I think it might be because most everyone here understands that human sexual dimorphism is a thing, and it's unrelated to personal politics. If you need evidence, check literally every single track and field record on the books. Show a counter example, and people here might be more willing to entertain your snark.
It's clear you're being intentionally intransigent here. If you're willing to have a discussion about the facts, as opposed to your inability to comprehend simple sentences, then I'm game. Otherwise, please take your axe and grind it elsewhere.
Says the person who, when confronted with objective evidence that defeats his argument, refuses to accept it.
Male elites do not run every single ultra race out there, obviously. Why should they? A course record is not a world record, and there is not a single world record a woman holds over a man in running at any distance, from 100 meters to 100 miles.
Your refusal to admit the obvious makes you seem like you're just trolling people in this thread.
As others have stated, elite women can best nearly all hobby jogging men. But they can't compete with top ultra runners like Jim Walmsley or Killian Jornet.
So if you define "competing" as "having a legit chance to win" then no, elite women cannot outrace elite men.
But always cool and good to see a woman win overall, hope it helps publicize the sport more. The fact that it has people here on HN talking is a good sign.
Are you looking under the women's table? Can you provide a _single_ point where a world running record is held by a woman? You're really sticking your neck out on this point and I'm curious if you actually have a counter example or are just stirring the pot for personal reasons.
Look, I am all for empowering women and as far as personal politics goes, I think we're on the same page. However, nobody is doing anyone any favors by wishing away biological differences present in sapiens, and many other species too[1]. This is a stone fact of our biology, it's up to us what we do with it.
These are all one-off races that can't be compared against global records. I currently hold the record for "sitting at luma's desk and typing things", that doesn't mean I'm a world record holder. Take a look at sanctioned events that pull in world-class competitors (which was what the original link pointed to).
That's an ad hominem for something you clearly did not properly check yourself.
- "Edit Berces, 24 hour treadmill world record holder; holds several Hungarian records". She actually had the overall when she got it, broken by men since then. (http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/treadmill.html)
- "Frith van der Merwe, set Comrades Marathon records for both directions". Female records. When she ran the 5:54 down record in 1989, the men's record was at 5:24 from three years before. When she ran the 6:32 up record, the men's record was at 5:27 from two years before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrades_Marathon#Winners_and_...
- "Elena Nurgalieva and her sister Olesya Nurgalieva have won a total of 10 Comrades Marathon titles between them; Elena holds the uphill course record (6:09:24)." They both won the _female_ editions. The lead man finished 30+ minutes ahead of them. The record is a female record (see previous).
- "Camille Herron, first ultra athlete to win 2 World titles in the same year (2015- 50K and 100K); 2017 Comrades Marathon Champion; holds the World Best for 50 Miles (5:38:41), 100 Mile Road and Trail World Record (12:42:40), 12 Hour World Record (149.193 km, 92.66 Miles), 100 Mile Track World Record (13:25:00), and 24 Hour World Record (262.193 km, 162.919 Miles)[22]". Women's world titles. Women Comrades Marathon Champion. Women's World Bests. Just scroll up in the wikipedia page you linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon#IAU_World_Best_P...
What you linked is a list of very impressive ultrarunners, male or female. The women you then linked from that list _are_ incredibly impressive runners in their own right. They would beat nearly any man that shows up. They are still outcompeted by their elite male equivalents though and it is not even close.
The fact that there is a separate trophy which only women compete for, is a pretty good indicator that its generally true. Why else would a female trophy exist?
Organized races in America were predominantly white in the early days and yet when other ethnicities started to join (in small numbers at first) no special trophy was needed. They were able to compete immediately for the overall trophy just like all the other men.
Historical exclusion from competition doesn't make sense as a reason for modern under performance.
Did you watch the video I linked about how women were explicitly discouraged/banned from entering long-distance running? The now infamous image is from 1967.
How is that the least bit relevant? I'm not arguing about the quantity of female victors historically (which obviously is affected by their unfortunate exclusion)
I'm talking about races today where women must compete for a Woman's-trophy because they are generally not able to compete with the male athletes. That is exactly the reason for having a Woman's trophy in the first place. Which is how this sub-discussion started.
Even though black runners were excluded from early races, there was no need to create a special trophy for them. When the ugly practice of excluding them ended, they tended to dominate.
My point is the very existence of a Woman's trophy is an admission that, generally speaking, they can not compete on equal footing with men. Obviously there are fun exceptions like in this story where a woman wins the overall race, and all credit to her for doing so.
[Citation really seriously needed]
Edit Haha, love the downvotes for asking for evidence for an unsubstantiated claim.