txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I agree that the women's BQ standards are soft compared to the men's, but women have only been allowed to run Boston for the past few years, so boo hoo.
After what period of time can we institute a meritocracy?
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I agree that the women's BQ standards are soft compared to the men's, but women have only been allowed to run Boston for the past few years, so boo hoo.
After what period of time can we institute a meritocracy?
LOLZ. Lots of bitter old men in this thread.
I am a female and did make a BQ time on my first marathon (by over 10 minutes). But, to be fair to me, my first marathon came only after 20 years of regular jogging/running and 2 years of more "serious" running, including a dozen or so half marathons. I personally don't think it's "easy", but I'm not at all remotely talented. I just enjoy running. I would say I fall on the very untalented end of the spectrum. But what I have going for me is that I am consistent. I run every day unless the weather is dangerous outside and I can't make it to a treadmill.
And I took the good advice from these boards before attempting my first marathon. That is, I didn't go out too fast (I really held myself back for the first half and felt great up until mile 21). The last miles were as difficult as everyone says. I honestly don't think people respect the distance enough (men and women) and that is why they fail to meet their goals. I knew that marathon training would take over my life for a while so that is why I never attempted it before.
Rather than blaming your failure on soft times for women, take a hard look at your training. That is where you will find the weak link.
jamin wrote:
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I agree that the women's BQ standards are soft compared to the men's, but women have only been allowed to run Boston for the past few years, so boo hoo.
After what period of time can we institute a meritocracy?
Never... once an injustice occurred there is no amount of time that can pass to make up for it. Always harp on what was done in the past and stay trapped in a line of thinking where you are the oppressed.
Page 1 of the liberal / victim-culture handbook.
another perspective wrote:
...trapped in a line of thinking where you are the oppressed.
That is a pretty big projector you got there, Mr. Conservative. How did you find a screen big enough?
This thread is about someone complaining that men are being oppressed, or are you not paying attention? Once you are in charge of the BAA, you can make all the changes you want.
How else can we meet the demand for May-December marriages
jfkd;aienk'jfkaim wrote:
another perspective wrote:
...trapped in a line of thinking where you are the oppressed.
That is a pretty big projector you got there, Mr. Conservative. How did you find a screen big enough?
This thread is about someone complaining that men are being oppressed, or are you not paying attention? Once you are in charge of the BAA, you can make all the changes you want.
take a look again at what I was responding to (the 47 years of women vs 122 for men) and then maybe what I said will make sense to you. If it doesn't, you must have been too triggered by my comment to understand.
Actually, if you look at participation rates for running, the younger demographics (15-54 year age group) have started to shift to predominantly females over the past 15 years. The old men are just in an age demographic that is primarily male due to societal influences on previous generations. It wouldn't surprise me in 20 years when those old men are 6 feet under to see women overtake men in terms of participation at Boston. Equality is a wonderful thing.
Because young, fit women have babies, and this is extraordinarily disruptive to achieving a BQ. I was in the shape of my life 2 months ago. Now, at 9 weeks pregnant, I can't make it through the day without puking, and running 3 miles is a major achievement. I'm looking at 9 months before I can run again in a meaningful way, and I'm contemplating whether it's realistic to run a marathon in *2020*. Honestly, probably early 2021 is more likely. It sucks!
Without pregnancy, a thirtysomething year old woman would be the same speed as a 53 year old man. But a woman in her thirties is also disrupted by pregnancy and breastfeeding. It's killer. I'm assuming you're male. Seriously, just be thankful you don't have to carry babies. If I could afford I surrogate (90K+), I'd do it in a second.
I've looked at various age graded standards charts and age-equivalent calculators. From those, it seems that the standards are soft, but they aren' *that* soft, they are ~5 minutes soft (so a men's 3:00 would be closer to 3:25 than 3:30 for 30 year olds). However, I've also read that the distribution of marathon times falls off more from women compared to elite times than men not just due to how seriously people take their training, but also because women who can run faster than average tend to be on one end of the distribution of body types (in terms of hip width and breast size) . Men's body types don't have the same range of biomechanical efficiency differences within the average population. Aside from this, there are obviously a number of physical and social barriers that come up with parenthood in people's prime recreational marathoning years (late 20s-early 40s) related to recovery from birth, breastfeeding, and the sociological tendency for women to spend more time doing housework than men even if they work similar hours that provide barriers to training at the same intensity as men, even if women desire to. All of this to say is taking that into consideration, 5 minutes doesn't seem that egregiously soft, especially given that the race is still 55% men.
