Running just x2 laps will certainly make a change. I'm hoping the opulent gardens of Harewood will distract me from the painful task at hand. And it should rule-out being lapped.Originally Posted by ba-ba
Running just x2 laps will certainly make a change. I'm hoping the opulent gardens of Harewood will distract me from the painful task at hand. And it should rule-out being lapped.
[QUOTE=noel;638031
Imagine the outcry if someone tried to organise a women's fell race that didn't go to the summit, but the men's did.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Noel you merely omitted the words "now in 2018" rather than, tut tut, have failed to study your history, in which case I refer you to page 48 of the Summer 2016 Fellrunner where under 1975: And Women? you will read that once upon a time women did not compete in eg the Langdale Horseshoe but just ran up and down Pike O' Blisco, etc etc.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
At the Mountain running trials races (and indeed the international championships) the women do less distance and climb than the men, though this is often through missing an earlier loop (i.e. around Latrigg when using Skidda)
Nic Barber. Downhill Dandy
Indeed. I used to be FRA International Selection Chairman and this was never a burning issue with anyone. It can be argued that the men's race is the men's race and the women's similarly and the respective heights/distances don't matter a fig. If the distances in XC are made the same (and I am completely indifferent) then what exactly would have been proved?
This is not the same point as, say, completing a classic course like a marathon or Ennerdale, where to only run 7/8th of Ennerdale doesn't have quite the same cachet (apart from other practical difficulties).
But XC? It's only a glorified park run.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 25-01-2018 at 07:48 PM.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
It's an issue now for plenty of people interested in XC and other races - you may have missed the debate about the LDMT trophies for example? Women running shorter distances perpetuates a (hopefully outdated) message that they're not as capable as men, as that's where different distances originate from. What equalising the distances would 'prove' is that the organisers don't believe this. It's an atavism that is straightforward to rectify and hopefully one day will look as archaic as women being excluded from full-length fell races.
If it's just a glorified parkrun, great, let's all run the same distance
With only 47 finishers at Ennerdale last year that's a big slice of cachet for everybody.
In the spirit of equality, with women allegedly being more able to run very long distances [citation needed], I'd like some of the really long fell races (eg. Buttermere) to be shortened slightly for the men. Maybe by about half would suit me best. I'm not sure my masculine body can cope with the rigours of such an event.
FRA and race organiser: I look forward to hearing your response.
It's an issue now for plenty of people interested in XC and other races - you may have missed the debate about the LDMT trophies for example? Women running shorter distances perpetuates a (hopefully outdated) message that they're not as capable as men, as that's where different distances originate from. What equalising the distances would 'prove' is that the organisers don't believe this. It's an atavism that is straightforward to rectify and hopefully one day will look as archaic as women being excluded from full-length fell races.
If it's just a glorified parkrun, great, let's all run the same distance
No intelligent person now believes that women are incapable etc...and your need to " 'prove' that organisers don't believe this" by equalising distances is slightly off the point that the women's race is still the women's race - even if it were to be twice as long as the men's.
As to atavism: it is of course ironic that it was women, and not men, who determined the distances that women should run for XC since in the dim and distant past athletics was governed by two different organisations.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
I was struck by the curse of Wollaton Park again today in the Midlands Champs. After last year's shocker at the nationals, I returned determined to have decent run. I even had a proper rest, with no training since Wednesday, to ensure I was fresh, something I barely do for even long fell races.
So a few minutes in, feeling great and running easily, hit the first downhill and bang goes my calf. I knew immediately it was just a strain as I've done it before. Tried to run it off for another 400m or so, but as soon as it hit a steady ascent the pain intensified and shot down my calf again, and I knew it was over.
Slightly embarrassing to have to walk back through all the spectators after just five minutes. And was rather annoyed at overhearing a spectator comment that I was faking it and didn't fancy it, presumably due to the mud and the hilly section that I pulled up on. But live to fight another today.
Hello and well done to GazB of Wolves&Bilston who looked to have ran well and by my count was well inside the top 100. Good luck at Mickleden next weekend.
Hopefully will be recovered for the next league fixture in a fortnight, followed a fortnight later by the nationals. But of slightly more pressing concern is the Long Mynd Valleys next weekend!
Hope everyone else had fun at their respective regional champs...
Hopefully I don't have to visit Wollaton next year!
Oh bummer Travs. Wondered where you were at the finish. Wasn't my best xc race of the winter - my lack of miles meant the longer distance was a struggle, and a ongoing cold didn't help. The course was a test, especially the bit near the end of each lap where the sucking mud was like quicksand! Good luck at LMV.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote