does anyone know of any?
is Mercier up to date? reliable?
does anyone know of any?
is Mercier up to date? reliable?
What about using a percentage of the current WR? So if a woman runs a time that is 98% of the WR and a male runs a time that is 97%, the woman had the better performance. Crude, but fast.
wow...any clue as to how to use this?
luv2run wrote:
What about using a percentage of the current WR? So if a woman runs a time that is 98% of the WR and a male runs a time that is 97%, the woman had the better performance. Crude, but fast.
That's what I've always thought; doing this shows you how much better American males are than females in both high school and college (I'm talking depth). 17:00 and 15:00 are about the same, but there are many more guys under 15. 17 flat is "awesome" for a college girl, running 15 flat will not make a number of guys teams.
luv2run wrote:
What about using a percentage of the current WR? So if a woman runs a time that is 98% of the WR and a male runs a time that is 97%, the woman had the better performance. Crude, but fast.
This is the method used by age-graded performance calculators.
Ironically it works best for open runners since the percentages are based upon world records!The data is also out of date but will soon be updated.
Here is an sample from the table for 92%:
Times for open male at 92.00 percent
1:50.59
3:45.81
8:08.04
14:06.19
23:10
29:19.23
45:02
1:04:50
2:17:51
Time for open female at 92.00 percent
2:02.82
4:10.54
9:01.30
15:38.85
25:42
32:31.08
49:50
1:11:31
2:30:55
dogscalder,sorry you found my calculator confusing;)
mr. programmer:
no way. i think it looks like an awesome tool. i guess the crux of this discussion would be:
Which is a more lax standard...the men's or women's Boston Qualifier standard for a 30 year old?
That's pretty much all I want to know.
For a 30 y.o., what is a 3.15 marathon worth.
thanks and i love the calculator, i just need to know how to use it.
I suggest another means of comparision - the one that actually is used on planet earth - and that is the based on the principle of EXCEPTIONALITY (a term I'm coining right now).
Women champions, in general, demonstrate greater superiority to the pack than do men champions. Consequently, exterpolating down from world records yield distorted equivalencies.
Another ramification of this principle is that competition among men is much closer than among women.
yo, that thing is awesome...nice work.
yeah, any other calculators out there on this subject. I'm writing a paper on title IX and need something like this.
dogscalder wrote:
mr. programmer:
no way. i think it looks like an awesome tool. i guess the crux of this discussion would be:
Which is a more lax standard...the men's or women's Boston Qualifier standard for a 30 year old?
That's pretty much all I want to know.
For a 30 y.o., what is a 3.15 marathon worth.
thanks and i love the calculator, i just need to know how to use it.
You are welcome.
30 year olds:
woman 3:45:00 = man 3:25:30
woman 3:33:29 = man 3:15:00
equivalent marathon times for 30 year olds:
woman 3:45:00 = man 3:25:31
woman 3:40:00 = man 3:20:58
woman 3:33:29 = man 3:15:00
woman 3:28:00 = man 3:10:00
I use a regular calculator on my kitchen table to multiple the woman's time by .92.
Bruce Lehane wrote:
I suggest another means of comparision - the one that actually is used on planet earth - and that is the based on the principle of EXCEPTIONALITY (a term I'm coining right now).
Women champions, in general, demonstrate greater superiority to the pack than do men champions. Consequently, exterpolating down from world records yield distorted equivalencies.
Another ramification of this principle is that competition among men is much closer than among women.
What is the point of your first hypothesis? I don't believe the equivalencies are distorted if you want equivalencies based purely on physiologic limits. If the women have less depth up front, or as you put it more outliers up front, then this is due to some other reason such as a lack of worldwide participation in sport by women. In general, women aren't going to have more genetic outliers than men.