Are sub-16:00 5K runners in high school a dime a dozen?

You can't buy people anymore.

I would say 16:00 on the track is pretty doable for any talented middle distance runner in HS but 16:00 XC is definitely a bit harder. Not elite in this day and age though. These days I would say the "elite" distance runners in HS run comfortably sub 15:00 on the track and sub 15:20 in XC. Sub 10:00 in the 3200 is just plain easy.. I had three low to moderate ( mid 50's ) mileage kids last year who ran 9:40 comfortably.

Yes.

In fairness, if you were in high school in the early 90s like me, sub-16:00 and sub-10:00 was pretty decent. We were SLOW back then.

I think breaking 10 for the 3200 is good. That is typical varsity level high school runner. I am sure there are plenty of teams with guys who can't break 10 or even 5 minutes for the 1600.

My $0.02 wrote:

In fairness, if you were in high school in the early 90s like me, sub-16:00 and sub-10:00 was pretty decent. We were SLOW back then.

This was also true in the mid 80s. Sub 10:00 would win anything and everything (unless you ran against Scott Fry) until you got to regionals at most. Low mileage was the teaching of the day..."rest up". Bad advice all around and no internet to see up-to-date times of other runners nationwide. Sub 16 in Cross Country? Man, back then hardly anyone did that...not in Ohio anyway.

If you are talking cross country, that is much diffeent than track, especially if it is a hilly state with mostly challenging courses. Yes, the top runners are definitely breaking 16 in the bigger meets, but they are not a dime a dozen. The track is a different story, with most half way decent runners being able to break 16 if they ever ran it, which few of them do.

Flagpole wrote:

My $0.02 wrote:

In fairness, if you were in high school in the early 90s like me, sub-16:00 and sub-10:00 was pretty decent. We were SLOW back then.

This was also true in the mid 80s. Sub 10:00 would win anything and everything (unless you ran against Scott Fry) until you got to regionals at most. Low mileage was the teaching of the day..."rest up". Bad advice all around and no internet to see up-to-date times of other runners nationwide. Sub 16 in Cross Country? Man, back then hardly anyone did that...not in Ohio anyway.

I disagree. I went to HS in Michigan (same weather or worse than yours), and I graduated in '85 (same era). I broke 10:00 for 3200 as a sophomore and a 9:59 WOULD NOT win everything. I got down to 10:03 by May 5th that year and we had another two guys on my team that ran 9:47 and 9:43 (and I ran 9:50).

As a freshman I ran 10:20 (3200m) and I won every race I entered except one JV Invite. I won all the dual meets and all the Frosh Invites. As a soph I won exactly ZERO races on the track at 1600 or 3200. I hadn't really thought about that until right now.

I ran 10:20 indoors and then 10:14, 10:08, 10:06, 10:03 in the first few weeks in 10th grade. As the season went on I went 9:59, 9:56, and then 9:50.

I didn't qualify for State Meet (with the 9:56), the 9:50 was run at Conference Meet (I got 6th!) and that 9:50 did not qualify me for our Honor Roll Meet (top 12 times in Mid-Michigan) ... so that was the end of my season.

So, for me, 10:00-10:10 type times didn't win Invites (in fact you would get about 10th) and 9:50-10:00 type times didn't win the big meets either. Regionals was won in ~9:30. Conference was won in 9:36. State Meet was won in 9:19 (bad weather). There were about 9-10 guys who broke 10:00 in my conference JUST that year. 7 of them at Conference (and other meets) and 3 that were either in other events or injured by that Meet.

I was very satisfied to break 10:00 (that had been my big goal that season), but I definitely DID NOT feel like I was a big deal. I was second or third on my team -- depending on the day/race.

As a Junior, I did get a 15:49 on a legit XC course (and several 16:00-16:20s). It did not win that Invite however. I was usually 4th-6th at Invites. I went on to place 10th at State Meet. My teammate (1.5 yrs older) was a few seconds ahead of me.

After we graduated HS, I noticed that many dual meets had winning times of 4:50+ and 10:50+ and that XC meets were often won in 17:00-18:00 ... depth and the top-end had fallen off dramatically.

It seems like it is back "on track" now ... I see a lot of guys running under 4:30 and 9:40 and a lot more guys under 16:30 and even 16:00.

But yeah, to address the OP question: if you break 15:00-flat on track, road or XC you are something special. IF you break 4:25/9:30 then you are good ... this kind of runner should be able to break 15:40 on a legit course.

I don't think that sub-16 runners are "a dime a dozen", but that level is not something to be excited about ... it is what you should shoot for during Junior year. sub-10 si what you should shoot for sophomore year.

I think if you took an inventory of 3200m school records you'd find that nationwide maybe 50% of them would be under 10 minutes.

If you are a 10 minute 3200m runner you are very likely the best runner in your school, one of the best in your league, decent in your section, and getting blown away if you get to States. You are good enough to be a decent D3 runner and you might even be good enough to work your way onto a D1 team.