A lot of men can train 30 mpw and hit 3:30, but I know very few women who don't have a serious running background (ran in college, or at least somewhat competitively in high school) or are very talented who can. A 30 year old man's 3:30 is worth more like a women's slightly sub-4 (3:57ish), which seems about right to me given the times of people who run 30-40 mpw on something like a Hal Higdon plan who are reasonably athletic and in shape but don't take their training all that seriously.
For what it's worth, I ran 3:18 in my last marathon. According to an age graded calculator, this is roughly equivalent to a male 2:56. This makes perfect sense to me--a guy friend of mine runs around there for a marathon and we seem to train at a similar level. We both tend to land upper midpack in local races, often placing in our age groups but losing to former collegiate runners. I think a lot of men underestimate how good certain times really are for typical women.
Men have the real advantage here. wrote:
Try being a woman in your next life with the boobs, butt, hormones, awkward hips and period cramps to deal with through training and then you might understand.
well.... balls and a richard
Have you considered that?
Age-grade calculation is as follows:
women 50-54 standard 3:55, age-grade for w50: 3:17
men 50-54 standard 3:25, age-grade for m50: 3:03
That being said, unless you're 60 and over, you should be able to beat the men's open standard of 3:00.
comedyrelief wrote:
Actually, if you look at participation rates for running, the younger demographics (15-54 year age group) have started to shift to predominantly females over the past 15 years. The old men are just in an age demographic that is primarily male due to societal influences on previous generations. It wouldn't surprise me in 20 years when those old men are 6 feet under to see women overtake men in terms of participation at Boston. Equality is a wonderful thing.
This is definitive strawman reasoning, as the controversy in this thread isn't about "participation."
I know they can't please everybody, but it's going to suck for those men who crack 3 hours and don't get in next year.
jamin wrote:
comedyrelief wrote:
Actually, if you look at participation rates for running, the younger demographics (15-54 year age group) have started to shift to predominantly females over the past 15 years. The old men are just in an age demographic that is primarily male due to societal influences on previous generations. It wouldn't surprise me in 20 years when those old men are 6 feet under to see women overtake men in terms of participation at Boston. Equality is a wonderful thing.
This is definitive strawman reasoning, as the controversy in this thread isn't about "participation."
Anyone complaining about qualifier standards is a participant and not a serious runner. From the misogyny in most of these posts it is easy to see why a lot of the people on these boards are not married, are divorced or are in miserable marriages. It is comical how offended a lot of the boys on the boards get about women's sports.
This is similar to the difference in the OQT. Women get 26 more minutes than men to qualify. You should start a thread about that too.
jamin wrote:
comedyrelief wrote:
Actually, if you look at participation rates for running, the younger demographics (15-54 year age group) have started to shift to predominantly females over the past 15 years. The old men are just in an age demographic that is primarily male due to societal influences on previous generations. It wouldn't surprise me in 20 years when those old men are 6 feet under to see women overtake men in terms of participation at Boston. Equality is a wonderful thing.
This is definitive strawman reasoning, as the controversy in this thread isn't about "participation."
There is no "controversy".
jamin wrote:
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I agree that the women's BQ standards are soft compared to the men's, but women have only been allowed to run Boston for the past few years, so boo hoo.
After what period of time can we institute a meritocracy?
You can't talk to girls like that jamin. You're not Donald Trump.
comedyrelief wrote:
And for what it's worth, 55% of Boston Marathon participants are men and 45% are women. Seems like the standard is too lax for the men. A 59 year old man still has about 10 times as much testosterone as a 35 year old female. I bet the OP is the type of guy that digs down and tries to outkick the 10 year old girl at the end of a 5k fun run.
LOL
I’m in my mid thirties. Most of the women I train with around my age have multiple small children. This means their training has had major disruptions during the past few years due to pregnancy, birth recovery and breastfeeding. I would say an “average” conditioned woman in her mid thirties who does the work and puts in 40 miles a week training for a marathon will run around a 4:30, and if she’s talented, trains more carefully, or runs more miles, have a shot at sub 4. The women I know who have BQ’ed are in great shape and have been running for years, often requiring 3 attempts before a BQ.
Plus women now also have to deal with males “identifying” as females and stripping them of their race awards as they enter these races as female but still have the bone structure, VO2 max, and higher testosterone level like that of a male.