3 Hour Men's Marathon Time - Equivalent for the Girls?

Mulberry

3 hours is such a major milestone for lots of people - but almost always men.

Has anyone any thoughts on what the equivalent time is for us gals?

Obviously there are plenty of females going for a 3 hour marathon too (fair play to ye), but is there a way of evening out the times, if you know what I mean?

Actually, this question could of course apply to any marathon time, now that I think about it. Apologies if this has been covered in another thread.

RayCun

There are '10 round numbers' threads for men
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057115185
and women
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057118319

where the 'equivalent' time is 3.20, but that's just a guesstimate. How do you decide what the equivalent should be? Percentage of world record? Irish record? Similar number of runners (or proportion of runners?) achieving it?

RacoonQueen

I think 3:20 is too soft (not that I've managed it) to be equivilent to a mens 3 hour. Maybe 3:15 or 3:10 would be more accurate IMO.

Mulberry

RayCun wrote: »

There are '10 round numbers' threads for men
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057115185
and women
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057118319

where the 'equivalent' time is 3.20, but that's just a guesstimate. How do you decide what the equivalent should be? Percentage of world record? Irish record? Similar number of runners (or proportion of runners?) achieving it?

I just checked the Boston Qualifying Times. For the lower age group they ask for 3.05 from Men and 3.35 from Women:

AGE GROUP MEN WOMEN
18-34 3hrs 05min 00sec 3hrs 35min 00sec

Krusty_Clown

In the latest revision of his book, Jack Daniel's Running formula has some tables that do comparisons across ages and genders. Will check this evening what he had to say (don't have the book with me), but I think it was something like:
Women: 3:00:40 = Men: 2:48:xx
Can't recall the figures for men 3:00, but think it may have been around 3:36 for women.

If you go by the IAAF scoring tables, then:
A 3 hour marathon for men = 440 points.
440 points would equate to a 3:56:40 marathon for a female.

This kind of highlights why you can't really use the IAAF scoring tables to compare performances across genders, as it is based on historical records (and there may not be a wealth of historical record for the women's marathon).

Clearlier

Age graded tables have a 3:00:00 marathon for a man as 3:15:12 for a woman (69.4%)

Got it from here

RayCun

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

This kind of highlights why you can't really use the IAAF scoring tables

fyp

Stella Virgo

Mulberry wrote: »

3 hours is such a major milestone for lots of people - but almost always men.

Has anyone any thoughts on what the equivalent time is for us gals?

Obviously there are plenty of females going for a 3 hour marathon too (fair play to ye), but is there a way of evening out the times, if you know what I mean?

Actually, this question could of course apply to any marathon time, now that I think about it. Apologies if this has been covered in another thread.

ave a gander at these boston marathon qualifying times
http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/qualifying-standards.aspx

RayCun

Clearlier wrote: »

Age graded tables have a 3:00:00 marathon for a man as 3:15:12 for a woman (69.4%)

Got it from here

Stella Virgo wrote: »

ave a gander at these times
http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/qualifying-standards.aspx

So the first one is using the '% of world record standard', and the second one is (I think) a 'similar number of runners achieving it' standard

Mulberry

RayCun wrote: »

So the first one is using the '% of world record standard', and the second one is (I think) a 'similar number of runners achieving it' standard

Unfortunately there's a big difference between the two (c. 15 mins vs. c. 30 mins on a men's 3 hour marathon).

Can I ask what's your personal opinion RayCun?

RayCun

Mulberry wrote: »

Unfortunately there's a big difference between the two (c. 15 mins vs. c. 30 mins on a men's 3 hour marathon).

Can I ask what's your personal opinion RayCun?

I don't think there is such a thing as the 'correct' equivalent
Sometimes it is useful to say "this person was 200th woman in the marathon, the 200th man ran 2.59" (or, like claralara, 9th woman and the 9th man ran around 2.30?). Sometimes it's useful to say, "this woman won the women's race, in a time 20 minutes outside the world record" Neither is more 'right'.

