That's it, that's the post
That's it, that's the post
Over the weekend I started a thread on the post of the week for last week.
Pretty sure this is today's post of the day.
Very succinct and sweet.
No shame on that
a1a wrote:
That's it, that's the post
I would still be happy with a 13:36.
Sure sure. If all of us had one of the best coaches in the world and access to the best facilities and training... any other qualifiers you’d like to add? The thread title is sexist.
And if in the race running around 13:55 you would get lapped.
Disko Eric wrote:
Sure sure. If all of us had one of the best coaches in the world and access to the best facilities and training... any other qualifiers you’d like to add? The thread title is sexist.
I just promoted this thread on all the LetsRun.com social channels. I wondered if someone might find a way to complain about it.
I don't think it's sexist at all. It's pointing out how fast they both ran.
wejo wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Sure sure. If all of us had one of the best coaches in the world and access to the best facilities and training... any other qualifiers you’d like to add? The thread title is sexist.
I just promoted this thread on all the LetsRun.com social channels. I wondered if someone might find a way to complain about it.
I don't think it's sexist at all. It's pointing out how fast they both ran.
Ivy League education fails again. It’s a troll post and it’s sexist. OP refused to elaborate on their point. We’re left to opin the reason for comparing male and female times. It most certainly is sexist. Why not compare Moh’s time to any number of 5ks the past few weeks?
What OP meant, “if you’re not faster than 13:36 then you’re slower than the fastest American woman. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But making it a token is sexist. There was zero reason to compare male and female times unless you wanted a triggered response on sexuality.
Disko Eric wrote:
What OP meant, “if you’re not faster than 13:36 then you’re slower than the fastest American woman.
Math fail.
Hardloper wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
What OP meant, “if you’re not faster than 13:36 then you’re slower than the fastest American woman.
Math fail.
It’s arithmetic. Not math. Geez. Are you that insufferable and bored?
I'm so proud of my one and only sub 16... And I'm a male...
I thought he was just pointing out that you could run a time, probably minutes faster than any of us had ever run, and still be closer to the fastest woman than the fastest man. Nothing inherently sexist about pointing out men are generally faster than women.
Sorry chumps but 14:22.99 is closer to ZERO than 14:23 as there are INFINITE sets of NUMBERS that can be MEASURED..... and you don’t get chicked.
What the post implies is that if you are a man and you are slower than 13:35- you are closer in speed to the best woman, than the best man.
But, so what?
The fastest American woman in history is faster than many, many very fast men.
Personally-
I don't mind being beaten by women, by older people, by over weight people.
I just wouldn't want to get beaten by someone who is all of those things.
Or by a gym rat or cross-fitter.
That would be really embarassing!
Fortunately that will never happen.
Disko Eric wrote:
Sure sure. If all of us had one of the best coaches in the world and access to the best facilities and training... any other qualifiers you’d like to add? The thread title is sexist.
Thanks guys for aggravating tools like this one....
a1a wrote:
This is just to say: if your PR is slower than 13:35, you would have finished closer to Shelby than Moh
That is not necessarily true.
Your claim assumes that one would finish. If one does not finish/would not have finished then they certainly would NOT "have finished closer to Shelby than Moh."
That's it, that's the post.
DNF shows up on the results page closer to a 14:23 clocking than a 12:37
Checkmate
Pretty much everybody on here then.
Cool.
Not sure the point of this post.
The point we should take away from this post, cruel but factual as it is, is that if you're a male who runs 13:35 you are not close to world class in 2020. Most of the rare American men who can run this time may think they're hot stuff, but you'll have to improve by more than 20 seconds for an OQ. Hopefully it lights a fire in the belly of the complacent elite runner to work harder in order to reach the next level.
It also shows that the best women, such as Ms. Houlihan, are outstanding. Worthy of a Wheaties box for sure.
Hopefully that is what OP meant when he posted this thread.
The best women, such as Ms. Holihan & Ms. Schweizer, among others, ARE truly outstanding.
Unfortunately, I saw this as borderline misogynistic when I first opened it, but I am hoping OP wanted to convey your point and not another, less becoming option.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.