Where is the Gender equality in the Boston Qualifying times?

standards wrote:

BlaseBill wrote:

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.

You are the one that brought up having children as an excuse and now you say it is a choice. OK fair enough I understand that one.

I understand the rest of your argument and it is not valid when looked at objectively. Half the population are female so they should be allowed to attain lower standards is what you are saying. However, half the population are over or under a certain weight, half the population are over or under a certain height, half the population will be over or under a certain age, half the population will be over or under a certain lung capacity, half the population will have over or under a certain stroke volume of their heart etc etc. These things all impact physical performance and can be measured objectively. The population does not have much of a choice in how they are given these characteristics and how much they can change them. Why do they not have their own specific entry standards as they are half the population after all?

Just because you cannot win something or qualify for something in a sport does not mean that that sport has to be pointless to you. Does the sport have to be pointless for the millions of runners who have failed to qualify for the Olympics? There is only one winner (of the men and women categories) of the Boston marathon – does that mean that the other several 1000 competitors have to feel that the sport is pointless? A sport like running is about personal achievement in its essence. Having a single entry standard to competing in something like the Boston Marathon would give it a common standard for all runners to aspire to. I would put this around 3h 20 to 30 mins as a fair mark. This pace is still 30 mins slower than the world record pace for the 50km race walk so it is still a very reasonable target for the everyman/everywoman.

standards wrote:

BlaseBill wrote:

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.

You are the one that brought up having children as an excuse and now you say it is a choice. OK fair enough I understand that one.

I understand the rest of your argument and it is not valid when looked at objectively. Half the population are female so they should be allowed to attain lower standards is what you are saying. However, half the population are over or under a certain weight, half the population are over or under a certain height, half the population will be over or under a certain age, half the population will be over or under a certain lung capacity, half the population will have over or under a certain stroke volume of their heart etc etc. These things all impact physical performance and can be measured objectively. The population does not have much of a choice in how they are given these characteristics and how much they can change them. Why do they not have their own specific entry standards as they are half the population after all?

Just because you cannot win something or qualify for something in a sport does not mean that that sport has to be pointless to you. Does the sport have to be pointless for the millions of runners who have failed to qualify for the Olympics? There is only one winner (of the men and women categories) of the Boston marathon – does that mean that the other several 1000 competitors have to feel that the sport is pointless? A sport like running is about personal achievement in its essence. Having a single entry standard to competing in something like the Boston Marathon would give it a common standard for all runners to aspire to. I would put this around 3h 20 to 30 mins as a fair mark. This pace is still 30 mins slower than the world record pace for the 50km race walk so it is still a very reasonable target for the everyman/everywoman.

standards wrote:

BlaseBill wrote:

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.

You are the one that brought up having children as an excuse and now you say it is a choice. OK fair enough I understand that one.

I understand the rest of your argument and it is not valid when looked at objectively. Half the population are female so they should be allowed to attain lower standards is what you are saying. However, half the population are over or under a certain weight, half the population are over or under a certain height, half the population will be over or under a certain age, half the population will be over or under a certain lung capacity, half the population will have over or under a certain stroke volume of their heart etc etc. These things all impact physical performance and can be measured objectively. The population does not have much of a choice in how they are given these characteristics and how much they can change them. Why do they not have their own specific entry standards as they are half the population after all?

Just because you cannot win something or qualify for something in a sport does not mean that that sport has to be pointless to you. Does the sport have to be pointless for the millions of runners who have failed to qualify for the Olympics? There is only one winner (of the men and women categories) of the Boston marathon – does that mean that the other several 1000 competitors have to feel that the sport is pointless? A sport like running is about personal achievement in its essence. Having a single entry standard to competing in something like the Boston Marathon would give it a common standard for all runners to aspire to. I would put this around 3h 20 to 30 mins as a fair mark. This pace is still 30 mins slower than the world record pace for the 50km race walk so it is still a very reasonable target for the everyman/everywoman.

standards wrote:

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.