Itziger

Would I be right in saying that a lot of WR's have a 10% difference or a little more? Maybe 12%. Anyone care to chuck up a table covering 10 classic distances?

As for the marathon itself…. 123 minutes for the boys = +12.3 for the girls = 134.3. Very very close. Only thing to be pointed out being that Radcliffe is quite a bit ahead of the rest, whereas half a dozen men are within a minute.

Krusty_Clown

Can you guess which one of the above belongs to an Irish person?

menoscemo

So basically the sub 3:20 in the women's round number thread is a pretty good equivalent...

KielyUnusual

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Can you guess which one of the above belongs to an Irish person?

I'd have a guess at the women's 5 mile but can't find confirmation of this. Sonia seems to have the 2k and the 2 mile world records. Does she have the 5 mile too?

Krusty_Clown

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

In the latest revision of his book, Jack Daniel's Running formula has some tables that do comparisons across ages and genders. Will check this evening what he had to say (don't have the book with me), but I think it was something like:
Women: 3:00:40 = Men: 2:48:xx
Can't recall the figures for men 3:00, but think it may have been around 3:36 for women.

I got it a little wrong. Daniels reckons:
Female: 3:30 = Male: 3:10
Female: 3:14 = Male: 2:56
Female: 3:00 = Male: 2:43
Female: 2:48 = Male: 2:32

So he reckons around 10%, or more specifically: 3:00 ~ 3:18.

menoscemo wrote:

So basically the sub 3:20 in the women's round number thread is a pretty good equivalent...

Yup.

KielyUnusual wrote:

I'd have a guess at the women's 5 mile but can't find confirmation of this.

Yup.

Chivito550

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

In the latest revision of his book, Jack Daniel's Running formula has some tables that do comparisons across ages and genders. Will check this evening what he had to say (don't have the book with me), but I think it was something like:
Women: 3:00:40 = Men: 2:48:xx
Can't recall the figures for men 3:00, but think it may have been around 3:36 for women.

If you go by the IAAF scoring tables, then:
A 3 hour marathon for men = 440 points.
440 points would equate to a 3:56:40 marathon for a female.

This kind of highlights why you can't really use the IAAF scoring tables to compare performances across genders, as it is based on historical records (and there may not be a wealth of historical record for the women's marathon).

On the first few pages of the IAAF tables it specifically says that the table is not to be used to compare across genders. That's why they have 2 different sets of tables, one for men, one for women.

To answer the question: Men's World Record is 2:03, women's 2:15, so there's a 12 minute gap. So for a 3 hour marathon runner that gap back to women would be approximately 17 or 18 minutes. So sub 3:18 would be a decent comparison.

Chivito550

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Can you guess which one of the above belongs to an Irish person?

The women's 400m and women's 3000m are total farces and should not be allowed to count. Overall though 12% seems to be a reasonable difference between respective world records.

Mulberry

So the general consensus is that around 3.18 is a fair women's time comparison to 3 hours for a man's.

I'm a little disappointed that I'm probably never going to do the equivalent of a man's 3 hour marathon - I'm aiming for 3.30 soon in what will probably be my best attempt at a good time.

Thanks everyone for your responses, and for answering a question that has been bugging me for a while!

jebuz

Mulberry wrote: »

I'm probably never going to do the equivalent of a man's 3 hour marathon

Just out of interest, why not?

Mulberry

jebuz wrote: »

Just out of interest, why not?

I've been running already for nearly 5 years and while I've been making steady progress over that time you could never call me a talented athlete! So I'm not sure how much more I have in me in terms of running ability.

I'm giving Edinburgh my best shot at 3.30. I certainly wouldn't rule anything out after that but ... I also feel time isn't on my side. I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job. I like committing ALL to a marathon training plan but that gets tricky so I have no plans to do another one after Edinburgh for a year at the absolute earliest.

