While the debate rages, women's fields are getting faster and faster

By Amby Burfoot
PUBLISHED 02/01/2005

At this month's Los Angeles Marathon and Gate River Run 15-K in Jacksonville, Florida, the best women runners will be given a "head start" over the fastest men. In this battle of the sexes, the first person to reach the finish, woman or man, will win bonus prize money. It's a neat idea--running's equivalent of the famous Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs tennis match of 1973. It also raises a familiar but fascinating question: Now that more women are running, are they starting to catch the men?

The debate began in the late 1960s when it was noted that the pioneers of women's marathoning often finished with smiles on their faces. The men were gagging and sagging, but the women were waving to the crowds. Hmmm. In the 1977 U.S. 100-mile Championships, Natalie Cullimore placed second among all finishers. Her time was the fourth fastest ever run by an American of either sex. Hmmm again. And then came the theory that has persisted, through debates, controversies, and numerous articles, to the present day: Women are better endurance athletes than men.

In the early 1990s, I devised a plan to test the theory, or so I thought. Runner's World mailed questionnaires to 5,000 subscribers, asking each of them...