It seems that men's times much more comptetive with so many more runners...are women's times comparable to men's less competitive?
It seems that men's times much more comptetive with so many more runners...are women's times comparable to men's less competitive?
If a man runs a woman's time he is comptetive with so many more runners. Women are better than men who run comparable less competitive.
Try making this even the slightest bit coherent and someone may know WTF you're talking about.
Pontius wrote:
It seems that men's times much more comptetive with so many more runners...are women's times comparable to men's less competitive?
I think the OP is referring to the level of depth in competition when comparing men to women. Yes, there are runners (Like Radcliffe, Kastor etc.) who run world class times of Sub 2:20, which you could maybe equate to a 2:05ish time for a guy. IMO Radcliffe\'s 2:15 is more impressive than Geb\'s 2:03. However, when you take a step back (to runners running 2:06-2:09 for guys and 2:21 - 2:24 for girls) you notice a huge difference in the amount of athletes achieving those times. There is currently a greater level of depth in men\'s sport, but that gap is being closed.
Use the 10% rule
Men 400 43 flat = 47.3 women
Men 800 1:41 = 1:51.1 women
Men 7:20 3000 = 8:04 Women
12:37 men's 5K = 13:53 women
2:03 Marathon= 2:15:18 women
They are getting close,(actually the Marathon time is the same or better) but overall men are a bit more competitive, especially in the college level. Female college runners can do quite well running 4:20 1500 or 16:15 5K and yet a comparable Male running a 3:45 or 14 minute 5K, will have plenty of competition, even those his times are slightly better to the females performances.
Taking 2:19 for a woman as equivalent to 2:06 for a man:
2:19 - 2:06
2:18 - 2:05
2:17 - 2:04
2:16 - 2:03
2:15 - 2:02
If you look at the number of women and men who have run these times it is clear that men's running is more competitve, and also that Radcliffe's 2:15 is a remarkable outlier. If you subtract Kenyans from the equation then the numbers of men and women at each level are much more equitable as Kenyan men swell the ranks more than their women. Cultural reasons?
Gee, its almost like there are more male competitive runners then female. Add in the fact that many competitive women lose significant training time due to pregnancy (this doesn't necessarily effect thier peak performance just the number of times they are near said performance) and you get........
You don't actually believe in your 10% rule, do you?
If you do, then a 3:38 1500 by a man is equal to a 4:00 for a woman. Tirunesh Dibaba's 29:54 in Beijing is equal to 27:12? Jelimo's 1:54.01 is equal to a 1:43.6 for a man?
I think we can agree that the level of depth is not equivalent between men and women, for a variety of reasons. With that said, don't overstate the case to the point of absurdity.
Well look at poker. What physical limitations does a woman have from being any worse off than a man at poker? Yet how many women are at the final table each year.....
case and point women have it easier.
...and women have smaller brains. And have horrible senses of humor. They have difficulty driving automobiles as well. Oh, and they don't know how to control their emotions and are not very good at shutting the hell up.
Here's my theory. Men are encouraged more, and socially rewarded more, to be good at sports in general. Therefore, there is more depth and competition for men at high levels.
Is there more depth and competition for women in nursing? Probably. Nursing is a more attractive career to women than men, for whatever reason.
Bunz Zero wrote:
Here's my theory. Men are encouraged more, and socially rewarded more, to be good at sports in general. Therefore, there is more depth and competition for men at high levels.
Is there more depth and competition for women in nursing? Probably. Nursing is a more attractive career to women than men, for whatever reason.
I agree that they are socially encouraged more and all that. But I think they just naturally like phsyical activity more... Little boys wrestle, fight, run around etc. Little girls generally don't.
Lantermanc wrote:
... Little boys wrestle, fight, run around etc. Little girls generally don't.
This is a great point.
Also, not only can little boys pee standing up ..... NO HANDS!!!!!!!!!!
Hall of Mirrors wrote:
This is a great point.
Also, not only can little boys pee standing up ..... NO HANDS!!!!!!!!!!
Girls can pee with no hands too. :)
Pace maker... wrote:
Hall of Mirrors wrote:This is a great point.
Also, not only can little boys pee standing up ..... NO HANDS!!!!!!!!!!
Girls can pee with no hands too. :)
but can you AIM!!!!!!
Bunz Zero wrote:
Here's my theory. Men are encouraged more, and socially rewarded more, to be good at sports in general.
Gee, like that theory has only been around since the sixties. How about some original thought? DUH!
Well, sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. The theory may have been around since the sixties, but it doesn't mean it's dumb to use it to answer the OP's question. Maybe the OP's question was dumb, then, since the answer is so obvious, according to you
OK, true enough. But then the answer is that yes, there is more depth in men's running (DUH) but that's because women face more obstacles in athletics, which doesn't necessarily make their times "inferior" since they have to go through more to get at that level. But, yeah, DUH to the whole topic.
Bunz Zero wrote:
Well, sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. The theory may have been around since the sixties, but it doesn't mean it's dumb to use it to answer the OP's question. Maybe the OP's question was dumb, then, since the answer is so obvious, according to you
Could the steroids in birth control act like a PED?
no.