You cannot tell me that the womens trails standard is equal to to the mens.
What would be a more reasonable standard?
You cannot tell me that the womens trails standard is equal to to the mens.
What would be a more reasonable standard?
the womens standard should be the mens x 1.11. Hopefully the usatf sees this, but they aren't known for common sense.
xxxxx wrote:
You cannot tell me that the womens trails standard is equal to to the mens.
No one is saying it is. The women have an A and B standard, men don't. How many women hit the A? I would guess those numbers are close to equal if not favored towards the men.
It's not equal.
the truth... wrote:
the womens standard should be the mens x 1.11. Hopefully the usatf sees this, but they aren't known for common sense.
Wrong application of common sense. The women's sport is thinner than the men's and therefore the rate of drop-off is faster. What the 'easier' standard does do is to lead to more athletes pursuing the standard.
I don't think anyone claimed they are equal. USATF just wants a similar number of women and men to qualify so they have to make the women's standard easier to reach. There just aren't as many women at the national sub elite level as there are men.
Boston is the same way. BAA has even said the women's standard is relatively easier to reach because they want close to a 50/50 split among genders.
xxxxx wrote:
You cannot tell me that the womens trails standard is equal to to the mens.
What would be a more reasonable standard?
Quickest 200 marathon finishers on certified courses per gender beginning 15 mos prior to the trials and ending 3 mos prior to the trials. A year to get in, at least 3 mos for the late comers to get ready. Top 100 get expenses (similar to A) bottom 100 get zilch (similar to B).
xxxxx wrote:
You cannot tell me that the womens trails standard is equal to to the mens.
What would be a more reasonable standard?
Why do you care?
Have you done the math on what the standard for top 100 and top 200 would usually be?
sadfasfsd wrote:
Have you done the math on what the standard for top 100 and top 200 would usually be?
not really. I pulled the 200 numbers from this years current listing over at marathonguide. It shows 198 girls, only 26 of which are in with a 1/2 or 10,000 standard. Guys are dreadfull. 150 qualifiers and over 70 are in with a 1/2 or 10,000 shot.
Cut the number to 100, what-ever. But there should be enough runners that the host community would be proud of promoting a big event. Non-runners may not understand the importance of the trials if there are only 25-40 entrants. I feel if the standard was eliminated it would encourage people to race, not run a soft time trial. Sorta like back in the 1970's and 1980's. So maybe a 2 year window would be better.