My wife and I are similar caliber runners and the female BQ standard always seemed way easier to us until we started having kids. Now it's the other way.
My wife and I are similar caliber runners and the female BQ standard always seemed way easier to us until we started having kids. Now it's the other way.
Patti, you may love being a woman but you were, are and always will be a stud runner. Thank you for all of your contributions to the sport.
i think the gender difference are good. i am 71 and started running when a 2:50 was required to get in the BAA. They would not allow a 10 second miss. It was hard to qualify and work full time. I ran over 15 Boston marathon, best (not BAA) was 2:32:12. I do not agree a 3:05 is easy. I knew a lot of good runners that for one reason or another could break 3:15. Time variations for identical athletes vary greatly due to to weather, health on a given day, course terrain, where you live ( hot weather in Boston can make it very tough if you are from a winter climate), and you can only run 2 a year and improve times. If you work at a full time job a luck is required break 3 hours for a very decent 10k runner.
I would agree if you can't break the standards you shouldn't run marathons. You should go race some walking jogging 50k trail races. You can wear a cool backpack and talk about some crazy nutritional product that allows you to walk for 10 hours and not cramp...what a miracle product.
Boston at least has a threshold..which is nice. You have to be lean enough and fit enough to at least participate.
The standards are more than fair. 3:30 for most woman is pretty darn fast and 3:05 isn't that easy but both are reasonable standards.
Gender equity is a convenient term to give women an advantage. Feminists cry about equality but would never hold a door for a man. Feminist cry for equal pay in the military, but when they can't carry the 50mm machine gun, they cry it's too heavy and could get everyone killed. But still they want the combat pay of the soldiers on the front line. Gender equity was a good idea at the start, just like Title IX was, at the start. Now both of these topics are mowing down everything. Look at how many long standing athletic programs Title IX has ruined. Look at how many times gender equity was demanded by feminists, only to pick and choose where and when they wanted that equal treatment. when it's tough and demanding, no thanks. But, se an opportunity to make quick cash in a lawsuit because a law firm has 49 males and only 40 females, sure!
Just watch out people. Someday we will have women Presidents in several countries. Then do you know how often there will be war? Every 30 days!
G54 wrote:
Feminist cry for equal pay in the military, but when they can't carry the 50mm machine gun, they cry it's too heavy and could get everyone killed.
50mm machine gun? You are the stud of all studs if you could carry such a weapon. You do realize our tank rounds are barely more than twice that size (120mm). A belt of ammo would weigh half a ton.
Rambo Part 45: John Rambo fires an Abrams main gun from the hip as he destroys the entire Russian army!
mcguck wrote:
2018 BOSTON MARATHON QUALIFYING STANDARDS
Effective September 17, 2016. All standards below are based on official submitted net time.
AGE GROUP MEN WOMEN
18-34 3hrs 05min 00sec 3hrs 35min 00sec
35-39 3hrs 10min 00sec 3hrs 40min 00sec
40-44 3hrs 15min 00sec 3hrs 45min 00sec
45-49 3hrs 25min 00sec 3hrs 55min 00sec
50-54 3hrs 30min 00sec 4hrs 00min 00sec
55-59 3hrs 40min 00sec 4hrs 10min 00sec
60-64 3hrs 55min 00sec 4hrs 25min 00sec
65-69 4hrs 10min 00sec 4hrs 40min 00sec
70-74 4hrs 25min 00sec 4hrs 55min 00sec
75-79 4hrs 40min 00sec 5hrs 10min 00sec
80 and over 4hrs 55min 00sec 5hrs 25min 00sec
In this day and age I might as well say I identify as a woman and not train as hard.
All these different qualifying times are ridiculous. Does the Boston Marathon want itself to mean anything? Just have one qualifying time for everyone regardless of their age or sex. From the qualifying times posted I would say that 3 hours 15 to 20 mins would be a reasonable cut off time for everyone. If you cannot make that then there are other marathons to try and run and you can always just run 26 miles by yourself using a GPS to measure the distance. Running itself should bring its own individual joy.
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.
Stop living in a bubble.
Maybe a 3:05 is no big deal for a skinny former high school or college CC or track-trained runner but 3:05 is not chump change for those with bigger, more muscular builds who played sports other than running.
