Re: Paula's Record Restored

Admin Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:05 pm

Ben Z wrote:

Matt - I am having a tough time following your argument for why you think it is fair. It's Friday so perhaps that is why I am a bit slow - it's been a long week, seriously.

Are you saying it's OK for men to have male pacers for 30-35K (because only a few men can even pace a WR men's run to that distance) but it is unfair for women because male pacers can pace them the entire 42K?

It's gotta be all or nothing IMO. Either you allow pacers or you don't. Gender is irrelevant. If you really want to have a world's best and a WR togetheer in the books then I could see the World's Best time = a paced race while the WR = an non-paced race. This would alleviate any issues of using male versus female pacers. Because the problem is that everyone is different. While most people receive substantial benefits from having someone pace them all the way to the finish and block the wind, allow them to only focus on running behind them, etc. some people would prefer to break-away from the pacer and run what they are capable of each mile (see the Kenyan men this year with their crazy fast times).

Hopefully, you've read all my replies and not just this one. There is definitely more context. However...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Sort of.

Ben Z Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:29 pm

I am glad they did not take away Paula's record. I think it's perfectly fine if you want to have two records going forward that differ between aided (using pacers of any gender for any distance, on unfair courses, etc.) and one run on a certified course with no pacers but that rule should not be retroactively applied.

Admin Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:43 pm

Ben Z wrote:I am glad they did not take away Paula's record. I think it's perfectly fine if you want to have two records going forward that differ between aided (using pacers of any gender for any distance, on unfair courses, etc.) and one run on a certified course with no pacers but that rule should not be retroactively applied.

It's fine, but to me it's sort of like the baseball analogy. The only players to break Maris' 61 were steroid-enhanced sluggers. Is Bonds' 73 the equivalent of Maris' 61? In the past (post steroid) 10 years, no one has hit more than 58. Yeah, it's always debatable.

As I said before, if an elite female breaks Paula's 2:17 record in a women's race without male pacers, then I'd make a argument that she is the best female marathon runner. That's an apples to apples comparison. Given that most world-class marathon events now have a separate start for elite women, they don't even have a CHANCE to race in the same conditions under which Paula set the WR. It's the equivalent of chasing Bonds' HR record without steroids. Look how well that's gone in the past 10 years.

That's all I'm saying.

Dave-O Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:26 pm

I agree with both the rule change and the decision to let Paula's 2:15 stand. I've already debated the benefit of a female having male pacers with HealdGator in a previous thread, but in short, being paced by someone running only at 90% of their maximum pace is a serious advantage over being paced by someone that can only struggle to hold the pace for 30k.

Diego Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:29 pm

Question-- I understand that in some female-only starts that some of the participants ( including one of the U.S. women) have had a male pacer for much of the race.

Will the new rules stop that?

Michele "1L" Keane Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:34 pm

Diego wrote:Question-- I understand that in some female-only starts that some of the participants ( including one of the U.S. women) have had a male pacer for much of the race.

Will the new rules stop that?

Yes. And that I think is the essence of the new rule.

Sponsored content