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

If having 3 women racing each other in the final mile is the objective, then they could just hold the B.A.A. Invitational Mile and skip the marathon. It would save a lot of money on street closures and we'd still get to see 3 women racing each other in the final mile.

Nope, that's missing the whole point of the marathon. Racing a mile AFTER 25 miles is a completely different thing than just racing a mile. Actually that's one aspect that I find really intriguing about the marathon -- still being able to race the last mile, after more than 2 or 2.5 hours of running to wear you out. I have far more respect for somebody who can outsprint everybody else during the 26th mile, than for somebody who can only run 1 mile faster than everybody else.

~~~~~~~~ wrote:

If having 3 women racing each other in the final mile is the objective, then they could just hold the B.A.A. Invitational Mile and skip the marathon. It would save a lot of money on street closures and we'd still get to see 3 women racing each other in the final mile.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

If the women want to jog the first half, and run tactically, great, that is there prerogative, but they won't get ALL the prize money that is available for the place they finish.

Actually, this is exactly what happened. The women passed on $25K bonuses for world/course records by running tactically.

Stupid comparsion, your lame, worthless job is nothing like athletic performance. You'd compare your passion for your cube farm wanking to the passion top athletes have for winning? You're a joke, chump.What great "enthusiasm" can you point to that resulted from the Rotterdam men's finish? I found the Boston women's finish to be just as thrilling. I guarantee you neither of the men fighting to win in Rotterdam gave a damn what the clock said, they each just wanted to cross that line first.

Good lord, people. It's a race, not a time trial or a V02 max test. I could not care less if the Paris marathon wants to stipulate a minimum time for full prize money -- what the heck do the French know about marathons anyway? You want to be recognized as the best competitor in the field on race day? Then CROSS THE FINISH LINE FIRST.

Sweetheart,

You have no idea who I am or what I do, so shove it.

You think it is not great enthusiasm that all suddenly a bunch of 2:08 guys start dreaming of 2:04? Yapp, the finish was thrilling after 2h 20 min of boredom.

I know that you've made it clear that you're a simpleton and that's enough, kiddo. Yeah, no 2:08 guys were thinking at all about improvement before Rotterdam. Sweet Lord, you are one stupid asswipe.

An athletic event should not just be about the finish. There is something to be said for competing well throughout the race.

When you compare that race to say Beardsley v Salazar, you cannot even put them in the same sentence, even though technically the race yesterday was closer. Yea prize money is a big factor, and to the winner it probably doesnt matter about time, but when you put such a high premium on the money that everyone refuses to push the pace, it sucks.

I will say though Kara deserves some credit and should feel very proud of her efforts for pushing the pace.

I see nothing wrong with this. In fact you are disproving your point with this analogy. What does my company care how I get my job done or how long it takes? They don't. All they care about is if I am making the company money - what is my performance? If I am swinging from the ceiling rafters and I have better performance than anyone else they largely won't care...what do I know? wrote:How about this:You show up at work in the morning and proceed to play solitaire on your computer in plain view of everyone for the next 5-6 hours. Finally at the end of the day you get your act together and finish whatever you were supposed to do.What do you think your boss' reaction will be: Great lad, you did your work, and if all you needed for it was the last hour of the day, be it; or perhaps he might be less impressed?I realize that these athletes were there for the placement, not for the time. Yet the complete lack of "let me show you what I am capable of" was embarrassing. Think of the enthusiasm that the Rotterdam men's finish generated. I am quite certain that this women's race yesterday is not one that anyone in the future will be talking about as a seminal moment in marathoning. A win is a win and congratulations to the top finishers, but the underachieving attitude of the whole women's field through most of the race left me pretty disappointed.

what do I know? wrote:

Sweetheart,

You have no idea who I am or what I do, so shove it.

You think it is not great enthusiasm that all suddenly a bunch of 2:08 guys start dreaming of 2:04? Yapp, the finish was thrilling after 2h 20 min of boredom.

This is simply a direct (and predictable) result of the professional track of the sport. If you want your favorite top runners to get paid then you have to accept that they'll often prioritize monetary considerations more highly than giving it their all for glory.

Kara didn't push the pace until after a masters runner had towed her through 20 miles. Nothing to be proud of there, if she had half the guts of Dita then she would've taken a shot to break away much, much earlier and run a better pace for a much longer duration.

Moore OK Runner wrote:

With a time that is nearly 17 minutes off the world record, what justification is there for paying them? They didn't earn their money.

By who's standards?

