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

Slowly impressive? wrote:

Are we talking middle school or high school? If high school, Boys or girls?

If high school boys, neither is impressive at all.---The question shouldn't even contain the word "impressive". Maybe instead: Would I make varsity easier with a sub 5 or a sub 12? Of course the answer would be "the same". Neither would get you on varsity.

Both would on my team. Easily.

unknown6 wrote:

The IAAF tables say that getting a sub 12 is harder, but this doesn't match what I see in most high schools. In most years, all 4 of our 4x100 guys would have run at least one sub 12, while we would be lucky to get a sub 5 performance by two different guys in the same year.

Also, our girl's school record is 12.02 for the 100, but only 5:11 for the 1600.

Is this common for your area?

This is the equivalent of asking; What's more impressive? Killing a 6-pack of smirnoff or a 6-pack of your moms wine coolers.

Sad!

Prime95 wrote:

Slowly impressive? wrote:

Are we talking middle school or high school? If high school, Boys or girls?

If high school boys, neither is impressive at all.---The question shouldn't even contain the word "impressive". Maybe instead: Would I make varsity easier with a sub 5 or a sub 12? Of course the answer would be "the same". Neither would get you on varsity.

Both would on my team. Easily.

Yeah, idk bout the 5 but when I was in high school 10 years ago I ran a PR of 12.5 and was varsity. Was a big city school FYI. Yeah, I'm sure someone will say my school sucks and so do I, but I don't really care.

No 12 year old kid has ever bragged about or dreamt of running a sub 5, at least in North America, while lots have talked of running sub 12. Statistics have nothing to do with it at the end of the day unfortunately.

I would say it depends on dedication of athletes involved. When in high school I think we had 1600 students and we had 2-4 dedicated guys running sub 11 or right at it and on average about 5-6 guys between 4:20 and 4:40. However there was a bit of track pride and good coaching. It could have easily gone the other way if our football and soccer teams were competitive and stole talent

being able to do both as a HS Soph was not impressive 50 years ago.

TPS reports wrote:

A girl running an electronic 11.99 or better can get a full ride to just about anywhere. Options are still very good but not that great for girls running 4:59.

I had two athletes get full rides this year - one ran 5:20 and one ran 12:00. Both not in the same ballpark as 4:59 so I'd say the options for a 4:59 girl are pretty great.

5:20 getting a full-ride. That's such bs! That time doesn't even qualify for states in Maryland. What type of d3 gives full-scholarships anyways. A 12 FAT is a millions time better than a 5 minute mile. A 12.0 FAT is honestly a 4:40. Many people don't here obviously don't understand fully automatic timing system. It's clearly different than a friend hand timing you. I go to a school with 2 football wide receivers who are getting recruited by low-mid tier d1 schools and they can't break 12 FAT if their life depended on it. Track speed is not the same exact thing as football speed but may cross. So who ever said most high football players could do that needs to actually be more aware of what they are believing. Our 4x1 team was top 90 at penn relays this year and regionals champion this year and only 4 kids at the school ran sub 12 FAT. When you get older running a 5 min mile but many many people peak in their 100m time by 18 years old. Running a 12 FAT is too underrated by all these know it all distance runners found in this forum.

Macdaddy wrote:

TPS reports wrote:

A girl running an electronic 11.99 or better can get a full ride to just about anywhere. Options are still very good but not that great for girls running 4:59.

I had two athletes get full rides this year - one ran 5:20 and one ran 12:00. Both not in the same ballpark as 4:59 so I'd say the options for a 4:59 girl are pretty great.

Sprinter who knows wrote:

A 12.0 FAT is honestly a 4:40.

You may be right on this. A 12.00 is 25.3% slower than the WR, and a 4:40 is 25.5% slower than the WR. They're surprisingly similar.

I guess... wrote:

Sprinter who knows wrote:

A 12.0 FAT is honestly a 4:40.

You may be right on this. A 12.00 is 25.3% slower than the WR, and a 4:40 is 25.5% slower than the WR. They're surprisingly similar.

Not to mention more kids seem to peak at 12 then 4:40 in high school.

sub 12 is easily more impressive. it's not even a question. running 4:59 is 12.6 on the iaaf table. i'll give it a 12.5 at best. the argument that any high school football or basketball player could break 12 is dumb. MOST football and basketball players i know wouldn't be able to and i bet that is the case for the majority of high school teams. If you give the football team a full year of sprint training and the soccer team a full year of distance training, I'm confident you'd see way more sub 5 miles.

I think sub 5 takes a decent plan and a little bit of talent. Sub 12 FAT also takes work but also a lot of natural that you either have it or not. Sub 5 is more achevable in a lifetime if you don't do it in high school you'll eventually do it with a developed aerobic capacity as you get older however the window of opportunity for a sub 12 closes right after high school.

mjjj wrote:

sub 12 is easily more impressive. it's not even a question. running 4:59 is 12.6 on the iaaf table. i'll give it a 12.5 at best. the argument that any high school football or basketball player could break 12 is dumb. MOST football and basketball players i know wouldn't be able to and i bet that is the case for the majority of high school teams. If you give the football team a full year of sprint training and the soccer team a full year of distance training, I'm confident you'd see way more sub 5 miles.

[quote]Milefordays wrote:

I think sub 5 takes a decent plan and a little bit of talent. Sub 12 FAT also takes work but also a lot of natural that you either have it or not. Sub 5 is more achevable in a lifetime if you don't do it in high school you'll eventually do it with a developed aerobic capacity as you get older however the window of opportunity for a sub 12 closes right after high school.

[quote]mjjj wrote:

I agree that it takes a bit of talent. You'll be far from the slowest kid on your team with a 4:59 mile, but at the end of the day it's more like a 12.5-6 100m. These both are still respectable performances when compared to all track runners.

4:40 is a 12.0 FAT

handelandj wrote:

Prime95 wrote:

Both would on my team. Easily.

Yeah, idk bout the 5 but when I was in high school 10 years ago I ran a PR of 12.5 and was varsity. Was a big city school FYI. Yeah, I'm sure someone will say my school sucks and so do I, but I don't really care.

Yeah, I have no idea what that poster is talking about. Both would get you on varsity at my HS, and I think they would at most honestly.

If I had 4 juniors running 11.9 I doubt I could develop a very good 4x1 relay. If I had 4 juniors running 4:59 I believe I could develop a very good relay or xc.

op, you're correct. there are more overall sub 12 100ms because football and basketball are popular and require sprinting. therefore, there are more strong sprinters that also do track. people see distance as difficult so nobody does it.

My best event was the 800. In theory this makes me balanced with speed and endurance, but I could only muster 12.2 FAT, and this was earlier in the the same day that I ran 50.9 FAT for 400 meters. In contrast my 5k pr was eventually back-to-back-to-back sub 5 miles. So I found sub-12 much harder.

For full disclosure of my profile, here are my prs with IAAF scores:

100: 12.2 -- 567 pts

200: 23.9h (call it 24.1 FAT) -- 660 pts

400: 50.9 -- 806 pts

800: 1:53.9 -- 918 pts

1500: 3:57.5 -- 884 pts

3000: 8:47 -- 798 pts

5000: 15:27 -- 730 pts

Caveat: all those sprint times are with standing starts. I bet I'd be a few tenths faster if I could effectively use blocks.