This seems strange. Any UK'ers have an explanation of what's happening here? It seems to be more about UKA politics than the actual issue of equalization of distance.
This seems strange. Any UK'ers have an explanation of what's happening here? It seems to be more about UKA politics than the actual issue of equalization of distance.
There was a big movement a couple of years ago where everyone was campaigning for equal cross-country distances across the board for men and women. Currently our Nationals are typically 12k for men and 8k for women, and the difference is similar as you move down the age groups (8k vs 6k, 6k vs 4k etc.).
Now they've decided they're probably going to do it, a load of 'legends', very few of whom are actually currently active on the domestic cross-country circuit, have decided that this would somehow undermine their past achievements over shorter distances?
Can't win. Either it's sexist for not having equal distances, or it's derogatory if they force them to move up in distances.
I don't think they have made a good argument for opposing the equalisation of race distances. It seems they are just questioning the motives of those arguing for equalisation, which is odd.
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
I don't think they have made a good argument for opposing the equalisation of race distances.
There aren't any good arguments in FAVOR of equalizing distances either. It is all arbitrary.
don't care about it wrote:
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
I don't think they have made a good argument for opposing the equalisation of race distances.
There aren't any good arguments in FAVOR of equalizing distances either. It is all arbitrary.
There are good arguments in favour of equalising distances. They have equalised all track races except hurdle/barrier heights (obviously) and distance (110m vs 100m, presumably to fit in with stride patterns). Women run all the same distances on the road. It's arbitrary to single out cross country as the only discipline where a difference must remain.
Exact race distance isn't important in cross country. What's more important is that it's a good race. If the men happen to run the same distance as the women, that's fine, and if they run a different distance, that's fine as well.
They did a survey at some big xc races and the women voted not to increase distances. Xc us a lot tougher in UK with hills and mud and they overall didn't want to run the longer distances.
The equal rights lobby want the men to run s shorter distance somewhere in between knowing the women don't want to run the full distance.
Imagine if instead od just letting the women run the full marathon they had made the distance shorter say 20 miles. St one time there was just 3000m max on track for women. Imagine if they'd said everyone has to do 7km.
It's a TERF argument, read between the lines. Women don't experience male puberty and so need shorter races - that's their statement. They want to use that argument whenever they can to make it more acceptable to use in other contexts, even when it makes zero sense like here because nobody argues argues for a short women's marathon for the same reasons.
There’s less depth in women’s running IMO. Shorter distances allow a greater range of athletes to be competitive and therefore improve the field quality.
Not sure if that alone is enough justification but it’s a not insignificant point against equalization.
Dr Yuengling wrote:
There’s less depth in women’s running IMO. Shorter distances allow a greater range of athletes to be competitive and therefore improve the field quality.
Not sure if that alone is enough justification but it’s a not insignificant point against equalization.
Would shorter distances improve the quality of fields though?
I agree there is less depth in women's running. Maybe there isn't a very good level of competition in a lot of county leagues, but there is good competition at south/midland/north champs, BUSAs, national, inter-counties. If that's not enough there are other big races (cross challenge) and unless you belong to a very weak club various relays.
Shorter races are good as a stepping stone, not a destination.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
They did a survey at some big xc races and the women voted not to increase distances. Xc us a lot tougher in UK with hills and mud and they overall didn't want to run the longer distances.
The equal rights lobby want the men to run s shorter distance somewhere in between knowing the women don't want to run the full distance.
Imagine if instead od just letting the women run the full marathon they had made the distance shorter say 20 miles. St one time there was just 3000m max on track for women. Imagine if they'd said everyone has to do 7km.
And yet there are women running mountain ultras with no more adverse effects than for the men. Every other track, road and trail event uses the same distance or course for men and women. There is really no reasonable justification for xc to be different.
Female athlete in my thirties, have competed in XC in the UK since I was a kid, still active.
I was sent a survey by UKA a couple of weeks ago asking for opinions on 'how best to achieve equalisation in distances in XC' not 'do I think it should happen'. I don't believe athletes have been consulted in the first place and local regions/counties who organise XC events have also had little to no say.
Having competed in XC for many years, equalising the distance is a terrible idea in my opinion. As would running the men and women's races together which could be another option.
First, local XC races are sometimes quite small and the field ends up massively strung out by the end - the usual distance for women is 6K. So if it was upped to 8 or 10K or even 12 the field would be strung out even further, less competitive, spectators unlikely to wait to see the slower runners finish.
If women and men's races are merged, in my opinion this would make the women's races become less meaningful - the leading woman is obviously not going to ever win the whole race for example (being realistic here I think!). I also think it would put female runners off competing in XC - the hills and mud are a slog as they are, without potentially near doubling the distance.
If I want to race against men, in equal distances, there are road races and off road races. But the local XC races attended by clubs have a tradition and team spirit that is unique in the racing season. I don't think it should be messed with.