In any case I'm going to spend the latter part of 2014 seeing if I can beat 6 mins for a mile, and get my shorter distance times down.

I feel I have to prioritise my running goals in the few years I have left before I start going downhill! So a 3.18 marathon seems very unlikely!

morceli

Chivito550 wrote: »

The women's 400m and women's 3000m are total farces and should not be allowed to count. Overall though 12% seems to be a reasonable difference between respective world records.

Do you have to bring drugs into everything, chill man

Itziger

Mulberry wrote: »

I've been running already for nearly 5 years and while I've been making steady progress over that time you could never call me a talented athlete! So I'm not sure how much more I have in me in terms of running ability.

I'm giving Edinburgh my best shot at 3.30. I certainly wouldn't rule anything out after that but ... I also feel time isn't on my side. I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job. I like committing ALL to a marathon training plan but that gets tricky so I have no plans to do another one after Edinburgh for a year at the absolute earliest.

In any case I'm going to spend the latter part of 2014 seeing if I can beat 6 mins for a mile, and get my shorter distance times down.

I feel I have to prioritise my running goals in the few years I have left before I start going downhill! So a 3.18 marathon seems very unlikely!

Mulberry, I think, and hope, that the age thing is misunderstood. I'm a bit older than you but not toooooooo much (48.5) and I've been running for about 6 years now. I still hope to improve across the 3 main distances I race at: 10k, Half and Marathon. So far every year my times have come down and while I know there will come a day when that improvement will stop, I'm not putting a date on it. Partly it's to do with training. I'm still trying to improve in this vital area. I trained quite well for my first marathon but not as I do now. Also, when I find a programme as I have for the 10k, I just try to increase the pace from year to year. So last year I was doing 3.45m/km pace for the 10k training and this year I've dropped that to 3.40. Don't know yet if I'll get the rewards, but we'll find out soon enough. I still haven't got the sub 3 btw but again I haven't given up hope. I've gone from 3.32 to 3:09 over the last 3 years.

As you say, kids and job can be tough to juggle but maybe in a few years time you'll have more time to train! Good luck.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

On the first few pages of the IAAF tables it specifically says that the table is not to be used to compare across genders.

Compare a man's marathon time to a woman's marathon time?
I'm sorry, that's completely impossible, the very idea gives me the shivers.
Compare a man's marathon time to a man's triple jump distance?
Sure, no problem!

Krusty_Clown

Mulberry wrote: »

I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job. I like committing ALL to a marathon training plan but that gets tricky so I have no plans to do another one after Edinburgh for a year at the absolute earliest.

I'm 42 myself. I ran 3:00 in Berlin in 2009, and swore blind I'd never be able to run faster. 2:55, 2:48, 2:46, 2:43, 2:38..... Just one more go this year.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

Compare a man's marathon time to a woman's marathon time?
I'm sorry, that's completely impossible, the very idea gives me the shivers.
Compare a man's marathon time to a man's triple jump distance?
Sure, no problem!

You continuously seem to misunderstand the purpose of the tables. If you'd like to design a set of tables that accurately compare men to women then fire ahead but on the IAAF tables they make perfectly clear that this is not what these tables are intended for. For example, 50.00 for men's 400m scores the same amount of points on the men's tables as 59.92 does for women. Anybody who believes those two performances to be equal knows nothing about the sport! On the contrary, a 50.00 for men's 400m equates to a 14.37m for the men's triple jump, going by your example field event. Both those performances most educated viewers of the sport would deem to be close enough in quality, and both would get you as far on a world level (not very far at all!).

