|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 06:22 PM March 10th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Probably, "That's F'ing illogical." Let's recap. I give you a 15 minute head start and then you accuse me of having the advantage. Excuse me while I bang my head on my desk. The obvious solution to this is to increase the head start by 45 seconds. If that doesn't do it, just add more time until it will become impossible for any man to win, unless he's the flash. When this happens, would any man with a speck of self dignity want to enter such a race? But, if no men entered the race, the women (of course) would pump their fists in the air in a victory celebration. "See, we CAN beat the men. It's my Vagina Power that did it! My Vagina has a 4 barrel carb with dual exhaust and 4:11 gears - you can really get lost. Got safety tubes, but I ain't scared. Brakes are good - tires fair. HA. I scoff at your puny, penis powered, mo-ped".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 PM March 10th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard from another forum (during the first handicap story mentioned on this site) that it's usually the fastest people who start the race first.
For instance, bikes sometimes participate in these marathons (not directly against runners, just in their own race). The go first because they are the fastest and would just get caught behind the slower runners. Then wheelchairs are next to go. After them, it's the professional athlete runners. Then its normal people who are just in the marathon for fun.
So, it's funny that the slower runners are given a headstart when in every other case the slower runners are held back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:23 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The Challenge (46 seconds behind) and believed the 15:50 handicap favored the men
This illogical statement just shows that radical feminism thinking and value systems causes imbecility.
So why aren't the men protesting getting shafted by the race organizers? I believe that is the real story here. Rad fem junk thought we know about all too well but the bovine like complacency of the men is rather disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 10:36 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the men consider themselvs shafted at all.
The men's race and the women's race are separate events, with separate scoring and separate timing. They just have the women start earlier so that they can run on an empty street -- if everyone started together, the top-ranking women would get mixed up with the men who were a few minutes behind the leaders, and it would be impossible for the TV camera-mounted motorcycles and cars to follow them. Indeed, if I were a male runner who was a few minutes behind the lead pack, I'd want the women having a separate start so that there wasn't so much car exhaust around me.
The problem is not the separate starts, but rather the misguided attempt to have men and women compete against each other by giving the women a handicap. Just remove this silliness and let the runners compete against people of their own sex. Did the women demand this race so that they could have the satisfaction of beating the men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 11:02 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this done in a couple marathons, and I don't mind the idea of letting the top women start a bit early to avoid having to run the whole race in the pack, but there's a couple problems with that. First is that if the women start early then all the top men have to run through the women, so fairness would dictate that races should alternate starting patterns every other year if they were REALLY trying to be fair. Second, the way I interpreted it, if a woman placed first (using the handicap) then she'd get the first place prize money, and be called the race winner, not the womens race winner. I don't think that's right... but I think it'll continue until the top men refuse to run in races with the artificial handicaps.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:09 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I mentioned above in another post that slower runners usually start after the fastest runners. So, in all fairness, the women should have started fifteen minutes after the men, so that the women wouldn't interfere with the male runners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:53 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised they don't make all the male runners wear condoms, because with the time differentials shown in the results, every top-placing man could have had time for a tryst with his nearest female competitor and still have a winning time over the (cough) female "winner."
Can you imagine the devastating feeling all those dozens and dozens of "champion" women experienced as man after man passed them up, even with a ludicrous time handicap?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 07:13 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Individuals of equal ability should be treated the same, without regard to race, sex, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:29 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, women can run long distance better than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 05:45 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
No actually they can't, in fact as race distance increases, the advantage men have over women increases. The gang an Harvard can argue ad-nauseum about mental ability... a judgement that has a large subjective component, but when it comes to physical ability there's reams of data that defines the reality, regardless of what the PC crowd wants to be true. Men have a significant advantage in just about every objective measure of physical ability, strength, endurance, power. Reaction time I'm not as sure of.
What you're quoteing is a feminist factoid, something spouted off by one of them with not a single shred of evidence. Do a quick web search of "Long distance maratons" and you'll quickly find sites illustrating that fact.
