John Wesley Harding wrote:
4:00 men’s mile = 4:10 women’s 1500 seems fair.
I agree with this. I was also thinking what men's time in the mile is equal to a women's sub 4 in the 1500. Only a few US women flirt with sub 4 each year, so I was thinking a men's time of about 3:52 mile would be equivalent.
I'd say that's about right. 4:14 for women in 2019 sits at #214 on the IAAF list. #214 on the men's list is Tim Gorman at 3:40.52, his PR is 3:59. #214 on the men's mile list is 4:08, but the mile isn't run very often on the international circuit. She might be undervaluing the 4:14 by a hair. It might be closer to 4:15.
This post was removed.
ex-runner wrote:
4:36 instead wrote:
I did the same analysis for 3k. Junxia's 8:06 (doped to the gills ofc) is as good as 7:16. 8:16 and 8:18 are as good as 7:22 and 7:24, respectively. I found this spread by looking at elite women's times on the alltime-athletics site. As I explained in my OP; 3:35 and 4:05 are equal, but so are 3:33 and 4:02, and so are 3:30 and 3:57.5. These are all easily findable by looking at those lists. This shows a 50% greater spread among elite women. In fact, the spread may be even greater than 50%; at the top level, there is a huge spread. A full 5 seconds separates the top 20 women all-time (only a little over 2 seconds for the men). Personally, I think this is because the best women were more doped (none of the top men were as doped as the Chinese women in the 90s), but either way, it doesn't exactly support your comment. Until you can provide hard data for your claims, rather than this anecdotal evidence, your argument holds no water.
No, no your maths is completely off. You stated that 4:08 is equivalent to 3:37. Therefore 8:16 is equal to 7:14. It cannot be equivalent to anything else by your method!
You can't just change maths based on statistical analysis of historical performances. A 3k is a 1500 times 2! Komen's 7:20 was two 3:40's. You can't say "actually statistically it was only about equivalent to two 3:41s". That doesn't make any sense!
I will to my argument about participation, a study in northern Ireland found that only 25% or women play any sport at all compared to 43% of men. If you pretend that the women's sport is as deep as the men's sport you are being naïve.
I will to my argument about participation, a study in northern Ireland found that only 25% or women play any sport at all compared to 43% of men. If you pretend that the women's sport is as deep as the men's sport you are being naïve.
And even more critically, a study in the European Union by the COE found that in the 15-24 age bracket, 15% of men take part in sport 5x a week compared to only 8% of women.
So there is roughly half the number of women to men performing sport at a level where they could be competitive.
This sounds crazy
Test4