The tables, while not perfect, are very useful. My club does our club championships based on our best 6 events scored by IAAF points. I am pretty certain we are not alone in that. If the tables had no value, and there was no desire to compare performances across disciplines then they would not have been made in the first place.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

On the contrary, a 50.00 for men's 400m equates to a 14.37m for the men's triple jump, going by your example field event. Both those performances most educated viewers of the sport would deem to be close enough in quality

I don't dispute that those two performance are close enough in quality.
I do dispute that it can be calculated - to two decimal places - that they are exactly as good as each other. And they are both exactly as good as 3.20.89 in the 4x400 relay, 4:17:29 in the mile, 2:27:19 in the marathon... for every event a time or distance which is precisely equivalent to that 400m time.*
(I notice there is no equivalent time given for the 100m sprint - unfortunately our clocks just aren't accurate enough for us to know when someone has turned in an 873 point performance )

*unless it was a woman's performance, in which case we must give the little Gallic shrug and say, "ah, les femmes"

Marthastew

Mulberry wrote: »

I've been running already for nearly 5 years and while I've been making steady progress over that time you could never call me a talented athlete! So I'm not sure how much more I have in me in terms of running ability.

I'm giving Edinburgh my best shot at 3.30. I certainly wouldn't rule anything out after that but ... I also feel time isn't on my side. I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job. I like committing ALL to a marathon training plan but that gets tricky so I have no plans to do another one after Edinburgh for a year at the absolute earliest.

In any case I'm going to spend the latter part of 2014 seeing if I can beat 6 mins for a mile, and get my shorter distance times down.

I feel I have to prioritise my running goals in the few years I have left before I start going downhill! So a 3.18 marathon seems very unlikely!

I'd also second what other posters have said about age and time on your side, I started running when I was 42 and I've been running 6 years now, my times are still coming down and I'm hoping to knock some more time off my marathon PB in 4 weeks in Barcelona. Young kids and a job can definitely make things more difficult (I'm fortunate not to be working so I've no excuses for my times not to be getting better)
Concentrating on the shorter distances for the rest of the year will have a great impact on your fitness.


Very best of luck with the rest of your training and in Edinburgh; remember, marathon times, like age, after all are just a number

TFBubendorfer

Mulberry wrote: »

I've been running already for nearly 5 years ...

I also feel time isn't on my side. I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job.

I know a few others have posted similar thoughts already, but I ran my (so far) fastest marathon at the age of 43, having been running for 9 years at the time. I do hope to lower that time again when I'm 45 next year.

At 42 you're a mere spring chicken and after 5 years of running you may well have 5 more years of improvement ahead of you!

T runner

Mulberry wrote: »

I've been running already for nearly 5 years and while I've been making steady progress over that time you could never call me a talented athlete! So I'm not sure how much more I have in me in terms of running ability.

I'm giving Edinburgh my best shot at 3.30. I certainly wouldn't rule anything out after that but ... I also feel time isn't on my side. I'm 42 next month with young kids and a job. I like committing ALL to a marathon training plan but that gets tricky so I have no plans to do another one after Edinburgh for a year at the absolute earliest.

In any case I'm going to spend the latter part of 2014 seeing if I can beat 6 mins for a mile, and get my shorter distance times down.

I feel I have to prioritise my running goals in the few years I have left before I start going downhill! So a 3.18 marathon seems very unlikely!

More like 3:21 given a 12% differential. The womens WW is an outlier.

Same comments as the other posters. Hoping for a PB in my next marathon at age 42.

Look at it this way. You're absolute possible maximum potential is slowly falling after 40. However the % of that potential that you achieve can increase dramatically through the years, up to you really. That means you'll potentially keep improving for many years.

johnruns

T runner wrote: »

More like 3:21 given a 12% differential. The womens WW is an outlier.

Same comments as the other posters. Hoping for a PB in my next marathon at age 42.

Look at it this way. You're absolute possible maximum potential is slowly falling after 40. However the % of that potential that you achieve can increase dramatically through the years, up to you really. That means you'll potentially keep improving for many years.

Im hoping for a pb in Dublin this year age 43.T runner what marathon are you doing?