Where is the Gender equality in the Boston Qualifying times?

So you fee victimized by these standards? If you are a guy and can't run a 3:05, you really don't have any business running marathons in the first place. Maybe instead of venting your outrage at these standards, you should get and and train some more.

Stop being such a pu$$y.

waaaaaaaa

Quit worrying about the women and get yourself in gear. Wuss. You're racing the guys. Plenty of women there will make sure you get your ass handed to you though

Gender is not real.

Wuss!!!! You don't see me complaining. I do it through sheer determination and I do not make excuses.

I always thought it was pretty absurd that a healthy young girl has the same standard to run boston as a 55 year old man. Seriously though, it's not about it being to hard for the men, it's flat out too easy for the women.

I think it would be more even if women had to run 3:15 / 3:25 /3:35 rather 3:35 to start with.

Boston knows what it needs to visit during that week. They DGAF about being fast or the athletic accomplishment, it's about getting X number of visitors to the city.

Getting women there is better than some 30 yr old guy that thinks he qualified for the Olympics.

They want women and Master's runner$.

I'm actually trans-athlete, I grew up as a average white male runner living in the United States but I always knew that I was a Kenyan and one of the fastest marathoner in the world. I would like to have my surgery to get in my Kenyan body.

Stem cells wrote:

So you fee victimized by these standards? If you are a guy and can't run a 3:05, you really don't have any business running marathons in the first place. Maybe instead of venting your outrage at these standards, you should get and and train some more.

Stop being such a pu$$y.

The OP did a poor trolling job, but the above is the correct answer to anyone complaining about Boston qualifying times/procedures. It's 7 minute miles FFS.

Stem cells wrote:

So you fee victimized by these standards? If you are a guy and can't run a 3:05, you really don't have any business running marathons in the first place. Maybe instead of venting your outrage at these standards, you should get and and train some more.

Stop being such a pu$$y.

I guess that's easy to say unless you have a professional job working 50 hours a week, wife, kids and a house.

There should only be a human and perhaps dog and or horse category

TrackCoach wrote:

Stem cells wrote:

So you fee victimized by these standards? If you are a guy and can't run a 3:05, you really don't have any business running marathons in the first place. Maybe instead of venting your outrage at these standards, you should get and and train some more.

Stop being such a pu$$y.

I guess that's easy to say unless you have a professional job working 50 hours a week, wife, kids and a house.

In which case...it's still easy to say.

TrackCoach wrote:

Stem cells wrote:

So you fee victimized by these standards? If you are a guy and can't run a 3:05, you really don't have any business running marathons in the first place. Maybe instead of venting your outrage at these standards, you should get and and train some more.

Stop being such a pu$$y.

I guess that's easy to say unless you have a professional job working 50 hours a week, wife, kids and a house.

And what is your point? Still easy to di.

I wrote this mainly as a joke because of all the feminist chatter as of late. I can run and have run a sub 1:30:00 half so I am physically capable of running under the 3:15:00 I need to qualify. The issue is the ridiculousness of time difference between men and women. I have female friends who qualify for Boston while doing an Ironman distance triathlon. The thing is like one guy mentioned, I have a wife, 6 kids, a full time job and PTSD, too much stress and bad things happen. So in reality if I had to train less it would be so much easier. Thanks for the guy that pointed out the truth, Boston really is all about making money and they know the demographic to reach. Boston is only so coveted because of the idea that its something special and a carrot at the end of the stick. Some of you all need to just chill or stop watching so much hate porn, too uptight.

The irony here is that you're the one who's getting all worked up.

Crazytothink wrote:

it's not about it being to hard for the men, it's flat out too easy for the women.

Agreed. Looking at the results of all Bostons since 2000 (17 races), the average time difference between the men's and women's winners is 16:14. The largest difference is 23:34 (2009) and the smallest is 11:22 (2014). The women's course record is 16:54 slower than the men's and the women's masters is also 16:54 slower than the men's masters.

The world record for women is only 12:28 slower than the men's record.

AT MOST, women's qualification times should be 20:00 slower than the men's. But, like another poster mentioned, its about getting a large group of people to come to the city and spend money and I would venture to guess that the average woman at Boston spends a lot more money than the average man at the Expo.

I'm not uptight, I just don't entertain slow people telling me how hard it is to juggle their personal life and run a blazing 3:00.

I'm not uptight, I just don't entertain slow people telling me how hard it is to juggle their personal life and run a blazing 3:00.[/quote]

You know I'm slow by how?

hahahaha wrote:

The irony here is that you're the one who's getting all worked up.

Don't stress him. Bad things gonna happen.

mcguck wrote:

You know I'm slow by how?

By your desire to loosen the qualifying standards to make them easier. They are plenty easy.