We know women have to carry more body fat but I am surprised to see to range of weight for the women in the top 15 at Kona. I think it also proves it pays to be a stronger athlete in Kona. Ryf, Swallow, Steffen, and Wurtele at are around or over 140 pounds. Of course Rinney had the fastest run and is down there at 115 but is only 5’3". When Herbert does the men’s top 15 you will see most in the 5’8"-6’0" 150-160 pounds.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Kona_14_Top_15_women_-_run_4711.html
We know women have to carry more body fat but I am surprised to see to range of weight for the women in the top 15 at Kona. I think it also proves it pays to be a stronger athlete in Kona. Ryf, Swallow, Steffen, and Wurtele at are around or over 140 pounds. Of course Rinney had the fastest run and is down there at 115 but is only 5’3". When Herbert does the men’s top 15 you will see most in the 5’8"-6’0" 150-160 pounds.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...omen_-_run_4711.html
those girls are also tall. what matters is bmi
Women’s race is way less competitive.
What does that mean?
-Robert
What does that mean?
-Robert
It means that a lower percentage of women in the world take up the sport of triathlon seriously than do men.
Same is true of bike racing.
You can confirm the lack of depth via a variety of statistical means, like the % deltas from first place of the top 10, or the delta from men as compared to more popular sports like running, etc.
I think this is definitely true. In men’s pro racing, everyone is genetically gifted and are all at very close to the same level of ability. In the women’s fields, the genetically gifted are still rare enough that you have certain women still dominating the sport (Vos, Compton, etc.), with a quick drop off in level below these anomalies. This is pretty normal for sports that are fairly “new”. And while cycling has been around a long time, women’s pro cycling is a fairly recent creation and is only starting to draw real talent.
Women’s race is way less competitive.
Disagree…The past two years have been riveting to watch. I kept shouting at the live feed to switch back to the Women’s race.
Women’s race is way less competitive.
Disagree…The past two years have been riveting to watch. I kept shouting at the live feed to switch back to the Women’s race.
Their race is different mainly because of the lack of depth. The women all pace to their strengths. The men’s race is anything but, which is why is may seem less interesting. Runners are forces to bike. Bikers are forces to run. The pack mentality rules the male race.
Well, it isn’t less competitive at the front, is it? Depth and competitiveness are too different animals. Given their muscle mass, I think the women are very impressive and very competitive. And, how is his comment on point? Fewer women racers has nothing to do with the relative weights of the genders. Or, is someone suggesting that the women’s WEIGHT is the reason they are less competitive? If so, I’ll stand back and watch the fur fly!
I hear this sort of comment made about women tennis players. “Oh, Serena couldn’t beat the #500 men’s player.” Does that mean the women are less competitive? Does that diminish the women’s races or women’s tennis? I don’t this so.
For myself, I enjoy the women’s races as much as the men’s. And Serena might be the greatest tennis player who ever lived, although I’m partial to Federer myself.
Anyway, I was curious what “competitive” means to Nick. To me, it means you are able to race well against your peers. The 15 women profiled certainly can do that, as can quite a few other women.
-Robert
Here is a theory why:
If there is less depth it is easier to do well. You can make more bad decisions or have less talent and still compete at a high level.
Women aren’t slower because of less muscle mass.
There are not fewer women racers, the women racers are being pulled from a smaller pool of talent. This could change at any time, and you will see more than 1 or 2 contenders at Kona.
So what if there are fewer women? You have a very narrow view of competition, and an incorrect one, if you think the number of players in a sport is the determinant of competitiveness. It isn’t. More men play more sports of all kinds than women. So what? Women should be judged against their peers, not men. IMHO, women pros in our sport are strongly competitive.
Try this definition on for size:
1
: the act or process of competing : rivalry: as
a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms
b : active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply
2
: a contest between rivals; also : one’s competitors <faced tough competition>
See competition defined for English-language learners »
See competition defined for kids »
from Merriam-Webster.
Words matter. Women are not less competitive. They may not be as fast, as strong, or as nuts as testosterone makes men, but they ARE competitive.
I’m very surprised you are taking this position…
-Robert
There is definitely some validity to Jackmotts point.
It does not matter how “competitive” individual women might be. No one would argue that Chrissie Wellington is not competitive. She was probably the best 140.2 athlete ever.
The field as a whole is less competitive. The difference between the first place female and the 20th is much larger than the difference between the 1st and the 20th place male. Jackmotts points out a whole bunch of measures. This is not sexism. It is statistics.
Even weirder though- I am pretty sure that individual female performances are more variable also.
Look at Paula Radcliffes (certainly one of the most accomplished runners ever) winning marathon times. Sometimes she won with 2:23, sometimes 2:15.
In contrast, Haile Gebresalassie (equally accomplished) ran a hugely consistent bunch of races to win.
Women are not less competitive. They may not be as fast, as strong, or as nuts as testosterone makes men, but they ARE competitive.
I’m very surprised you are taking this position…
-Robert
No one is taking this position or interpreting anything anyone is saying this way except you. Think about that for a moment.
The women’s race is less deep and therefor less competitive than the men’s race at Kona. This analogy can be compared to ITU vs WTC races. ITU has much deeper talent than Iron distance racing.
It isn’t statistics, its a failure to understand a fourth grade vocabulary word. An element of sexism is present in every male, though male athletes have a special cell in the mental prison where they serve life sentences.
Sheesh, male myths have to be killed with a dictionary…
You do not understand competition. Try another word.
You do not understand competition. Try another word.
No. You just want to get riled up about something.
You could take Starky’s example of top 25 and it proves out correct.
You could look at top 10 and generally looking at % time winner vs 10th and It looks to favour the men 6-7 out of 10 times…
Start looking at top 5 and it becomes a more even story…
Start looking at the winners time vs course record and it favours the women.
Easy to argue that maybe the mens race is more tactical, the women’s race is usually more exciting at the top 3.
Maurice
Robert, lots of people here have made very clear points, but you are not getting it. Of course the women are competing with each other. It’s a race. That’s obvious. Nobody is denying that. They are using the term in a different way which directly addresses the subject of the original post. It’s totally relevant. Go back and re-read a few times.
Think of it in terms of soccer. Go back several decades and you see defenders with wide ranges of speed, strength and athletic ability…and these guys are playing at the highest levels of the sport. Defenders at the top level national teams today are nearly all very fast and athletic. It’s more competitive today, which is not to say that they weren’t “competing” 40 years ago.
Go to youtube and watch old Pele highlights. He’s probably every bit as good, or better, than the best forwards playing now, but the majority of the defenders trying to stop Pele back then would be lucky to play semi-pro soccer (at best) in today’s game. The game is so much more competitive today given the massive depth of freakishly talented and gifted athletes who train year-round practically from birth.
You could take Starky’s example of top 25 and it proves out correct.
You could look at top 10 and generally looking at % time winner vs 10th and It looks to favour the men 6-7 out of 10 times…
Start looking at top 5 and it becomes a more even story…
Start looking at the winners time vs course record and it favours the women.
Easy to argue that maybe the mens race is more tactical, the women’s race is usually more exciting at the top 3.
Maurice
the talent pool is smaller for women, as they are focused on their own particular race series. take ryf,gwen jorgenson,nicola spirig, alicia kaye, miranda and throw them into a 70.3 to make things fair distance wise and call it the womens world championship