Longer legs means you get more out of each step (which adds up as long as endurance allows).Think of small children. So much energy and speed (where they're not drugged anyway). But if you're in relatively good shape, the little, er, angel, is not going to be able to outrun his mother (assuming she's right by him) because of his short legs, despite how fast his legs are moving. (Also, children aren't as strong, so that little boy doesn't get as much power from each running step, either, while mother's long legs can cross the distance easily...especially if she's wearing cleats! )
'Course lots of other things go into it. Interesting enough, women seem to do better at long distance swimming than men, and I've looked up likely reasons for that, but no one can seem to agree on why this is so. It makes intuitive sense to me, though, and I can't help but wonder how much blind politics is altering data and algorithms.
Interesting enough--and 10 years ago I'd have looked into the astrology of it as one factor--the women who do well in mixed matches (that is men vs women in duels) in HEMA, or Historical European Martial Arts that range from various unarmed combat to fencing to even old swords (similar stats in Japan, but it's been so long since I've seen that, though Japan doesn't cater to trans, so I don't have to wonder about that as I do in HEMA, plus, I've seen interviews with some of the female champions of HEMA, and they were born women, but I don't know about all of them) do very well, usually half or more of men, and nearly all other women.
Generally speaking, men beat women (and part of that is not just strength, but also reach, having longer arms and legs), though other factors (individual to individual in addition to each specific duel, and of course the specific fighting art factors in so many female fencers, which utilizes a lot of wrist strength that women naturally pick up, do far better in--that is, much less of a gap between male and female winners) factor in as well. And the rare woman who wins half or more of duels with men seem to beat nearly all female opponents (save each other).
I'd love to know why that is.
It should be noted that women who win against larger men use the same techniques that smaller men use to win against larger men, so it shouldn't be that surprising.
(Also to note, I'm sure the women who lose to men in these competitions could still easily win against the typical male keyboard warrior talking about male physical superiority.)
And yet these days it's few (lots of history not talked about, at least not accurately, as it doesn't fit modern sensibilities strongly suggest it's not "just a few" at all times). But they don't come off as superwomen (or even just strange somehow, thus unpredictable) physically or mentally, they just win.
Also, they don't show the frightening intensity so obsessed with winning that they go to criminal means to beat (even injure or kill) the competition as a few (men and women) have, so I've ruled out obsession and cheating (interesting enough, the one married couple in HEMA who divorced were one of the rare few to do so maturely and civilly, perhaps because both sides can vent their aggression out in healthier ways--though maybe they were just scared what the other might do them physically, especially when caught sleeping, if they acted any other way--which I mention as it adds to my impression that the rare who win consistently even against men aren't being dirty or frighteningly obsessed over winning).
(That aside, the phenomenon that really fascinates me, pointed out when it happens to women but seems to happen to men as often, just a lot more men to overlook it, called yips . Though far more interesting is when someone, typically after a head injury, gains a skill they didn't have before!)