What's the male equivalent to a female 5:00 mile?

This isn't the best indicator, but if I look at 1500m times in Oregon high school the past few years a 5:00 is close to equivalent with about a 4:16-4:18 in terms of competitiveness.

4:16-18 competitively seems about right, even conservative. My GF, an open runner, ran consistently in the mid-4:30's for 1500 (=4:56-5:00 mile), and regularly placed 1-3 in smaller college invites where the men's race would be won in 3:50-55-ish.

lackadaisical wrote:

4:16-18 competitively seems about right, even conservative. My GF, an open runner, ran consistently in the mid-4:30's for 1500 (=4:56-5:00 mile), and regularly placed 1-3 in smaller college invites where the men's race would be won in 3:50-55-ish.

Right, except, as said above, women's college meets are (in general) less competitive than mens. So you have to take that into account (which I realize you're trying to do when you say 'competitively'). However, the correct equivalent is still going to be a little slower (I agree with around 4:20) to reflect the reduced overall competitiveness. The winner of a typical women's collegiate meet is usually not going to be the mercier table equivalent of the winner of a typical men's collegiate meet. That's not a knock on women, it's just the reality of the sport at the collegiate level.

I think the guy who said "solid performance" around 4:20 is right on.

The 2008 Revised IAAF scoring tables place 5:00 for a woman's mile between 940 and 941 points. That corresponds to 4:15.3 for a man.

The way I look at it, Sub 4:00 is very fast for HS guy, and is roughly equivelent to sub 4:40 for girls (maybe a little faster). The difference is usually 40-45 seconds. It's different for college/pro women though. Women improve more post HS than men do.

It's threads like this one that really exhibit the true appeal of LRC.

I click on it, not really caring one way or another, kinda sorta think it must be around 4:20, read a couple of posts, start getting involved, can almost see the collective thought process in action as momentum builds, climaxing in the "right" answer and then we're done.

Sort of like running porn...

the correct answer is 420 since 714 is serious sleepy time.

A quick calculation puts it at 4:27 plus or minus a few tenths

jtupper wrote:

A quick calculation puts it at 4:27 plus or minus a few tenths

sorry it got away from me.

wineturtle wrote:

jtupper wrote:

A quick calculation puts it at 4:27 plus or minus a few tenths

my friend please recalculate.

4:15/16 or so no slower

what is this full mile nonsense Brojos now espouse.

Somewhat like semiboneless is now used to mean with bones in my supermarket meatcase(meat-case,meat case?).

Fullmile is redundantly profuse, bountifully lavish and to be panfully truthful, honest and forthright, and many would say wordy too.

waiting is

Not really wrote:

The competitive equivalent would be around 4:16, the physiological equivalent would be around 4:25.

^Nailed it

So stretching all this out to real life, when Jordan Hasay ran 4:14.5 for 1500 at the trials equal to about 4:34.9 for the mile distance, you experts are saying she ran the male equiv of what.. a 3:51-53 mile?

I can't believe that, maybe ..4:04?

take a look at any cross country state meet the 25th place boy will be closer the winner then the 25th girl, the depth is not the same.

jasong. wrote:

take a look at any cross country state meet the 25th place boy will be closer the winner then the 25th girl, the depth is not the same.

Exactly, this is what people can't comprehend. There is no freakin way a 5:00 mile for a female is equal to 4:15.

If you use the male to female mile world record ratio, you get 4:25.

at the limit wrote:

So stretching all this out to real life, when Jordan Hasay ran 4:14.5 for 1500 at the trials equal to about 4:34.9 for the mile distance, you experts are saying she ran the male equiv of what.. a 3:51-53 mile?

I can't believe that, maybe ..4:04?

Well, seeing as she was a hs runner in the Olympic Trials final, that does seem plausibe, don't ya think?

jasong. wrote:

take a look at any cross country state meet the 25th place boy will be closer the winner then the 25th girl, the depth is not the same.

XC is 2.5/3 times longer so space behind is a poor comparison.

The guy who said the "competitive" and "physiological" answers were different nailed it.

If you want to compare what level a male would have to be at to be at the same level as a 5:00-female it is faster than you would think. I have read this before and people have said that if you can break 5:00 as a girl you can get a scholarship in D1, but a male would need to be 4:15-4:20 and even then it is not a lock.

Jtupper nailed it with the 4:27. Use the ratio of 1500m WRs for both sexes. The mile is not run often enough by women and the Women's WR is soft relative to the men's. But the 1500 WRs are both very strong. I believe they are 3:26.00 and 3:50.6 but haven't looked.

3:26/3:50.6 = .8933

(male equiv)/5:00 = .8933

(male equiv) = 4:28.00

If you accept these assumptions, they work for the mile, 1600 or 1500, there is no difference.

Definitely 4:25-4:30. You people are crazy who say it's under 4:20.