Tell the truth, do you really care about Women's Track / Running

hahhahaha wrote:

Interesting that you assume I am a woman because of the post... ever thought a male distance runner may disagree with you? Notice the key word "some"...

Interesting that you assumed that I made an assumption.

Please point out where I said you were a women. Also, please attempt to refute at least part of my post instead of going off on a tangent about which you were incorrect anyway.

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to "ironical" who clearly made that assumption. Please go back and see who I replied to, I know you may be a little slow on the uptake. Thanks.

had to do it wrote:

I follow women's running when something cool happens like a big race or a record. But besides that, I'm mostly into men's running if for no other reason than that I can relate a little more easily to their times. I'm not all that good at understanding the women's times.

PS. Women are slower than men, right?

PPS. Didn't that filly win the Preakness?

Putting all the silly "personality" stuff aside, I don't find women's running all that interesting unless it is a championship meet. Just think about it - a 1:55 800m will be one of the fastest times of the year for women, but you can go to a high school dual meet and see times nearly that fast.

I remember when I was in high school and Brian Spoonire ran 4:15 as a freshman. That was faster than the women's world record at the time. Sure, the landscape changes as you move up in distance, but the women's WRs are roughly equivalent to the US boy's freshman/sophomore records for the 3k on down. It's hard not to be conscious of this when you see women running.

That being said, I have found that certain athletes are captivating. For some reason Fatuma Roba really stood out to me. I always liked the way Marla Runyan ran - not all the human interest (blindness) bs, but she really seemed to have grit.

hahahahahahha wrote:

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to "ironical" who clearly made that assumption. Please go back and see who I replied to, I know you may be a little slow on the uptake. Thanks.

My mistake. In that case, I'm still curious to hear a rebuttal to my point.

Way to be classy with the insult, by the way.

no wrote:

yea..... wrote:

It is kind of sad that some of the people on these forums are still living with the old and outdated ideas of many decades ago... no wonder that also explains all the racism on here.

I do not understand this. You assume that everyone who prefers men's running over that of women does so out of sexism.

Did you ever stop to think that some (myself included) prefer men's running simply because males are faster?

It's the same reason that I prefer watching professionals over masters runners; the faster the running, the more entertaining it is.

By your logic, unless you care about all age levels equally, you are discriminating by age.

Thanks for your honest answer. Note, there will always be a sub-sampling of ahole answers on this LR, un-registered anonymous poster forum...

I posted this question without at first stating my reason or perspective because I wanted to genuine responses.

For me, the irony is, all of the females in my life growing up were strong dynamic, accomplished and wonderful women. I also grew up in a proto-feminist era and community. I was certainly not raised sexist, and yet I found that womens races over 400 meters didn't capture my attention.

I think speed is the deal. Possible also that when I was in college, more women's races descended into "tactical" races then men's. There was even a quote that circulated around the Pac Ten men "when the going gets tough, the girls get lazy."

Of course everything has changed since then, so I challenge myself pay more attention to the quality and dedication of the female athletes today... And yet I still find it a challenge to get totally enthused about any women's race over 400 meters.

It just doesn't seem, fast or tacticle, like they are going all out...I am sure it is a speed thing, and the East Germans and the Chinese totally drugging and cheating has thrown the comparison to records time element off entirely.

The Chinese records need to be thrown out.

no wrote:

yea..... wrote:

It is kind of sad that some of the people on these forums are still living with the old and outdated ideas of many decades ago... no wonder that also explains all the racism on here.

I do not understand this. You assume that everyone who prefers men's running over that of women does so out of sexism.

Did you ever stop to think that some (myself included) prefer men's running simply because males are faster?

It's the same reason that I prefer watching professionals over masters runners; the faster the running, the more entertaining it is.

By your logic, unless you care about all age levels equally, you are discriminating by age.

Thanks for your honest answer. Note, there will always be a sub-sampling of ahole answers on this LR, un-registered anonymous poster forum...

I posted this question without at first stating my reason or perspective because I wanted to genuine responses.

For me, the irony is, all of the females in my life growing up were strong dynamic, accomplished and wonderful women. I also grew up in a proto-feminist era and community. I was certainly not raised sexist, and yet I found that womens races over 400 meters didn't capture my attention.

I think speed is the deal. Possible also that when I was in college, more women's races descended into "tactical" races then men's. There was even a quote that circulated around the Pac Ten men "when the going gets tough, the girls get lazy."

Of course everything has changed since then, so I challenge myself pay more attention to the quality and dedication of the female athletes today... And yet I still find it a challenge to get totally enthused about any women's race over 400 meters.

It just doesn't seem, fast or tacticle, like they are going all out...I am sure it is a speed thing, and the East Germans and the Chinese totally drugging and cheating has thrown the comparison to records time element off entirely.

