LA Marathon race format a winner

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Eno, Mar 9, 2004.

  1. Eno

    Eno Guest

    Last night, I watched the recorded coverage of the Los
    Angeles marathon. This year, the race featured a challenge
    prize of $50K for the runner who crossed the finish line
    first. The twist? The women got a 20:30 head start.
    Initially, I looked upon this with skepticism, but in the
    end, this made for a very exciting race to watch. The
    women's winner ran an exceptional and smart race, and the
    men's winner wilted in the heat around mile 20-21 and
    actually started losing time to the lady's winner. Very
    interesting race.

    --
    eNo "Why am I here?"
     
    Tags:


  2. Topcounsel

    Topcounsel Guest

    >LA Marathon race format a winner

    Needs some refinement, however. They calculated the ladies'
    "head start" of
    20:37 (or whatever it was) based on the average mens-womens
    differential for the previous 18 years at LA. This is
    somewhat bogus, as the male-female differential has
    declined substantially in recent years. For one thing,
    as the overall times get lower, the differential
    inherently shrinks. For another, women's formal
    marathonning was still in its relative infancy in 1985.
    Instead of using these unfair "18-year average" figures,
    they should use the last (most recent) differential, or
    maybe the last 2 or 3 races at most. After all, the mens
    and womens WRs for 26.2 miles are now only about 10 -11
    minutes apart, not
    20:1.
     
  3. Eno

    Eno Guest

    "TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >LA Marathon race format a winner
    >
    > Needs some refinement, however. They calculated the
    > ladies' "head start"
    of
    > 20:37 (or whatever it was) based on the average mens-
    > womens differential
    for
    > the previous 18 years at LA. This is somewhat bogus, as
    > the male-female differential has declined substantially in
    > recent years. For one thing,
    as the
    > overall times get lower, the differential inherently
    > shrinks. For
    another,
    > women's formal marathonning was still in its relative
    > infancy in 1985.
    Instead
    > of using these unfair "18-year average" figures, they
    > should use the last
    (most
    > recent) differential, or maybe the last 2 or 3 races at
    > most. After all,
    the
    > mens and womens WRs for 26.2 miles are now only about 10
    > -11 minutes
    apart, not
    > 20:37.

    Hmm. Good point. I suppose this year will drag the
    handicap down: 2:30 for the woman, 2:13 for the man, for
    a differential of ~ 17 minutes. I wouldn't quite go back
    to the previous 2-3 years, but maybe something in the
    range of 7-10. Note, however, that if the man had run in
    the 2:09-2:10 range, a very reasonable time, he would
    have caught her, so the 18 year average still yielded a
    reasonable handicap. Note also that discussions about
    current best world times, etc., are mostly irrelevant, as
    those records are usually obtained in much faster courses
    than Los Angeles.

    All this aside, it made for an exciting conclusion. Rather
    than "and so-and-so pulls ahead and wins by a block," once
    the man's leader pulled ahead, he still had incentive to go
    even faster and the race wasn't over per say.

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
     
  4. Eno

    Eno Guest

    "TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >LA Marathon race format a winner
    >
    > Needs some refinement, however. They calculated the
    > ladies' "head start"
    of
    > 20:37 (or whatever it was) based on the average mens-
    > womens differential
    for
    > the previous 18 years at LA. This is somewhat bogus, as
    > the male-female differential has declined substantially in
    > recent years. For one thing,
    as the
    > overall times get lower, the differential inherently
    > shrinks. For
    another,
    > women's formal marathonning was still in its relative
    > infancy in 1985.
    Instead
    > of using these unfair "18-year average" figures, they
    > should use the last
    (most
    > recent) differential, or maybe the last 2 or 3 races at
    > most. After all,
    the
    > mens and womens WRs for 26.2 miles are now only about 10
    > -11 minutes
    apart, not
    > 20:37.

    Hmm. Good point. I suppose this year will drag the
    handicap down: 2:30 for the woman, 2:13 for the man, for
    a differential of ~ 17 minutes. I wouldn't quite go back
    to the previous 2-3 years, but maybe something in the
    range of 7-10. Note, however, that if the man had run in
    the 2:09-2:10 range, a very reasonable time, he would
    have caught her, so the 18 year average still yielded a
    reasonable handicap. Note also that discussions about
    current best world times, etc., are mostly irrelevant, as
    those records are usually obtained in much faster courses
    than Los Angeles.

    All this aside, it made for an exciting conclusion. Rather
    than "and so-and-so pulls ahead and wins by a block," once
    the man's leader pulled ahead, he still had incentive to go
    even faster and the race wasn't over per say.

