Forums >Racing>Holy Grail Time for Women's Marathon?
Kalsarikännit
Maybe I'm hanging with a fast crowd, but I feel like I could put on a blindfold and throw a dart in my running club and hit a sub-3 guy.
Yeah, maybe the people you are surrounded by skews your opinion of what is fast. Swing a stick around here and you are bound to smack a 2:4x dude. I've come to think of this as somewhat normal.
I want to do it because I want to do it. -Amelia Earhart
Best Present Ever
I think I still disagree. Maybe I'm hanging with a fast crowd, but I feel like I could put on a blindfold and throw a dart in my running club and hit a sub-3 guy. But, would need to direct my aim to hit the one sub-3:15 (actually sub-3) master's woman. (Not that I want to hit anyone with a dart. Just sayin' for effect). But, I think your goal is a noble one. Go for it! Edited because I can't spell.
I think I still disagree. Maybe I'm hanging with a fast crowd, but I feel like I could put on a blindfold and throw a dart in my running club and hit a sub-3 guy. But, would need to direct my aim to hit the one sub-3:15 (actually sub-3) master's woman. (Not that I want to hit anyone with a dart. Just sayin' for effect).
But, I think your goal is a noble one. Go for it!
Edited because I can't spell.
I'd say the same thing -- I can't quite swing a stick and hit a sub-three runner, but I do know more than one. And I could swing that stick if I stood in the right place at the right time ... : ) We have a couple of masters women who are that fast -- a sub-three (won money at Chicago -- mother of 4!) and some sub- 3:15, but as Julia says, it's a couple of women -- not enough for a sub-three or sub 3:15 group (as referred to by stadjak in his 'running with the sub-3s' thread)
That's all well and good - My question is - what do you think the milestone should be? If you were a 45 year old woman with only a few more fast years in you - what would be the time you would want to break??
George Sheehan's marathon PR came when he was 60 years old. Why must this mytical woman have only a few fast years left?
well, as an engineer I have to throw this out...
since the women's world record is 9.76% slower than the men's world record, a 3:00:00 run 9.76% percent slower is 3:17:34.
So your 3:15 or 3:20 is certainly reasonable as the nearest equivalent for women. 3:15 or 3:20 is certainly sexier than 3:17:34.
I think you're right. And, I hope no one thought I was being dismissive of that time. Sub-3 is fast. But, yeah, the fastest guys in my club are running 2:40 (a couple even faster) to sub-3 so they're definitely skewing my perception.
I think the team competition for Boston demonstrates this well. Having that many 3:15 master's women in a club is a real treat.
My blog is JT Running DC. It's awesome. Guide to Washington DC Area Running Routes. Guide to the New York City Marathon. Guide to the Boston Marathon. Guide to Running Gear. Guide to Running Clothes.
well, as an engineer I have to throw this out... since the women's world record is 9.76% slower than the men's world record, a 3:00:00 run 9.76% percent slower is 3:17:34. So your 3:15 or 3:20 is certainly reasonable as the nearest equivalent for women. 3:15 or 3:20 is certainly sexier than 3:17:34.
I think the comparison would be the drop off of the women's masters world record to the men's world record. OP is comparing herself to youngsters.
3:20 is certainly sexier than 3:17:34.
Negative, Ghost Rider.
Runners run
This is my favorite answer - - but as mikeymike said - I feel the need for speed - I'd take 3:17:34 over 3:20 each and every time :-)
Ready, go.
Looking at it a couple other ways. (The math part is most interesting to me, because any of the race times being discussed are beyond my imagination.)
I think the Chicago Marathon is probably a good database to use for analysis.
1. Median male finisher was 4:14, median female finisher was 4:42, or 11% slower. Add 11% to 3:00 and you get 3:20.
Consistent with some of the other posts here.
2. Male finish time of 3:00 placed at 805/21488 OA, or top 3.75%. Top 3.75% of female finishers placed at 652/17395, and was 3:29.
More consistent with the way Boston looks at it, since they use a 30 min differential for all the qualifying standards.
Dave
1. Median male finisher was 4:14, median female finisher was 4:42, or 11% slower. Add 11% to 3:00 and you get 3:20. Consistent with some of the other posts here.
But I think it's pretty well documented that there are more women running marathons on moderate training than men. I think it has some to do with the male ego, some to do with women being crazy busy in their 40's yet still wanting to run a marathon.
When guys get older or slower or train less they seem less likely to run the race. (less likely! not in all cases!)
Now I'll probably get blasted for the above. But keep in mind I'm painting with a mega wide brush and extremely generalizing. Still... the stats bear me out on this, as you just proved. I'm not saying there is anything wrong about running an age graded 50 time... just that a higher percentage of women do it than men.
But I think it's pretty well documented that there are more women running marathons on moderate training than men. I think it has some to do with the male ego, some to do with women being crazy busy in their 40's yet still wanting to run a marathon. When guys get older or slower or train less they seem less likely to run the race. (less likely! not in all cases!) Now I'll probably get blasted for the above. But keep in mind I'm painting with a mega wide brush and extremely generalizing. Still... the stats bear me out on this, as you just proved. I'm not saying there is anything wrong about running an age graded 50 time... just that a higher percentage of women do it than men.
I am most interested in seeing the documentation about the male ego. Please, tell me more. Oh yeah, I also want to know more about how crazy busy women are in their 40s and still wanting to run a marathon. The more details the better!
Roger. But you know what I mean... 2:59:59 has huge pizzaz as a target. 3:19:59 has a little bite to it. Some obscure number I threw out doesn't have much of a ring to it. Like a baseball player saying his goal is to hit .306 or wanting to get to 32 home runs.
.....
I was going to show a paper but it's not worth it.
..... I was going to show a paper but it's not worth it.
The paper and article that you posted specifically mentioned that male competitiveness was not a factor and that less women participated in marathons overall providing less of a field to cull from. Nothing about women in their 40s and nothing about women running marathons on less mileage. And they were looking at the top 10 age group finishers in the New York City Marathon.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843112
By the way, "the male ego" comment was negative toward men. Let's not go around looking to be offended.
I imagine there are not many 60 year old women runners because 30 years ago there were not many 30 year old women runners. That was not my point.
I'm sorry I've offended you. I was going to make a point but I find it not worth it to post here any longer.