Women now better than men at OT Trials

Xenostreams wrote:

1. Paula's WR is an outlier and worth sub 2h when compared to men

BS. At the very best it's worth 2:03:41 (11% slower than men). And that's extremely generous.

Fine, let's do it your way.

Take the women's second fastest marathon - still Paula at 2:17:18.

8238 seconds

2:45:00 is 9900 seconds

The standard is ~120% of the second best time ever.

Take the men's second fastest marathon - E Mutai at 2:03:13

7393 seconds

2:18:00 is 8280 seconds

The standard is ~112% of the second best time ever.

120%>112% thus proving that yes, the women's standard is still easier. Use Paula's 2:15 and it's an even bigger difference.

M 2:19 = W 2:35

jamin wrote:

If we were to plot the distribution of male performance, we'd see a big hump at the sub- and sub-sub-elite level. For females, it's 99% distributed in the hobby jogger ability and 1% at the elite ability. So if a competition accepts the top 5% of male and female entrants, it's easier for a motivated female to make the cut.

It's total gender discrimination. Why should women no be allowed to compete against men on the same standards. Women are just as good as men in anything. Equal pay, equal roles, equal standards.

same is same wrote:

It's total gender discrimination. Why should women no be allowed to compete against men on the same standards. Women are just as good as men in anything. Equal pay, equal roles, equal standards.

To play the devil's advocate, it could actually be considered gender discrimination against men. Hitting an OT qualifier and getting to run in the Trials Marathon is a prestigious and potentially lucrative accomplishment to be able to put on one's resume. USATF has it set up so that it's easier for a female runner to obtain this accomplishment than for a male runner. One could argue that they should tighten the women's standards and just have a smaller women's field since there is obviously less interest in racing coming from the women's side of the sport. Are similar sized men's/women's fields really necessary?

J.R. wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Total number of qualified men: 211

By marathon: 86

By half marathon: 125

Attained "A" standard: 27

Attained "B" standard: 184

Total number of qualified women: 246

By marathon: 198

By half marathon: 48

Attained "A" standard: 42

Attained "B" standard: 204

The women are more than 2 times better this year, and their field is much more competitive.

If you weren't such a dullard you would understand why having more people in the field does not make it "much more competitive".

Xenostreams wrote:

jamin wrote:

They're not relatively equal. 2:45 is 30 minutes off the women's WR and 2:18 is 16 minutes off the men's WR.

1. Paula's WR is an outlier and worth sub 2h when compared to men

2. When comparing times you should work with % not absolute times

You must have failed hard in Math class

This is a joke isn't it?

Joan Benoit Samuelson is 53. She qualified. Need we say more?

Women are better than men at everything

I miss the real xenonscreams. But the standards is basically like Title IX...boost the female participation.

If you're a woman and you're pushing for tougher trial standards for women, then there is a special place in hell for you. The standards are tough enough and we have worked for EQUALITY over decades and not that we're finally there you want to reverse it?

the standards are set to the olympic standards. You could argue that the women's standard should be faster, but its set pretty weak to allow for women from countries where they are discriminated against or sport isn't seen as a woman's role to qualify. Places like the stans, some of eastern europe, the middle east.

1:15 half for B standard. There have to be at least 200 women in this country that can run that.

I know this is a troll but one mistake I have seen a lot on here is that people think the difference between men and women is linear, whereas the actual difference is closer to exponential. One reason for this is that the top women have straighter bodies (i.e. bodies shaped more like men) that give them an advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.

Female athletes in the West are the most coddled, privileged subdemogeaphic in world history.

Xenostreams wrote:

jamin wrote:

They're not relatively equal. 2:45 is 30 minutes off the women's WR and 2:18 is 16 minutes off the men's WR.

1. Paula's WR is an outlier and worth sub 2h when compared to men

2. When comparing times you should work with % not absolute times

You must have failed hard in Math class

Ok even if you throw out out Paula times which is stupid you get about 27min for the women vs 16 min for the men. I'm not going to waste my time doing the percentages right now but even at 27 min the % difference for the women's standard from the WR is still significantly higher than for the men's side.

Women's qualifying standards are easier, but then again, who cares? Only the top 3 make it to the Olympics, and if you're on the cusp of qualifying, then chances are you're just running for the "experience" and have no shot at actually making the team.

Times need to be tougher on both sides. Why are we making it a parade? If you are going to still be on mile 24 when the winners come in, you have no business in the race.