wow seriously...? wrote:
I see this mistake all the time on Letsrun, but you cannot compare men and women's times like this because the difference is not linear but exponential. One reason for this is that many of the top women have straighter bodies (less curves), i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them an advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.
THIS. Everyone read this post.
If the women's field has less depth because for instance too many women are curvy then the women's field in the OT should be smaller. This is so obvious but its politically untenable
sadly..... wrote:
ww seriously...? wrote:[/bI see this mistake all the time on Letsrun, but you cannot compare men and women's times like this because the difference is not linear but exponential. One reason for this is that many of the top women have straighter bodies (less curves), i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them an advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.
THIS. Everyone read this post.
Facts are cruel.
That article doesn't make any assumption as to why the women's performances fall off relative to the men's the farther down the depth charts we look. It just gives the hard numbers - the top 25 or so women's marks are 12% to 13% slower the the corresponding men's marks and for whatever reason, the quality of women's performances falls off markedly when we get well into the 100s on the depth chart (or to the 25th to 50th performers in the USA). The article doesn't say women aren't trying enough (if you thought that was implied, you're just looking for something to be offended about). Nor does it say we should expect a greater disparity in women's marks because of greater disparity in women's body types (hip width, etc.) or that participation at the professional level is much lower among women. It's just the fact that women's running is not as deep time-wise (no mention of the degree of effort being put forth, or any other variable) and standards for the Trials and other events are lower relative to the times of the super-elites as a result.
The women's WR is 9.53% slower than the men's WR. The 25th-best women's time (2:21:45) is 12.83% slower than the 25th-best men's time (2:05:38). The 100th-best women's time is 13.65% slower than the 100th-best men's time. The deep lists on tilastopaja.org have the 620th women's performance at 2:30:31 (that's as far down as that list goes) and the 620th men's performance at 2:10:08. This women's mark is 15.66% slower than the companion men's mark.
So the women's times do drop off relative to the really awesome marks as we look at the "regular" elites and the sub-elites. Perhaps the women's distribution curve exhibits platykurtosis (a flatter bell curve due to a larger standard deviation) or skewness. But we don't know for sure why it does. And anybody who says we should expect this result due to variation in hip width is making an assumption equally guilty of circular reasoning as the guy who says the 500th-best female "should" be 13% slower than the 500th-best male. We don't know if the dropoff in marks is due to hip width discrepancies (resulting in fewer super-elite body types) any more than we know it might be due to lower participation/incentives or - dare we say it? - even due to a bunch of potentially elite women not putting in the work necessary to be their best. That might actually be the case, you know.
Speaking of hip width, how do we know if there aren't equally limiting physical characteristics that are just as widely distributed among the population of male runners and yet the "disadvantaged" ones still manage to run closer to the WR than their wide-hipped female counterparts do?
Feeling "slighted" because somebody points out that women's running isn't as deep as men's running doesn't change the truth of it any more than it would if a barely national class American male marathoner complained when somebody pointed out how much slower the 50th-best US man is than the 50th-best Kenyan. It's just a fact.
Osmond Portifoy wrote:
Facts are cruel.
That article doesn't make any assumption as to why the women's performances fall off relative to the men's the farther down the depth charts we look. It just gives the hard numbers - the top 25 or so women's marks are 12% to 13% slower the the corresponding men's marks and for whatever reason, the quality of women's performances falls off markedly when we get well into the 100s on the depth chart (or to the 25th to 50th performers in the USA). The article doesn't say women aren't trying enough (if you thought that was implied, you're just looking for something to be offended about). Nor does it say we should expect a greater disparity in women's marks because of greater disparity in women's body types (hip width, etc.) or that participation at the professional level is much lower among women. It's just the fact that women's running is not as deep time-wise (no mention of the degree of effort being put forth, or any other variable) and standards for the Trials and other events are lower relative to the times of the super-elites as a result.
The women's WR is 9.53% slower than the men's WR. The 25th-best women's time (2:21:45) is 12.83% slower than the 25th-best men's time (2:05:38). The 100th-best women's time is 13.65% slower than the 100th-best men's time. The deep lists on tilastopaja.org have the 620th women's performance at 2:30:31 (that's as far down as that list goes) and the 620th men's performance at 2:10:08. This women's mark is 15.66% slower than the companion men's mark.
