UKC

This just seems such bad PR.

Not the first time in sky running.

http://www.skylinescotland.com/glen-coe-skyline/information/#displayPrizeCa...

I can see arguments why they do this I just think keep it equal. Same depth, same money.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Last year there were 23 female finishers, and 137 male finishers. With regards to depth, the top 21% of female finishers get prize money, while the top 14% of males get prize money (5/23 vs 10/137). You're right, it's not equal.

Same money for the same positions is how it should be. With regard to how far down the finishers list prizes go, surely proportion is a "fairer" (whatever the hell that means) measure?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

If there are as many entries as last year, then men will have a 10/183 = 5.45% chance of a prize with a total prize pot of £47.81 per competitor.

Women will have a 5/33 = 15.15% chance and £250 per competitor.

So who is penalised by this inequality?

</devil's advocate>

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I understand that it is often easier to win prizes as a woman, but giving less women's prizes does seem a bit off.

I was timekeeping at a local fell race on Saturday, the prizes were quite random and just a case of choosing something off a table when your name is called out. All the men's prize winners 1-10 plus first and second in all the age groups before any of the women were called out. My girlfriend, was 2nd lady and something like the 25th person to be called out. I thought it was a bit off and had a word.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
As I said 'I can see the argument'

However I just think Keep it even.

The argument about input was used to justify differences at Wimbledon. I.e. More watch the men so they should get more money.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



Mathematicians?

Seriously, you can't just cook up meaningless probabilities like that. Prizes for running events aren't just drawn out of a hat. The number of entries is a factor, but the much greater factors are ability, effort and training.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I don't especially like it, but its more balanced than a local (to me) hill race I was looking at earlier today.

http://www.scottishhillracing.co.uk/RaceDetails.aspx?RaceID=RA-0222

A very small highland games race that often only gets 20 odd runners. "£300 first prize, with £100, £50 and £30 for 2nd to 4th men, and for first 3 women". Its taken by default in the wording that the winner will be a man. ON balance of probability, this is obviously highly likely, but I really don't like the fact that this is taken as a given. And of course there's the imbalance in the prize money -£300 for first male (assuming that it is a male) and £100 for first female.

In reply to GraB:


That might be an assumption on your part; nothing in the wording suggests that to be true. It is possible that a woman who came 1st would collect £400. Indeed, the fact that the first prize is specifically described separately from the other male prizes suggests that this would be the case.

In reply to GraB:

That example is fairly outrageous. I must say though, these prizes all seem generous, Jill won a bottle of orange squash on Saturday.

In reply to The New NickB:
I agree - It is very generous particularly given the size of the field. I also agree that it isn't OK.

In reply to MarkJH:

I don't agree. Here's a link to the games own website:
http://www.invercharronhighlandgames.co.uk/hill-race

It has only ever been won outright by a man in the past. A woman who wins the women's category gets £100 and the winner (in all likelihood a man) gets £300. That's the reality. If they are going to have different categories (men and women) then the prizes should also be separate all the way to the top. And equal all the way to the top prize.

In reply to GraB:


That link explicitly supports my interpretation! The prizes are presented as: "Winner", "male runner up", "female runner up" etc, with the runners up in each gender getting equal money. Nothing suggests that a female winner would not collect the £300.

In reply to MarkJH:
Of course she would collect the top prize money, but that's not my point!

In reply to The New NickB:

My GF, a far more competent runner than I and used to podium places, used to always complain that typical first and second women's prizes were silverware or a bunch of flowers, whereas the far more desirable third prize was a bottle of wine.

In reply to GraB:


What is your point? The awkward wording in the description on the website?

If you have gender segregation in sport, then there is always going to be a degree of inequality caused by variations in participation vs reward. For a small race with (possibly) very skewed participation rates, offering a single large prize with runner up prizes equally distributed between genders seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

In reply to MarkJH:
Did you actually read my post above? Which bit of the following do you not understand?

"If they are going to have different categories (men and women) then the prizes should also be separate all the way to the top. And equal all the way to the top prize."

That is my point.

I don't agree that there should be a single category top prize. It is unfairly biased towards a male winner.

In reply to GraB:

But the counterpoint is that if prizes are equal between genders, but very few of one gender enter the race then the prize fund is heavily biased towards them. You could (of course) have a prize fund that was equally distributed between genders on a per-entrant basis, but this would be very unfair if the overall quality of one category was much higher relative to that of the other.

As I said, if you have decided that gender (or any other type of) segregation in sport is desirable , then there will necessarily be inequality somewhere. The approach taken by the organisers of the race you linked to is an example of one approach that might minimise inequality; there are many others, but none is perfect.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Looks like your intended discussion about a race with very similar male/female prizes has turned into a discussion of different races with very unequal prizes...

In reply to The New NickB:


Robinson?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

It's a mixed race. The first three finishers regardless of age or gender should take the first three prizes. That's the most equal way of doing it.

Then there should be prizes for other categories if the organisers see fit.

What are we rewarding? People who've had a go or people who have won.

It would be unfair if a Woman came second but was only given the Woman's first prize and the next Man was given a higher prize than her for being second Man.

Or is it two races run separately. In which case assuming the prize money is given by sponsors, then they should get equal prizes, and men should be aware that there is no point out sprinting a woman for the line (although I know a few women who'd be unhappy if a man eased off and 'let her beat him')
If the prize money is calculated from the size of the field, then do the calculation and make sure that the women and men get the same proportion based on male and female entries. You could take it a step further and calculate all the age group prizes the same way.

Lots to think about. Ultimately it's not an equal race.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Supposedly it comes from the ISF, which is poor.

It seems silly as it's just another few hundred quid. Just do top 8 in each rather than top 10 and top 5.

It's mainly optics, but in this day and age, with wage discrepancy still an issue sporting prize money in the same race should be equal, IMO.

In reply to GraB:
Wow that's bad, especially for Scotland, the Mudge must have won a fair number of races outright in her day.

In reply to bouldery bits:

They weren't made of money, it was from Aldi! 1.5l double strength though, the tea bags and the bog rolls had gone.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I don't know how much she won outright. You would think so though wouldn't you? She was / is obviously fairly exceptional.

As you say, the cost of parity in the Skyline prize money is absolutely minimal. It would be so easy to skim a bit off the prize money for the top places to distribute to the women who place 6-10. Maybe we should have a contributions bucket at registration for those placed in 6-10 spots in the women's race? That would surely be enough to embarrass the organisers into fixing the situation.

As for the Invercharron games race, the prize money is very generous for such a small race with a tiny field. There is no reason at all IMHO not to do the right thing and distribute equally. And all prize money would still be pretty generous. I'd be happy to see the first lady get the same as the first man, even if only one woman were to enter - it would encourage more women to race these things.

In reply to bouldery bits:


Rocks
http://www.rocksdrinks.co.uk

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Wot, no veterans category prizes either??

In reply to Ste Brom:

It's now been changed by Shane, good move.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Aye good move

In reply to Ste Brom:

There should be a 1st Milf, and 1st Gilf prize