Which is more impressive, a sub 12 FAT 100m or a sub 5 mile?

Anecdotes from Louisiana's state meet this year:

In the three biggest classes, seven girls broke 12.00. Fastest 1600 time was 5:12.

Obviously Louisiana is much better at sprints than distance. But I think sub-12 is easier than sub-5, at least for girls. I'd love to see the numbers nationwide of how many girls have done either.

On the boys' side, I think both marks are pretty far from elite. Sub-12 has more to do with talent, and sub-5 is more about putting in the work. But based on digging around results from Louisiana, way more guys go sub-12 than sub-5.

12 is too slow to for FAT.

Dig around on dyestat.com if you want results that have been submitted from states across the nation.

Currently for the 2017 outdoor track season:

Dyestat is showing 28,699 boys sub-12 (out of 101,299 = 28.3%):

https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Event.aspx?DivID=80153&Event=1&page=286

Dyestat is showing 22,756 boys sub-5 (out of 73,209 = 31.1%) in the 1600m:

https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Event.aspx?DivID=80153&Event=52&page=227

Looks like the percentages fall fairly in-line with Iowa's quikstatsiowa reports.

RunCogRun wrote:

Dig around on dyestat.com if you want results that have been submitted from states across the nation.

Dyestat is showing 28,699 boys sub-12 (out of 101,299 = 28.3%)

Dyestat is showing 22,756 boys sub-5 (out of 73,209 = 31.1%)

The championship-level meets are all on dyestat, but few of the low-level meets are. There's no way 31% of all boys have run sub 5. Even 10% would be a stretch.

I don't know whether this would affect the 100 or the mile more.

Also, the slower guys (those who can't break 12) are less likely to have an FAT time than the sub 12 folks.

Personally, I ran several sub 5 minute miles during my high school years with barely 30 miles per week training (dirt track back in the days). The closest I got to 12.00 FAT was 12.94, and that was my best. That was my personal experience. I am pretty sure there are some who can do both.

Which is more impressive: typing "Cat" or typing: "Dog"

The % of people who run under 12 and under 5 on athletic.net out of the total number was 29.99% and about 33%, for the last year, respectively. It should be noted that the amount of mile runners is about 70,000 and the 100 is 95,000 kids. But really this seems to me as being pretty equivalent performances and I really don't think that our respective high schools makeup of sub 12s and sub 5s are regardless of the grand scale as some have stated. My old school, a much more diverse school, had over 10 sub 12s in some years and rarely has more than 5 sub 5s. My current school had 1 person under 12 in this last year and I was one of 7 runners who ran under 5 (even though one of those was dq'd because they false started but they still ran 4:57 that time).

I live in Virginia which is fairly representative of the country as a whole. As of right now in the 2017 season, per Milestat, there are 867 boys who have broken 5 for 1600 and over 1000 who have broken 12 (performance list only went to 1000, but 1000 was 11.97, so the number probably isn't much greater than 1000). I've been to *many* track meets in the commonwealth over the years, and, it's been my observation that the number of boys competing at 100 is about the same as the number competing at 1600. I know I'm multiplying uncertainties here, but my conclusion is that, for once, we have an OP who has picked two performances that are actually pretty close to equivalent.

*I didn't include girls in this survey because girls achieving either time are outliers and there is likely to be significant variability from year to year in the number who have. And I don't feel like checking multiple years at the moment to get a better sample.

reasoning wrote:

Lock him up!! wrote:

.. because sub-12 requires natural-born sprint speed, and not as much hard work

Sprinting takes just as much hard work as distance running. There is no natural born speed. They have been doing strength/speed/power sports for years before highschool. .

Nonsense

As a junior coach in Australia a sub 5 minute mile is much easier to get from juniors. I work with a variety of athletes and have had 12 year old boys run 4:37 for 1500m and a 15 year old girl run 4:32 for 1500m and they did very little training to achieve these times. Sub 12 seconds for 100m is considered very fast as we also run school carnivals in which all kids in the school that i teach at compete and we rarely get a sub 12 from our 15-16 year old boys. Our system is very different as there isn't a school track and field team but the athletes above are part of my training group.

So, the story for girls is a bit different, which probably is no surprise. According to milestat, nationwide there are currently 247 girls who have broken 5 for 1600 or its mile equivalent and only 127 girls who have broken 12.

So, from this data, I believe that it's probably harder for girls to break 12 than to break 5

One caveat of interest is this: Nearly 50 of the girls who have broken 5 have not broken 4:59! Of course, the flip side is that there are 40 girls who have not broken 5 who have broken 5:01. So....

Anyway, it looks like for boys breaking 5 is a little bit harder and for girls breaking 12 is. Which, given the nature of the events, is not really a surprise, I suppose.

But, again, overall, these two seem to be very close to equivalent performances.

The high school I work at has 6 guys under 5 and 1 guy under 12

The high school I coach has 6 guys under 5 and 6 guys under 12.

What's the difference? One is a cow town high school and one is a diverse high school.

Athletic.net

California list:

The 3545th performance is 12 flat for the 100 meter list. (out of 15,156)

The 4470th performance is 5 flat for the 1600 meter list. (out of 13, 753)

9th grade only:

377th for 12 flat

637th for 5 flat

What does that tell you?

Shorter Than Frank wrote:

California list:

The 3545th performance is 12 flat for the 100 meter list. (out of 15,156)

The 4470th performance is 5 flat for the 1600 meter list. (out of 13, 753)

9th grade only:

377th for 12 flat

637th for 5 flat

What does that tell you?

Not much.

A lot of those races may have been tactical ones where more people could have gone sub 5, but didn't since the first two laps were too slow. Or they started out way too fast. This doesn't happen in the 100.

It's like saying a 3:50 1500 is harder than a sub 10 100 since there were a few people who ran sub 10 at the Rio games, but nobody broke 3:50.

doctorj wrote:

I am pretty sure there are some who can do both.

I wonder if there are any girls who have done both, and if so, how many.

relevant info wrote:

Shorter Than Frank wrote:

California list:

The 3545th performance is 12 flat for the 100 meter list. (out of 15,156)

The 4470th performance is 5 flat for the 1600 meter list. (out of 13, 753)

9th grade only:

377th for 12 flat

637th for 5 flat

What does that tell you?

Not much.

A lot of those races may have been tactical ones where more people could have gone sub 5, but didn't since the first two laps were too slow. Or they started out way too fast. This doesn't happen in the 100.

It's like saying a 3:50 1500 is harder than a sub 10 100 since there were a few people who ran sub 10 at the Rio games, but nobody broke 3:50.

There were tons of people who broke 3:50 at rio. What are you smoking?

Hdkfhahaj wrote:

There were tons of people who broke 3:50 at rio. What are you smoking?

I meant in the finals, not the qualifying heats.

In terms of talent and level of ability sub 12 easily

i believe you're oversimplifying it ...

5 minute barrier runners are anything but tactical. what you see on this list is all out PRs for most.