Shut up about the Women's standards

You still don't get it. It's not just about comparing 1st to 1st, major vs. mid-major. It's also about comparing 10th to 10th, or 20th to 20th, or 60th to 60th. That's what the calculator does. You absolutely can't use a linearly comparison of "10%", because statistically they are two very different populations, and that's not what exists in reality with real data. This has nothing to do with lack of depth on the women's side. There's been a huge spread with women's times going back 30 years.

chinocochino wrote:

That's the thing, at mid-level running events (not just marathons, all of them) the gap is HUGE because there are not many competitive women running.

If you were a woman you'd be running 5 hour marathons.

Maybe consider a sex change.

There is such a big difference between the 100th man and 100th woman because female runners, as a whole, are much less competitive. Don't you get it? If you are correct, then the best women in the world are some super-incredible-sweet-amazing specimens that are so much better than their fellow XX people.To the other guy, very mature saying that I would run a 5 hour marathon as a girl. (I don't plan on ever running one, but oh well) Also, I'm sure I would go from a 2:43 (that's the equivalent time right now, at least. And I know people get slower as they go up in distance usually) to a 5 hour one.

J.R. wrote:

chinocochino wrote:

That's the thing, at mid-level running events (not just marathons, all of them) the gap is HUGE because there are not many competitive women running.

If you were a woman you'd be running 5 hour marathons.

Maybe consider a sex change.

chinocochino wrote:

There is such a big difference between the 100th man and 100th woman because female runners, as a whole, are much less competitive. Don't you get it? If you are correct, then the best women in the world are some super-incredible-sweet-amazing specimens that are so much better than their fellow XX people.

Men have a wider distribution curve with more outliers on any number of measures of human endeavor.

chinocochino wrote:

If you are correct, then the best women in the world are some super-incredible-sweet-amazing specimens that are so much better than their fellow XX people.

Yes. You will never see an elite man with feminine characteristics. On the other hand, you could see a woman with masculine characteristic. Elite men are more homogeneous than elite women.

who wants to run my roo with a shoey kablooey?

stats matter wrote:

Yes. You will never see an elite man with feminine characteristics.

So you're saying Galen Rupp isn't elite?

stats matter wrote:

This has nothing to do with lack of depth on the women's side. There's been a huge spread with women's times going back 30 years.

This statement illustrates your lack of understanding of statistics. A huge spread in times would clearly indicate a lack in depth.

The reasons for this lack of depth could be debated, but in the end, are almost certainly social. This is why I get so frustrated with people like you, and those who claim Radcliffe's WR is an outlier. I think Radcliffe's performance actually demonstrates the true capability of women, were they to train (at a population level) with the same intensity as men.

As far as the Olympic trials standards, obviously they are set to achieve a competitive field of a reasonable size. No one wants to see 5 women battling it out. One would hope, however, that women's standards will continue to fall as years go on, and will eventually be more in line with the men's.

I see this mistake all the time on Letsrun, but you cannot compare men and women's times like this because the difference is not linear but exponential. One reason for this is that many of the top women have straighter bodies (less curves), i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them an advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.

The women's standards are weak, and that's a fact, not an insult. Denying that it's easier is an insult to the men who have worked a lot harder than the women to run 2:23.

den bosch wrote:

...is an insult to the men who have worked a lot harder than the women to run 2:23.

How do you know this?

Why do you care?

completely agree, but I feel the standard should be 11% off after studying the top 25 times for men and women in the distance events.

If the standard was 3 hours, we'd still see these posts about how tough women have to be to hit the standard. I know women who run 70-100 mpw and can hit the B standard and guys who run 150 mpw, but can't.

Thanks to letsrun for changing their description of the article on the woman who went from a 4:08 to 2:43 marathon. The original title was the final straw in motivating this post - something akin to "so easy a 4:08 marathoner can do it"? That was just a ridiculous statement and totally disregarded the work it must have taken to go from 4:08 to 2:43.

Many good points have been made here. I agree that the standard will drop as more women run faster times, but the standard should never be set in respect to the men's. It should be set to reflect US women's running with the goal of creating an exciting and competitive championship race. Having 150 to 200 runners in the marathon championship, as it currently stands, is not unreasonable. There will be women in the field who set "weak" times in hot/freezing/hilly/etc conditions who will excel in the trials because they didn't have to continuously chase a standard. There are few "do overs" in marathon racing. Look at the men's qualifers - almost half qualified in the half marathon! Why? Because they were chasing a standard, and to do that in the full marathon would be murder on your body.

To say that women don't train hard is ignorant. I am a woman and have trained with many groups of men and women for the past 15 years. There was always a spectrum of commitment for each gender, but the women were out hammering just like the men, and it reflected in our success. I've observed that groups of men tend to find motivation in convincing themselves they are working harder than anyone else. Although that is anecdotal evidence, just like the stories on here about how women don't work hard, so take it as you will.

