Make to Female time conversion

2:12 is about 1:58.

1:53 is about 2:06.

Some people would rate the womens performances much better than that, but in fact it isn't. The number / depth of competitive females is just lower so with the comparable performance it is easier to get better rankings in top lists and championchips.

The 2:12 is about 1:54

The 1:53 is about 2:10

Source:

http://jmureika.lmu.build/track/Mercier/window7.html

Yeah I don't know if I trust that conversion. Said my 15:33 5k PR was equivalent to a women's 18:40. I'd say 15:33 is sub-18:00 at the very least. The best HS boys run around 14:50 on an honest, but fast, course, whereas the top girls are around 17:00 - 17:10. I wonder what this calculation is based on, it might be factoring in that there is more depth in men's running.

Tallrunner1112 wrote:

I would like to know what a 2:12 800 meter for a female converts to for a male. Also what a 1:53 800 meter for a male converts to for a female?

Are you saying women are inferior to men? Because that sounds like what you're saying.

it depends. Do you identify as a male or female?

M.A.G.A

I checked California high school state XC results for reference. In D1, 15:33 was 16th place. 16th place for girls was 18:13, so kind of splits the difference between what you were thinking and what the calculator says.

1:59.4 and 2:02

IAAF 2017 tables: 942 points for a 1:53.02 800 for men equals 2:12.98 for women.

That is the answer. You're welcome.

And further proof: 50th ranked boy in US in 800 per Milesplit: 1:53.54 and for girls: 2:12.03.

No, it just confirms what I wrote in the second post above. These both tables also just reflect that the total number of women / girls participating in the sport and likely the dedication to or intensity of training is much lower, leading to much easier competition.

Try this: look up the IAAF score for 3000 m and the 3000 m steeplechase, both tables for men and compare it. A 9:00 3000 is rated equally to a 10:08 3000 m SC there, where you just can see that the steeplechase is an event with much lower competition. Equal to a 9:00 would be something like 9:30 to 9:45 at worst.

Now you get an impression on how these calculations work, maybe

So I stay with it: 2:12 women is not worth more than about 1:58 for men regarding same talent and amount of training. When you are female it is just easier to get a higher top list or championship ranking, though, because less other females are interested.

Huh? No. You took a random points score (not associated with the original event) and just said, "well the girls SC isn't as fast and a comparable time would be 9:30 or 9:45." Based on what? Nothing supports your hypothesis other than your gut? I'll need more than that. Is the participation level really that different and a factor? In 2015-16, there were about 578,000 boys participating in outdoor track and 478,000 girls. And....so what? That shows such greater depth for boys? And how do you measure dedication and intensity of boys versus girls? Your gut again?

Finally, I didn't just argue the tables: I gave a real life example: the top 50 boy in the 800 is equal to the top 50 girl no matter what the depth or dedication or intensity. Or in your world is no girl as dedicated or intense as any boy? Come join us in 2017......

The Mercier calculator I often use rates a 2:12.0 womens 800 to a man running 1:53.35.

You did not understand at all what I mean. I never talked about the girls steeplechase. I compared the mens 3000 flat with 3000 SC. For example same score for 9:00 flat and 10:08 SC. That is laughable. Nobody loses 68 s between these two events. Definitely not at this level. That should just show you how these IAAF tables work, and why they are inadequate if you look to far behind workd class level. They just give averages of the real number of people competing and thus showing the steeplechase is a less contested event. So they are not based on comparable ability level but actual number of participants at a certain level.

Your second table you could correct at least by the total number so you have to compare 50th boy with 41th girl. Your logic would be 10th place at your local fun run is worth the dame like 10th place at London marathon because both is 10th place.

Think about this: 800m WR 1:41 and 1:53.3, about 12.3 % more time for women. The best boy and girl in your HS lists: 1:48.6 and 2:02.7, also about 13.0 % difference. Assuming the same difference in the OP's 1:53 leads to 2:06 -2:07 and 2:12 not better than 1:58. You see, I did not pull these numbers out of a hat.

And BTW, the lower depth in female competition is also shown perfectly in your HS tables. How do you explain that #50 boy is less than 5 s behind the 1st one, but in the girls list #50 is almost 10 s slower than #1?

Well I explain your last point easily: the current leading 800 for girls is 2:02.77, just off the national record of 2:02.04 while the boys leading time is 2 seconds off the national record. The number 2 girl is 2:08, only 4 seconds off the 50th time and thus closer than #1 and #50 for boys. The girls leading time severely skews this.

This again shows just how easy it is to have success as a girl in this sport if you are interested and dedicated. If one can be 6 sec faster than all others it is a clear sign that all others are very far away from what is possible.

If we invent a fictional HS boy who is also 6 sec better than the others, he would be around 1:42.6, which is olympic champion caliber.

Your top HS girl with 2:02.7 which 'skews up' your list is not even competitive on national level and has to improve another 5 sec until she may just participate in olympics.

So tell me, is it really the one which is so good or the others who are so bad or something inbetween. However, again this just proves excellently the missing depth in female competition which is visible in other sports as well.

^ huh? Again, no. My point was this is an odd year with a girl significantly better than the others because she is .5 off the national record. That's all. If you make the number one on the girls list 6 seconds better she nearly wins the Olympics (1:55).

She is already the exception which is 6 sec better. Than all others. She won't find another 6 s soon. That's exactly the point. The best among the boys are NOT further away from international elite level than she is. But there are several close together and she is the sole eception within the next 6 s. That's the missing depth in competition you just won't like to accept but which is obviously.