two rather hefty cats, and I love them immensely.

Weren't you at one time interested in substantive discussion? All you've really done here is cast aspersions and insults.

Becky wrote:

Avocados Number, since this is related to the current discussion, I'd be interested in your take: the collegiate women race the D1 national championships in cross-country over 6000 meters while the men run 10,000 meters. Should the women raise their distance and if so, why & to what? Would you argue the women should run the same distance as the men because 6000m, by comparison, is too soft?

I don't really consider a 6000m race to be "softer" than a 10,000m race. If I had the choice, I'd want to run a 10,000m race, just because 6000m races are too fast for me.

I'm not sure why NCAA cross-country distances are different for men and women. Maybe it's based on the view that fewer women will run cross-country if the distances are increased, or maybe it's just a scheduling issue, since the slower runners in a longer race could take considerably more time to finish. It could just be a vestige of the paternalism of earlier days, when women were assumed to be less able to handle long distances, and there were no Olympic running events for women that were longer than 3000m.

From my own point of view, I'd prefer to see a distance of 8000m or 10,000m, simply because I can never figure out what a good 6000m time is without calculating paces or converting finishing times to other distances and then extrapolating. And if I were a competitor in the women's race, I might be a little miffed that slow-starting, slow-footed distance runners like me don't have much of a chance over 6000m.

Well said airbear!

Dear A.N.,

Well, not that you should care, but I've decided that we MIGHT be friends if we met in "real life." Until your last sentence I did not think that would be possible, but all people need is a square inch of common ground (I know, shouldn't simply being human count as common ground?), and the fact that you love your cats immensely, hefty or otherwise, makes me like you. No more insults.

P.S. But can YOUR cats fetch? Now we can argue all day over whether your marathon time is or isn't faster than my female equivalent, but what really matters is that my cats are way smarter than your cats.... Have a good day, A.N.

Hey hold your ponies there Airbear, um I mean cats, this is a Olympic Trials Marathon thread, or have you forgotten?Thanks for interjecting the humour (British spelling) where it was needed :o)

Avocados Number wrote:

I'm not sure why NCAA cross-country distances are different for men and women. Maybe it's based on the view that fewer women will run cross-country if the distances are increased, or maybe it's just a scheduling issue, since the slower runners in a longer race could take considerably more time to finish. It could just be a vestige of the paternalism of earlier days, when women were assumed to be less able to handle long distances, and there were no Olympic running events for women that were longer than 3000m.

Avocados Number, I'm surprised you don't know why the women run a shorter championship distance and am shaking my head that you'd postulate NCAA coaches might still be in the dark ages when it comes to women & possibilities. You don't really believe the coaches feel the women can't 'handle long distances'. You also don't believe the women run a shorter distance for scheduling reasons. C'mon, what's an extra 20-30 minutes?

The reason the women run a shorter distance is because the coaches claim the races will be more competitive for a greater number of runners. If the distance were longer, the gap between runners would be much greater than it is among the men. I'm not saying this is a good reason for running a shorter distance- just offering the rationale.

I did a quick comparison of the '08 men's & women's NCAA Champ times in each division and way down the line in places 100 & 200, the gap from first is approximately the same. This does not bode well for adding another 4000m to the women's race and running the comparison again. The gap from first to #100 or 200 would be as much as twice as great as the men's. This is speculation but I don't think I'm that far off. AND, I think we can extend this disparity up front to explain the women's Olympic Trials Marathon standard for '12. If you take the top 100 men & women from any year, I think you'll discover the time gap is disproportionate with men having a closer spread (no pun intended) than the women.

Also, I don't know that you've addressed it but the goals for the two Trials, men & women, may not be the same. They don't have to be.

Becky wrote:

Avocados Number, I'm surprised you don't know why the women run a shorter championship distance and am shaking my head that you'd postulate NCAA coaches might still be in the dark ages when it comes to women & possibilities. You don't really believe the coaches feel the women can't 'handle long distances'. You also don't believe the women run a shorter distance for scheduling reasons. C'mon, what's an extra 20-30 minutes?

The reason the women run a shorter distance is because the coaches claim the races will be more competitive for a greater number of runners. If the distance were longer, the gap between runners would be much greater than it is among the men. I'm not saying this is a good reason for running a shorter distance- just offering the rationale.

When you asked me why there was a difference in the NCAA distances, I assumed that you were looking for an answer, so I told you that I didn't know, and offered a few possible rationales. There has been a similar disparity in international cross-country, and I'm not sure why. As I vaguely recall from decades ago, there used to be a difference between NCAA Division I and NCAA Division III cross-country distances, and I was never sure about the reasons for that, either. I understand the perception that, in NCAA competition, the finishing order among the women might be pretty well sorted out by three or four miles, so adding a couple of miles wouldn't change much except the gaps between finishers. If I were a 10,000m specialist, however, I would still want the extra 2000m or 4000m to have a better chance against the 1500m and 5000m specialists, and I might be a little irked by the rationale that sticking with a shorter distance gives more runners a better chance to be competitive at the finish.

Regarding the "dark ages," keep in mind that outstanding distance runners like Grete Waitz had to wait until the 1980s to get an Olympic distance longer than 1500m, and didn't get 5000m or 10000m races until 1988. The women's 3000m steeplechase didn't come along until much later. The "dark ages," in other words, weren't so long ago, and maybe we're still in them.

airbear wrote:

Dear A.N.,

Well, not that you should care, but I've decided that we MIGHT be friends if we met in "real life." Until your last sentence I did not think that would be possible, but all people need is a square inch of common ground (I know, shouldn't simply being human count as common ground?), and the fact that you love your cats immensely, hefty or otherwise, makes me like you. No more insults.

P.S. But can YOUR cats fetch? Now we can argue all day over whether your marathon time is or isn't faster than my female equivalent, but what really matters is that my cats are way smarter than your cats.... Have a good day, A.N.

Thanks, airbear. I really do appreciate your message. And I agree that we might very well be friends in "real life."

My cats fetch only when they choose to, which suggests to me that they may be smarter than I am. But here's the neat thing about having cats: I realize that my affection for them has absolutely nothing to do with how smart, or good-looking, or athletic they are. In turn, they don't care whether I qualified for the Olympic trials, or whether I can still solve differential equations. Such is the nature of a great relationship, whether feline or human.

Avocados Number wrote:

But here's the neat thing about having cats: I realize that my affection for them has absolutely nothing to do with how smart, or good-looking, or athletic they are. In turn, they don't care whether I qualified for the Olympic trials, or whether I can still solve differential equations. Such is the nature of a great relationship, whether feline or human.

Some other great things about cats is that they don't care if you lie or cheat. They rarely notice if you're being manipulative or sulking. They are oblivious if you lose thousands playing cards as long as the kitty litter gets changed. If you earn an unsavory reputation around town, they just look the other way, and if you come home at 3:00 a.m. intoxicated and reeking of liquor and stale cigar smoke, they just move to the other side of the bed.

Cats do indeed make the perfect mates. They will pretty much ignore any sh!t you throw at them. If you could only find a woman who could offer the kind of relationship that a cat can. But wait...

Yeah, but how fast do you think cats could run a marathon in?

I bet they couldn't clear 2:46 to save their lives.