Nope, go to the news tab on title bar and scroll down to Thursday.It still says "Just How Easy Is The Standard For Women's US Marathon Trials? Well, A 4:08 Marathoner Can Do It blog.mlive.com" The home page link to the same article is a little nicer. I would think going from a 4:08 marathon to a 2:43 marathon would fall more under the category of "Where your dreams become reality" but maybe dreams are only for rich white Texans who went to Ivy League schools.

give us a break wrote:

Thanks to letsrun for changing their description of the article on the woman who went from a 4:08 to 2:43 marathon. The original title was the final straw in motivating this post - something akin to "so easy a 4:08 marathoner can do it"? That was just a ridiculous statement and totally disregarded the work it must have taken to go from 4:08 to 2:43.

I'm wondering how you explain the clear lack of depth among women marathon runners. The fall of is so dramatic among women that clearly, unequivocally under qualified women have to be let into the olympic trials in order to fill out the field. In the optimal world the Olympic Trials should be just a distant dream motivating 2:43+ marathon runners.

Times have changed. For men, in order to have a chance to medal in 2012, you need to be at least a 2:05 runner. 2:06, like Ryan Hall, will have zero chance to medal, we all know this. It is unrealistic that anyone with a >2:10 PR can run a 2:05 in the OT. So if you go strictly after who has a chance to medal, you'll have 2-3 guys running the trials. Honestly, you could just select them based on best time in the past 12 months and be done with it.

On the women's side, I believe you need to be a 2:22 runner in order to medal. I don't think there currently are any American women who can run that, so they would not have to send anyone. What was the best female USA performance in the M this year that was NOT aided? 2:29?

I am male. Personally, I have no dog in this fight yet because I don't run the marathon. I agree that women aren't as competitive as men in running simply because it is a proven fact. Now is this a cause of it being faux paux for a long time for women to compete in sports and they've just never caught up, or just simply that a biological discrepancy has existed since the beginning of time (or both). I think we should more tactfully address the subject. The qualifying girls don't choose the standards, but they work their asses off to get them. Don't put down athletes. I know it sucks that a girl makes it to the olympic trials that technically isn't near as good as you and you don't make it. I have it happen to me all the time. I run at a school where girls get a lot of credit because they're competition is much weaker. Equivalently, I'm stronger than them by quite a bit. Being a man though, it's your job to bow your neck and deal with it. There's a lot of shit that's unequal in this world. Kuwait didn't give women the right to vote until 2005. Most likely you posters are white males. I know this cause I am one and I know that white males like to moan like bitches. I would be ashamed of myself if I were you for not having any balls. Maybe if you didn't spend so much time whining on these boards instead of training, you wouldn't have to worry about a "b" standard for men.

agree with jimjamesrunner (some of his points) on this one. I think there should be a distinction - it's ok for guys that run 220 to be upset that you didnt make the standard. you missed your goal and that does suck, and i am sorry that it didnt work out..but you cant get pissed at the girls who DID hit the standard, can you? is it really THEIR fault that they hit a time that was made as a qualifying mark? No, absolutely not. i think that it is fair to say that more women have qualified for the OTM. Fact. Does that mean it is "easier" to run that time? now you are getting into opinion. Is it "easier" to break 27 in the 10k now that US guys have done it recently? It seems just as hard as it was before they did, no? Seems that the girls have just approached that OTM standard better and more have been able to accomplish it.

I think that this is a cool thing about the marathon. If you hit the standard - you're in. Whereas on the track - for obvious purposes - they cant let everyone who gets the standard in. But if what this thread is actually about - which is making an even number of competitors on the fields - it's definitely brought up in the wrong manner. Also, it seems that the underlying theme of this thread is that the standars should be "equal" (tightening the standard for women or making only A standars (?)). Maybe thats a topic for discussion. But not belittling those women who did hit the standard. Congrats to them all.

There is something circular about the Brojo's argument.

FACT: Women are 10-12% slower than men?

Oh wait, they aren't?

REVISED FACT: Women would be 10-12% slower than men if they weren't so darn LAZY!

I'm a math guy so let's bring some quantitative thinking into this. If you're going to start throwing out random %s then you really are asking for it.

Let's make some dumb model of running ability.

Your "ability" is a function of training. A(T)=Amax*(T/(K+T))

Amax and K are in built "genetics". Maybe K is the same for everyone and Amax is drawn randomly from a distribution.

We observe the final ability of the athletes and see that the distribution of As is different. The Brojos conclude that not enough women are training to their full potential.

There is another possibility: Amax has a much larger standard deviation among women. This seems reasonable to me. The body type that favors distance running is much more common in men than in women.

I know this isn't very well written, but maybe someone will see what I mean.