I know you think that is science, but the WR is just one data point on the complete set of marathon performances. Statistics should be your go to tool.
I know you think that is science, but the WR is just one data point on the complete set of marathon performances. Statistics should be your go to tool.
All the other snippy comments on this thread notwithstanding, yes Laura's performance is definitely noteworthy. Only her second marathon and both times she has produced solid results. Definitely a contender for the US team at the next Oly games
You people are not very smart. You cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is closer to exponential than linear. Part of the reason for that is because the top women have advantages like straighter bodies, i.e. bodies shaped more like men, that give them an advantage over the rest of the women. The men have no such advantage.
https://twitter.com/PossoSports/status/856146037844713473DQ for bad communication wrote:
I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
Obviously, spoken by an individual who has accomplished NOTHING in his life personally or professionally, so must resort to "competing" by mocking others and posting anonymously on a message board.
DQ for bad communications wrote:
2:07:04 equivalent? No. That is almost exactly 4 minutes from the WR. She did not run a 2:19, did she?
Finally, where the hel are you getting KK at 2:07 from? KK ran 2:05, genius. Ritz was never "on par" with him and neither is Thweat. You must be a complete idiot to compare her to a world record runner.
Statistically speaking- Women's times don't follow a normal distribution, so you can't make a linear comparison of x amount of time. Rank ordering is the statistically appropriate means and reflects reality, not theory (as you tried)- which is what the Mercier calculator uses. I provided rank-ordering comparison from the all-time American lists (Khalid K and Dathan) for comparison as well.
No, I'm not an idiot. My IQ is 153, and I taught college statistics.
clown catcher wrote:
This clown is comparing a woman running 2:25 to a world record men's performer.
Sorry, but that time wouldn't even make last year's top 20 . Pretty sure Khannouchi might have been #1 in the world when he ran a 2:05 world record.
All of you cucks just want to say this is a great time when it is just mediocre.
See comment above. My comparison was to his 2:07 performance on the all-time American performance list, not his 2:05. Give respect where it's due.
By the way, the IAAF tables clearly mention that they weren't made to compare across genders.
Overseas wrote:
Cool point. We all know that women's athletics lacks depth. We know that the top Americans are miles behind the world's elite in the women's distance events. This is LRC not Runner's World. We follow the sport. You don't get a cookie and you don't have any special insight. We get it.
This actually isn't true about the past 3-5 yrs. There's actually more women participation in the competitive Open age category (19-39) than men, not to mention that women's depth across all ages exceeds men in the 5K-HM categories (see Running USA statistics). This point is moot in this day and age.
Elk in the Ponderosa wrote:
According to IAAF tables Thweatt's time was 1176.5 points, equivalent to a 2:09:11 men's marathon time.
So you're at 2/10. Nice try.
So, she is better than Rupp. Therefore Hasay MUCH GREATER THAN Rupp.
reality check. wrote:
DQ for bad communications wrote:2:07:04 equivalent? No. That is almost exactly 4 minutes from the WR. She did not run a 2:19, did she?
Finally, where the hel are you getting KK at 2:07 from? KK ran 2:05, genius. Ritz was never "on par" with him and neither is Thweat. You must be a complete idiot to compare her to a world record runner.
Statistically speaking- Women's times don't follow a normal distribution, so you can't make a linear comparison of x amount of time. Rank ordering is the statistically appropriate means and reflects reality, not theory (as you tried)- which is what the Mercier calculator uses. I provided rank-ordering comparison from the all-time American lists (Khalid K and Dathan) for comparison as well.
No, I'm not an idiot. My IQ is 153, and I taught college statistics.
My IQ is 154. I win!
Talent is as talent does wrote:
Men's Marathon WR = 2:02:57
Women's Marathon WR = 2:15:25
(748 total (seconds difference between the two times - emphasis is mine))
and
So, the poster that says the performance is closer to a 2:14 equivalent for men is correct.
When you look at the women being 748 seconds behind men, this gives Laura's 2:25:38 a male-equivalent of 2:13:10. Not 2:14, sorry.
--------
When you use the proportion of female WR to male WR (2:15:25 / 2:02:57), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:12:13.
When you use the proportion of the female-only WR to male WR (2:17:01 / 2:02:57), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:10:40.
But maybe Paula's record is doped. Maybe female participation is low. Okay, then. Let's look at some people down the list. From IAAF's official records, on record-eligible courses only:
When you use the proportion of the 20th fastest female performer (Mare Dibaba, who has twice run her PR of 2:19:52) to the 20th fastest male performer (Lelisa Desisa, who has a PR of 2:04:45), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:09:53.
