Shut up about the Women's standards

lolz

No, you are being irrational. The difference between men and women is *roughly* 10 percent for running events, depending on the distance. If the women's standard is greater than 10% slower than the male standard, then it is unfair. The statistics that you point out only support the theory (really, fact) that women are much less competitive in running and, most likely, sports in general.If the difference between male and female running olympians is 10%, then why is there a 20% or greater difference between the sexes at a college or high school level? You may call it social pressure for women to not try their hardest at sports or whatever, but the times don't lie.Letsrun is perfectly in line to complain about this discrepancy. Now, if we can't do anything to change the standards then we just have to train harder and smarter.A 2:46 marathon being "tough" does not matter. The fact of the matter is that it is not a fair qualifying time for women when the men's time is 2:19. Its 19.4% more time than 2:19. I would LOVE to get a 9.4% advantage in anything, be it sports or academics.

I think the point OP might be getting at here isn't that the times don't exactly line up, they don't, the point of the Olympic Trials (as much as the LR sub-elite crowd hates to admit this) is NOT a reward for people running 2:19/2:46, but is to select an Olympic team. Having 90-100 people in the race helps insure competitive balance better than just having the top 40 runners, because in the marathon more than a lot of other events 1. People can set big big PRs since it is run infrequently, and 2. Even people who don't stand a chance of winning can still have a major effect on the race in the first half.

If the OTQ was set up as a pat on the ass for people who "worked hard enough" to run some time, it would make sense to have the times be equal. That is not the point of the OT.

What kind of 9.4% advantage do you think they are getting? Men and women are not competing against each other.

Yes, my point was that women are competing against women, not against men, and there is no "fairness" of the men's versus women's standards. The point is to put together a field that will generate a good, competitive race and send our best to the Olympics. The standards should reflect the quantity and quality of runners that will generate that race, not some percentage difference from the worlds best or percentage difference from the men's times. The standards have been adjusted in response to women's times improving, as they should.

I posted on the other thread, but will bite here too with a little different spin.

While there is nothing wrong with the women's standards, the USATF seems to have different policies for the men and women. I think that is all people are alarmed about.

Perhaps it is jealousy. If I were a 224-228 marathoner, I would look at the women's 246 with envy.

There are few legitimate reasons to include 245 women but not 218-224 men.

If I were a female version of myself, I would be able to easily make our college's D1 team. As a man, I am NOWHERE close to making the team. If I were a 2:30 guy for the marathon and got turned into a female version of that 2:30 guy, I could make the female standard.Etc, etc, etc.

wait a sec wrote:

What kind of 9.4% advantage do you think they are getting? Men and women are not competing against each other.

If that is your concern (having 90-100 people in the race) then you should have no standard and accept the 100 fastest times.

Let's face it there is shouldn't be an argument. The women's OTQ standards are ridiculous. Both men's and women's standards should be in line with, at the very least, the B standard for the Games. This would be 2:18 for men and 2:43 for women. 2:46 is ridiculous if not pathetic. This coming from someone who has qualified a ways under the OT standard.

This is all about jealous men. Sorry guys. The cards are stacked against you. More of you want it and frame your identity around your athletic success. Yet you get less scholarships, less roster positions, and face stiffer competition post-collegiately. That's the way it is.

The Women's LDR committee has produced more recent international medals and cross success. They're doing something right.

What drives me craziest about these arguments is that it's totally separate committees making these decisions. Neither the men's nor women's committee gives a hoot about the other sides decisions.

I talked to the head of Women's LDR awhile back (she's no longer in that position) and she was quite aware that the women's qualifying standard was a lot easier than the men's. Her committee had made a conscious decision to have it that way to encourage more women, to give them the experience of the Trials. It's a fair point of view.

chinocochino wrote:

If I were a female version of myself, I would be able to easily make our college's D1 team. As a man, I am NOWHERE close to making the team. If I were a 2:30 guy for the marathon and got turned into a female version of that 2:30 guy, I could make the female standard.

Etc, etc, etc.

wait a sec wrote:

What kind of 9.4% advantage do you think they are getting? Men and women are not competing against each other.

But your argument isn't valid. Its apples and oranges. It's like me saying if I was as good at football as I was at running I'd be a millionaire and playing in the NFL. Unfortunately for me, I'm not, and thus had to get a real job. Football players don't have some advantage over me.

hahahaha...unfair...what? That you were born a man and not a woman. You really have no rational right to complain about something that has zero applicability to you. Your words are nothing but some inferiority complex.

Why is it insulting to have tough standards? I find it insulting to women to have easy standards. Sure it is tough to run sub 2:46. You know what's even tougher? Finishing within a mile or even 2 of the winner. A 2:46 runner is probably 3 if not 4 miles back of the winner at the end of the race. That's not at all competitive. Sure a few of these women get to experience something pretty neat making the OT. But the Olympics is about the best, not the pretty good. I think 2:43 is still pretty weak in all honesty. Someone who has only demonstrated 2:43 has no chance to make an Olympic team in this country.

The hard reality is any man over 2:20 and woman over 2:40 is a hobby jogger. I'm not saying it isn't difficult to run 2:21 OR 2:41, and I sure as hell can't run either. But we're talking about the Olympics here. Best of the best, not who can go top 20 at CIM or whatever.

No, actually we are talking about what is basically a US nation champions that is used to determine who goes to the Olympics. You seem to be little confused but the Olympics is actually completely different race.

If the standards were equal then it should be

Men: under 2:19

Women: under 2:35

Half marathon:

Men: under 65

Women: under 72

Well so what? Why let 200 people run in the national championships when only maybe the top 25 and at most the top 40 have a chance at a top 10 finish?

I would agree that a woman who can run 2:40 is a great runner. I would stop short of saying this woman is national championship caliber.

http://www.marathonguide.com/news/exclusives/2012USAOlympicTeamTrialsMarathon/QualifierLists/CreateReports.cfm?Order=IndividualRank&Sex=F

See what I'm saying? The top 24 are all 2:35 or better. How does 2:43 play here? That's 1.5 miles out of the top 24.

chinocochino wrote:

The difference between men and women is *roughly* 10 percent for running events, depending on the distance. If the women's standard is greater than 10% slower than the male standard, then it is unfair.

You don't follow women's marathoning closely, nor do you understand statistics. If you look at any mid-level marathon, the difference is +1 min./mile for woman vs. man. This holds true for any distance. At the elite level, the gap narrows. This has held true forever, and has nothing to do with depth/participation. What does this say to you from a statistical perspective?

And for the record, 2:46:00 for a woman = 2:20:27 for a man.

If you're as smart as you think you are, you will find the answer to my question in this calculator's formula, the only statistically valid way to compare genders.

We're not talking about mid level marathons. At Boston, London and NY in 2011 the differences between the winners in each gender was under 20 minutes. London was 15.

But whatever, if you want to keep babying women you have plenty of company it seems.