Runfearless wrote:
Maybe you don't know anything about law school because there's a law school and there are top tier law school. Stanford is one of the freaking best law schools in the world, competitive with Harvard, and law school is just as hard as med school when you're at a top tier school. I have several family members who have done both.
Post of the Day!
Does anyone find it congradictory that the brojos posted this but are also aggressively against Competitor reducing race money?
Runfearless wrote:
Maybe you don't know anything about law school because there's a law school and there are top tier law school. Stanford is one of the freaking best law schools in the world, competitive with Harvard, and law school is just as hard as med school when you're at a top tier school. I have several family members who have done both.
that is laughable and your ignorance really shows you are just making it up about your family. Law school is only 3 years, Med school is 4+. That alone makes med school harder. Secondly, the top tier law schools courseload isn't any different than other schools. I happen to live in the the state with the No. 1 law school and they all say the same thing. The only thing different is the law profs are better and the students (most of them) are better. But the workload is the same. (although most of my law profs were from top tier schools)
Then to pass the bar, you need to only study 4 hrs/day max. Plenty of time to run. Funny she ran her PR when she had MORE time to run, contradiction ROJOs own premise.
Impressed wrote:
From the little I have read he appears to be fairly "old school" and highly influenced by Arthur Lydiard.
Isn't all modern training heavily influenced by Lydiard?
Anyways, this topic is true. Running 150 miles a week for an elite runner comes out to what, 15 hours a week? Throw in lifting and strength and whatever silly stretches you think you need and we're still only talking 20 hours a week maximum. Given that some people work 80 hours a week, I don't see what should be difficult about working 40 + running at an elite level.
makes me feel not so bad about being a complete f@#ken failure
rojo wrote:
I really enjoyed this Q&A with Annie Bersagel who just won the 2013 US Marathon Champs in Twin Cities in a huge 13 minute pb :
http://running.competitor.com/2013/10/news/second-times-the-charm-exclusive-interview-with-annie-bersagel_86010Talk about impressive. She's managed to keep training while being a Fullbright Scholar, Stanford law student and now full-time employee.
Yeah, she may be impressive, but she ran 15:37 off of the women's world record. 15:37 off the men's world record would be 2:19:00. There are plenty of men who have worked full time jobs and run that fast or faster. However, this is not really competitive on the world stage.
You call that great?
I bet you if she had a sponsor she would be an Olympic medalist.
You really think that her run was the equivalent to a guy running a 2:10? REALLY? hahaha.
stats 101 wrote:
Not that impressive wrote:The US marathon champs is so weak. Congratulations to her, she ran a great race, but let's try and put this into perspective.
I'm not getting very specific, but Paula's WR = 2:15. Her 2:31 means there is 16 minutes of difference. Putting that into minutes: Paula's is 135 minutes and Bersagel's is 151 minutes.
135/151 = 89.4%
Now, let's look at the men's 5k record, for example. The WR is 12:37. 12:37 in seconds is 757 seconds. Divide 757/.894 and that gives you 847 seconds, or a 14:07 5k.
Lets be real now. 14:07 is just slightly better than the average LetsRun poster (lol). No reason to get impressed.
Lets be real. You know very little about how to apply statistics correctly. You're dealing with two completely different populations, so you can't make a linear comparison like this. The Mercier calculator says her marathon time equates to a 13:20 5K and 2:10:27 marathon for a man. She had the best performance of the day.
Pope of earth wrote:
You really think that her run was the equivalent to a guy running a 2:10? REALLY? hahaha.
What someone "thinks" doesn't matter. Stats don't lie, when done correctly. The Mercier calculator uses 4 years worth of rank-ordered IAAF performance lists, so 2:10 for a man matches up with 2:30 for a woman. You have to use a rank order method rather than a linear method because you're dealing with two different populations. This is stats 101. Both men's and women's depths are improving at the same rate as well, and there still isn't a linear difference. Lack of depth is not the issue, as so many misinformed people "think".
