I refuse to advertise Competitor Group Races anymore because they stopped giving prize money. Runners should not give their performance away for free.
I love the Blue Collar runner. I think anybody should be able to train to win or place in a US championship with a full time job and no sponsorship.
Who am I?
I'm a former teammate of Mary Decker in the 70s. She worked at restaurants and still ran American and World records. Ruth Wysocki also worked full time and ran near 4 flat in the 1500. I think it was an office job.
The generation that I come from had no sponsors. But they ran like hell. No excuses.
Guess Who wrote:
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.
I've done the statistics on the IAAF ranked performances for several years. You're welcome to take the time and do the same. This is stats 101- when comparing two populations, one assumption that must be met to make a linear comparison is for both populations to follow a normal distribution. This assumption is violated when comparing men's and women's times because women's times drop off more drastically/more skewed to the right (for whatever reason). Thus, you have to use a non-parametric method, such as rank ordering times. I've looked at the times for several years (and the Mercier calculator does the same thing). Men's and women's depth are improving at the same rate, so there's still an equivalent match up of times (2:10 equals 2:30).
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.
No, the word choice you should use is "theoretical", not physiological. Physiologically, women are a more diverse and less homogenous population than men, which creates a completely different distribution and why you have to use a non-parametric method for comparison (hence rank ordering). As mentioned, both men and women's depth are improving at the same rate, and times are still matching up the same.
stats 101 wrote:
Guess Who wrote: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.
I've done the statistics on the IAAF ranked performances for several years. You're welcome to take the time and do the same. This is stats 101- when comparing two populations, one assumption that must be met to make a linear comparison is for both populations to follow a normal distribution. This assumption is violated when comparing men's and women's times because women's times drop off more drastically/more skewed to the right (for whatever reason). Thus, you have to use a non-parametric method, such as rank ordering times. I've looked at the times for several years (and the Mercier calculator does the same thing). Men's and women's depth are improving at the same rate, so there's still an equivalent match up of times (2:10 equals 2:30).
NO, it does NOT. The problem I have with you is that if there were 3 women marathoners in the world and one ran 2:15, another ran 3:15 and another 4:15, you would use that as your data sample to convert and rank male/female performances. It is misleading and not accurate. It is one method, and highly unsatisfying to the highly intelligent.
He's saying her performance is as good for a woman as a 2:10 would be for a man. Look at some marathon results and you'll see that he's right.
That the woman's event isn't as competitive as the men's has no bearing, and the fact that you think a woman's 2:31 is equivalent to a man's 2:18 speaks volumes on your ignorance. A 2:31 female is much more competitive on the world stage than a 2:18 male.
Take 2012 Chicago for an example. 2:31 would get you 9th place as a woman; 2:18 would get you 23rd as a man.
Guess Who wrote:
NO, it does NOT. The problem I have with you is that if there were 3 women marathoners in the world and one ran 2:15, another ran 3:15 and another 4:15, you would use that as your data sample to convert and rank male/female performances. It is misleading and not accurate. It is one method, and highly unsatisfying to the highly intelligent.
To be exact, for the 4 years I examined there's between 467-601 ranked performances (depth improving each year and times continue to match up). I'd say this is a reasonable sample. To call yourself "highly intelligent" makes you sound like a troll. I'll call your bluff.
stats 101 wrote:
Guess Who wrote:NO, it does NOT. The problem I have with you is that if there were 3 women marathoners in the world and one ran 2:15, another ran 3:15 and another 4:15, you would use that as your data sample to convert and rank male/female performances. It is misleading and not accurate. It is one method, and highly unsatisfying to the highly intelligent.
To be exact, for the 4 years I examined there's between 467-601 ranked performances (depth improving each year and times continue to match up). I'd say this is a reasonable sample. To call yourself "highly intelligent" makes you sound like a troll. I'll call your bluff.
It doesn't really matter. IF you were to compare the top one of each gender against a 2:30 or 2:10 marathoner, you'd have a completely different result, and the 2:30 female marathoner would be obviously inferior to the 2:10 male, and that is more meaningful to me then your palpably flawed method.
