sixty women just OTQ at CIM 2018 ?

finishline video is out

I'm impressed that not everyone was using VF/VF2, only maybe a little more than half

there is some serious drama around the 2:43 mark, runners falling over (probably quad failure which is common at CIM)

one poor woman fell just 10 meters from the finish and then crawled across the line at 2:45:05 which hurts my heart to see - not sure if she can petition USATF on that one but hope she tries again in 2019 if not (yeah she was using VF, but still, she could have made it)

full crawl for half mile? at 2:47, omg

there are at least a dozen women who look like they could have made it with slightly better circumstance, missed the standard by less than a second per mile!

btw full tights and sleeves at 2:45:55, I'm not mad, I'm impressed, somewhere between buns and full tights I think you can find something a little less restrictive and faster?

2:34-2:54

s3.amazonaws.com/bazu-video/event-45892/finisha/GP020141.mp4

2:14-2:34

s3.amazonaws.com/bazu-video/event-45892/finisha/GP010141.mp4

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

Did Bruce wear Hokas are those painted over Vaporflys?

Hoka Carbon Rocket with carbon-spring like vaporflys, she and Cam Levins have been wearing them all season and she used the previous unreleased model even way back at Peachtree over the summer

https://www.runningwarehouse.com/reviews/HOKA-ONE-ONE-Shoe-Reviews/first-look-hoka-one-one-carbon-rocket.html

Well 2018 Peachtree was Steph Bruce's best race ever, so that is telling.

Women's B Too Slow wrote:

The women's B standard is too slow. The A's for men and women are similarly difficult (2:15 might be more like 2:36 and not 2:37)... But having the men's B standard 4 minutes slower than the A and for women their difference is 8 minutes?? That's way too much, and that's why you have 100 people qualifying from one race.

Why isn't the women's B standard 4 minutes slower than the A?

205 women entered 2016 Trials; 149 finished. 108 men finished the Trials; not sure how many entered. I doubt 97 men DNF'd.

Numbers heavily in favor of women. Where is equality?

2020 expect it to be even more lop-sided.

Why is it that the people most critical about the women's standard are men, who have nothing to do with it.

If you're not a woman, then you should mind your own business.

You're right, and the IAAF should appoint a committee of women and a committee of men to determine the standards because obviously only a women can use logic when it comes to women's standards and a men when it comes to men's.

Get real, if anything, those who have nothing to do with it should be the ones commenting and not those affected, as those affected will use too much emotion as opposed to a bias outsider. This is shown pretty clearly in your comment.

That's called a coincidence. I seriously doubt the guys that actually make the team care about what the B standard is.

Because it is tied to the Olympic standard.

Harry Wales wrote:

Women's B Too Slow wrote:

The women's B standard is too slow. The A's for men and women are similarly difficult (2:15 might be more like 2:36 and not 2:37)... But having the men's B standard 4 minutes slower than the A and for women their difference is 8 minutes?? That's way too much, and that's why you have 100 people qualifying from one race.

Why isn't the women's B standard 4 minutes slower than the A?

205 women entered 2016 Trials; 149 finished. 108 men finished the Trials; not sure how many entered. I doubt 97 men DNF'd.

Numbers heavily in favor of women. Where is equality?

2020 expect it to be even more lop-sided.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

finishline video is out

Where did you find these? Are there others? I ran 2:57, and would love to see a finish line video covering that slot, if available.

darkwave wrote:

Where did you find these? Are there others? I ran 2:57, and would love to see a finish line video covering that slot, if available.

congrats on breaking 3, this is the 2:54-3:14 video

(but I think there were two finish chutes? check your entry at athlinks or chronotrack if not in here)

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

[quote]darkwave wrote:

congrats on breaking 3, this is the 2:54-3:14 video

(but I think there were two finish chutes? check your entry at athlinks or chronotrack if not in here)

s3.amazonaws.com/bazu-video/event-45892/finisha/GP030141.mp4

Thanks so much!- that one caught me (I'm female)

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

thought that was rather interesting, that's nearly a third of the 200 average every 4 years

2018: 60

2017: 45

2016: 12

2015: 12

zee carbon-spring shoes, zee do nothing right? lol

shoes of 2019, VF2 + hoka carbon-rocket?

https://i.imgur.com/x7VwzbN.jpg

Can people just not run fast? Does hard training and mental toughness count anymore? Oh yeah we’re more concerned about the shoes people are racing in.

Piss off with that.

Serious question` wrote:

Why is it that the people most critical about the women's standard are men, who have nothing to do with it.