A 2:30 for a woman is NOT equivalent to a 2:10 for a man. What do you even mean by equivalent? Define your terms.
I notice that 2:30 puts a woman just under the top 100 on the world list for women (92) and a 2:10 is a bit out of the top 100 on the men's list (108).
http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/women/senior/2013
http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/men/senior/2013
Permit me to correct myself. Her time is 15:27, not 15:37, off the women's world record. For a man 15:27 off would be 2:18:50. Now I am not asserting that a 2:30:52 is only worth a 2:18:50 in gender translation, but it sure as hell is not worth 2:10 just because of some b.s. proffered by anybody's list of performances.
So women need to step it up. The men's WR was just broken, so let's see a 2:15 on the women's side. You can apply all of the statistical techniques you like to justify your argument, but the fact remains she would have been nearly 3 miles behind PR.
ksu wrote:
Does anyone find it contradictory that the brojos posted this but are also aggressively against Competitor reducing race money?
"Memo to all who say lack of sponsors is stopping u from being great"
I absolutely thought the same thing. This is one of the most hypocritical comments I have read here...
But what generates readers one day, can always be contradicted to create more readers another day.
Who cares about being a hypocrite? Is all about web page visits...
stats 101 wrote:Lets be real. You know very little about how to apply statistics correctly. You're dealing with two completely different populations, so you can't make a linear comparison like this. The Mercier calculator says her marathon time equates to a 13:20 5K and 2:10:27 marathon for a man. She had the best performance of the day.
2:10:27??? LOL!
Lets do this differently then, maybe you will see the light this time. Women are roughly 11% slower than men. For example: Bekele's 12:37 & Diababa's 14:11. Diababa's is 88.95% worth what Bekele's time is. (757 seconds / 851 seconds).
2:30:53 * 89% = 134.39. Approximately 2:14:23 give or take a few seconds. No way in hell her time equates to a 2:10. Thanks for the stats lesson though!
Not that impressive wrote:
2:10:27??? LOL!
Lets do this differently then, maybe you will see the light this time. Women are roughly 11% slower than men. For example: Bekele's 12:37 & Diababa's 14:11. Diababa's is 88.95% worth what Bekele's time is. (757 seconds / 851 seconds).
2:30:53 * 89% = 134.39. Approximately 2:14:23 give or take a few seconds. No way in hell her time equates to a 2:10. Thanks for the stats lesson though!
Stop digging your hole deeper. Using percentages, minutes, or seconds off times is making linear comparison, which isn't permissible with two different populations.
stats 101 wrote:
Stop digging your hole deeper. Using percentages, minutes, or seconds off times is making linear comparison, which isn't permissible with two different populations.
How are percentages not a viable way to compare men and women?
percentage diff from WR:
10k: 89.04%
5k: 88.95%
1500: 89.56%
800: 89.38%
My original point was if a guy ran the time that her effort gave her, it wouldn't turn any heads. It isn't worth near what you think it is. Get over it.
Can your brain not comprehend what I just told you? Using percentages is making a linear comparison, which isn't a correct method to use when comparing two different populations. Her 2:30 equates to 2:10, end of story.
stats 101 wrote:
Can your brain not comprehend what I just told you? Using percentages is making a linear comparison, which isn't a correct method to use when comparing two different populations. Her 2:30 equates to 2:10, end of story.
NO it doesn't, and you have nothing to back it up that makes sense to the highly intelligent. What do you even mean by "equates to," as your numbers don't make sense. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics," and you seem to be unaware of how erroneous your conclusions are.
stats 101 wrote:
Can your brain not comprehend what I just told you? Using percentages is making a linear comparison, which isn't a correct method to use when comparing two different populations. Her 2:30 equates to 2:10, end of story.
That's not the end of story. Your explanation for 2:10 is a depth one NOT an actual physiological equivalence. The two are very different concepts. His method is correct when talking about physiological equivalence.