When you use the proportion of the 20th fastest female marathon time (run by Tirfi Tsegaye in 2:19:41) to the 20th fastest male marathon time (run by Ayele Abshero in 2:04:23), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:09:40.
When you use the proportion of the 50th fastest female performer (Yuka Ando, who has a PR of 2:21:36) to the 50th fastest male performer (Khalid Khannouchi, who has a PR of 2:05:38), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:09:12.
When you use the proportion of the 50th fastest female marathon time (run by Galina Bogomolova in 2:20:47) to the 50th fastest male marathon time (run by Stanley Biwott in 2:04:55), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:09:13.
When you use the proportion of the 100th fastest female performer (Caroline Rotich, who has a PR of 2:23:22) to the 100th fastest male performer Robert Cheruiyot, who has a PR of 2:06:23), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:08:22.
When you use the proportion of the 100th fastest female marathon time (run by Susan Kapkama in 2:21:46) to the 100th fastest male marathon time (run by Wilson Chebet in 2:05:41), the male equivalent of Laura's time is 2:09:06.
You might expect that the #1, #3, or #10 female performer or performance might not correlate well to the #1, #3, or #10 male performer or performance, due to low female participation. But by the 50th and 100th performer or performance, you're going to start seeing what is very typical for abilities in both genders.
The average of 2:08:22, 2:09:06, 2:09:12, and 2:09:13 is 2:08:58.
Even when you consider the method of "how many seconds back are females," then:
--- 2:21:36 is 958 seconds back from 2:05:38, implying Laura's 2:25:38 ~= 2:09:40.
--- 2:20:47 is 952 seconds back from 2:04:55, implying Laura's 2:25:38 ~= 2:09:34.
--- 2:23:22 is 1019 seconds back from 2:06:23, implying Laura's 2:25:38 ~= 2:08:39.
-- 2:21:46 is seconds back from 2:05:41, implying Laura's 2:25:38 ~= 2:09:47.
But hey, maybe we're still just missing too many women's times. Let's compare the 10th best female performer (Lucy Kabuu, who has a PR of 2:19:34) to the 100th best male performer (Robert Cheruiyot, who has a PR of 2:06:23, as stated above), then:
--- the ratio of their times implies that Laura's 2:25:38 ~= 2:11:52.
--- the difference between their times implies that Laura's 2:25:32 ~= 2:12:27.
I think there's a good case to be made that Laura ran a 2:09 equivalent today, and I don't think you could possibly argue that Laura ran slower than a 2:12 equivalent, when you truly consider all the data.
She's #7 all-time US? And some of you want to knock her down? Why?
Why on earth are you trying to find the "bad" in this?
sundown wrote:
This is a terrific performance from someone who was never expected to be an elite runner. Look at the names around her. Of course, there were great conditions and a much faster course than most Americans usually run, but give her the props. At altitude in high school, at states, she ran 2:18, 4:54 (1600), 11:03 (3200). Even in college, her pr's were only 4:21/15:57.
This is akin to maybe a 10-10:10 hs boy going on to run 2:09. Sell ran 2:10.
http://www.cubuffs.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=1991
While I agree it's super impressive improvement. 4:54 and 11:03 AT ALTITUDE is not equivalent to a HS boy running 10min. It's more like a HS boy running 9:20 range. If Thweat was at sea level, that's easily a sub 4:50 and sub 10:50, which back in 2007 when she graduated from HS would have been really strong times.
anonymous message board guy wrote:
My IQ is 154. I win!
Have you taught college statistics?
I win.
Who cares about have-beens...
You sound like grandpa telling war stories.
Elk in the Ponderosa wrote:
According to IAAF tables Thweatt's time was 1176.5 points, equivalent to a 2:09:11 men's marathon time.
So you're at 2/10. Nice try.
So she's better than Galen Rupp
You posted Jordan will break the WR after Boston.
Mr. Gault, where is the official London Marathon thread? Please restore it.
reality check. wrote:
anonymous message board guy wrote:My IQ is 154. I win!
Have you taught college statistics?
I win.
Your biggest error is thinking that having a high IQ doesn't make you an idiot.
You are an idiot.
I've had many high IQs working for me and with me. You would be average. Some were smart, some were idiots. They were all able to do their jobs adequately. A High GPA doesn't make you qualified.
Clearly you have a narrow statistical expertise. And when it comes to running and understanding, you are an idiot.
It's absolutely HILARIOUS how far you guys have gone in the argument. She ran a fantastic race. Nothing more to it and no reason to badmouth it or try to compare it to someone else. Yet you guys are spending hours trying to prove each other wrong about something that has pretty much zero importance or relevance to anything.