They're simply having a discusion
PrZ wrote:
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.
lolllzz wrote:
Talent is as talent does wrote:
Men's Marathon WR = 2:02:57Women'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.
I'm fine with this.
I was mostly providing data to refute that it was the equivalent of 2:07:04 or whatever which I think is ridiculous. But, your data and range look good enough.
And a range is appropriate anyway as there isn't one metric that we can definitively use as a proxy.
Just wow... wrote:
She's a weal Thweatt to the Amewican Wecod!!!
Love it
you've screwed up wrote:
Mr. Gault, where is the official London Marathon thread? Please restore it.
Still here.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8162574From what I can tell, it was never deleted...
Jonathan Gault wrote:
you've screwed up wrote:Mr. Gault, where is the official London Marathon thread? Please restore it.
Still here.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8162574From what I can tell, it was never deleted...
Ahem, it was not on page 1 or 2 when people noted it was gone. It did indeed disappear. Gremlins, maybe?
A great break through for her. Even more so given she is 100% clean.
reality check. wrote:
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.
We aren't talking about the number of runners in the competitive open category. Depth refers to the number of runners in the elite or world-record level categories.
lolllzz wrote:
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.
Why are you sorry? Are you apologizing for misreading or lying about what he wrote? He didn't say her male-equivalent time IS 2:14. He said it is CLOSER TO 2:14 [than the other time that was suggested]. If the suggested time was that 2:07 suggestion then he is correct.
Not sure how you got this wrong considering that you quoted the sentence of his that states this. I left that quote there so you can reread it. But maybe I'm the one misreading it. Who knows.
2:25:38 / 2:17:01 = 8738 / 8221
2:02:57 = 7377
7377 x 8738 / 8221 = 7841 = 2:10:41