You're grading on a curve in which most of the women aren't very good, perhaps some have too many curves, but those are the facts.
I don't understand how you can compare rankings directly. If, for example, there are twice as many competitive male athletes as competitive female athletes, then the #100 female performance should be "equivalent" (in this sense) to the #200 male performance. You can't just match up #100 to #100.
Now I don't know, maybe the number of male and female competitive athletes is the same, in which case perhaps lining them up one-to-one makes sense. I don't even know how "competitive" should be defined, but I do think it is a necessary qualifier to avoid skewing comparisons too much by the tails. Recreational joggers, male or female, shouldn't be counted. (Obviously no comparison is going to be perfect, or perhaps even close.)
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.
How is he not comprehending? What he is saying is that the equivalent performance from male to female is 2:31->2:14:XX. Stop being butt hurt because somebody uses a different comparison than you do.
stats 101 wrote:
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.No, the word choice you should use is "theoretical", not physiological. Physiologically, women are a more diverse and less homogenous population than men, which creates a completely different distribution and why you have to use a non-parametric method for comparison (hence rank ordering). As mentioned, both men and women's depth are improving at the same rate, and times are still matching up the same.
No, the two of you are talking about two different kinds of rankings. His is a physiological one. Yours is a rank one (at least that's how it sounds from skimming your comments).
In your system, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that the 10th best women's time is equal to the 10th best man's time. No matter the actual time. This method is faulty and inaccurate because women's running is less competitive. Just because you're the 10th fastest woman in the world that year doesn't automatically mean you're as good as the 10th fastest male.
In his system, he's taking into account how close to the world record they are.
Relative ranking vs an absolute ranking.
Badass! Reminds me a little of Phil Coppess, who still holds the men's record. With all this talk of equivalent times, coincidentally, he ran a 2:10.
Hopeful Runner wrote:
How is he not comprehending? What he is saying is that the equivalent performance from male to female is 2:31->2:14:XX. Stop being butt hurt because somebody uses a different comparison than you do.
No, his comparison can't be used because, again, it's violates the assumption of comparing two normal populations. He'd flunk Statistics, if he even took it at all.
No, the two of you are talking about two different kinds of rankings. His is a physiological one. Yours is a rank one (at least that's how it sounds from skimming your comments).
In your system, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that the 10th best women's time is equal to the 10th best man's time. No matter the actual time. This method is faulty and inaccurate because women's running is less competitive. Just because you're the 10th fastest woman in the world that year doesn't automatically mean you're as good as the 10th fastest male.
No, his method would assume the women's population follows the same normal distribution, and it clearly doesn't, so it can't be applied. His method is theoretical and doesn't reflect reality. As mentioned, men's and women's depth is improving at the same rate, so the times are still matching up exactly the same, yet this skewedness still exists.
Don't you think we're tired of hearing about kids who grew up w/o electricity and running water making it Silicon Valley striking riches at Social Media startups. Get over it.
I am pretty sure "MR. FR@GGY" did not go through med school, or even a prestigious undergrad. Nice try, bucko. Enjoy your mid tier liberal arts degree.
I hope she gets the flexibility at work to eat a lot of snacks and meals
the MF Chronic wrote:
I am pretty sure "MR. FR@GGY" did not go through med school, or even a prestigious undergrad. Nice try, bucko. Enjoy your mid tier liberal arts degree.
Criticism from a pot head who lives in is mama's basement and sniff her undies to get off. LOL
stats 101 wrote:
No, his method would assume the women's population follows the same normal distribution, and it clearly doesn't, so it can't be applied. His method is theoretical and doesn't reflect reality. As mentioned, men's and women's depth is improving at the same rate, so the times are still matching up exactly the same, yet this skewedness still exists.
Its obvious you are a troll - Women's depth is not improving at the same rate as men's.
random numbers to include or ignore:
Clayton went sub 2:10 in '69
Waitz went sub 2:30 in '79