Reality checker wrote:

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

If the women want to jog the first half, and run tactically, great, that is there prerogative, but they won't get ALL the prize money that is available for the place they finish.

Actually, this is exactly what happened. The women passed on $25K bonuses for world/course records by running tactically.

Yes, and people seem to have no problem with that prize $ structure. On the other hand, many races are now adding more fast time "bonuses" (or, as one could look at it, slow-time "penalties") into their prize money structure for places 1-10. I think this is great. Once again, does ANYONE think a 3rd place 2:36 should get paid the same as a 3rd place 2:05?? I hope to god the answer is no.

Franque Soda wrote:

Moore OK Runner wrote:

With a time that is nearly 17 minutes off the world record, what justification is there for paying them? They didn't earn their money.

By who's standards?

Well, I am taking a middle approach. There is no reason to not pay them anything, that is absurd. Just don't pay them as much as the men when they don't run as fast relative to the best women's times.

By ]whose standards you ask?? Well, every major race gives bonuses for breaking wr's and cr's, right? Do they make the women break THE wr and THE cr (ie, the men's best times) ? No, of course not, they compare them to the WOMEN's best times ever and on that course. So in every major race in america, the race directors are already applying the concept of giving out extra $ for men and women running fast times relative to what their gender has done in the past. And now many other major races are taking that a step further, and giving more $ to the men when the top 10 run faster RELATIVE to what their gender has done before. Apply this to yesterday's race, the men would have received more than the women, and would have deserved it.

What on earth is wrong with looking at and rewarding quality that way??

(women seem to not only want equal pay for unequal performances in an absolute sense, but equal pay for unequal performances in a relative sense also. For the love of...... )

So go recruit and train women runners to go out and win races like that if you're so confident that it's that easy and the best way to go. If you're so smart then you should be able to make a small fortune doing that.

Meb Culpepper wrote:

Kara didn't push the pace until after a masters runner had towed her through 20 miles. Nothing to be proud of there, if she had half the guts of Dita then she would've taken a shot to break away much, much earlier and run a better pace for a much longer duration.

All I am saynig is Kara deserves some credit for being the least guilty. Colleen wasn't towing anyone, she was simply running at the front of a group of girls jogging.

All in all I would say every woman in that field is as guilty as the other. It was "group-think" gone amock. I think the the future, BAA should try something to prevent this from happening, whether that means putting time specifications in or just talking to athletes before hand. A simple but stern: "Come run our race, but we want to see an effort from each of you throughout the race."

I agree with the original poster. 2:32? Thought it was a typo when I saw it. Shameful. As if women's performances aren't lame enough depth-wise as it is. They were contracted to COMPETE, not jog until the last half mile.

anEconomist wrote:

I see nothing wrong with this. In fact you are disproving your point with this analogy. What does my company care how I get my job done or how long it takes? They don't. All they care about is if I am making the company money - what is my performance? If I am swinging from the ceiling rafters and I have better performance than anyone else they largely won't care...

]

Its just an analogy, but there are flaws in it and I can't see it proving many points.

If you were in sales and paid strictly by commission then it works, or if you are paid by units produced it also is fine.

If you are paid hourly or salary I expect my employee to give me an honest effort the whole time. If I find a person with some huge talent and can accomplish in an hour what others take the full day then I would either promote him to a position where he could be put to more productive use or change his compensation to one that gives him incentive to work the whole time.

That said, the goal was to win a race, if they want to walk the first 20 miles (and take the risk of losing) and then sprint for the victory that is their choice. They would not break a WR at Boston anyway. It is up to the race to create the incentives for a fast winner if that is what they want.

Sweetheart,

I applaud Kara for trying to push late in the game. OTOH, talking about all that handful of women who had a fighting chance of winning, do you think Joan Samuelson, Catherine Ndereba or Paula Radcliffe would have been content to jog in the middle of a large pack for 20 miles?

On the personal note, I do medical research for a living. Perhaps you think for elite running at the pace of an excellent amateur athlete for 20 miles is nobler than curing nasty diseases. That’s your prerogative. Meanwhile you can address me either as “Sir”, “Doctor”, or as “Professor”. I assume that you are a teenager, based on that you seem to have a lot of heart, a bit less logic, and absolutely no manners. If you are 14 yrs old, that’s fine, but by 20 one needs to grow out of acting like you do.

Grow up pal. No one here cares about what you do for a living or how many "advanced" degrees you have. Way to pat yourself on the back though.

Certainly someone with your "esteemed" credentials realizes that if you're going to debate on an anonymous internet messageboard, you're going to have some less than respectful responses to your posts.