If you look at track distances we have 5000-10,000m for both men and women. however when you look at x-country, women tend to run less distance than men.
Don't tell me its because they are women or that's how things are done. that wont cut it!!!
If you look at track distances we have 5000-10,000m for both men and women. however when you look at x-country, women tend to run less distance than men.
Don't tell me its because they are women or that's how things are done. that wont cut it!!!
Funny how no one's ever done a protest against it. but title IX....oh man I hate that thing.
I agree. I can't understand why women aren't at least running 8K.
Actually, I wish we did run further running only 5k and 6k all season lets teams with strong mid-distance programs really do well. I think running longer would be more beneficial t othose of us who prefer the longer stuff but I am biased because I like the 5k and 10k and I am tired of milers beating me in XC.
I'll play the devil's advocate and take the opposite view: Why is XC so long? Distance is typically considered 800 to 10K. Shouldn't we pick a distance in the middle of that range to accomodate all distance runners? Why was XC moved to one extreme end of the range catering to the sloggers (from a former 800/1500 guy's perspective). It wouldn't have mattered. Grass took so much momentum away from me that I would've gotten my ass kicked either way. I've always been curious why men are at one end of the spectrum and have always thought the women's shorter distances to be a little more appropriate. Having two distances at worlds is an excellent move in my eyes. What do others think?
Men are stronger than women and more powerful. XC is a strength event. Women's distance are shorter allowing them to race more aggressively, and thus more exciting racing. Who wants to watch college girls slog out long slow races. Even most guys don't want to race 10k on grass and mud except at NCAA's.
I think the NCAA should have 2 distances for both men and women at nationals. a 10k race and a 4k race.
i think you are wrong.....you should atleast say some men are stronger than women. let me put this in prospective, between men and women who does a lot of work in general also which one tends to live longer. if men are stronger how come most men can't handle any pain.........well you know what i am about to say (child birth) let see who is stronger now!
What I don't understand is why high school girls only run two miles in Texas XC. They have a major disadvantage when they compete outside the state, and a rude awakening when they enter college.
nyariki wrote:
Don't tell me its because they are women or that's how things are done. that wont cut it!!!
Two possible reasons:
1) They are women
2) That's how things are done
How do you know "most men" cant handle the pain? As far as I know, a man has never given birth. besides, just because a woman gives birth doesn't mean she CAN handle the pain. She has no choice in the matter. Like growing old, its not an accomplishment, everyone can do it and will for that matter. Any woman CAN give birth.
no.you are missing the point. i heard people say geneticaly men are stronger than women, and i say to them genetics proved that women live longer than men.
i think runnergirl is right thats what our coach told us this was several years ago- but like the one guy said an 800/1500 person can contribute more in XC if the distance is short and then obv can do well in track/relays etc. If you have to run 8k or 10k then different groups would do better so many coaches want to keep it the same.
Hopefully everyone can agree that 6k is the most asinine thing in XC that i can remember. The times are not comparable to anything(ok it is XC but still). Why not do like some of the IAAF XC meets and just lay the course out and measure it after?!?! This distance is stupid. If anyone can present a real reason that the women should run shorter i would be impressed- its like were back in the 50's whew
They live longer BECAUSE they are physicly weaker. after menopause (sp sorry) the female body gets much weaker. most people belive that is so they will stop working and tend to the young so the mothers can work without the children to get in the way. Children raised with grandparents show a much higher learning rate. Living longer does not make them stronger. it is not an accomplishment. its natures way of carring for the young and sustaining the population.
When I started to run women did not run more than a half mile. The 800 for women was added to the Olympics in 1960 after having been run only in 1928. The 1500 was added in 1972. The rest of the running sport has developed for women since then but cross country just hasn't caught up yet.
why is that..should we question the who idea of title 9
that would be cool to have 1500meter xc race, now that's what I call a stampede.
i think most track events are catered to men, since they were the athletes who were the first to compete in it. if you compare WR times of men and women, the gap diminishes significantly as the distance gets longer. physiologically women do have more endurance" then men, more body fat, stronger lower bodies etc. i think having the long and short races at NCAA would be awesome.
It's clear that you don't know what the definition of strenth is. It is unrelated to the average life span of men vs women, and your case for men not being able to handle the pain of birth is just plain ridiculous, how do you know? lol!
Take a biology or physiology course. Testosterone make men much more powerful. What do think the steroid advantage is all about anyway? Men and women do not race 10,000m the same or even 5000m. Men are more agressive and stonger by nature. Women tend to pace themselves more because they are not as powerful. They do have more patience and greater pain tolerance than men. However it would be much harder to recover from week to week XC racing if they were forced to run the longer distances.