decathlon for women? [split]

[ralmcg]

The men's and women's decathlon will never be totally equal, unless women use the same hurdle heights and throwing implements and scoring tables as men.

The most important aspect of the equality is having 10 events. That can be accomplished without the pole vault. If the women's decathlon had the 400mh or steeplechase, nobody could accuse it of being less grueling than the men's version.

Does that send a message that the women are less able to do the pole vault than men, at least in multi-events? I know the answer should be no since there are women who do the decathlon with the pole vault in it.

[18.99s]

Does that send a message that the women are less able to do the pole vault than men, at least in multi-events? I know the answer should be no since there are women who do the decathlon with the pole vault in it.

How come your interpretation isn't that men can't do the 400mh or steeplechase in a decathlon?

You're operating under the implicit sexist assumption that what the men do is the gold standard and women must copy the men, otherwise they're doing something inferior. What makes the 400mh or steeplechase an inferior event to the pole vault?

When the decathlon was introduced in the 1912 Olympics, the poles were stiff, making them relatively cheap to produce, and the stiffness also made different poles of the same length functionally equivalent to each other, making it unnecessary for athletes or track clubs to transport their own poles to meets (they could just borrow one of the poles housed at the stadium).

Had the designers of the decathlon known what the pole vault would become, with expensive high-tech engineered flexible poles, maybe they wouldn't have included the pole vault in the decathlon. Unless it was their intention to keep the decathlon a US-Canada-Europe hegemony, like the Olympics itself was back then, when over 80% of the competing countries and 100% of the track & field medalists were of the US, Canada, or Europe.

[ralmcg]

How come your interpretation isn't that men can't do the 400mh or steeplechase in a decathlon?

You're operating under the implicit sexist assumption that what the men do is the gold standard and women must copy the men, otherwise they're doing something inferior. What makes the 400mh or steeplechase an inferior event to the pole vault?

When the decathlon was introduced in the 1912 Olympics, the poles were stiff, making them relatively cheap to produce, and the stiffness also made different poles of the same length functionally equivalent to each other, making it unnecessary for athletes or track clubs to transport their own poles to meets (they could just borrow one of the poles housed at the stadium).

Had the designers of the decathlon known what the pole vault would become, with expensive high-tech engineered flexible poles, maybe they wouldn't have included the pole vault in the decathlon. Unless it was their intention to keep the decathlon a US-Canada-Europe hegemony, like the Olympics itself was back then, when over 80% of the competing countries and 100% of the track & field medalists were of the US, Canada, or Europe.

Well if there is a 400 mH or a 3000 M steeplechase in the decathlon, it would be 5 races, 3 throws, and 2 jumps. It would tip the balance in favor of running, instead of a balance between running, jumping, and trowing, at least more than it is now.

It's selfish of me to think that the pole vault should be in the decathlon. You should ask the IAAF to replace the pole vault. To keep the number of jumps at three, the triple jump should be added, instead of another race.

Or the IAAF could abolish the multi-events at major championships and the Olympics. Then men and women can basically be at the same level as far as events are concerned and yes I know about the different hurdles and implements for men and women.

[ralmcg]

I would like to ask the people in this forum something. Does having the women do only seven events, as compared to ten for the men, tell us that women aren't as capable of doing multi-events as men? It seems like that to me. There should be equality of event numbers for men and women. People will have different opinions on the number of event and the events themselves. My preference is that the women do the decathlon and yes that includes the pole vault. I like seeing women pole vault.

[Atticus]

Does having the women do only seven events, as compared to ten for the men, tell us that women aren't as capable of doing multi-events as men?

In the many posts on the subject, the consensus seems to be that heptathletes don't want it because they already have their 7 events and would be concerned with having to do well in three 'new' ones. The reluctance may be coming from the women themselves.

[LopenUupunut]

It's also easier for a heptathlete to be a contender in individual events than it is for a decathlete. It helps the profile of athletes like KJT and Thiam (and others in the past, like JJK and Klüft and Barber) that they've been competitive in events like the HJ and LJ in addition to the hep itself.

You don't see much of that on the men's side. I don't think that's a question of men's individual events being somehow tougher or deeper, at least not for the most part, since it was relatively rare on the men's side even in the early days; occasionally you'd have someone like Osborn or Klumberg who was a contender in an individual event, but it was never something you almost expected from the winner of a major decathlon. It was more common in the men's pentathlon - LeGendre, Stöck, Sippala etc.; it's just easier to do with a less complicated multi.

Plus, even if you can still be a contender in an individual event as a decathlete, that's still a more demanding double to pull off at a big meet.

[scottmitchell74]

I'm surprised in this era of "I can do anything better than you..." that there isn't a small-to-moderate and LOUD mob SCREAMING for women to do 10 events.

Why not? Same with tennis. Why aren't women playing the same as men?

[HopStepJump]

It's also easier for a heptathlete to be a contender in individual events than it is for a decathlete. It helps the profile of athletes like KJT and Thiam (and others in the past, like JJK and Klüft and Barber) that they've been competitive in events like the HJ and LJ in addition to the hep itself.

You don't see much of that on the men's side. I don't think that's a question of men's individual events being somehow tougher or deeper, at least not for the most part, since it was relatively rare on the men's side even in the early days; occasionally you'd have someone like Osborn or Klumberg who was a contender in an individual event, but it was never something you almost expected from the winner of a major decathlon. It was more common in the men's pentathlon - LeGendre, Stöck, Sippala etc.; it's just easier to do with a less complicated multi.

Plus, even if you can still be a contender in an individual event as a decathlete, that's still a more demanding double to pull off at a big meet.

I suspect that if the men only did the heptathlon, you would see more of the same thing. If the point of the multi-events is to determine the "world's greatest athlete", the heptathlon comes up thin.

[18.99s]

Why not? Same with tennis. Why aren't women playing the same as men?

1. The women don't want that. Why do more work without more money?

2. TV producers don't want that because it increases the unpredictability of match length. With a 3 set max, it's going to be either 2 or 3 sets. A 5 set max makes each match last anywhere from 3 to 5 sets, making TV scheduling more troublesome. Many viewers also tune out when a match runs long, especially if it's not a final.

3. Tournament organizers don't want it because it increases the expenses of hosting an event without a corresponding increase in revenue. People aren't going to pay more for tickets if women play 5 sets.

If there is a change to equalize the number of sets, it would be decreasing the men to 3 rather than increasing the women to 5. People in tennis circles say some male tennis players quietly prefer 3 sets instead of 5, but they'd look weak if they publicly advocated for dropping to 3 sets.

I think a good compromise would be both men and women playing 3 sets except for 5 sets in the finals of a major. Sort of like with UFC, where the regular fights for men and women are 3 rounds but title fights go 5 rounds. 3 sets for non-finals would also increase the quality of the men's play in the final as they wouldn't wear themselves out playing so many sets during the rounds.