Boston sells out - 65% of registrants female

Aren't they letting extra people in this year who didn't get to finish last year because of the bombing? There are more women at the back of the pack than men who didn't finish in time so that's probably why.

Doesn't change the fact that the women's standards are way easier to hit than the men's standards.

Nice. So the BAA did a pretty good estimate adding those extra ~5K spots (from the 9K extra entry allotment). If not for that folks would be SOL even with a BQ.

still unfair wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that the women's standards are way easier to hit than the men's standards.

for men maybe, but for women the standard is as difficult as the corresponding one for men.

The other guy! wrote:

. . . 65% of registrants female . . .

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see this factoid in the linked article. It would be surprising if true as the Boston Qualifying standards are supposed to reflect the demographics of marathoning in general which is about 60/40 male dominated.

sounds like good news for all the dweebs on this board starting threads about how to get girls. now there's going to be even more chicks around!

The standards are ridiculously easy anyway. 65% / 35% doesn't seem that crazy, I certainly see more women running than men at almost any time of day.

Until last year, men outnumber women in every single age group except 18-39.

You're right wrote:

The standards are ridiculously easy anyway. 65% / 35% doesn't seem that crazy, I certainly see more women running than men at almost any time of day.

women "running" (hobbyjogging soccer moms)

what's your source for the 65% claim?

Boston has been just over 40% female for several years.

For 2012 women were 43% of the entrants, 42% of the starters and 39% of the finishers. Which suggests that slightly more than half of the 4722 DNF's who registered were female.

"most likely not re-open" ????

There is absolutely zero chance that it opens next week.

The acceptance cut-off will likely be somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes faster than BQ.

Typo above: Those numbers were for 2013, not 2012.

Source:

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results-commentary/by-the-numbers.aspx

still unfair wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that the women's standards are way easier to hit than the men's standards.

Save it for the whambulance. The men's standards are plenty easy.

TXRunner Girl wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

still unfair wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that the women's standards are way easier to hit than the men's standards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for men maybe, but for women the standard is as difficult as the corresponding one for men.

-----------------------------------------------------

No, the women's standards are way too easy. My wife is 30 minutes under her standard and she is 41. Why do women get an extra 30 minutes (over 1 min per mile slower)? Women are supposed to be better endurance athletes. So a women running a 3:45 is supposed to be equivalent to a guy running 3:15? I don't think so. The world records are 12 minutes apart (2:03 versus 2:15). It should be no more than 26 minutes (1 min per mile) and even that is a generous cushion. Look at the US Oly Marathon Trials standards. The women's A standard has been historically less than 30 minutes slower then the men. 2:36 or 2:39 versus 2:19 (only standard for men) for the last trials. The women kept a B standard to encourage more women to try since historically it has been a male dominated sport, at the elite level, but women's participation numbers now exceed men's.

I think the women's standards are a bit easier, but I don't think you can use top-end times (world records, OT qualifying times) to make any reasonable judgment because the difference between the top women and the typical competitive woman is way larger than the difference between the top men and the typical competitive man. I'm not sure exactly why this is.

Yes, the difference between men and women is not linear, it is more along the lines of exponential and it is sad to see people on Letsrun try to compare them linearly/always be off. One reason for this is because many of the top women have straighter bodies, e.g. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.

true;...... wrote:

Yes, the difference between men and women is not linear, it is more along the lines of exponential and it is sad to see people on Letsrun try to compare them linearly/always be off. One reason for this is because many of the top women have straighter bodies, e.g. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.

Are you implying that all men are built the same? That is rediculous. (and yes, I am using the LR approved spelling here).

xenonscreams wrote:

I think the women's standards are a bit easier, but I don't think you can use top-end times (world records, OT qualifying times) to make any reasonable judgment because the difference between the top women and the typical competitive woman is way larger than the difference between the top men and the typical competitive man. I'm not sure exactly why this is.

Somebody, I think Runners World, did an analysis comparing the BQ standards vs the WAVA age and gender grades and concluded that the BQ standards are a little easier for women under a certain age (~50?) and progressively more difficult for women over that age relative to the male standards. This makes intuitive sense as the 30 minute difference is an approximation of the percentage time difference between genders (about 15%) and as one gets slower/older 30 minutes is a smaller percentage of the male BQ time and vice versa.

actually the fastest women and the slowest women are about the same percentage slower than men. The women in the middle (3-4) hours are the ones that are proportionately slower than men. I used to have a graph comparing the percent difference comparing the 100th, 200th, 300th etc finisher of each gender of the chicago marathon and the delta looked like a bell curve

Nope. Based on statistical analysis, the standards are too lenient for young/middle aged women and too strict for old women.http://www.runnersworld.com/womens-running/should-womens-boston-qualifying-times-be-revised?page=single

TX_RUNNER_GIRL wrote:

still unfair wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that the women's standards are way easier to hit than the men's standards.

for men maybe, but for women the standard is as difficult as the corresponding one for men.