Also note that there are other factors that might influence voting on something like POY. Such as the weahter (recall that there was a down pour in Munich during Radcliffe's run. This is cancelled out by the wind in Chicago? Hard to say.) AND she ran 30:01 solo- sans rabbit. While I'm not 100% certain Radcliffe and the women had pace making help I know the men did and have read enough to be confident that she was aided in Chicago in this way but not in Munich.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed and Dana Parrot Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:08 AM To: "Athletics" Subject: Re: t-and-f: AOY I completely agree with gh that strict comparisons are not accurate and in fact I would dismiss male-female comparison charts the same way I dismiss using age grading tables for "absolute" type comparisons at the elite level (they are great for more low-key stuff). But I have always believed that a 30:00 10K and a 2:20 marathon are "roughly" equivalent for men (Purdy-Gardner equates a 30:00 almost exactly with a 2:20). And given that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that men's and women's performance difference change much with distance - a common misconception - I see no reason not to make the same basic relative assumption for women. This is not completely "hard" evidence, of course. Radcliffe's marathon is inherently superior to a 30:01 10K. Few men have ever run 2:17 without breaking 30:00, although a buddy of mine, Rich Hanna, has done so. That said, POY is more than just comparative times, isn't it? Doesn't it take into account the circumstances of the race, etc., etc.? I am convinced Radcliffe is a better marathoner than a 10K runner, so my gut tells me that her performance in the 10K was just as impressive as her marathon, even if it doesn't look that way on paper. - Ed Parrot ----- Original Message ----- From: "ghill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:11 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: AOY > on 10/13/02 10:35, Martin J. Dixon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > That marathon time is equivalent to a 29:28(26:02 male) effort however which > > is > > just under the "WR".>> > > Says who? Given the relatively new nature of each event on the international > front, and the incertitude of the value of various marathon courses, I say > such comparisons are almost impossible to generate. Even if the science > existed to make valid comparisons, I'd say the amount of data available is > still too small to be a valid sample. (Yo, Rich McCann, help me here!) > > Gh > >
