The top women at Boston do not deserve prize money today!

Its sad that people will have a discussion like this... This thread has been like a good movie for me: full of drama, suspense, comedy(mostly), and there's even been a few of those steriotypical "dumb guys" mixed througout.

The most important thing to remember is that if time is completely all that matter then we might as well just give the money to the men/women who already have the fastest times without running the race. Thats obvious given the fact that Boston is a horribly slow course (if you think its fast then you have never run it nor do you know anyone who has run it). Boston has had records and every once in a while someone runs a PR there because they either ran terrible every other marathon or they are leagues above their previous fitness level. There will never again be a time within 2 minutes of the WR at Boston, if there is I will give every dime i earn to charity (except what i need just to eat).

Finally, the MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF THE THREAD is that sometimes the clock is the most important thing, and sometimes it shouldn't even be turned on. I could care less if the Olympic 5k is won in 15:05 or 13:05 as long as its a good race. That being said, record attempts are one of the most vital parts of our sport. Some races are setting minimum times for full money, and thats GREAT, but the truth is if a slow race like Boston where there isn't a chance at a record did that I'd stop watching before any good runners even stopped competing in it (which would be within a year). Be respectable to the challenge of a marathon as well, it was a windy day and you have no idea how these women felt. If they hadn't run hard then the defending champion (Tune) wouldn't have blacked out at the finish. I can tell you from experience that the most challenging races are the tactical ones... and if you choose not to play the tactics in the wind, good luck being anywhere near contention.

~~~~~~~~ wrote:

Skuj wrote:

Hey guys, that 2004 Oly M5000 final....13:14.....what a bore, eh? Take those medals away.

13:14... that's about 37 seconds off the WR at 5k, so for 42k multiply by 4.2 and we get 2 minutes, 35 seconds... or you can express it as a percentage of time if you wish, in which case 13:14 is about 4.8% off the WR.

.

Oh, a numbers man, a man after my own heart (someone already called me gay on this thread, so I figured I'd play along).

So using the % thingy, the 13:14 that Skuj pulled out of his ass as an attempt at a good example of a tactical race that was brilliant (it was actually a boring race, and Bekele was dumb to leave it to a kick) would equate to a women's time of about 2:22 flat (doing the math quickly). Read that again; 2:TWENTY-2, not 2-THIRTY-2. Big difference. And the Olympics are never about time. (skuj, as another alluded to, c'mon man, you KNOW you've been hitting the bottle. on the other hand, your posts did make me laugh. Drunk, irrational people have that effect on me)

Look, for those getting upset, *I* never said the women didn't deserve any $. I just said not as much as the men for performances that were not as good as the men in both absolute terms AND relative terms. Maybe Paula set the bar too high for the ladies???? Sorry girls, Paula has shown what you can do: 2:15. Am I giving you all too much credit?? Not breaking 2:20 is like not man breaking 2:10/11 Not breaking 2:30 is like no man 2:20. It just doesn't happen in a men's major marathon...and shouldn't in a women's.

And to the guy who said I could only mention two big races that award prize money based on place AND performance, I got another one for you:

"Rotterdam Marathon:

Winner’s prize money and total prize money: depends upon performance (Details not published)"

Hmmm....."details not published" huh? I guess they don't want Skuj throwing a hissy fit if they paid out more $ to a 3rd place guy who ran 2:05 flat in their race than they did to a 3rd place women who ran 2:36 (which were the corresponding times and places). I guess Skuj would puke up some wine if he saw that and then tell the Dutch to "get the f*** out" in his best Jermy Piven if they DARED to try and pay out prize money based on quality. (good clip though)

2:05 and 2:36 are not equivalent, and what Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher did the other day were not equivalent, and everyone damn well knows it. But you want pay them the same......... pathetic.

~~~~~~~~ wrote:

13:14... that's about 37 seconds off the WR at 5k, so for 42k multiply by 4.2 and we get 2 minutes, 35 seconds...

I stopped reading after this. Try multiplying by 8.4 instead.