You guys talking about throwing men and women together and making them compete against eachother... I disagree. I think having two classes is the way to go, a mens class and a womens class. Within each class success is based on skill, but women are inherently slower than men, and I feel it's wrong to put top female runners in a situation where they cannot hope to ever compete, no matter how hard they work. Put the ladies in their own class, with their own winners.
Argue all you want about how much each gets for winning (my opinion is that it should be based on what spectators want... which for marathons would mean men getting more), but don't act like men and women are identical and throw them all into a single race, it just won't work.
In things like swimming I really enjoy watching the women perform, they have a smoothness in their stroke that I like to see... a gracefullness. The top men display awesome power, friggin amazing to watch, but inherently different from the women, and I would hate to see women force to compete on equal footing against men, because they can't and it wouldn't be long and there's be no women in top swimming competition.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:37 AM March 13th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
DaveK is correct. The myth that women run longer distances better/faster than men started in the early nineties. There was a study that said women were catching men up in athletic speed performance terms. Amongst other "projections", they believed that women marathoners would be running as fast as men by 1998! The rest of their projections appear as innacurate as this. In fact, some of them are plain ludicrous - e.g. because they used simple extrapolation, they were claiming that by 2050, the women marathon times would be faster than the men's current 800m time. Utterly ludicrous.
Of course, this study gained the usual press coverage - cue tabloid headlines about the triumph of woman and the superior sex articles ad nauseum. Unfortunately, while feminists and women studies majors were gathering excitedly in little groups in the corridors, congratulating each other breathlessly about "proof" of their future dominance, another study was being done.
This study by Seiler and Sailor, showed that rather than closing the "gap", the female performance upturn had levelled off and in fact, men were increasing the gap once more. One controversial conclusion by S&S is that this tailing off of female performance coincides with the upturn of drug testing in the sport.
There have been some cases over extreme distances where women have been shown to be capable of extreme endurance and have beat some men in the process. As DaveK says though, this is the exception, not the norm and is quite rare.
Finally, it is worth remembering that hundreds of college 100m male athletes have run faster than the current female olympic 100m record set by Flo-jo. If you take into account how few women have even got close to that time,(10.49 secs) and used Marion Jones figures (10.7-10.9), then the number of college US males who have beaten these times becomes extremely large.
This is not to denigrate female performance, each to their own. Pick and choose what you want to watch - appreciate as you wish. However, some grounding in reality is required when discussing these things as they are based on human physiology and not sexism.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 10:08 AM March 13th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly... when I was in High School my 100m Breast time was less than a second off the womens world record, yet I was a full 6 SECONDS off the mens record. 6 Seconds in a 100m race is an ETERNITY. I was good but even in my area there was a kid who beat me every year.
Did the woman who earned that record work harder for her 1:05 than I did to get that 1:06? You betcha... and she deserved that record, and it was a BIG accomplisment. I don't want strong women like that to be discouraged from sports any more than I want top men discouraged by these stupid (leveling the field) prejudicial anti-male practices.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
> One controversial conclusion by S&S is that this tailing off of female performance coincides with the upturn of drug testing in the sport.
In Europe, this conclusion is not controversial at all, but is rather a common place...
all female world records in pretty well established events such as the 100 meters have been around for decades and aren't likely to be beaten in the coming 50 years...
But at the same time, men are still improving because they produce naturally higher amounts of steroids, and therefore are less threatened in their performances by the implementation of drug-testing...
As far as the 100 m is concerned for instance, the female world record is 10.49 seconds and dates back to 1988...it hasn't even been approached since then...(by the way the real WR is 10.61 because the 10.49 were illegally wind-assisted, that's also a common place among athletics fans)...
And you know what ? The male YOUTH WR is 10.24 seconds, which is much faster than the female record over such a short distance ! And the kid who achieved this feat in 2001 was then 16-years-old !!!
Male Junior WR : 10.01 seconds in 2003 by a 18-years-old.
Male WR : 9.78 seconds in 2002.
Every female WR is litterally demolished by male teenagers, but don't tell that to feminists, it would ruin their egos !!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