Not bad at all if you ask me. Be happy... unless your name is Bekele there is always someone better than you.

Depends on the state. Wyoming? Yeah, those times are increadible! Cal? Not so good.

is 16:00 a dime a dozen? No. I'd say most hs's average less than one in a four year span. Sub 10:00? I'd say most hs's average less than one a year. Keep in mind, there are many schools who have a dozen kids accomplishing those times each year, while other schools have never had a kid run those times.

My personal experience within my 4 years in hs:

Only one kid could break 16 in both his Junior and Senior year. In my ten school district... 3 different boys did within those four years. This is cross country times mind you.

As for the 3,200. My school had three different boys run that within four years. The district had, shoot... I'd say 18 to 20? Track times.

Your 10:00 is much easier in hs than 16:00 cc.

Sub 15:00 in cc didn't happen at all in 4 years in my state! Although a few of us did come very close. 15:05 was the closest. But once again, cc times, not track.

Well there are hundreds of guys in high school that can break 10, but they are still faster than 99% of people. For people who go on letsrun, yes of course it's not a big deal. But it is still a lot faster than most high schoolers. There are some xc and track teams with up to 200 guys, and only a small handful are sub 10 guys each year, or just a few, even with solid training for a few years. It takes a fair amount of talent and dedication to run that fast.

yes. not too much special about sub 16 or sub 10:00. probably good enough to be the #1 or 2 runner on the team, and competative in most invitationals but far from rare.

Well, like I said, "not in Ohio anyway". I ran 10:33 as a freshman (AA school, Division II now) and 10:19 as a sophomore. I was never JV and was the best runner on my team both seasons. As a junior I got down to 9:51 and then just 3 more seconds (9:48) faster as a senior. As a senior, I won a couple of 3200s at BIG Invitationals (large school division then) in slower than 10:00...I think 10:05 and 10:02 or something like that. When I was a junior, a 16:50 in Cross Country sent you to the state meet. As a senior I won the Wood Country Cross Country Championships (about 15 schools) in 15:48, and the second place guy came in in 16:18, and then everyone was REALLY strung out after that. It was VERY rare to see more than one or two guys at a big CC meet break 16:00, and NOTHING like today. Maybe Michigan was a bit better, or maybe it was just your area of Michigan, but in Northwest Ohio (and Central Ohio for AA schools) in the mid 80s, you run 10:00 and you won pretty much anything until you got down to regionals. Sub 10:00 and sub 16:00 were both pretty rare.

No. not in the northeast.

16:00 is considered respectable.

Also, let's be realistic here. Even today sub 16:00 in CC is pretty good for high school. In Ohio (which is a VERY populous state) in the fall of 2008, you were top 13 in the WHOLE STATE in Division I (Large Schools) if you broke 16:00 -

http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/cc/2008/bd1rslt08.htm

Go down to Division III (small schools) and you are TOP 3 in the whole freakin' state if you broke 16:00 -

http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/cc/2008/bd3rslt08.htm

So, are sub-16:00 5K runners in high school a dime a dozen? That's a subjective thing, but I'll say no. Doesn't mean they are destined to be Division I All Americans or future Olympians, but they are still pretty damn good.

I was 16th in my league in Northern California as a senior (mileage maybe in the 30s per week) in the late eighties and ran maybe 17:30 (4:55/10:39 on the track). Sub-10 might get you out of leagues to Redwood Empire in track. Paul Dachauer's 9:37 got him to North Coast, I think. But the mile was stronger, predictably, since the low mileage training works better for that. We had a guy named Derek Clotfelter, a soccer player and low mileage guy (sub 50 quarter), who had run 1:54.8 as a sophomore and his 4:18 1600m didn't get him to States out of the North Coast section. There was another guy, Cliff Kerr, of San Marin who was sub 4:20 in my league, and that year in California, I think that Calvin Gaziano of maybe Jesuit ran 8:52.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

I was 16th in my league in Northern California as a senior (mileage maybe in the 30s per week) in the late eighties and ran maybe 17:30 (4:55/10:39 on the track). Sub-10 might get you out of leagues to Redwood Empire in track. Paul Dachauer's 9:37 got him to North Coast, I think. But the mile was stronger, predictably, since the low mileage training works better for that. We had a guy named Derek Clotfelter, a soccer player and low mileage guy (sub 50 quarter), who had run 1:54.8 as a sophomore and his 4:18 1600m didn't get him to States out of the North Coast section. There was another guy, Cliff Kerr, of San Marin who was sub 4:20 in my league, and that year in California, I think that Calvin Gaziano of maybe Jesuit ran 8:52.

California has always been pretty strong...lots more kids in that hugely populated state.

Ohio's state meet course is also a fairly tough course. I'm sure there are a good number of other guys in the state who broke 16 at some point on legitimate, but less difficult, courses.

off constantly wrote:

Ohio's state meet course is also a fairly tough course. I'm sure there are a good number of other guys in the state who broke 16 at some point on legitimate, but less difficult, courses.

You talking about the course at Scioto Downs? It's not that tough.