stats 101 wrote:
That's not the end of story. Your explanation for 2:10 is a depth one NOT an actual physiological equivalence. The two are very different concepts. His method is correct when talking about physiological equivalence.
No, the word choice you should use is "theoretical", not physiological. Physiologically, women are a more diverse and less homogenous population than men, which creates a completely different distribution and why you have to use a non-parametric method for comparison (hence rank ordering). As mentioned, both men and women's depth are improving at the same rate, and times are still matching up the same.
No, the two of you are talking about two different kinds of rankings. His is a physiological one. Yours is a rank one (at least that's how it sounds from skimming your comments).
In your system, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that the 10th best women's time is equal to the 10th best man's time. No matter the actual time. This method is faulty and inaccurate because women's running is less competitive. Just because you're the 10th fastest woman in the world that year doesn't automatically mean you're as good as the 10th fastest male.
In his system, he's taking into account how close to the world record they are.
Relative ranking vs an absolute ranking.