Forums >Racing>London Marathon New Standards
New standards for London Marathon 'Good for Age' entry for 2019 announced. Thoughts??
Mine... I think these are insulting to women to be called "Good for Age", since they are 45 minutes slower than men's standard in the same AG. Even Boston only uses 30 minutes, and I've heard women complain that they are too easy.
https://www.strava.com/athletes/2507437
PR's - 5K - 17:57 (2017) | 10K - 38:06 (2016) | 13.1 1:23:55 (2019) | 26.2 2:58:46 (2017)
2020 Goals - Sub-2:55 Marathon Up Next: TBD, Boston on 9/14?
I am in! Easy peasy!
I would like it if a standard meant that my time was equivalent to a guy my age and that I had accomplished something similar, not something diluted. Not that I will be running in London but I do kind of feel that way about Boston. But I guess the goal is for them to be inclusive with roughly half women half men? That's been my presumption. I did hear or read something recently talking about that 30 minute difference for Boston suggesting that if you look at the top 10-20 age groupers (presumably highly motivated highly trained folks of both sexes), rather than the elites, the spread is about 30 minutes so maybe that one is a legit standard?
mta: on quick review of my age group, the difference looks closer to 20 minutes which seems more in line with what I would expect the standards to look like if they were equivalents. I am not and have not run any numbers for age grade etc. I just think it is interesting that we have a standard for well trained men on one hand and a standard for pretty well trained women on the other. Okay, yes. It bothers me!
How come 45-49 year old women only get 43 minutes? Seems like whoever set the standard is trying to keep her sub 3:54 frenemy out of the race.
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.
If I'm not mistaken, good for age is limited to Brits. So, I think our standard is really something like sub-2:40. Otherwise, it's tour group or charity, if I'm not mistaken. Edited to add: or lottery!
If I'm not mistaken, good for age is limited to Brits. So, I think our standard is really something like sub-2:40. Otherwise, it's tour group or charity, if I'm not mistaken.
Lacing up my shoes now. That sub 2:40 isn't going to race itself!
I am in! Easy peasy! I would like it if a standard meant that my time was equivalent to a guy my age and that I had accomplished something similar, not something diluted. Not that I will be running in London but I do kind of feel that way about Boston. But I guess the goal is for them to be inclusive with roughly half women half men? That's been my presumption. I did hear or read something recently talking about that 30 minute difference for Boston suggesting that if you look at the top 10-20 age groupers (presumably highly motivated highly trained folks of both sexes), rather than the elites, the spread is about 30 minutes so maybe that one is a legit standard? mta: on quick review of my age group, the difference looks closer to 20 minutes which seems more in line with what I would expect the standards to look like if they were equivalents. I am not and have not run any numbers for age grade etc. I just think it is interesting that we have a standard for well trained men on one hand and a standard for pretty well trained women on the other. Okay, yes. It bothers me!
Constant ratio rather than difference might be a better way to do it. At least it's another way to do it and would lead to a greater difference between male and female BQ times compared to male and female top finisher times.
In other words (female qualifying time) = (male qualifying time) x (female top 20 AG average time) / (male top 20 AG average time)
Interval Junkie --Nobby
From Bob & Shelly-Lynn Glovers' fine book, The Competitive Runner's Handbook, the competitive equivalence between men and women is about 20mins at 45 and in this athletic range.
So, for a 45-man with 3:10, the 45-woman should be 3:30.
If you think the Glovers' stats are on mark, it would mean that anything beyond 3:30 is a social generosity.
Keep in mind that these numbers are relative to the competitive group, not objective physical accomplishments relative the physiological limitations or benefits of either sex. Then again, this book was published in 1983, and the running scene was pretty different.
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
not bad for mile 25
And the difference is less as people get older, right?
Yes. As age increases the difference decreases until it takes both men and women infinite time to complete 26.2 miles.
Gotcha. Working on putting this on a graph.
Well, here's the statistics from the Boston Marathon. https://registration.baa.org/statistics.html
It seems like the numbers decline for women as they get older. Would that mean the differences do not in fact get less? In any case, there are still less women overall running the Boston Marathon even if the standards are softer.
FWIW, the femaile : male starters ratio declines dramatically in Boston as age groups go up.
18-39 55%
40-44 48%
45-49 40%
50-54 39%
55-59 27%
60-64 27%
65-69 19%
70-74 20%
75-79 12%
80+ 13%
Are we there, yet?
FWIW, the femaile : male starters ratio declines dramatically in Boston as age groups go up. 18-39 55% 40-44 48% 45-49 40% 50-54 39% 55-59 27% 60-64 27% 65-69 19% 70-74 20% 75-79 12% 80+ 13%
That's not surprising since the 55-59 AG are the first of the post-title IX women who would likely have benefited from the increased opportunities for women in athletics and been the first group to be exposed to women running long distances. Even then that group would have seen a lot of resistance from peers and parents.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Can confirm. Today's marathon did not technically take an infinite amount of time to complete, but it sure felt like it.
Dave
As far as my experience goes, they all do.