If you're not a woman, then you should mind your own business.

Everybody nowadays is preaching equality. If the standards were fair and equal the same number of men as women would be competing in the 2020 marathon trials. The past 2 marathon trials, the women's field has been much larger than the men's.

How large will the women's field be in 2020?

hey darkwave, look yourself up here (https://www.athlinks.com/event/3241/results/Event/695349/Results) to see video at mile 21 also

I know if I were setting the men's standards, it would be exactly one second slower than my best time in the past 2 years!

Mal Content wrote:

Serious question` wrote:

Why is it that the people most critical about the women's standard are men, who have nothing to do with it.

If you're not a woman, then you should mind your own business.

Everybody nowadays is preaching equality. If the standards were fair and equal the same number of men as women would be competing in the 2020 marathon trials. The past 2 marathon trials, the women's field has been much larger than the men's.

How large will the women's field be in 2020?

Its going to be ridiculous when its like 500 women and 70 men. Then they will finally change it and women will post on letsrun about how its unfair. It should be a descending order list of the top 100 marathon times from men and women in the past 2 years. By the way women are only 11% slower than men. Doing the math, you can see the women's standard is much easier to hit than the mens. If the standards were equal, the women's would be in the 230s.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Still think the women's standard is too easy because it seems like women with very little competitive running background are able to get the standard. Whereas the men's standard seems only achieveable by guys that were at least decent in college.

What the HECK difference does people's backgrounds make when they line up at a race and run a given time? "That can't be good, that guy never even ran in college" is the most flawed reasoning imaginable.

There are far more objective metrics than that folks can use.

I Code to Yacht Rock wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

Still think the women's standard is too easy because it seems like women with very little competitive running background are able to get the standard. Whereas the men's standard seems only achieveable by guys that were at least decent in college.

What the HECK difference does people's backgrounds make when they line up at a race and run a given time? "That can't be good, that guy never even ran in college" is the most flawed reasoning imaginable.

There are far more objective metrics than that folks can use.

If you don’t understand his observation, then there’s no use trying to explain it to you. It’s really quite simple.

Real question though... what if a 2:37 male marathoner suddenly identified as a woman? Would they get to run as a female at the OTs and receive financial support?

TheirPoint wrote:

I Code to Yacht Rock wrote:

What the HECK difference does people's backgrounds make when they line up at a race and run a given time? "That can't be good, that guy never even ran in college" is the most flawed reasoning imaginable.

There are far more objective metrics than that folks can use.

If you don’t understand his observation, then there’s no use trying to explain it to you. It’s really quite simple.

Real question though... what if a 2:37 male marathoner suddenly identified as a woman? Would they get to run as a female at the OTs and receive financial support?

I'll try to explain. Becoming fast at the marathon takes many years. It seems that in order to achieve the men's OTQ standard, it helps greatly a background of years of high mileage in a highly competitive level, which is provided with Division I collegiate running. For example, two local guys recently qualified that ran for programs that reached DI XC nationals this year. On the other hand, I am noticing a much greater variety of women, including a wider age range and from smaller, less competitive college programs, that achieve the standard. Not to mention coaches on this board revealing the mileage and running backgrounds on women they have coached to the OTQ standard.

All these leads to me to believe that 2:45 for women can be achieved with fewer years of training at lower mileage and intensity than the 2:19 for men.

The reality is that the standards are tied to the Olympics. Our women are doing better internationally relative to our men in terms of how many we put under the 2:45 standard. Our 2:44 runners would be some of the best runners in some smaller countries. Women weren't allowed to run the marathon for a while and the US has been making up the gap but not every country is. It goes a little deeper than just a number standard.

I don't think US men should be on the attack against that. It's pretty clear why it is there. I would be mad if I were a woman who could hit the international standard but that wasn't good enough to get into the Trials. The men's standard matches the international standard but we don't have the same number of qualifiers. I say leave it alone or loosen it to 2:20-22. I think the Rupp's of the world could care less about the B standard. Strengthen the half standard for men and give an extra couple minutes for the full. I'm always inspired by the 2:18:59 runners repping a small town or small school. The Trials won't get out of hand letting in some more qualifiers plus, who knows, maybe a 2:19:59 runner makes it and pops a 2:15. I'm here for that.

Mal Content wrote:

Everybody nowadays is preaching equality. If the standards were fair and equal the same number of men as women would be competing in the 2020 marathon trials.

True equality for the sexes would be holding runners to the same qualifying times to compete in the Olympic trials and the Olympics regardless of whether they are men or women.