That's the thing, at mid-level running events (not just marathons, all of them) the gap is HUGE because there are not many competitive women running. If the gap is 10% between men and women at the olympics and they are theoretically trying their darn hardest, shouldn't the gap also be 10% at every other level? It would be this way if men and women tried their hardest. However, the fact that the discrepancy between the two sexes is so vast at all other levels (sub-elite, college, HS, etc) means that something is lacking. Is it biological? Social factors making women not train as much as men in sub-olympic levels? Who knows. I sure as heck don't.I'm not that fast but even in HS I noticed that women runners did NOT train year round like us men did. In college there weren't any women that showed up to the track workouts, etc, etc. Now, a 2:46 should be about a....2:30 for a guy. I'm not trying to bitch about the time standards but just pointing out that there is a discrepancy.
stats matter wrote:
chinocochino wrote:The difference between men and women is *roughly* 10 percent for running events, depending on the distance. If the women's standard is greater than 10% slower than the male standard, then it is unfair.
You don't follow women's marathoning closely, nor do you understand statistics. If you look at any mid-level marathon, the difference is +1 min./mile for woman vs. man. This holds true for any distance. At the elite level, the gap narrows. This has held true forever, and has nothing to do with depth/participation. What does this say to you from a statistical perspective?
And for the record, 2:46:00 for a woman = 2:20:27 for a man.
http://www.slsathletisme.com/Inscriptions/calc.php?lang=1If you're as smart as you think you are, you will find the answer to my question in this calculator's formula, the only statistically valid way to compare genders.