Let’s see what the data says about how common each feat is

Brian Rock

·

Follow

Published in

Runner's Life

·

8 min read

·

2 days ago

143

4

Listen

Share

Recently, I saw a discussion online about whether the following accomplishments were equivalent — a man running a marathon in under 3 hours and a woman running a marathon in under 3:30.

It turns out people have strong opinions about this.

To some, the three-hour marathon is a mythical barrier — one that is nigh impossible to reach except for the most accomplished athletes.

To others, it’s a routine accomplishment that any able-bodied young man can achieve.

And when you add the second layer about how subjectively hard (or not) it is for a woman to finish under 3:30, it gets complicated. Men and women both experience running from their own perspective, and it’s hard to fully grasp the experience of the other gender.

I can’t provide a definitive answer to the question.

But, as luck would have it, I do have some data that can shed some light on it.

Instead of answering the question, “Which is harder?” I’m going to ask a slightly different question — “Which is more common?”

Why 3:00 and 3:30?

Before we get into the data, perhaps it’s worth taking a second to think about why these two times in particular are being compared.

The simplest answer is likely that these are the current qualifying times for the 18–34 age group established by the Boston Athletic Association for the Boston Marathon.

The three-hour marathon itself has a special kind of allure. It’s a nice round number. Like a 20-minute 5k, it sits there on the horizon as a common goal for runners who have already broken the four-hour barrier.

There’s nothing special about three hours and thirty minutes, per se. But I think it’s natural for people to want to establish an equivalency between male and female running times.

If three hours is considered an accomplishment for men — what’s the equivalent accomplishment for women?