Hey Lancy, 5k times 8.44 = Marathon. Not 4.2. You went with the mathematically challenged one's argument. Try again. "Oh a numbers man, a man after my own heart..." AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....this thread continues to deliver!

(I've been called a lot of things at letsrun, but today, it seems that I am a drunk. Interesting!)

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

2:05 and 2:36 are not equivalent, and what Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher did the other day were not equivalent, and everyone damn well knows it. But you want pay them the same......... pathetic.

But 3rd is equivalent. Any questions?

Skuj wrote:

But 3rd is equivalent. Any questions?

3rd in a very watered down field.

This is not one of the top 5 most competitive marathons in the world.

Vancouver Canada Runner wrote:

3rd in a very watered down field.

This is not one of the top 5 most competitive marathons in the world.

Now yer gonna force me to look up the top runners PRs. Goucher did 2:25 on her 1st try, right? What are the PRs of the top 5-10?

And if the top 3 men don't fit the bill of being amongst the very best in the world, then give me some tinfoil to chew. Right now.

Skuj wrote:

~~~~~~~~ wrote:

13:14... that's about 37 seconds off the WR at 5k, so for 42k multiply by 4.2 and we get 2 minutes, 35 seconds...

I stopped reading after this. Try multiplying by 8.4 instead.

Correct should be x8.4... sorry was posting in a hurry. So you're happy with 5m 10s off the record?

Or like I said, you can use a percentage if you wish.

This thread is crazy! Both fast times and tactical races are important to running, of course! One of the best things about the sport is that it is often uncertain how races will develop beforehand: there is the constant tension between the frontrunner tactic and the guy who sits and kicks! That's not to say either is better, or even that either makes a better race or better viewing - but if all races were time-trials and there weren't ever any races that went out slowly and turned into barn-burners, the sport would be diminished! The fact that Boston race for the women went out slowly and finished hard made it really interesting - it was obviously a tactical mine-field for Kara and also Dire and Salina.

To answer the OP's question: of course, the top women should be paid equally to what the top men were paid: I don't think that there were time-bonuses, so they should get what the contractual agreement was. I'm pleased that other races have different prize structures, it makes it more interesting.

The only bullcrap about the women's Boston race this year is that the organisers said they had no space for Catherine Ndereba. Two Olympic silvers, two world championship golds, one world championship silver, second fastest woman in history? They should have found the space for her. Incidentally she probably wouldn't have made things faster. She generally never takes the lead until the second half of marathons anyway.

some coked up brit wrote:

The only bullcrap about the women's Boston race this year is that the organisers said they had no space for Catherine Ndereba. Two Olympic silvers, two world championship golds, one world championship silver, second fastest woman in history? They should have found the space for her. Incidentally she probably wouldn't have made things faster. She generally never takes the lead until the second half of marathons anyway.

Wasn't Nderba announced as a London participant back in November?

From a RD point of view, women's racing is pathetic. There are few women capable of racing against each other and for the most part, they all know where to run and where to make the most money. We get 10 times as many competitive men than women every year. The day before the race, most women will tell you who will win. Men on the other hand all think they are going to win.

If it was not political suicide to cut the women's money by 75%, I would do it instantly. All money given to women is a complete waste except for maybe the top few. I have had years where every single - every single - elite women was paid because we did not get enough in the field. Please don't tell me it is my fault for not recruiting. I have never recruited one man or one women. It's a prizse money event and I never have problems getting fields together.

I know all you women will blast this and want to know which race I'm from. Just know that every penny you get paid should be followed with a nice thank you note to the RD.

boy do I agree. I'd rather see money deeper in a mens field where a 29:00 10k gets ya' squat nowadays instead of giving it to a 40 minute 10k chick. Good point about the competetiveness of the men. Hell, at 33 minutes even I like to think that if the kenyan bus missed the start I could at least make the top 20 if given a reasonable headstart at a prize money race. The women on the other hand will tell you "Catherine will win", and lo and behold, Catherine does. Equal money for an unequal field makes no sense.

29:00 10k sucks! Money given to men in road races is just as much of a waste.