G54 wrote:
Gender equity is a convenient term to give women an advantage. Feminists cry about equality but would never hold a door for a man. Feminist cry for equal pay in the military, but when they can't carry the 50mm machine gun, they cry it's too heavy and could get everyone killed. But still they want the combat pay of the soldiers on the front line. Gender equity was a good idea at the start, just like Title IX was, at the start. Now both of these topics are mowing down everything. Look at how many long standing athletic programs Title IX has ruined. Look at how many times gender equity was demanded by feminists, only to pick and choose where and when they wanted that equal treatment. when it's tough and demanding, no thanks. But, se an opportunity to make quick cash in a lawsuit because a law firm has 49 males and only 40 females, sure!
Just watch out people. Someday we will have women Presidents in several countries. Then do you know how often there will be war? Every 30 days!
If ever there were an example of a person who should NOT be promoted beyond their level of educational attainment, this is it.
Its based on the relevant pool of male to female. In the Boston Marathon, this would be total numbers of each gender competing in each age group. Not the difference in qualifying times.
Try factoring in being out of running for years due to childbirth/rearing, overcoming physical damage due to childbirth (e.g. tears or whatever), being banned as an entire gender from running in marathons until relatively recent times, as well as the weaker bone structure, wider pelvis, smaller heart, lungs, etc., less propensity to build muscle, different hormones, and so on.
Theres clearly an agenda by some failed male runners to feel aggrieved, not at their own lack of ability, but at the ability of women to compete against other women. The world, and Boston, do not need and do not want, even more slow male runners, at the expense of better female athletes. Its tough, but its true.
vet of mar wrote:
TrackCoach wrote: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 meant a happy marriage, happy well adjusted kids, and a well maintained house.
Y'all are kidding yourself if you think your wife and kids are happy you spend your time doing a selfish activity. The good thing is it gives your wives time to get pleasured by a real man while you are hitting your 2 hour runs.
Yeah man... it looks so easy. You're a man with a naturally higher V02 Max, muscle mass, and other biological advantages for running fast. So I get it how the women's times look ridiculous. But rather than look at time differentials between elites, look at the distribution of the files as a whole.I'm a mid-30s lady who has barely BQ-ed more than a few times, and in local races (5K/10K/half) I usually finish in the top tier -- behind the super fast/regional class gals but well before bulk of the female crowd. Women who are not top-tier seem less competitive, unlike men.
mcguck wrote:
2018 BOSTON MARATHON QUALIFYING STANDARDS
Effective September 17, 2016. All standards below are based on official submitted net time.
AGE GROUP MEN WOMEN
18-34 3hrs 05min 00sec 3hrs 35min 00sec
35-39 3hrs 10min 00sec 3hrs 40min 00sec
40-44 3hrs 15min 00sec 3hrs 45min 00sec
45-49 3hrs 25min 00sec 3hrs 55min 00sec
50-54 3hrs 30min 00sec 4hrs 00min 00sec
55-59 3hrs 40min 00sec 4hrs 10min 00sec
60-64 3hrs 55min 00sec 4hrs 25min 00sec
65-69 4hrs 10min 00sec 4hrs 40min 00sec
70-74 4hrs 25min 00sec 4hrs 55min 00sec
75-79 4hrs 40min 00sec 5hrs 10min 00sec
80 and over 4hrs 55min 00sec 5hrs 25min 00sec
In this day and age I might as well say I identify as a woman and not train as hard.
Professional job working 50 hours a week - Yes (attorney). Wife - Yes. Kids - Yes. House - Yes. Marathon time - 2:27. Train, don't complain.
Cuck - yes
You can always say you're "transing." Problem solved.
I took the OP's issue as being more about gender equality. Women want to be treated as equals. So why did Boston have to lower their standard? Because women are the weaker sex. If that weren't true then the standards could be the same.
Honestly, it's just another marathon. And on a non world record eligible course. Fukuoka is where it's at - you'll get pulled off the course if your not running below 2:45 pace. Boston is just another money spinner.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
vet of mar wrote:In which case...it's still easy to say.
TrackCoach meant a happy marriage, happy well adjusted kids, and a well maintained house.
