Someone pull the data. Sure, we have scoring tables. But I'd like to see these raw numbers per event. Would help contextualize the women's 2:09 marathon vs. the women's WR in the 1500m or 400m, etc.
Bonus points for normalizing the data--e.g., only counting performances in meets of a certain minimum standard, accounting for number of attempts, etc.
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
The thing about the marathon is that the new women’s WR is only 7.7% slower than the men’s. Until recently, it had been in the 10-11% range.
Someone pull the data. Sure, we have scoring tables. But I'd like to see these raw numbers per event. Would help contextualize the women's 2:09 marathon vs. the women's WR in the 1500m or 400m, etc.
Bonus points for normalizing the data--e.g., only counting performances in meets of a certain minimum standard, accounting for number of attempts, etc.
I'm too lazy to do it.
High school boys run under Florence Griffith Joyner’s 100/200 world records each and every year. And those are the most blatantly obvious drug records in all of sports, in my opinion.
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
The thing about the marathon is that the new women’s WR is only 7.7% slower than the men’s. Until recently, it had been in the 10-11% range.
When Paula Radcliffe set the world record in 2003, she was only 7.8% slower than the men's record at the time.
For 10 years, from 2003 all the way until 2013 actually (in the face of new mens records from Tergat, Gebrselassie x 2, Makau, and Kipsang), Radcliffe's womens world record was maintained faster than the 10% lower marker you mention above.
Records at the time of Radcliffe were
Kahlid Khannouchi: April 14, 2002, 2:05:38 Paula Radcliffe: April 13, 2003, 2:15:25
I have many people in my contact list who have run faster than the women's world record for 1500m.
I don't have any friends who have run sub-2:10 in the marathon. I can rustle up a couple 2:18 guys from the 1990s, but that is not cutting it these days.
That is why I think the 2:09 is so, so much more insane than the 3:50.
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
Thanks for pulling that, interesting to see how there seems to be a general trend of less men as events get longer. It might seem that the performance gap between men and women is more pronounced for raw speed/power than it is for endurance. I think this may be the case as the number of men does not correlate to the difficulty of the women's WR, i.e. the women's 800 is one of the most ridiculous records in the books yet high school boys routinely beat it despite that not being the case of some of the relatively softer long distance WRs
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
Thanks for pulling that, interesting to see how there seems to be a general trend of less men as events get longer. It might seem that the performance gap between men and women is more pronounced for raw speed/power than it is for endurance. I think this may be the case as the number of men does not correlate to the difficulty of the women's WR, i.e. the women's 800 is one of the most ridiculous records in the books yet high school boys routinely beat it despite that not being the case of some of the relatively softer long distance WRs
I think you have to also factor in the level of training.
There are men (and boys) who can run sub-1:53 off less than 20 mpw. No one is running a 2:09 marathon off raw talent alone. Only people who seriously apply themselves to running are going to achieve the times from 5k up.
This has to account for some of the trend. I'm not saying that the longer distance times are harder, just that they require more training time (which is going to shrink the pool).
Thanks for pulling that, interesting to see how there seems to be a general trend of less men as events get longer. It might seem that the performance gap between men and women is more pronounced for raw speed/power than it is for endurance. I think this may be the case as the number of men does not correlate to the difficulty of the women's WR, i.e. the women's 800 is one of the most ridiculous records in the books yet high school boys routinely beat it despite that not being the case of some of the relatively softer long distance WRs
I think you have to also factor in the level of training.
There are men (and boys) who can run sub-1:53 off less than 20 mpw. No one is running a 2:09 marathon off raw talent alone. Only people who seriously apply themselves to running are going to achieve the times from 5k up.
This has to account for some of the trend. I'm not saying that the longer distance times are harder, just that they require more training time (which is going to shrink the pool).
Following this idea, could it be possible that if this is true that it means that only in the sense of raw talent are men significantly faster, but with enough training the different is much less? (I'm not saying men aren't stronger, just that maybe the difference is not as crazy as some think)
I have many people in my contact list who have run faster than the women's world record for 1500m.
I don't have any friends who have run sub-2:10 in the marathon. I can rustle up a couple 2:18 guys from the 1990s, but that is not cutting it these days.
That is why I think the 2:09 is so, so much more insane than the 3:50.
This seems to work under the assumption that the difference between men and women should be the same across the events as you go from more power-based to more endurance-based. Is there a reason why it should be?
