Boston sells out - 65% of registrants female

true;...... wrote:

The variance in male body types is far less than the variance in female body types.

Are you kidding me?

Compare these two pictures:

(M)/Arnold%20Schwarzenegger/arnold-schwarzenegger-9a.jpg

Arnold is more than double the man that Galen is. Your claims are ridiculous.

also the "straighter bodies" thing is nonsense. They have straight bodies because they are skinny as hell from running a lot and not eating a lot

Perhaps better explained as "there's a greater range of pelvis size and shape in men than women"? Just from looking at people, it seems that nearly all guys, no matter how heavy, have narrow pelvises ("pelvi"? I dunno). For women, there's a lot of range.

FWIW, as a woman who has seen a lot of friends, both male and female, try to BQ, I really do feel that the younger BQ standards for women are too easy. I have no statistics to back me up, but my guy feel has always been that a men's 3:05 is equivalent to a woman's 3:20.

I'm 39 and female, and my BQ time is 3:40. I feel almost sheepish in discussing BQing with men, just because I don't feel it's fair. I'd feel a lot better if the BQ for my age group was 3:25.

err....should be "gut feel" - amusing typo, given the context.

your pelvis width will decrease if you lose weight. No one in Auschwitz had wide hips

Here is another thought on this:

Why do you care what standards are for others? How about focusing on your own goals? If you need to work a bit harder to hit those standards, be proud that you can live up to a bit elevated expectations instead of being upset that other might have it a bit easier.

What do you guys think the cut off time will be for the remaining 5,000 spots?

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

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.

Not sure about that. The percentage difference between 2:03 and 2:15 is ~9.75%. That would mean the "equivalent" female 3:15 time would be 3:49. I'm not saying that using percentage differences is the absolute best way to set the standards - and will obviously differ using different time standards - but in the case of your example it seems pretty accurate, even 4 minutes "unfair" to the female.

If a reasonably fit 25 year old male and a reasonable fit 51 year old female with no running background both simultaneously decided they wanted to qualify for Boston I would put heavy money on the middle aged woman to do it first.

I think the BAA makes it easier for older runners intentionally. It's a bucket-list thing.

The women's standards are easier too - if I had a road race I would try to recruit women as well. They spend more money.

what do I know? wrote:

Here is another thought on this:

Why do you care what standards are for others? How about focusing on your own goals? If you need to work a bit harder to hit those standards, be proud that you can live up to a bit elevated expectations instead of being upset that other might have it a bit easier.

Because the easier standards for others affects the time I need to run Boston.

I'm 53 and male, and my BQ time is 3:30. I have absolutely no shot at 3:30.

darkwave wrote:

Perhaps better explained as "there's a greater range of pelvis size and shape in men than women"? Just from looking at people, it seems that nearly all guys, no matter how heavy, have narrow pelvises ("pelvi"? I dunno). For women, there's a lot of range.

FWIW, as a woman who has seen a lot of friends, both male and female, try to BQ, I really do feel that the younger BQ standards for women are too easy. I have no statistics to back me up, but my guy feel has always been that a men's 3:05 is equivalent to a woman's 3:20.

I'm 39 and female, and my BQ time is 3:40. I feel almost sheepish in discussing BQing with men, just because I don't feel it's fair. I'd feel a lot better if the BQ for my age group was 3:25.

Slomodave wrote:

Not sure about that. The percentage difference between 2:03 and 2:15 is ~9.75%. That would mean the "equivalent" female 3:15 time would be 3:49. I'm not saying that using percentage differences is the absolute best way to set the standards - and will obviously differ using different time standards - but in the case of your example it seems pretty accurate, even 4 minutes "unfair" to the female.

The ratio of world record times in minutes is 123/135 ~ 91.1%. So a 3:15 male (195 minutes) would be more like a 3:33 female (213 minutes). 195/213 ~ 91.5%. It doesn't matter to me because I safely got my time by ~20 minutes, but the fact is it is much easier for women (at least in the 'younger' categories) to BQ than it is for men. At least for the 18-39 age group it should be 3:05/3:25, which is still generous for women.

I hope your profession doesn't revolve around math.

Boston is for pu$$ies.

There will be a lot of thick women in spandex.

Nothing's like spandex clad thunder thighs rumbling down from Heartbreak Hill.

The statistical analysis of qualification times mentioned in Runners' World is not very good.

They used a ratio to the world record time in each group, which assumes a uniform distribution of times, instead of something more realistic like normal or lognormal.

Ideally, one should use a fixed percentile level for each age x sex group. Such as something like 30% in each group.

The percentiles would be based on the full distribution of times from some marathon with similar course / conditions, but no time qualification for entry.

Same concept for the A and B qualifiers for World Championships, but of course A and B are a much lower percentile. And of course those are not by age x sex groups.

asdfasf wrote:

your pelvis width will decrease if you lose weight. No one in Auschwitz had wide hips

Yep, your pelvis width definitely decreases if you lose weight. As long as "losing weight" means having surgery done to reshape your gynecoid pelvis into an android pelvis.

Uhhh what? wrote:

asdfasf wrote:

your pelvis width will decrease if you lose weight. No one in Auschwitz had wide hips

Yep, your pelvis width definitely decreases if you lose weight. As long as "losing weight" means having surgery done to reshape your gynecoid pelvis into an android pelvis.

Not your pelvic bone, but the fat around the pelvis shrinks. The standard deviation in pelvic with is an inch