Y'all are kidding yourself if you think your wife and kids are happy you spend your time doing a selfish activity. The good thing is it gives your wives time to get pleasured by a real man while you are hitting your 2 hour runs.
Awwwe that's cute, a troll who is projecting
nah wrote:
Maybe a 3:05 is no big deal for a skinny former high school or college CC or track-trained runner but 3:05 is not chump change for those with bigger, more muscular builds who played sports other than running.
This argument works both ways. Why is there not a Superbowl competition for skinny college XC types ??- we all want to play in the Superbowl so why are we being prejudiced against? Or an NBA competition etc etc ...
If you are not good enough at one sport to compete at the level you want to then you keep doing that sport until you improve to the level you want or for your own personal satisfaction or you look for another sport in which your physical makeup is more suited. Don't start asking the sport to give you lower standards so that you can compete in it - that attitude smacks of an entitlement mentality.
BlaseBill wrote:
Try factoring in being out of running for years due to childbirth/rearing, overcoming physical damage due to childbirth (e.g. tears or whatever), being banned as an entire gender from running in marathons until relatively recent times, as well as the weaker bone structure, wider pelvis, smaller heart, lungs, etc., less propensity to build muscle, different hormones, and so on.
Theres clearly an agenda by some failed male runners to feel aggrieved, not at their own lack of ability, but at the ability of women to compete against other women. The world, and Boston, do not need and do not want, even more slow male runners, at the expense of better female athletes. Its tough, but its true.
No, I think that the OP was complaining about women being held to different standards than men when it comes to Boston qualifying. I personally think he should suck it up train hard and go for it terms of improving his running ability but he also has a point - runners should be held to the same standards regardless of age or sex.
Instead you seem to just trot out a series of excuses about why a group of people should be held to a lower standard. If you go in that direction then there is no end: why not have qualifying standards for people who weigh over 200 lbs or who have short legs or who cannot train at altitude, or who have been sidelined with running injuries for several years, or who have below a certain lung capacity, or who have more than 3 children, or who had to stop training for a few years for work commitments etc etc ....
People should be held to the same standards (measured by time alone) for qualifying to run in the Boston marathon regardless of their age or sex. If they cannot make the standard then they cannot run. It is tough but that is was what having a meaningful valid standard entails.
standards wrote:
BlaseBill wrote:Try factoring in being out of running for years due to childbirth/rearing, overcoming physical damage due to childbirth (e.g. tears or whatever), being banned as an entire gender from running in marathons until relatively recent times, as well as the weaker bone structure, wider pelvis, smaller heart, lungs, etc., less propensity to build muscle, different hormones, and so on.
Theres clearly an agenda by some failed male runners to feel aggrieved, not at their own lack of ability, but at the ability of women to compete against other women. The world, and Boston, do not need and do not want, even more slow male runners, at the expense of better female athletes. Its tough, but its true.
No, I think that the OP was complaining about women being held to different standards than men when it comes to Boston qualifying. I personally think he should suck it up train hard and go for it terms of improving his running ability but he also has a point - runners should be held to the same standards regardless of age or sex.
Instead you seem to just trot out a series of excuses about why a group of people should be held to a lower standard. If you go in that direction then there is no end: why not have qualifying standards for people who weigh over 200 lbs or who have short legs or who cannot train at altitude, or who have been sidelined with running injuries for several years, or who have below a certain lung capacity, or who have more than 3 children, or who had to stop training for a few years for work commitments etc etc ....
People should be held to the same standards (measured by time alone) for qualifying to run in the Boston marathon regardless of their age or sex. If they cannot make the standard then they cannot run. It is tough but that is was what having a meaningful valid standard entails.
No. We specify different standards for that "group of people" because they are half the population.
Read that again so you understand. Half the population are female. They have very discernable characteristics that make them identifiable. Because sport is a physical activity, and because those different characteristics in half the population affect that, we apply different standards to them in sport. In sport, you can train away being overweight or unfit to a certain degree, people with short legs win Olympic medals (Shelley Anne Fraser-Pryce, Haile Gebresellasie), people can choose whether or not to have children and families or focus on sport.
So as to not make sport pointless for half the population and so as not to enable the other half of the population to dominate sport.