So a guy runs a 16:20 in the 5k, whats a comparable woman's time?

Iowa800 wrote:

That Guy 56 wrote:

IAAF Scoring tables say the equivalent is actually 20:47 for women.

This is accurate and why professionals do the equivalents and not keyboard coaches.

I looked up the top 5K times on the athletic.net D3 page. In 2016, the 623rd ranked male runner ran 16:20. The 623rd ranked female ran 20:36.

Except the man was 623/1,091 and the woman was 623/822. Equal percentile would be 469th i.e. 19:48. In high school these would be much closer since men develop more.

This guy... wrote:

So a guy runs a 16:20 in the 5k, whats a comparable woman's time??

16:20?

That IS a woman's time - go home.

Iowa800 wrote:

That Guy 56 wrote:

IAAF Scoring tables say the equivalent is actually 20:47 for women.

This is accurate and why professionals do the equivalents and not keyboard coaches.

I looked up the top 5K times on the athletic.net D3 page. In 2016, the 623rd ranked male runner ran 16:20. The 623rd ranked female ran 20:36.

The iaaf tables specifically said that they are not intended to compare times between men and women, only within each gender. They've made no attempt to calibrate the two genders.

This guy... wrote:

Or are woman now equal and gotta be a 16:20 too?

Yes. Same for most professional jobs as well today.

idiot.... wrote:

You cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is closer to exponential than linear. One reason for this is because the top women have straighter bodies, i.e. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.

OK should we not be having race categories according to body type rather than according to sex?

HardLoper wrote:

Iowa800 wrote:

This is accurate and why professionals do the equivalents and not keyboard coaches.

I looked up the top 5K times on the athletic.net D3 page. In 2016, the 623rd ranked male runner ran 16:20. The 623rd ranked female ran 20:36.

Except the man was 623/1,091 and the woman was 623/822. Equal percentile would be 469th i.e. 19:48. In high school these would be much closer since men develop more.

This is why I have a hard time trusting the iaaf tables. A sub 21 woman is the same as about a 17:30 male. For a 16:20 equivalent, I would expect 19 mid from a woman.

i say it's worth about 19:20 over the same terrain for a girl

We don't always have to compare everything. Men took to competitive running earlier & there's more depth. Somebody else said it, 16:20 is good but you're not getting a scholarship look even though you're only a minute off of the top-tier. So for now maybe it's about a 3 minute gap but I would guess that it will tighten at some point and be closer to a 2 minute gap. You have to be hitting some decent workouts to get to 16:20 but it's not going to allow you to run at the next level whereas 19-ish will.

I think looking at OTQ runners, for example, might be a better comparison. For a man looking to go 2:19 you have to be, at minimum 15-flat. For a woman going under 2:45, you want to be 17-flat. There has been debate that these standards aren't perfect & that the woman's standard might be a touch easier but this still holds for me. Change it to 2:22 & 2:45 or 2:19 & 2:42 & 15ish & 17ish are the comparisons. Runners are different. Genders are different. We can appreciate what everyone is doing in the sport.

The best calculator for this is the WMA, which gives a 16:30 men = 18:50 women.

I don't know about depth, but 30 seconds per mile is about right which coverts to 17:50.

I find positions based on established tables to be valuable, and a formula (10/9) adds something. Even the statement that in a large field on the same course, to say “16:20 gets X place and the same place for women was achieved with Y time” is interesting.

But the comparison of what might get a scholarship here, there and everywhere, is garbage. The variables are legion: Coach’s needs, GPA, standardized test scores, scholarship value (which people lie about all the time), academic scholarship available, etc.

State of Michigan, state finals last year, by division:

Division I

36th place for boys. 18:52 for girls for the same finish.

Division II

15th for boys. 18:59 for girls for the same finish.

Division III

6th place for boys. 19:04 for girls for the same finish.

Division IV

5th place for boys. 19:34 for girls for the same finish.

The small divisions in Michigan are very small schools. A couple hundred students.