True or false: Sonia O'Sullivan: Based on numbers a 4 minute mile for men is equivalent to a 4:14 1500 for women (4:34 mile)

Statistically, perhaps, but in biological reality, probably more like 4:30M/4:10@1500. Recent high school girls and the current glut of U.S. women under 4:05 have evidenced this.

Women's depth isn't there, so the stats are relatively weak. We've seen this forever with NCAA recruiting.

I've always used the 10 sec per lap rule for conversion. A 49 400m male is equal to a 59 400m female. A 1:50 800m is equal to a 2:10 800m female. A 4:00 mile male is equal to a 4:40 mile female. Works for almost every distance. It's a quick way to compare.

Would be smarter to compare over the last 10-15 years when women's running was more competitive. In the 1954 - 1970s women's distance running wasn't really a thing.

Def Do Dis wrote:

I've always used the 10 sec per lap rule for conversion. A 49 400m male is equal to a 59 400m female. A 1:50 800m is equal to a 2:10 800m female. A 4:00 mile male is equal to a 4:40 mile female. Works for almost every distance. It's a quick way to compare.

It doesn't work.

400

43.03 - 47.60 (4.57 secs per lap)

800

1:40.91 - 1:53.28 (6.19 secs per lap)

Mile

3:43.13 - 4:12.23 (7.28 secs per lap)

YMMV wrote:

Statistically, perhaps, but in biological reality, probably more like 4:30M/4:10@1500. Recent high school girls and the current glut of U.S. women under 4:05 have evidenced this.

Women's depth isn't there, so the stats are relatively weak. We've seen this forever with NCAA recruiting.

Yeah if you look at only the. top 25 or so, you come up with numbers more in the 4:25-4:30 range. I would go with 4:10/4:30 if I had to put numbers on it. Thinking that a 4:00 1500m and a 4:00 mile are the same is obviously way to hard on the woman. Worry about if the real number is 4:30 or 4:34 isn't worth the time.

I agree with 4:35 being a 4:00 equivalent. It’s difficult to compare men and women’s distance running, because there are a few women way ahead that skew things. A woman running 4:34 will have about the same amount of success on the road circuit as a man running 3:59. She may even have more. A woman running 4:34 in college likely has a better shot at All American than a man running 3:59. I’ve seen some people say the comparison should be 4:30 and 4:00, but I think that’s way off due to the fact a woman running 4:29 at her best is going to have a lot more success compared to her peers than a man running 3:59 at best.

In my opinion these times are comparable:

5:10m, 6:05f

5:00m, 5:50f

4:40m, 5:25f

4:30m, 5:12f

4:20m, 5:00f

4:10m, 4:47f

4:05m, 4:40f

4:00m, 4:35f

3:57m, 4:30f

3:53m, 4:22f

3:50m, 4:19f

3:45m, 4:14f

Also depends on what happens long term on regulating T levels in order to compete in women’s events.

This is the most realistic comparison listed

I would say 4:36. It’s relatively easy to do a comparison like this by looking at the 1500m all-time lists on all-time athletics. With some quick analysis, we can learn two things; a 3:35 1500 for a man is equal to a 4:05 1500 for a woman, and women have roughly a 50% greater spread than men. To prove this; women in the 2600s are running 4:04.99 (the last time on the list). Men in the 2600s are running 3:35.0. This proves the first part. Additionally, roughly 1000th place for the men is 3:33.0. Roughly 1000th place for the women is 4:02.0. This proves the second part. Both are backed up by the fact that roughly 100th place for men is 3:30.0, and roughly 100th place for women is 3:57.5. This fits within our current model.

Now, a 4:00 mile is generally considered equivalent to a 3:42 1500 (and I’d say this is a very accurate equivalency. 3:42 is 7 seconds slower than 3:35. Multiply this by 1.5 to get 10.5 (this accounts for the larger spread found in females). You add this to 4:05.0 to get 4:15.5. Using a standard converter, this converts to 4:35.94 in the mile, or essentially 4:36.

