What male 1500m time is equivalent to 4:00 1500m for a female?

3:33.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

Off the top of my head, I'd say something like 3:31.

My first thought was 3:32

4:00

Yeah, I would have to say 3:31.0

Last year, only Simpson and Rowbury broke 4

And Leo Manzano broke 3:31 (Centro was close 3:31.xx)

2013- no one broke either of these barriers w/ Centro (3:32) and Leo (3:33), so close, but we had Simpson (4:00), Martinez (4:00), Anderson (4:01), Rowbury (4:01)

4:00

The clock runs the same speed for all athletes racing the distance. No conversion needed.

Tag heuer timing wrote:

4:00

The clock runs the same speed for all athletes racing the distance. No conversion needed.

It runs slower fo whitey sucka!

3:35 for a man is about equal to 4:00 for a female. You can quibble about a second in either direction, because there is no definitive answer when providing "equivalencies".

3:32.64

Female power output is the square root of ~61.8% of a male's, or ~78.6%. When it comes to running times, you further take the square root of ~78.6% and get ~88.6%.

4:00 * 88.6% = ~3:32.8

Of course this is slightly simplified since those equations should used to be find an equivalent distance to be raced over identical times. Meaning, it's slightly more precise to say a 4:00 1500m for a female is equivalent to a 4:00 ~1692m race for a male.

Actual WR's tend to show this, as 88.6% is slightly low due to the race times being different.

200 - 89.9%

400 - 90.7% (big red flag)

800 - 89.1%

1500 - 89.4%

5000 - 89.0%

MAR - 90.8% (big red flag)

3:32.8 would be 6.8 seconds slower than men's 1500 record.

4:00 would be 9.54 seconds slower than women's 1500 record.

If those two marks (3:32.8 and 4:00) were rated as equal, then we'd have to conclude that the women's 1500 record is more than 2.5 seconds superior to the men's record.

Coach Joe wrote:

3:32.64

Female power output is the square root of ~61.8% of a male's, or ~78.6%. When it comes to running times, you further take the square root of ~78.6% and get ~88.6%.

4:00 * 88.6% = ~3:32.8

Of course this is slightly simplified since those equations should used to be find an equivalent distance to be raced over identical times. Meaning, it's slightly more precise to say a 4:00 1500m for a female is equivalent to a 4:00 ~1692m race for a male.

Actual WR's tend to show this, as 88.6% is slightly low due to the race times being different.

200 - 89.9%

400 - 90.7% (big red flag)

800 - 89.1%

1500 - 89.4%

5000 - 89.0%

MAR - 90.8% (big red flag)

Big red flag based on your made up statistics?

In 2014, 7 women ran under 4:00.00, and the 8th fastest was 4:00.07

In 2013, 4 women ran under 4:00.00, and the 5th fastest was 4:00.48

In 2012, 10 women ran under 4:00.00, and the 11th fastest was 4:00.09

In 2014, the 8th fastest male was 3:30.40, and 7 went under 3:30.00

In 2013, the 5th fastest male was 3:30.77, and 4 went under 3:30.50.

In 2012, the 11th fastest male was 3:32.08, and 10 went under 3:32.00.

This gives a ballpark of 3:31.00 as the nearest whole second equivalent in recent years.

You just can't simply add and subtract, you have to use percentages

And the WR is only 1 number, it would be better to take the all time top "xx" times...

And even if it was 2.5 seconds more superior, sometimes it be like that

Plus, that 3:51 was by one of the Chinese athletes that were part of that suspected doping group, I think the next best time besides that was 3:53, which would take around 2 seconds off that 2.5 and considering that even w/ percentages it would only make the difference of a couple of 1/10's of seconds, the mark 3:32.8 seems more reasonable

But I'm still sticking w/ my 3:31

smell the coffee, wrote:

3:32.8 would be 6.8 seconds slower than men's 1500 record.

4:00 would be 9.54 seconds slower than women's 1500 record.

If those two marks (3:32.8 and 4:00) were rated as equal, then we'd have to conclude that the women's 1500 record is more than 2.5 seconds superior to the men's record.

That would be an accurate conclusion, seeing as the women's 1500 record is far more doped than the men's. Most PEDs seem to work better on women.

smell the coffee, wrote:

3:32.8 would be 6.8 seconds slower than men's 1500 record.

4:00 would be 9.54 seconds slower than women's 1500 record.

If those two marks (3:32.8 and 4:00) were rated as equal, then we'd have to conclude that the women's 1500 record is more than 2.5 seconds superior to the men's record.

I understand your logic, but I wouldn't say it's "2.5 seconds superior" to the men's record so much as it's simply a suspicious record.

In general, men's athletics has more depth, so we can't just look at top 10 performances of men's and women's at certain distances and conclude they should be equal performances.

3.36 Womens' middle distance records are weak.

Due to the fact that some countries prohibit women from running and the inequality in some 3rd world countries. You can't just say "7 men ran sub 3:31 last year, while 7 women ran sub 4:00 so therefore they're about equal" when the competition pool is diluted for women and is not as competitive as men as not as many women are enabled the opportunity to run track and field as men.

6 US women have broken 4:00 (through 2013). #6 on the US men's list was 3:31.52.

26 US women had broken 4:05. #26 for US men was 3:34.66

105 US women had broken 4:10. #105 for US men was 3:38.06.

The entire argument is spurious.

The assumption that all male world records are equal is wrong to start with. To then extend that to men's and women's world records are equal is ridiculous.

Finding equivalency is a waste of time. Look at Radcliffe's record.