Seems to have held very steady through out the decades. Women seem to always be about .90 time wise of the men's performance. Some interesting science why that always may be the case.
www.theatlantic.com/.../
In the women's performance compared to men? This seems to be the case for the 50, but not really in the 1650.I agree to an extent on the 1650 but the trend holds through the 75-79 age group. After that, you run into sample size issues. There just aren't a lot of Octogenarians lining up to take on the 1650. And my guess is that there are a lot more women giving it a shot than men.
In the women's performance compared to men? This seems to be the case for the 50, but not really in the 1650.I agree to an extent on the 1650 but the trend holds through the 75-79 age group. After that, you run into sample size issues. There just aren't a lot of Octogenarians lining up to take on the 1650. And my guess is that there are a lot more women giving it a shot than men.
