Male eqivalent time for 16:06 5k

14:00

14:00-14:15

The real rule for truly= performances not just frequency of occurrence is 30sec/mile. It is worth a 14:30ish.

SserPrun95 wrote:

The real rule for truly= performances not just frequency of occurrence is 30sec/mile. It is worth a 14:30ish.

Where do you get that from? I'm genuinely curious.

what is the female equivalent to a 16:06 guy (even though he is to slow for anyone to care about)?

If you are going by ability you can subtract about 10-11% of your time which gives you a fairly accurate conversion. So its worth somewhere between a 14:20 - 14:30. By the way if you want to know how I get this conversion, I do so by looking at the world records. For track distance runs all of the Women's world records are about 11% slower than the men's WRs.

10k, 26.29 min/29.53 min = 89.0% (11% slower).

5k, 12.622 min/14.186 min = 89.0% (11% slower)

1500m, 3.433 min/3.841 min = 89.4% (10.6% slower)

800m, 1.6835 min/1.888 min = 89.2% (10.8% slower)

Now note that I said if you go by ability. Because there are fewer competitive female distance runners than competitive male distance runners, slower women can be "elite". This is why a lot of people are saying your time is equivalent to a 14:00, because if you factor in depth of the running a 16 minute women's 5k probably would rank you in the same place as 14 minute male 5k. However, in terms of physical ability, I would say the 14 male 5k is better than a 16 female 5k.

Women are roughly 9-12% slower than men across all distances at the top levels (look at all the world records). So a 16:06 for a woman would be roughly 14:22-14:45 for a guy. The person who guessed 14:30 basically got it right, but for the wrong reason.

If, as a coach, I was given the choice to coach a woman with 16:06 talent or a male with 14:30 talent I would choose the female every time though b/c even though the times are roughly equal women's running isn't as deep so that female would likely consistently finish higher in races than would the male.

the female wrs are largely skewed by outliers on drugs. a better analysis would be to average, say, the top 10 times of all time to somewhat lessen the impact of tainted female performances. i understand that the male top times also could be tainted but they don't have 1 person with a wr much better than anyone else.

This holds true for 200m-10k. The 100m, 60m, marathon, and 100k are generally in the 5-8% slower range. Basically women do best in the extreme events. The short races don't reach top spead until close to the end, and women are just better at extreme long distance where pain tolerance becomes a greater factor than pure speed/endurance.

captainwildcat wrote:

Women are roughly 9-12% slower than men across all distances at the top levels (look at all the world records). So a 16:06 for a woman would be roughly 14:22-14:45 for a guy. The person who guessed 14:30 basically got it right, but for the wrong reason.

If, as a coach, I was given the choice to coach a woman with 16:06 talent or a male with 14:30 talent I would choose the female every time though b/c even though the times are roughly equal women's running isn't as deep so that female would likely consistently finish higher in races than would the male.

No the womens' 5k record is definitely not drugged. Are you seriously claiming that Dibaba is doping? that is also 11%. Averaging the top 10 in each event would certainly bias the men and there are much fewer female runners who train competitively.

[quote]mathias wrote:

This holds true for 200m-10k. The 100m, 60m, marathon, and 100k are generally in the 5-8% slower range. Basically women do best in the extreme events. The short races don't reach top spead until close to the end, and women are just better at extreme long distance where pain tolerance becomes a greater factor than pure speed/endurance.

[quote]

Check your math.

Men's 100m WR = 9.58

Women's 100m WR = 10.49

10.49/9.58 = 1.094 or ~9% slower for women

this is of course assuming the women's record is legit. I'm not talking about drugs here I'm talking about wind. using 10.61 (Flo-Jo's next best time)

10.61/9.58 = 1.1075 or ~10.8% slower for women

Men's marathon WR = 2:03:59

Women's marathon WR = 2:15:25

8125/7439 = 1.092 or ~9% slower for women

Since Paula's WR was ran with male pacers some people prefer her 2:17:18

8238/7439 = 1.107 or ~10.7% slower for women

I don't believe you can take to much from the 60m records or the 100K record b/c those races (especially the ultra events) just don't have the depth or the level of athletes that the "standard" events have.

However, If you really want to look at the 100K record you should look at 50K record and see that the women's record is ~15% slower or the 24 hour run record and see that the men's record is 303.56Km and the women's record is 254.425 or ~19% slower for women.

the 800, 1500 and 10000 WRs all were set by druggies. that's 3 of the 4 data points. apparently math is not your strong suit if you think that having 3 of the 4 data points is no big deal.

16:06 is 1038 points according to the 2011 IAAF scoring table.

1038 is 13:48 for men. Not sure why you say 14:30. I was going to say 14 flat before I looked it up.

3k 5k 10k pts.

9:20.60 16:06.57 33:57.66 1038 (women)

8:03.12 13:48.73 29:02.54 1038 (men)

Page 6 of the 2011 IAAF Scoring Tables:

"Due to obvious biological differences, it is not proposed to fully compare men's and women's

performances. Thus, the system contains scoring tables for men's and women's events respectively."

tough question. Females who run 16:06 are decent and males who run 14:06 suck so maybe two minutes is about right for this figure.

From a statistical standpoint, it might be a good question to ask, how many women can run 16:06 compared to how many men can run ~14:30?

I would say that 13:50 for a guy is equivalent to 16:05 for a girl.

What about age-grading? For a 21 yo female, 16:06 is 89.34%. The equivalent 89.34% for a 21 yo male is 14:31.

A 14:06 5K male "sucks"? Seriously?