So the women's times do drop off relative to the really awesome marks as we look at the "regular" elites and the sub-elites. Perhaps the women's distribution curve exhibits platykurtosis (a flatter bell curve due to a larger standard deviation) or skewness. But we don't know for sure why it does. And anybody who says we should expect this result due to variation in hip width is making an assumption equally guilty of circular reasoning as the guy who says the 500th-best female "should" be 13% slower than the 500th-best male. We don't know if the dropoff in marks is due to hip width discrepancies (resulting in fewer super-elite body types) any more than we know it might be due to lower participation/incentives or - dare we say it? - even due to a bunch of potentially elite women not putting in the work necessary to be their best. That might actually be the case, you know.
Speaking of hip width, how do we know if there aren't equally limiting physical characteristics that are just as widely distributed among the population of male runners and yet the "disadvantaged" ones still manage to run closer to the WR than their wide-hipped female counterparts do?
Feeling "slighted" because somebody points out that women's running isn't as deep as men's running doesn't change the truth of it any more than it would if a barely national class American male marathoner complained when somebody pointed out how much slower the 50th-best US man is than the 50th-best Kenyan. It's just a fact.
THIS. Everyone read this post. It's much better than the other one everyone should read.
give us a break wrote:
Come on, letsrun. Why this sudden rant about how easy the women's marathon standards are for the trials?
I can't believe that not a single person disagreed with the fundamental assumption of this initial post.
There's nothing sudden about it. People complain EVERY four years about how much easier it is to make the women's olympic trials marathon. How is this year different?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Men have a wider distribution curve with more outliers on any number of measures of human endeavor.
could you give some examples and explanations, Mr. Obvious. And of course add some pictures of the women.
Oh good frickin gracious. Let's look at the 250th best time for men and women, 2:07:55 and 2:25:33, respectively. The former would be just under a mile back from the world best (3.5% slower) and the latter would be just under 2 miles back (7.6% slower). It's not that difficult, people!4 of the top 20 women's times are East African. 20 of the top 20 men's times are East African. 2:43 is the IAAF B standard, so they consider it an elite time. I'll take their opinion over yours.
Okay for hobbyjoggers wrote:
Why is it insulting to have tough standards? I find it insulting to women to have easy standards. Sure it is tough to run sub 2:46. You know what's even tougher? Finishing within a mile or even 2 of the winner. A 2:46 runner is probably 3 if not 4 miles back of the winner at the end of the race. That's not at all competitive. Sure a few of these women get to experience something pretty neat making the OT. But the Olympics is about the best, not the pretty good. I think 2:43 is still pretty weak in all honesty. Someone who has only demonstrated 2:43 has no chance to make an Olympic team in this country.
The hard reality is any man over 2:20 and woman over 2:40 is a hobby jogger. I'm not saying it isn't difficult to run 2:21 OR 2:41, and I sure as hell can't run either. But we're talking about the Olympics here. Best of the best, not who can go top 20 at CIM or whatever.
Jenny Spangler. Won the 1996 trials. Ranked 61st. Your statement is speculative and non-factual.
A little confused then wrote:
Well so what? Why let 200 people run in the national championships when only maybe the top 25 and at most the top 40 have a chance at a top 10 finish?
I would agree that a woman who can run 2:40 is a great runner. I would stop short of saying this woman is national championship caliber.
http://www.marathonguide.com/news/exclusives/2012USAOlympicTeamTrialsMarathon/QualifierLists/CreateReports.cfm?Order=IndividualRank&Sex=FSee what I'm saying? The top 24 are all 2:35 or better. How does 2:43 play here? That's 1.5 miles out of the top 24.
kanny wrote:
Oh good frickin gracious. Let's look at the 250th best time for men and women, 2:07:55 and 2:25:33, respectively. The former would be just under a mile back from the world best (3.5% slower) and the latter would be just under 2 miles back (7.6% slower). It's not that difficult, people!
4 of the top 20 women's times are East African. 20 of the top 20 men's times are East African. 2:43 is the IAAF B standard, so they consider it an elite time. I'll take their opinion over yours.
You've clearly demonstrated the relative lack of depth in women's marathoning, but I don't think that's what you were trying to show?
Every human alive that knows the slightest thing about real running knows a 219 is Four times harder to run than a 243. Are men FOUR times faster ? ...
Man wrote:
Every human alive that knows the slightest thing about real running knows a 219 is Four times harder to run than a 243. Are men FOUR times faster ? ...
Are you drunk?