Does a 1:15.55 1/2 by Liz Yelling warrant BBC press??

is a 1:07= to a 1:20??

is a 14:00= to a 16:30??

How do you come up with these equivalents??

What determines "quality"?

Well, that's the problem right there. It's somewhat subjective.

It's "quality" in the sense that it's faster than anyone else could do. But it's not "quality" in the sense that it's not (at least the time itself) on the same level as the faster runners are doing. The top level women (Noguchi, Okayo, Radcliffe) are all at around 1:08 or so in the half. 30 seconds per mile is quite a long way off the pace.

But one could argue for percentiles. For example, most people would probably agree that Roger Bannisters sub 4:00 (on minimal training, by modern standards) was every bit as "quality" as the numerous sub 3:50 miles that followed it.

The gap between men and women appears to narrow the quicker the times and the higher the quality (as illustrated by comparing the % differences in world records). The men's times taper off, and a few women defy the normal gap.

Yes, but this is symptomatic of womens competitive fields that lack depth. Which is symptomatic of a less female participation in serious competitive running. For example, the competitive running clubs are overall mostly male. There are some coed clubs, which mostly have large, deep male teams across all age groups, yet struggle to put together a womens team in older age groups (and even the womens open teams tend not to be as deep as the mens)

The reason that the gap at elite levels tapers off is that runners like Kastor and Radcliffe train as hard as the top men. I don't think this is true at lower levels of competition -- there are simply less women who are doing serious competitive training. The women who do train as hard as the men, tend to run comparable performances on the WAVA metric (or vastly better better performances on the calculator you're using).

no... wrote:

is a 1:07= to a 1:20??

is a 14:00= to a 16:30??

How do you come up with these equivalents??

That's what I perceive as comparable, and from looking at race results, this is usually the gap between the male and female winners. From taking a look at the NCAA Indoor Provisional Qualifying times in the 5K....

16:46.6-- women

14:16.9-- men

This gap, based on provisional times, more closely resembles what I perceive as comparable than what you perceive (which you said as being 17 min. for a female vs 15 min. for a male).

And I agree, quality is somewhat subjective (especially from varying gender perspectives), regardless of participation.

Did she run it naked?

That's what I perceive as comparable, and from looking at race results

But what is the basis for your perception that those are comparable ?

One standard I would consider fair would be the outcoming of the following thought experiment : give a random group of men and women did the same training, and take percentiles from those groups.

The women in my team who do the same training as the men run about 40 seconds a mile or so slower than their male counterparts (that is, they are comparable in terms of WAVA scores)

Basically, I think there are many more men than women who run 70+ mile weeks on a regular basis. I think if there were as many women running high milage and doing serious training, the depth of womens competitive fields would increase considerably.

This gap, based on provisional times, more closely resembles what I perceive as comparable than what you perceive

Qualifying standards always reflect the realities of participation rates and the depth of competitive fields. The times are ultimately based on percentiles, so if you don't accept percentiles as a measure of quality, then this doesn't mean a whole lot.

I wonder if you guys do this with every news story.

"Eight die in train crash in Thailand"

"You know, eight deaths in Thailand is equal to 33 deaths in the United States. It's certainly a valid story."

"Qualifying standards always reflect the realities of participation rates and the depth of competitive fields."

Would that this were true. Qualifying standards reflect all sorts of things, almost all of which are political in nature. Commonwealth Games standards for example reflect a wish (in some countries) for the athletes, male or female, to reach the top eight (and are based on some kind of average over the last four Games). Others, such as last year's Olympic Marathon, seemed to reflect a desire for a larger field in Greece's most 'traditional' event. Certainly 2:15 compared with the 27:49 10k shows this, though the 10 and 5k also, as with some field events, reflect a 'political' will for straight finals or fewer heats. Respondents above who identified the differences in depth between elite men and women were certainly correct.

You have to compare percentiles really though if you want a true standard of performance. Entry standards for games are dependent on this, and so on. Everything has to be in it's setting, in context.

For example, 2:40 for a women's marathon 50 years ago would have been OUTSTANDING, made national papers. 2:30 these days is not going to make much of an impact.

Maybe 20 years ago a 2:17 run by a guy would've placed him 20th in a certain marathon. now it may win it.

That makes what Liz Yelling did much rarer, and rairty makes news stories.

IMO, someone running 2:17 right now is worse than someone running 2:17 decades ago as with developments in sports science they should be running better now!

What 'developments' are these then? Current generations exercises too little and eats too much and obsessed with low mileage, rest and recovery? There is too much reliance on sports psychologists an physios and nutritionists. Modern training shoes hinder more than help. People have no patience and want instant results NOW.