Plus not every young male 3:50 1500m runner progresses on to dedicated marathon training. You would expect a much smaller number to do a 2:09 even if the times were in some way equivalent.
The counts aren’t going to be complete, and there will be a greater discrepancy at shorter events because a 2:09:50 marathoner is more likely to be filed on World Athletics than a 1:53.0 800 runner.
Thanks for pulling that, interesting to see how there seems to be a general trend of less men as events get longer. It might seem that the performance gap between men and women is more pronounced for raw speed/power than it is for endurance. I think this may be the case as the number of men does not correlate to the difficulty of the women's WR, i.e. the women's 800 is one of the most ridiculous records in the books yet high school boys routinely beat it despite that not being the case of some of the relatively softer long distance WRs
I think 800m is the distance where testosterone seems to be the most adventageous. This is why we see so many athletes like Semenya and Niyonsaba in this event (yet we see very few XY DSD athletes with naturally high testosterone levels in other events). Only Niyonsaba has successfully transitioned to the 5k (where she can be a long-shot contendar but nowhere near the level she was at 800). Semenya couldn't even get to a level where she would be competitive at the womens NCAA.
My guess, why 800 and not the sprints. My suspicion is that the 800 is on the cusp between being an arobic and anerobic event. For the men its more anerobic since they are running for only 1:40-1:45 compared to the women who are running closer to 2 min.
Thanks for pulling that, interesting to see how there seems to be a general trend of less men as events get longer. It might seem that the performance gap between men and women is more pronounced for raw speed/power than it is for endurance. I think this may be the case as the number of men does not correlate to the difficulty of the women's WR, i.e. the women's 800 is one of the most ridiculous records in the books yet high school boys routinely beat it despite that not being the case of some of the relatively softer long distance WRs
I think 800m is the distance where testosterone seems to be the most adventageous. This is why we see so many athletes like Semenya and Niyonsaba in this event (yet we see very few XY DSD athletes with naturally high testosterone levels in other events). Only Niyonsaba has successfully transitioned to the 5k (where she can be a long-shot contendar but nowhere near the level she was at 800). Semenya couldn't even get to a level where she would be competitive at the womens NCAA.
My guess, why 800 and not the sprints. My suspicion is that the 800 is on the cusp between being an arobic and anerobic event. For the men its more anerobic since they are running for only 1:40-1:45 compared to the women who are running closer to 2 min.
Yes, I think the difference in a ~104 second race vs a ~118 second race (good pros but not the top, top tier) is huge - those seconds make it much more difficult because of the nature of its event (very high contributions, both aerobic and anaerobic). Not at all a huge difference in a ~57 vs ~62 minute race
I think you have to also factor in the level of training.
There are men (and boys) who can run sub-1:53 off less than 20 mpw. No one is running a 2:09 marathon off raw talent alone. Only people who seriously apply themselves to running are going to achieve the times from 5k up.
This has to account for some of the trend. I'm not saying that the longer distance times are harder, just that they require more training time (which is going to shrink the pool).
Following this idea, could it be possible that if this is true that it means that only in the sense of raw talent are men significantly faster, but with enough training the different is much less?
Huh. No downvotes, and multiple upvotes. I'll put this into perspective a bit more and lets see how much that changes. I bet there will not be a single upvote, and many downvotes. The only changes I made are changing men to trans women (in the eyes of many, trans women are men)
Following this idea, could it be possible that if this is true that it means that only in the sense of raw talent a trans women significantly faster, but with enough training the difference is much less?
Someone pull the data. Sure, we have scoring tables. But I'd like to see these raw numbers per event. Would help contextualize the women's 2:09 marathon vs. the women's WR in the 1500m or 400m, etc.
Bonus points for normalizing the data--e.g., only counting performances in meets of a certain minimum standard, accounting for number of attempts, etc.
I'm too lazy to do it.
The actual number of men capable of running women’s world records is probably 100x the amount of men who have actually done it.
Let’s say for example a HS girl runs a 4:25 mile. In the women’s racing, she gets a full scholarship to a great college program. And then likely has post collegiate opportunities. So you’re a 4:25 miler gets at least 10 years of world class training. If you are a 4:25 miler as male in HS, your career is pretty much over at 18.
I was amazed that all of our women’s 1500m Olympics ran in the 4:40s in HS.
