RW: Radcliffe has run the equivalent of sub-2 hr marathon

fun with stats wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

The Mercier calculations are obviously outdated. They also equated Paula's 65:40 half marathon world record to 57:xx, which may have seen fine at the time... except it was obliterated by Florence Kiplagat last February (1:05:13) and edged by Mary Keitany this fall (1:05:39). Since his HM calculations are so far off in hindsight, his marathon ones will be proven wrong too.

Yeah, but this study is not outdated and further provides support for the accuracy of the Mercier calculator, even if it is outdated (most recent version was 2009).

Regardless of what the article says, if Mercier if he re-did his calculations with data through 2014, they would obviously change... hence it is outdated, and even the new value shouldn't be accepted as fact either.

At least 14 of the top 15... and at least 29 of the top 33 men's performances have happened since the last time the Mercier calculator has updated.

12.4% for the 5000m, the marathon is basically correct....

Mr. Dick Straight wrote:

Let's help you with a couple of points:

1.) You must mean "moron" not "moran", yes?

You must be new here.

*elementary school math*

WOW! You're clever! And so lucky for you that you found a typo so that you could show the world that you can do advanced calculus! Congrats!

Now, go back to jogger's world.

I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.

The most likely highest level of clean competition in the distances is American collegiates. The ACR's for women are consistently 12+% slower than the men. Any records below 11% are very suspect, IMHO, as doping helps women proportionately more than men.

The closest by percentage is the 400m, with the women's WR for 400m being held by Marita Koch from East Germany.Some facts for perspective:In a 400 m laned race the only women to have broken the 48sec barrier are Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvílová (47.99 seconds, Helsinki 1983).Jarmilahttp://www.cojeco.cz/attach/photos/lide/Kratochvilova_48974/Jarmila-Kratochvilova-1max.jpgThe next closest performance by percentage is the 3000m WR at 10.5%8:06.11 Wang Junxia (CHN) Beijing 13 September 1993Radcliffe's "record" should be viewed in the same light as Koch, Kratochilova and Junxia.

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Check my math, but I think these are correct. These are the current world records from 200m to the marathon, for the more common distances for men, women and the percentage slow that they women's times are to the men's times.

200m - Men - 19.19 - Women - 21.34 = 11.2%

400m - Men - 43.18 - Women - 47.60 = 10.2%

800m - Men - 1:40.91 - Women - 1:53.28 = 12.2%

1500m - Men - 3:26.00 - Women - 3:50.46 = 11.7%

3000m - Men - 7:20.67 - Women - 8:06.11 = 10.5%

5000m - Men - 12:37.35 - Women - 14:11.15 = 11.8%

10000m - Men - 26:17.53 - Women - 29:31.78 = 12.2%

21.1k - Men - 58:23 - women - 65:12 = 11.6%

Marathon - Men - 2:02:57 - Women - 2:15:25 = 10.2%

There isn't an equivalent. You either can run sub two hours or you can't. Age and gender grading doesn't count. It's fine for ranking a run as far as value but it's not the same as running 1:59:59.

Radcliffe ran 2:15:25. Great run but that's all it is. A great run. Not equivalent to...

I was just thinking about all those women who have broken four minutes for the mile.

NOT!

Balian wrote:

There isn't an equivalent. You either can run sub two hours or you can't. Age and gender grading doesn't count. It's fine for ranking a run as far as value but it's not the same as running 1:59:59.

Radcliffe ran 2:15:25. Great run but that's all it is. A great run. Not equivalent to...

You've got to be kidding. This is all about the equivalent talent level between men and women.

I've run the equivalent of a sub 2 hour marathon as well, given my

... age

... lack of talent

... lack of training

No, her 2:15:25 is the equivalent of 2:15:25.

The time is the time.

12 of the first 28 times are run by Koch.

6 of the first 28 times are run by Jarmila Kratochvílová.

4 other people ran the remaining 10 times of the top-28.

That means 6 people ran the first 28 times.

Koch is East German. Apparently there are documents implicating her for drug use that were not detectable at the time.

Jarmila Kratochvílová has the appearance of having done anabolic steroids and the rumours and stories were rampant.

Not that I think non African (or non African decent) people can't run, this is just too overwhelming.

Also, the only people to run under 49 this century - that's 14 years - is one person: Sanya Richards-Ross.

RW will write anything that panders to its main profit source - female joggers.

just because the womens marathon has been incredibly boring the past few years with disappointing times doesnt mean that the one exception now gets to be counted as the equivalent of a sub 2 hours. thats completely absurd.

Brokedown Palace wrote:

...as doping helps women proportionately more than men.

Based on what? Prove this.

Equality wrote:

I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.

The difference is that women should actually be equals with men in other fields but not in sports (because of structural and hormonal differences). So it makes sense to separate sports into men's and women's divisions.

...I don't see any mention of the fact SHE needed a HE to run that time. It would not have been possible with a field of women.

...You may as well set up a race with the men drafting a vehicle that is strong enough to get through the marathon distance in 1:49:00 if throttled to it's maximum.

fkk wrote:

Brokedown Palace wrote:

...as doping helps women proportionately more than men.

Based on what? Prove this.

Based on the % difference between women's clean v doped performances

The margin is greater for women than men