Le Grande Orange wrote:
merit system wrote:The talent in the men's marathon is a deeper, so that means nothing.
Deeper x 6? I don't think so.
Why not? The men's record is 12+ minutes faster than the women's, so if you slow down a little a male who is 16 minutes faster than a women is just as good or better for his gender. The participation rate for males is much, much higher.
Only in America is 2:41 better than 2:25.
Has this country gone crazy?
If she has any cleavage at all, her.
merit system wrote:
The participation rate for males is much, much higher.
False.
Yes, the man of the house here has the superior performance , if one is grading it according to purely physiological ,ultimate potentiality. Women are capable of running within 12 -13 minutes behind their "equal " male counter parts .Due to the talent pool being smaller for women does not take away from this fact.
From a sociological standpoint one could argue that the woman of the house here is of higher qualty due to ranking ,iaaf tables but these are all based on a less than ideal talent pool of women within their demographics.
For example : What was the world record in 1969 ? men: 2:08 /women 2:5o something . That doesnt mean that these times are "equal" in terms of ultimate physiological potential of the genders.
2.25 men /2.41 women is in the same ball park figure though, just the man's a little better
Ted Underhill wrote:
Peters pecker atrophies wrote:. . . or gather your bedclothes for your long lonely stay stay on the couch.
This comment should get better love than it will
worth reposting
M4MW wrote:
Pics?
Sorry, has this been addressed yet?
Lots of off-the-mark posts here claiming that the man is better. Regardless of participation rates or whatever else, the wife's time is marginally better relative to a typical "best in world"-type time, and her time is a whole lot better by other metrics such as pure competitiveness.
I bet some of the people who claim that the man's time is better will also tell you that Frank Shorter is a better distance runner than Rupp, but logically those two claims rely on contradictory logic.
Carparn wrote:
merit system wrote:The participation rate for males is much, much higher.
False.
Not false. I'm talking about competitive runners, not just any marathon participants.
Wurt wrote:
Lots of off-the-mark posts here claiming that the man is better. Regardless of participation rates or whatever else, the wife's time is marginally better relative to a typical "best in world"-type time, and her time is a whole lot better by other metrics such as pure competitiveness.
I bet some of the people who claim that the man's time is better will also tell you that Frank Shorter is a better distance runner than Rupp, but logically those two claims rely on contradictory logic.
so you're saying that Rupp is a better runner because he's a woman?
Come on man...Ranger up...Comparing yourself to your wife is not going to help you get better. Be a man compare yourself to men. How do you compare to Rupp, Bekele, etc? Discipline your mind...do not accept weakness.
Look at this another way, ignoring finishing times for now.
Evaluate each other based on effort.
How many miles do you each run per week? How many years have you each run competitively? Who is more consistent with their training? Who trains harder? Who does more of all the little extra things? (strength work, diet, rest, etc.) Who gets the most out of their natural ability? Who tries harder? Who is more focused, driven and dedicated? Who wants 'it' more? Who went deeper into the well to achieve their time? Where were each of you on the hurt-pain-agony spectrum when you each ran those times?
Plant your seed and start comparing age graded marks with your kids!
Can any let's run investigator determine the identity of the poster and his wife?
Xyzz wrote:
Can any let's run investigator determine the identity of the poster and his wife?
Two fictional characters.