The fastest girl on my team runs an 11:06 3200m and she says that is way more impressive than my 9:41 3200m. Everyone else agrees with her, but I feel like the reason is because she is the 3rd fastest in our state while I rank around 10. But compared to the rest of the nation, I would think we are close.
Her time is more impressive. I'm not sure which state you live in, but in a lot of states 9:41 wouldn't even get you to the state meet. 11:06 for a girl is going to be good enough just about anywhere.
I'd say an equivalent boy's time would be about 9:25 or so.
I say those are about equal; 9:41 may even be a little better. In some areas there is a wide discrepancy between males and females (comparatively I mean). I remember on my team we had 5 guys who could break 2 in the 800, while all of our best girls ran mid-2:20s.
We always have little cross gender and cross event arguments about stuff like this in our track group.
Since some states are weaker than others in certain events and some are stacked it is hard to compare. For example the race walkers on our team always claim to be great because they are the best in the state whereas they would get crushed on a national level and our 3rd and 4th ranked state sprinters would do well.
Mercier tables!!!
Always solves it. trust me it works perfect for comparisons across events. according to mercer a 9:41 2 mile for men is worth an 11:37 2 mile for woman. therefor this girl is WAY better then you. sorry to say it but she is right.
I'd say they're about equal. Her time gets her a better ranking in the state because girls have far less competition.
not equal at all dude. go play around with the mercier tables. they are always bang on and a great indicator. Maybe a second or 2 could be argued either direction but not 26 seconds. The girl is CLEARLY better
uh, according to that calculator for guys
15:58 5k =2:05 800m
somehow that doesn't seem right to me
is this calculator a troll?
9:41 2 mile guys= 2:24 800m girls? LOL
what are you blabbering about? that sounds entirely reasonable.
sub 16 women's 5k is definitely a low 2:04-2:06 women's 800m. both are seriously legit times, but not quite at the elite level.
9:41 2 men's 2 mile (remember, Mr. high school fool, this isn't a 3200!) is a top conference time for high school. so is 2:24 girl's 800m.
In the right wrote:
But compared to the rest of the nation, I would think we are close.
Why do you only "think"? Why not look it up. Easy peasy.
http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Event.aspx?DivID=32715&Gender=F&Event=61http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Event.aspx?DivID=32715&Gender=M&Event=60You're 600th in the country. She is 200th. Even accounting for the fact that girls' times aren't as deep, she is FAR better than you.
your 737 on the iaaf scoringg charts, shes 850 something. She smashes you.
Jasari25 wrote:
your 737 on the iaaf scoringg charts, shes 850 something. She smashes you.
"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."