She got it pretty close. Maybe 5-10s faster as more & more women are running elite times. Look at the world records- 3:43 to 4:12. ~ 30 seconds off from one another. Sub-4:30 is probably about right. A sub-4:30 woman and a sub-4 man are both elite athletes but way off from being a serious medal contender. Both need to run 10ish seconds faster to be top caliber.

I don't get why we need to always be comparing. I think it's fair that sub-4 is still a big deal for men & that there really isn't similar excitement for women hitting an equivalent mark when sub-4 doesn't put you at the top of the sport. People don't treat sub-4:30 in the same way for women.

My HS school records are both about 20 seconds back of that (and we have 200 ppl at our HS so don't roast us) with the boys record at 4:21 and the girls at 4: 57ish, i think, so that seems about right

kingojamin wrote:

Would be smarter to compare over the last 10-15 years when women's running was more competitive. In the 1954 - 1970s women's distance running wasn't really a thing.

Agree. Using historical data is faux science. Track men and women last 15 years.

In that time frame I am sure more women have run way more sub 4:35 than male equivalent.

So Mary Cain ran 3:50.22 mile in high school. Plus Emma Abrahamson. Plus many other HS girls.

mahmood wrote:

kingojamin wrote:

Would be smarter to compare over the last 10-15 years when women's running was more competitive. In the 1954 - 1970s women's distance running wasn't really a thing.

Agree. Using historical data is faux science. Track men and women last 15 years.

In that time frame I am sure more women have run way more sub 4:35 than male equivalent.

So Mary Cain ran 3:50.22 mile in high school. Plus Emma Abrahamson. Plus many other HS girls.

top 10 woman

4:24.19+ *Cain 2013

4:26.82+ *Efraimson 2014

4:26.99+ *Murphy 2016

4:28.61+ Aragon 2016

4:31.03+ Cranny 2014

4:32.83+ Rainsberger 2016

4:33.87 Tuohy 2018

4:34.44+ Donaghu 2016

4:34.86+ *Hasay 2008

4:35.24 Plumer

3:53.43 Webb 2001

3:55.3 Ryun 1965

3:57.81i Hunter 2016

3:59.30 Brown 2017

3:59.38 Maton 2015

3:59.38 Fisher 2015

3:59.4 Danielson 1966

3:59.53 Slagowski 2016

3:59.71 Verzbicas’ 2011

3:59.8 Liquori

Looks to me that calling a 4:35 a 4 min mile matches up pretty good. And yes Cain was better than Webb on the global scene in HS so a 3:50 mile sounds bout right.

The 4:00 mile is 17 seconds slower than the world record, so that would make 4:29-30 the equivalent. The 1,500 is 3:50 which would probably be equal to about. 4:08. Add :17 to that and you have 4:25. So probably somewhere in between.

It won't be changing all that much but I think one should use the 1500m for such statistical comparisons. The mile is raced not frequently enough nowadays, especially not in Europe, so many people have comparably weaker times in the mile as they hardly ever run it compared to the 1500.

4:34 is too slow.

A more accurate estimate for the 1500/mile is 12% slower than men.

So 4:28 mile is a 4:00 equivalent.

It is reasonable to say sub 4:30 for women is sub 4 for men.

Other elite 1500 times using this formula:

3:26 = 3:51

3:30 = 3:55

3:35 = 4:01

women's running is, in general, very soft.

The thing is, historically far fewer women have competed in sports, so if O'Sullivan is using equivalent numbers of women, it amounts to watering down the standard. Can't base standard on equivalent numbers unless the amount of attempts is similar. Women's 1500m only became an Olympic event in 1972 while men's mile record goes back to mid-19th century so no valid comparison.

The best cross-age-sex calculator says 4:31.5 = 4:00

http://www.mastersathletics.net/index.php?id=2595