Would you rather be an early bloomer or late bloomer?

Why not be a 'middle bloomer'? Show obvious ability at a relatively young age, don't get overtrained too early, but still have enough upside to hit your straps when it really matters during and after college.

I was a late bloomer.

Walk on in college. Earned a little bit of a scholarship eventually and qualified for first US nationals 3 years out of college.

If was an early bloomer I would have gone to college for free.

So - early bloomer is better for athletic scholarships.

Being a later bloomer is good if you want to continue to run long term. I was a mediocre, 4:4x miler in HS, but stuck with it off and on and set all of my PRs mile and up while in my late 20s and early 30s.

I'm hoping for an ancient bloomer ala Magill or Whitlock.

Just as the early bird gets the worm the early bloomer gets the glory. I was very mediocre early on, got better later on but doing well at 30 or 33 doesn't mean as much as 17 to 20. Likewise, now as a masters runner up there in the rankings, no better than making all conference for an obscure league somewhere.

Depends on how late of a bloomer you are and how big the bloom you talking about.

Being OK in HS, but then killing it in college. I'd take that.

Being OK in HS & college but then running great at 25- not too bad.

Being bad in HS, but pretty good at age 35- no thank you.

Being really good in HS but then terrible would be the worst. I think you'd spend all your time looking back on glory days like that song.