Honestly, seems like a pretty sexist rule.
Honestly, seems like a pretty sexist rule.
Why is the women's shot put lighter than the men's shot put?
It may have, at one time, been rooted in outdated notions that women don't have the endurance/physical capability of men (I'm just throwing that out there don't know if that's the case), but I think the reason there is STILL a difference in distances is simply tradition. That's how it's been done and there's no reason to change. Of course, we all know that women can run great, exciting 10k cross country. But, there hasn't been any sort of unified opposition to different distances.
1. Yes, tradition--it took quite a while to get people to agree to move up to 6k from 5k.
2. Another tradition (back in the early days of the collegiate sport): it was tough enough to get full women's squads for *three*-mile races; very few would have come out for five- or six-milers.
3. In all seriousness: nobody wants to have to wait around for women to run 8k or 10k.
In all but the top meets, a very large majority of women would take more than 40 minutes to run 10k, just as they take more than 20 minutes to run 6k now. That's a lot of extra time for what would *usually* not be a very competitive event: it would mostly be running and not "racing." Ugh.
D-Nice wrote:
It may have, at one time, been rooted in outdated notions that women don't have the endurance/physical capability of men
If they had the same endurance/physical capability of men they'd be running in the same RACE, not just the same distance.
Maybe it is better to have men and women run similar durations of time rather than same distance -- 8k for women and 10k for men takes both around 30 minutes to complete; is that favoring either group?
Outdated you say? wrote:
D-Nice wrote:It may have, at one time, been rooted in outdated notions that women don't have the endurance/physical capability of men
If they had the same endurance/physical capability of men they'd be running in the same RACE, not just the same distance.
You knew what I meant - that there could have been a notion that women didn't have the endurance/physical capability to run the same distance as men, even if it took them longer to run it
It's not that it's just a shorter distance, it's an embarrassingly shorter distance. Why not at least 8k? From HS cc (not sure what Jr HS girls run) to college cc bump up one whole K? Embarrassing! Let the women run longer!!!!
Any more, I'm sure it's more convenient for the coaches to leave it at 8k. At 8k, they can recruit 1500 meter runners and have them race competitively. W/ the men's races you start to see a lot more specialization come into play. Faster mid-distance guys who are competitive at 8k start to get gapped in regionals and at nationals. Even w/ women having 18 vs 12.5 equivalents I don't think you'll find coaches wanting to have to find 10k+ types as well as mid-distance athletes.
There is no logical argument to explain this because for track and field the women run the same distances as the men (with the longest being 10000m).
cliffordgeertz wrote:
Why is NCAA women's XC shorter in distance than the men?.
It's called the patriarchy and YOU are it's primary beneficiary.
jtupperd wrote:
Maybe it is better to have men and women run similar durations of time rather than same distance -- 8k for women and 10k for men takes both around 30 minutes to complete; is that favoring either group?
This, I do not mind. Women would run an 8k around 26 minutes I'm guessing and men 10ks around 29. I feel like 8k and 10k is good because times are similar.
If anything, I think 8k suits BOTH men and women. It keeps the 1500m specialists in the hunt moreso than in the 10k (which makes for a more interesting race.)
8K should be the distance for both men and women. It's long enough to be truly long distance, yet short enough for a variety of distance specialists to adapt. It would also make race hosting a lot easier, with just one course to design.
Make it 8k for both!
dwightarm wrote:
This, I do not mind. Women would run an 8k around 26 minutes I'm guessing and men 10ks around 29. I feel like 8k and 10k is good because times are similar.
If that were the case, then the women would run 9k.
Any increase from the ridiculously short 6k distance would be good.
dwightarm wrote:
This, I do not mind. Women would run an 8k around 26 minutes I'm guessing and men 10ks around 29. I feel like 8k and 10k is good because times are similar.
The number of women in the NCAA who could run 26:xx for a legit 8k could probably be counted on your fingers and toes.
The great majority of D1 NCAA women would be over 30 minutes.
lease wrote:
dwightarm wrote:This, I do not mind. Women would run an 8k around 26 minutes I'm guessing and men 10ks around 29. I feel like 8k and 10k is good because times are similar.
The number of women in the NCAA who could run 26:xx for a legit 8k could probably be counted on your fingers and toes.
The great majority of D1 NCAA women would be over 30 minutes.
That might be true at first, but like every distance event in the sport, times would come down and keep coming down. Every year it gets harder to qualify for Prelims in most/all distance races.
Women would adapt and get faster.
Have you watched the finish of a girls 5K? They're dropping like flies.
Make it the same distance. XC is not parallel to strength events.
Freshman girls can come in and contribute immediately. This is good because many quit after the first 2 years.
Because of the inequality at the IAAF level, which trickles down to USATF, and then college. The women could step up to 8K, but it will never exceed the distance set at the World level. It's the IAAF that needs to change.