Comparing boys and girls track times

I would say sub 5 for the 1600 is "fast."

Also sub 2:14 for 800, or 10:45ish for 3200.

A bit behind these times (ie 5:05, 2:16, 10:55, etc) would be in the realm of "everybody ran 4:30 in high school." We should keep in mind however that 4:30 in high school would be respectable in the sense that it would generally indicate a minimal level of training and dedication to the sport and being a "runner" of some sort.

I'm a girl. I think anything under 5:30 for the mile is enough to be "fast." Sub 5 girls aren't nearly as common as this website makes it out to be. Only one or two girls from my state break 5 every year and we are competitive in track and cross country...so only those 2 are fast? Under 5:30 means you are around top 40 in the state which makes you "fast" in my book.

You have a stupid book

Girls tend to be ~14% slower in distance races. In other words, 1:57/4:19/9:20 ~ 2:16/5:01/10:51.

Looking at the current california leader list, if we stick with the "sub 4:20" for guys people already set as the metric, that gets us to top 54 boys so far this year in California. 54th fastest hs girl so far this year in California is 5:06. Keep in mind that 54th is already far enough down on the list to start losing depth on the woman's side of things compared to the mens, so I'd say people's suggestions of 4:20 being about comparable to 5:00 is about right.

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/statewide-top-lists/

Enjoy.

Girls are about 30s/mile slower than boys. Apply accordingly.

Anonymous Pseudonym wrote:

Girls are about 30s/mile slower than boys. Apply accordingly.

Such generalizations make you look uninformed.

I'd say you can't just say oh the women's field isn't that deep so we are going to call less women fast. More women run track in high school than men. Perhaps there is just more variation in talent among women (not that there are less women running). You have to compare them to their peers.

I'd say a HS girl is fast if she can beet the average high school boy on an average to bad team. So 5:05-5:10 sounds about right for calling a girl fast. Sub 5 for a girl is like sub 4:15 for a boy (if you don't discount for "lack of depth" which the tables like Mercier always do - which is good for elite HS runners but not just regular "fast" ones)

That is for elite girls - factoring in depth (or higher variation in girls abilities - however you want to phrase it) more like 4:19 -> 5:05 or so. Method: look up the national ranking of a 4:19, find what girls time corresponds to that rank.

Am I anti-American? wrote:

That is for elite girls - factoring in depth (or higher variation in girls abilities - however you want to phrase it) more like 4:19 -> 5:05 or so. Method: look up the national ranking of a 4:19, find what girls time corresponds to that rank.

Regionally elite, sure, I suppose.

If you're comparing the very best, it's probably closer to 87-88% in HS (at the professional level, it's closer to 90%). And if you're comparing at the state level, it's probably often closer to 83-84%.

An important question that needs to be asked is how to address the difference in depth. Looking up how #X boy compares to #X girl has a few faults as well - the already established difference in depth, the fact that some states run different events for boys/girls (even NY runs 1500m for girls and 1600m for boys), etc. I'd argue that you have to look more towards the elite than the "average" due to those differences, especially if you're looking at events beyond 800m.

FacesRus wrote:

I'd say you can't just say oh the women's field isn't that deep so we are going to call less women fast. More women run track in high school than men. Perhaps there is just more variation in talent among women (not that there are less women running). You have to compare them to their peers.

I'd say a HS girl is fast if she can beet the average high school boy on an average to bad team. So 5:05-5:10 sounds about right for calling a girl fast. Sub 5 for a girl is like sub 4:15 for a boy (if you don't discount for "lack of depth" which the tables like Mercier always do - which is good for elite HS runners but not just regular "fast" ones)

More girls may participate in track than boys, but not in the distance events.

Per athletic.net (not 100% national coverage by any means, but the best sample available), average # of athletes that compete in each "standard" distance event in the last 5 years:

Boys 800m = 42,914.2

Boys 1600m = 40,999.0

Boys 3200m = 26.277.8

Girls 800m = 33.793.8

Girls 1600m = 28,444.8

Girls 3200m = 17,466.0

though the difference at 1600m/3200m is probably greater than that, since the states most active on athletic.net are states that run the same events regardless of gender.

That's ~1.27x as many boys running 800m as girls. 1.44x and 1.50x for the 1600m/3200m, which probably means it's closer to 1.35-1.4x for 1600m and 1.4-1.45x for 3200m nation-wide when you factor in states that use different events.

Beyond that, though, I pretty much agree with your key assessment: I would call a girl "fast" if she's faster than the [median] boy (which is ~2:20/5:15/11:15? the median is more variable on the 3200m).

Westcoast wrote:

Hey,

I had a female athlete ask me today if she's fast and I realized I don't have a concrete reference to answer this question. She's good and has definitely improved recently but what is fast? For instance, if a HS boy ran times of 1:57, 4:19 or 9:20 I'd say that he is fast. This is not to say a 4:30 is slow but let's be honest, "Everyone in high school ran a 4:30." I'm interested in what you think is fast for a HS girl.

It's remarkable that so many people don't understand the concept "fast"?

Fast is relative....to a norm. If a boy runs 4:30 in HS, he can be validly described as fast. He's faster than 98% of HS boys. If a girl can run faster than 4:50 or 5:00 or 5:10 or 5:20 or even 5:30 she can validly be described as fast.

Why would you need to compare boys and girls track times? The OP states that the girl is good but doesn\'t know if she is fast. What is your concept of good? I am assuming you were talking about her ability to run? If she is a good runner than isnt she being defined as fast. Feel free to tell her so.

Always surprised at loser guys who feel the need to compare their times to girls. Boys and girls are different. Your time may be faster than most girls but that proves absolutely nothing. I once heard a guy whine that it was so much easier for a female to qualify for the Olympic Trials because the standards are so much easier. Seriously?

Fast for a HS girl means you aren't getting beat by any of the girls' soccer players that run track 8 weeks a year and then disappear the other 44 weeks.

If someone who prances around kicking truncated icosahedrons can beat you, you aren't fast.