[geargrinder]

It's great when women win these races, and I wish there were more, but don't get the misperception they are somehow faster in this sport compared to men than in other sports. It all depends who shows up on the start line. Elite women are faster than nearly all the men, so if an elite woman shows up, but no elite men do, she will likely win. List of ultrarunning records: https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-... Normally awards are for "First Place Male" and First Place Female." Not sure why this race had an award for "overall."

[arcturus17]

Looking at those record tables has me wondering what GP is referring to when they say that barely any difference exists between the sexes...

[IIAOPSW]

Normalize it based on the fraction of women in the race to start with maybe?

[jtbayly]

Go for it. Knock yourself out trying to prove there are no differences between the sexes.

While you're at it normalize success at giving birth based on the fraction of men to attempt it.

[peripitea]

To be fair, the differences here seem to be smaller than in other sports, suggesting that while testosterone is a factor it may be less than it is in other sports. If 90% of the competitors in these races are male, that would further impact this discrepancy.

[Godel_unicode]

> If 90% of the competitors in these races...

Why would that matter? They're not running as a group; if you're the fastest then you win. This isn't a probabilistic thing. Lots of slow men crowding the starting line isn't going to impact who finishes first.

[peripitea]

I'm not sure I even understand your argument. It's possible we're saying different things? What I'm saying is that if X people try a sport the records they set won't be nearly as good as if 100X people are trying it. Winners are by definition outliers, and the larger your population, the more (and more extreme) outliers you will see. So if there are five times fewer women than men () competing in a sport, that will impact comparisons between women and men, even at the top levels, at least if you want to compare innate ability. Almost certainly, the women's records and top female performances would look better if there were five times as many women trying the sport as there currently are. Do you disagree with that?

I pulled up the most recent Ironman race; there were 5 men for every woman in the competition. So I'm using that as a rule of the thumb. But the same logic applies to any population imbalance at the top of the funnel.

[IIAOPSW]

If 90% are men, all else equal, you would expect men to win 90% of the time.

[Izkata]

To quote them:

> at this distance.

~~All the distances in those tables are significantly longer than the 50k this article was about.~~

Edit: Ah, I missed it due to the weird order - but my original point stands, there is no point in ignoring part of someone's comment when trying to rebut them.

[bitexploder]

They are still slower... but the gap is a little more narrow. Men will definitely have an edge in shorter distances.

[gji]

Interestingly, the 100m record difference is about 10%, which is roughly the same as the gap in the ultramarathon records (and in the record mile time). So the difference is fairly consistent across distances.

[peripitea]

I don't think it's quite that close -- there may be sample size/participation factors involved here. For example, the top US women seems to be competitive with the top ~10 US men, which in more testosterone-dominant sports would never happen.

[ward]

No? The link geargrinder posted literally also has a 50 kilometer table.

[Izkata]

Erk, I missed it scrolling down (the distances are in a pretty random order)

[emptyfile]

Do you people have bad eyesight or something. This whole thread is weird.

[new2628]

Honest question: why do you consider it great when women win these races, as in, is it in some sense worse when men win them?

[geargrinder]

Because it does highlight what women are capable of and it is certainly something to celebrate. Also, when it does happen it creates an interesting story which brings more attention to the sport (like this one did).

[jessaustin]

That women are winning these races, is a credit to this sport. Sports have no intrinsic value that isn't somehow tied to the good they do for humanity. We should judge them by their fruits. Even so, the vast majority of sports are constructed so that, on average, men have big advantages. It could be that it's easier to construct a sport that way. It could also be that constructing a sport that way better appeals to the prejudices of society. After all, there are some sports in which women compete at the highest level. For example, horse racing, open-water swimming, and as we see here "ultra" running. It's not necessary for women to win all or even most of the top prizes, but it's great that they win sometimes. Personally, although I enjoy watching gendered sports like ice hockey and American football I definitely see them as inferior to sports that exhibit more gender equality.

[jki275]

I don’t think anyone “constructed” running. People have been running for millennia.

[jessaustin]

Sure, running in general is basic to humans. The particular circumstances of particular races, like "so many laps over this particular course through the mountains" are very much a decision that some people made. Such decisions affect the results of those races.

[jki275]

It is illogical to believe that races were "constructed" by somehow varying the number of laps or terrain to make sure men win. It is far more likely that races were "constructed" to mimic the types of terrain people already ran.

[jessaustin]

Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[throwaway55554]

As long as there are men who think men are inherently better than women at all things, then we need to celebrate when women smoke them in a race.

[neffy]

No, it´s better for everybody - the human race wins.

Let´s say you had a bunch of computers, and somebody had told you a certain type always ran slowly, so you never used them for anything fast, and even put them on slower connections, because of that. And then one day, you discovered if you connected them up to faster links, they ran faster.

You now have a larger number of faster computers. As with computers, so with society, it´s not a zero sum game.

[johnbatch]

Looking at those dates in the 24 hour and 100 mile. Most of the women records are in the last 5 years, and some of the men’s records are from much longer ago.

[cameronbrown]

Nothing to back this up, but my gut instinct is:

1. Men generally tend to be faster than women

2. Women generally tend to be better at long-endurance than men

[geargrinder]

All the records actually show men still have the physical advantage at these distances that they do at shorter distances. It would be cool if somehow women were faster in comparison the longer the distance, but the records don't show that to be the case.

[cameronbrown]

I didn't say faster, I just said more enduring, able to last longer, etc..

[lazyguy]

How does that NOT translate to 'faster' in a endurance race?

[cameronbrown]

Because being initially faster does not mean being able to run faster for the entire race.

[EForEndeavour]

This is pedantic, even for HN! Who said anything about being "initially" faster? To win a race, you need to maintain the fastest average speed out of all competitors, plain and simple.