If you wanted to compare abilities between guys and girls how would you convert? I've heard minus 1 minute, which I think only applies if they're fairly slow, and minus 45 seconds. Obviously you really need a percentage. Could a good formula be (Tf)-.15(Tf)=Tm? That would be minus 15%.
Mercier Score Calculator will do it
ok sure.... wrote:
Could a good formula be (Tf)-.15(Tf)=Tm? That would be minus 15%.
Sheesh, why make it so complicated? How about just .85(Tf)=Tm
wow thats a terrible calculator
Oh yeah. I guess I just wasn't thinking carefully.
RAGE BROTHERS wrote:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/mercier/window7.htmlMercier Score Calculator will do it
I don't know how effective this calculator is. Trying to test it out I compared male to male times I entered a 53 400 and got a 2:03 800 equivalent
You actually cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is closer to exponential than linear. One reason for this is because the top women have "straighter" bodies, i.e. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the other women. Men have no such advantage.
11% is reasonable ballpark difference.
sdfdsfsf wrote:
You actually cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is closer to exponential than linear. One reason for this is because the top women have "straighter" bodies, i.e. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the other women. Men have no such advantage.
We need to hear another reason.
Accidentallycoach wrote:
RAGE BROTHERS wrote:http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/mercier/window7.htmlMercier Score Calculator will do it
I don't know how effective this calculator is. Trying to test it out I compared male to male times I entered a 53 400 and got a 2:03 800 equivalent
Mercier has 53.00 as 2:03.96 which seems pretty damn accurate to me. The calculator has a slight sprint bias when looking at much longer stuff (they have a 50.00 quarter equivalent to 2:25 marathon), but within the 400m - 3k range, it's easily the best comparison calculator freely available.
A 53 400 is worth 1:58-1:56 unless one is totally relying on anaerobic ability.
Tinman wrote:
11% is reasonable ballpark difference.
Tinman FTW
Tinman, 11% is plausible but not accurate.
A women who runs a 10' mile does not merit twice the adjustment for gender as a woman who runs a 5' mile.
Accidentallycoach wrote:
A 53 400 is worth 1:58-1:56 unless one is totally relying on anaerobic ability.
I'm not sure if you mean athletes running 53 should be capable of 1:56-58, or a 53 is an equivalent performance to 1:56-58, but it's not true either way.
In the case of the former, 53 flat is around the requisite speed for a true aerobic machine to run sub-1:58, but the vast majority of sub-1:58 athletes--and almost all 1:56 athletes--are going to need to be at least a second quicker. The guys running 1:56 off 53s quarters are far and away the exception rather than the norm.
In the case of the latter, 1:58.00 is worth roughly 50.5 for a quarter. 1:56.00 is worth sub 50 easily. For reference, Mercier and IAAF tables have 1:56 worth about 49.7.
Alan Bennet wrote:
sdfdsfsf wrote:You actually cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is closer to exponential than linear. One reason for this is because the top women have "straighter" bodies, i.e. bodies shaped more like men that give them a larger advantage over the other women. Men have no such advantage.
We need to hear another reason.
I don't know the reason or why he described it as "exponential" but the it does seem that the gender gap is larger for slower people. As Tinman said, the gal is about 11% for world class performances but it's closer to 20% when considering what it takes to run varsity in HS.
Male time / .89 = female time is pretty pretty pretty pretty good
4:00 -> 4:29.7
4:10 -> 4:40.9
4:20 -> 4:52.1
4:30 -> 5:03.4
4:40 -> 5:14.6
I don't know. Maybe you ran in an area or era with faster women. I'd be interested if anyone can dig up any hard data but my experience was that 4:30 was nothing special for a dude but 5:03 was pretty good for a woman. Again, I'm not talking about what it too took to be elite, but merely to get your HS letter. My whole point was that the gap narrows as you start considering faster athletes.
We could know for sure by timing Caitlyn Jenner.
You take the male time, and then multiply it by 1 and that will give you the equivalent time for females.
california dreamin' wrote:
Accidentallycoach wrote:A 53 400 is worth 1:58-1:56 unless one is totally relying on anaerobic ability.
I'm not sure if you mean athletes running 53 should be capable of 1:56-58, or a 53 is an equivalent performance to 1:56-58, but it's not true either way.
In the case of the former, 53 flat is around the requisite speed for a true aerobic machine to run sub-1:58, but the vast majority of sub-1:58 athletes--and almost all 1:56 athletes--are going to need to be at least a second quicker. The guys running 1:56 off 53s quarters are far and away the exception rather than the norm.
In the case of the latter, 1:58.00 is worth roughly 50.5 for a quarter. 1:56.00 is worth sub 50 easily. For reference, Mercier and IAAF tables have 1:56 worth about 49.7.
Maybe they are equally competitive times in their respective fields, or equivalent for those who are primarily sprint oriented, but distance guys (800/miler types) with 50-53 400 speed are not slowing down by 8-9 seconds per lap to go from 400 to 800. If these tables are based on what times would be equally competitive against the people in each event, then they are probably skewed because of 200/400 guys, who are fast, but don't compete at 800.