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
     
  5. Bumper

    Bumper Guest

    Isn't this discrimination, giving perference based on
    gender. What's next starting the Kenyans ten minutes back of
    the white runners?

    eNo <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Last night, I watched the recorded coverage of the Los
    > Angeles marathon. This year, the race featured a challenge
    > prize of $50K for the runner who crossed the finish line
    > first. The twist? The women got a 20:30 head start.
    > Initially, I looked upon this with skepticism, but in the
    > end, this made for a very exciting race to watch. The
    > women's winner ran an exceptional and smart race, and the
    > men's winner wilted in the heat around mile 20-21 and
    > actually started losing time to the lady's winner. Very
    > interesting race.
     
  6. Eno

    Eno Guest

    "Bumper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1gaeg3i.1wr8h8k18btlb0N%[email protected]...
    > Isn't this discrimination, giving perference based on
    > gender. What's next starting the Kenyans ten minutes back
    > of the white runners?

    This was my initial reaction as well. However, a few seconds
    of consideration convinced me otherwise:

    1) Handicapping is commonplace in golf. No one cries
    discrimination there.

    2) The men *did* have a realistic chance to over-take the
    women and win the challenge, so no one discriminated them
    out of $50K.

    3) The women couldn't use men to pace themselves, so they
    lost an edge there.

    4) The men were in the chase position, which normally is the
    preferable position in a race, i.e., better be the fox,
    not the rabbit.

    In the end, no one is fooled. The lead man was still 17
    seconds faster than the best woman, and he still got the
    same prize he normally would have gotten sans the handicap.
    Add it all up, and it's hard to argue for discrimination.

    --
    eNo "Why am I here?"
     
  7. Eno

    Eno Guest

    "eNo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > lead man was still 17 seconds faster than

    Err... That should be 17 minutes ;).

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
     
  8. Bumper

    Bumper Guest

    eNo <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Bumper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:1gaeg3i.1wr8h8k18btlb0N%[email protected]...
    > > Isn't this discrimination, giving perference based on
    > > gender. What's next starting the Kenyans ten minutes
    > > back of the white runners?
    >
    > This was my initial reaction as well. However, a few
    > seconds of consideration convinced me otherwise:
    >
    > 1) Handicapping is commonplace in golf. No one cries
    > discrimination there.

    There is no handicapping in professional golf and with very
    few exceptions professional male and female golfers do not
    comptete in the same tourneys.
    >
    > 2) The men *did* have a realistic chance to over-take the
    > women and win the challenge, so no one discriminated
    > them out of $50K.

    Realism is everybody starts at the same time and place and
    may the best person win, if Ann Trason can be the overall
    winner of an ultra enough said.
    >
    > 3) The women couldn't use men to pace themselves, so they
    > lost an edge there.

    What is the difference between the men having a rabbit
    and the women having a rabbit - except the gender of the
    rabbits. Would it be better if the male runners rabbit
    was female.
    >
    > 4) The men were in the chase position, which normally is
    > the preferable position in a race, i.e., better be the
    > fox, not the rabbit.

    You don't watch many marathons, eh? The LA marathon was won
    a few years back by the rabbit when none of the male runners
    wanted to stay with him.
    >
    > In the end, no one is fooled. The lead man was still 17
    > seconds faster than the best woman, and he still got the
    > same prize he normally would have gotten sans the
    > handicap. Add it all up, and it's hard to argue for
    > discrimination.

    Running a marathon is susposed to be a footrace, not an
    episode of Survivor. If one party gets perference over
    another then is is discrimination. If it walks like a duck
    and it quacks like a duck it is a duck.

    The truth is this whole scheme is probably the invention of
    and for television, who do not want to have to broadcast and
    additional twenty to thirty minutes while they wait for the
    first women to cross the line. This is just as bad as any
    other requirement put on any other sport in the chase for
    television dollars.

    If you don't remember what coffee smells like contact
    Donovan Rebbechi, he's the rec.running resident expert
    on expresso!
     
  9. Johnny Bravo

    Johnny Bravo Guest

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:14:34 GMT, "eNo" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Bumper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:1gaeg3i.1wr8h8k18btlb0N%[email protected]...
    >> Isn't this discrimination, giving perference based on
    >> gender. What's next starting the Kenyans ten minutes back
    >> of the white runners?
    >
    >This was my initial reaction as well. However, a few
    >seconds of consideration convinced me otherwise:
    >
    >1) Handicapping is commonplace in golf. No one cries
    > discrimination there.

    Golf handicaps are individual, not an average of many
    golfers.

    --
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the
    inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents."
    - H.P. Lovecraft
     
Loading...
Loading...