I'm talking physically healthy, fairly fit 15-40 year old males who do any sport really, track included. (recreational or competitive).
My opinion:
100 - sub 13.5
200 - sub 28
I'm talking physically healthy, fairly fit 15-40 year old males who do any sport really, track included. (recreational or competitive).
My opinion:
100 - sub 13.5
200 - sub 28
Not terrible numbers but few 30+yo's will be able to run those numbers unless they are actually training.
Then again for a HSer, 28 is like 63 or 64 400? Not that impressive. Someone with "good speed" should be sub 60 and therefore sub 26.5 or so. 13.5 would still hold up.
when i am in 12.7 shape, this is enough to be SIGNIFICANTLY faster than anyone at a casual pickup game
mid 13s does indeed seem like it'd still be a place where you'd still be faster than nearly anyone you come across.
I'd say 13 and 27.5 for the average guy.
In my last FAT 100m race at age 16, I ran 11.7x FAT. I was noticeably faster than almost everyone else, and when playing pickup soccer or ultimate games 10 years later I was usually the fastest person on the field.
I'd say <12.5 is fast.
Note - my previous comments are for a non-track context.
11.7 and 12.5 are not very fast for track.
Your PBs (13.5 and 28, I presume) are the cutoff. Anyone faster has more talent. Anyone slower just isn't trying hard enough. 🤣
The average person runs the 100M in approx 20secs for someone who plays sport with the age range you used
100M: 15-19 secs
200M: 30 - 35 secs.
It never ceases to amaze me how slow some distance runners are. I would say 11.5/23 is the defining line
When I was in grad school I used to play intramural softball and pick-up basketball and football with a group of guys. A new guy came in who had tried out for the D1 football team but got cut. He was a defensive back but was only 170 pounds with 4.7 40 yard speed. Not sure what that's comparable to, but he ran circles around us and we had some guys who had been decent HS athletes in the ball sports.
KT1 wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how slow some distance runners are. I would say 11.5/23 is the defining line
whenever these "how do distance runners compare to the average person" topics come up, the ability line for average person being set at like, starting midfielder on a varsity soccer team.
i do believe that varsity midfielders/strikers are much better sprinters than a 4:50 miler, but you can't forget that a varsity midfielder is not an average person. there are 30 other kids who fought for those spots and lost.
when you play pickup soccer in the park, most of those people were not athletic enough to continue playing organized soccer after the middle school level.
do i think a 13.mid 100m is an impressive number? no, not even close. but it is absolutely fast enough to run circles around people in the park.
randomcoach wrote:
In my last FAT 100m race at age 16, I ran 11.7x FAT. I was noticeably faster than almost everyone else, and when playing pickup soccer or ultimate games 10 years later I was usually the fastest person on the field.
I'd say <12.5 is fast.
Yeah, no idea my 100m but for 200m repeats I can be below 30 with the faster sets being ~28s (guessing fully rested maybe 27 or high 26...haven't raced one in about 20 years..haha)
but playing ultimate frisbee the last 10 years, I'd say I was usually the fastest person in most games
I ran middle distance in HS, but never seriously (2:08). I have never started from blocks in my life and have no sprint training at all.
As a swimmer for my main sport, I was extremely fit but not "athletic", terribly uncoordinated so I didn't play field sports seriously. But when I did play casual/intramural soccer or ultimate I was among "the fast guy" against reasonably athletic 20-somethings in these sports contexts.
I am now 35, actually very focused on ultras now, and could still run sub-13 from flying start any day of the week. I assume anyone playing half-decent recreational soccer can do faster.
For sprinting under 11.5/23 is pretty fast, sub 11/22 is of course not world beating but quite fast. For distance runners add a couple seconds to those.
It’s all relative you know. For college D1 track and field it would be more like 10.5/21 for being pretty fast.
paris2024hawk wrote:
I'd say 13 and 27.5 for the average guy.
13 would be a good benchmark for a reasonably athletic guy that hits the gym recreationally.
we all know that is not "average" today.
I'd say 15 is a fair benchmark for the "average" guy. it's slow, but probably correct.
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
The average person runs the 100M in approx 20secs for someone who plays sport with the age range you used
100M: 15-19 secs
200M: 30 - 35 secs.
If 100m is 15-19 secs, shouldn't 200m be 30-38 secs?
moRon DeSantis wrote:
I'm talking physically healthy, fairly fit 15-40 year old males who do any sport really, track included. (recreational or competitive).
My opinion:
100 - sub 13.5
200 - sub 28
I am originally a swimmer/rower but did some running on HS, PBs 9:58 for 3000m and 17:23 for 5000m. For 100m, the best I could do was 13.5. There were 3 guys on HS (out of 17) who ran below 13, the best one 12.2. So, I would put 13 as good speed (from blocks). Btw, I believe Mo Farah ran 13s.
Good speed for a high school distance runner is probably somewhere around 12-flat. I ran about 12.5 in HS and that made me faster in PE class than non-athletes and all but one girl but I was slower than pretty much every decent power-sport athlete, fat or not. As people get older they get a lot slower unless they train a ton. I doubt 1% of the male population can run a 15 sec 100m at 40. WR marathon pace is 17.3s/100m. I bet most fit 40 year-old males would struggle to hold that for 100m with a running start.
Ruminator wrote:
Btw, I believe Mo Farah ran 13s.
He's closed 5000 meter races sub-50. His start can't be that slow, can it?.
15/32