So my short post on Boston qualifying times inspired a post by Alison, which then led to this whole big debate on the Boston qualifying times. I generally agree with Alison, but I’m not so sure on this one point:
Not to open another can of worms, but I firmly believe that men’s running is more competitive than women’s running right now. If you pick equivalent times for elite status in any given race and offer prize money, you will likely end up with a larger men’s field than women’s field. If you go 50 (100?) deep on the performance lists nationwide, you will likely find that the women’s performances drop off more than the men’s. On a worldwide level, there are still countries which strongly discourage women from participating in sports at all. Until women and men receive the same amount of support and encouragement for a given number of years (I don’t know what that number is, but quite a few), women’s running will not be as deep as men’s.
I guess I’m pretty dubious this will ever happen, and not just because of the physical differences between men and women. I mean … running at even a sub-elite level takes just a phenomenal amount of single-mindedness. (Dedication? Fanaticism? I’m searching for a neutral word here). I definitely admire those people who are able to focus on one thing, to the exclusion of all else. But most of us — myself included — want a certain level of balance in our life, and don’t want to be dedicated to running 24/7. (I like having a social life, being able to drink beer and sometime stay out ’til 3 a.m.). And I just think that women are more apt to want that balance in their life, more than men. But definitely, more power to the Paula Radcliffes out there…
I agree that womens qualifying standards for Boston are easier than mens, however, I don’t think a 3:40 is anything to laugh at. I know a lot of guys who can’t run that time.
What I think is more telling, and perhaps more interesting, is that the first “age group” for Boston qualifying is 35 and under. As a 24 year old I think that maybe 3:40 wasn’t a hard enough standard (If I can do it in my first try, it might be a bit too easy), but when I am 30-35, and weigh a few more pounds, I might think that standard is quite hard enough!
It seems to me a lot of girls my age are running marathons now. I wonder if that was the case when the standards were put into place.
Do you really think that you slow down that much in your early 30s? I know when I was running in New Hampshire, I always liked the races that had the age awards in the categories 20-29 and 30-39, rather than just 20-39. When I was competing just against other 20somethings, I had a chance … almost all the great runners were in their 30s.
Also, I’m happy to report that at 33, if anything I weigh less than I did when I was 24…
That is good! (that you are slimmer! gives me hope at staying the same!)
I don’t think normally you slow down as you age, but I think for women, most girls in their 20s aren’t running. They are getting jobs, getting married, and having kids. So I think when they start back up in their 30s they are fresh and ready to prove something to the world. I am guessing I will hit my “peak” for marathoning at 30ish and go downhill from there because I am starting now and not later.
Let’s hope I am wrong though!
I’m not sure it’ll ever happen, either. But I like to think it could. So much of it is societal, I think. You hear a lot more top female runners talk about wanting to be well-rounded human beings. There are many top male runners who are well-rounded, but it’s also more socially acceptable to live and breathe running if you are male, I think.
If what I’m seeing at the expo is any guide, the women’s field is highly populated and extremely competitive. I was astounded at the previous best marathon times a lot of the women were posting, and these weren’t even in the top 500. The ones with F numbers below 250 – including local elites – are all running quite a bit better than Boston qualifier.
The men’s field seems to show a faster falloff after you get done looking at the elites. My impression is that there’s a gap there.
Say hi tomorrow if you want Derek; I’m at the registration help desk — along with a bunch of people twice my age.
I’ve enjoyed reading the different viewpoints the past few days regarding this subject. From my point of view, as a female in my 20s, I’m definitely noticing a lot more females being competitive. Maybe it’s the fact that I live in NYC and belong to a running club, but it also feels more acceptable.
As far as the qualifying standards, I’m kind of glad I fell five minutes short this marathon because now it gives me something to strive for…and now I don’t just want to run 3:40, I want to set myself to a higher standard for myself. And there lies the awesome part of running…not only having bars set by others, but those that you set for yourself.
Eeh, when I lived in New Hampshire, the women were pretty damn competitive. Olympians Lynn Jennings and Cathy O’Brien and a host of others who aren’t in that elite category but still really really good. Hell when I was there was this 10 year old girl who’d kick my butt. (Looking at the state records by age I see she ran a sub-19 min. 5K, so that’s not too surprising).
If you can judge anything by looking at local running in NYC, the 30-somethings are much more competitive in general than the 20-somethings. I’m sure some of that is because they’re more focused and dedicated to their training, but I also suspect that your body is better able to handle the stresses of serious mileage when you’re a bit older, though I’m not sure of the physiology on this.