The Chinese records need to be thrown out. And the East German bearded women's records as well.

I've got to say i'm pretty shocked by some of the attitudes on here towards womens racing. Yes they may be slower but does that make it any less exciting to watch? It's all relative so the competition is the same.

If speed is your argument then you should all be watching horse racing rather than these pathetically slow men!

Wow-- three pages into this and no one has pointed out that it is a lot more fun to look at women than it is to look at men.

If the women are truly racing then it's entertaining. But when they give you crap like Boston or say the steeple in Doha (which went out at over 6:00 pace) then no, not digging it.

The Big Ten women's 1500 was faster through 800 than the men's. Each was interesting in its own way.

If you weren't excited by the Big Ten women's 4x400, where Michigan and Penn State literally went to the last steps of the entire meet for the championship, then you don't have a pulse.

I will agree that a relative lack of depth among women makes it slightly harder to see racest that are competitive to the end.

Yes I do care

Shocked wrote:

I've got to say i'm pretty shocked by some of the attitudes on here towards womens racing. Yes they may be slower but does that make it any less exciting to watch? It's all relative so the competition is the same.

If speed is your argument then you should all be watching horse racing rather than these pathetically slow men!

while I do not necessarily agree with your last point, I think the issue "relative to competition" is important. When there are 2, 3, 4 or even more women beating themselves up (do not take this literally) in the last stages of the race to go for the win, it is just as exciting as mens running.

The other way around, I could often care less about mens running as well, when the damn thing gets too tactical and nobody goes out there to put it all on the line and f*ckin' goes all out for the win.

On a sidenote: I don't even watch Geb run. Paid rabbits and no competition? come on! My long runs are more exciting than that (ok, maybe not, but you get the point)

Shocked wrote:

I've got to say i'm pretty shocked by some of the attitudes on here towards womens racing. Yes they may be slower but does that make it any less exciting to watch? It's all relative so the competition is the same.

If speed is your argument then you should all be watching horse racing rather than these pathetically slow men!

With all due respect, the competition is not the same in women's running as it is in men's. I am a big fan of top level women's track. But the depth in women's athletics is not the same as in men's.

I was recently at the Big East outdoor championships and the women's 10k winner, 2nd place and 3rd place were all decided in the first 2 miles. The winner won by over 200m, lapped 3rd place, and double lapped women who scored points in the meet. The winner ran well and that was nice but it was not entertaining at all. And this is one of the best distance conferences in the nation.

At the pro or national collegiate level women's track is great but below that ... yawn.

saf... wrote:

The Chinese records need to be thrown out. And the East German bearded women's records as well.

While I agree on that I needs to be pointed out that all American runners were always and still are clean. FloJo for example showed pure talent when setting her world records and so was Michael Johnson. They would not dare to cheat because they are trustworthy Americans.

(Those who find sarcasm in my post can keep it)

Yes, the women give it their all. Finishes at Boston and Bejing were great!

The type of person that starts this kind of thread is probably someone who's PR's would not win the NCAA chick's meet... DIII...

What I think: I am interested in the women's side of sport, for the most part. I'm a guy, so I gravitate more to the elite men, but I like watching elite women. The problem with women's racing is that at the lower levels, it IS kind of boring. For example, in the 2mile at states in high school, in our race all the guys would be in a fast moving pack until near the end, when people would start trying to break it apart with exciting moves... in the girls race, everyone would just start running and by lap 3 the eventual winner was way out front, the eventual 2nd place was alone in 2nd, the eventual 3rd was alone in 3rd....etc. No depth whatsoever, big discrepancy in talent levels, whereas the boys race there were at least 5 guys who could win it on the last lap. Then I got to college and it was mostly the same, until I started noticing that the best women ran like "men" which wasn't true, just my perspective until I realized... they were just really good, and they knew how to run. Women's racing excites me at the national collegiate level where it is almost never like the high school 2mile situation I just described. And of course professional/Olympic women are even better so I love that.

Contrary to popular opinion, the sloweness at Boston didn't piss me off at all. That wasn't like a boring high school race, they were all together and the tension was RIDICULOUS! And once they started moving, they flew, man! Now that I'm done with college, I always miss that occasionally a race would turn tactical (doesn't often happen in the local Thanksgiving 10k, you know?) I find tactical races like that can be as exciting as all-out dogfights.

So yes, I like women's running.

I really don't care much about womens running these days. Grete Weitz was a great one though.

Joe Mama wrote:

The type of person that starts this kind of thread is probably someone who's PR's would not win the NCAA chick's meet... DIII...

How clever does your post sound if you are wrong?

--Which you are. Very Wrong. My PR's are all below the women's world records.

NeenerNeener.