The Womens qualifying standard weaker than Men

the World records are about 11 minutes apart. Then if you adjust for the slower times the gap should be no more than 15 minutes apart.

women's running has far less depth. They need such a standard to have a similar sized field to the men

as of 1/4/11 (according to the usatf website) 120 women have qualified for the trials....only about 90 men have. and there are a lot more guys running competitively post collegiately. so what does that say?

your prayers wrote:

women's running has far less depth. They need such a standard to have a similar sized field to the men

53 men have run under 2:19, something like 103 women have hit their time standard - thats not a similar size field buddy, sign up for college algebra after you make it through high school

They are both too easy. Both events have way too many qualifiers - multiple times more than track events. A 2:18 marathoner is about 30 seconds per mile slower than the best male runners in the world and a 2:45 marathoner is a full minute slower than the best female runners. Mediocre standards produce mediocre runners - a system Americans have mastered.

Ideal standards:

2:14:12 for men

2:33:47 for women

The Smartest Let's Run Poster wrote:

Mediocre standards produce mediocre runners - a system Americans have mastered.

Why don't we just make 2:05 the qualifying standard?

the argument is between the relative performances of the males v. females...

Holy crap, when you word it like that it sounds so slow. 30 seconds PER MILE? Wow...

trialsstandardsweak wrote:

as of 1/4/11 (according to the usatf website) 120 women have qualified for the trials....only about 90 men have. and there are a lot more guys running competitively post collegiately. so what does that say?

I believe the women's qualifying time is intended to encourage participation, which it does. I think the women's qualifying standard is good, and I'm glad to see so many women participating in the marathon and athletics. Also I think the women's method of qualifying is better than the men's.

If you feel as a man that you are somehow a victim, then maybe lobby the men's committee to lower the standard for men, so you will have an easier time of it.

the womens standard really is WEAK.

Think about it, the AMERICAN record is 2:19+, standard is 2:46 (?), that's almost 27MINUTES slower than the american record.

mens AR (2:05+), standard is 2:19, that's 14minutes slower.

lower both standards to 2:14 & 2:33 are pretty rediculous, no one is really going to want to watch a race of about 10 men and 10 women run an entire marathon.

I only feel like a victim when they cut Delaware's program!

WLDR has made a decision that the trials can be used for development. Encouraging 2:46 marathoners to stick with the sport in hopes that many will be sub 2:40, and the pool of potential sub 2:30 marathoners is larger.

It seems like a win/win situation. Having 200 runners on the starting line does not hinder the US selecting the top 3 to represent in the Olympic Games.

This is a huge advantage that the marathon has over the track or the pool where you have a limited number of lanes. The marathon has the ability to provide a chance for development and select a team.

Glenn Latimer and MLDR disagrees with this and does not want any male that can not break 2:19 on the starting line.

The standards are not equal, but that is because the men want it that way. MLDR has the ability to set the standard at whatever they want.

my daughter is going to get a full scholarship to run in college- and then if she chooses to run post collegiately she will most likely easily qualify for the olympic trials! I wouldn't mind that, saves me $$!

blame Title 9!

QUIT YOUR COMPLAINING! NOW GET OUT AND HAMMER A TEMPO RUN!

If a guy who didn't even made D3 Nationals in XC or Track can run 2:18 and make the Olympic Trials, you can too.