I'm very much all for equality but at the end of the day, the average man is both stronger and faster in running than the average woman. This is a matter of common sense, it doesn't need to become political.
Sadly you are against equality and for sexism. Valueing the skill of a human differently based on sex is the definition of sexism. Run against males and compete. Dont ask for special categories
ReluctantBrit wrote:First, local XC races are sometimes quite small and the field ends up massively strung out by the end - the usual distance for women is 6K. So if it was upped to 8 or 10K or even 12 the field would be strung out even further, less competitive, spectators unlikely to wait to see the slower runners finish....
If I want to race against men, in equal distances, there are road races and off road races. But the local XC races attended by clubs have a tradition and team spirit that is unique in the racing season. I don't think it should be messed with.
I'm very much all for equality but at the end of the day, the average man is both stronger and faster in running than the average woman. This is a matter of common sense, it doesn't need to become political.
I was just checking the distances ran at the world cross country championships and saw that men and women ran the same distance in 2017 (9.858km) and 2019 (10km)!
To some extent the men 's races vary the distance, perhaps for the reasons you mention. I've run in the Sussex League (8k) and the Hampshire League (10k). Both the Sussex and Hampshire championships were 12k, same as most championships. I don't see why women's races can't stick to shorter events for local races if desired, but surely it's good to encourage athletes to run the standard (internationally accepted) distance - at least at county champs, area champs, inter-counties and national.
Dr Yuengling wrote:
There’s less depth in women’s running IMO. Shorter distances allow a greater range of athletes to be competitive and therefore improve the field quality.
Not sure if that alone is enough justification but it’s a not insignificant point against equalization.
Your opinion is moot. Running USA has had stats the past several years showing women’s depth exceeds the men at all road racing distances up to the half marathon. In the marathon open age category women’s depth exceeds the men as well.
There is no good reason for women at any age to run a shorter distance. If anything maybe they should run longer than the men cause women are better suited for endurance.
running usa. wrote:
Dr Yuengling wrote:
There’s less depth in women’s running IMO. Shorter distances allow a greater range of athletes to be competitive and therefore improve the field quality.
Not sure if that alone is enough justification but it’s a not insignificant point against equalization.
Your opinion is moot. Running USA has had stats the past several years showing women’s depth exceeds the men at all road racing distances up to the half marathon. In the marathon open age category women’s depth exceeds the men as well.
There is no good reason for women at any age to run a shorter distance. If anything maybe they should run longer than the men cause women are better suited for endurance.
[/quote]
I don’t know what stats you’re referring to since you neglected to actually cite any. I said “in my opinion” because I acknowledge that people might interpret depth in different ways. Personally, I’m concerned with competitive depth, people who train and compete at a high level, rather than how many hobby joggers are waddling around at the back of road races.
Not sure where you run but our cross country races in Essex are run with both men and women over the same course of generally around 4.5-5 miles for winter and summer 6miles.
Though I’m not one of the first finishes but generally a points scorer for the men and I’m usually beaten by a couple of women per race. I don’t here any complaints from the runners of either sex that there is an issue with either the distance, racing together or the toughness of the course 150ft elevation, mud and running through water.
I’m sure if you are the women’s winner you want more kudos for finishing first or top scorer then you probably do receive and have a very valid point but that seems to be one of few reasons, recognition, as it’s very unlikely a woman will win a mixed race.
You can guess I voted that I did not matter to me, I just want to be able to run with people of similar abilities. This could even mean the men running short distances.
If becoming equals it want everyone has been championing for the many years then we need to equalise as much as we can but it will cause challenges and debatement to not just those asking for equality.
running usa. wrote:
Dr Yuengling wrote:
There’s less depth in women’s running IMO. Shorter distances allow a greater range of athletes to be competitive and therefore improve the field quality.
Not sure if that alone is enough justification but it’s a not insignificant point against equalization.
Your opinion is moot. Running USA has had stats the past several years showing women’s depth exceeds the men at all road racing distances up to the half marathon. In the marathon open age category women’s depth exceeds the men as well.
There is no good reason for women at any age to run a shorter distance. If anything maybe they should run longer than the men cause women are better suited for endurance.
If women's standards are higher, why are the Olympic trials qualifying times so easy compared to records, for example?
For men, 2:15 (A) and 2:19 (B) and for women 2:37 and 2:45.
Presumably the qualifying times for women are easier because otherwise the field would be very small, due to the lack of depth.
I’d like to see a woman try and do this. I’d also like to see a man try and do what the women do on parallel bars.
Men and women have different physical characteristics. It’s okay.
If, as has been mentioned, surveys of women who actually are running cross country races show that the majority don't want the longer distances I would say that's a reasonable justification. At a track meet athletes get to choose the distance they want to race. That's not true in cross country.