What would You say requires more WORK and DEDICATION to the sport, Running a sub 10 second 100M or running sub 4 minutes in the Mile?
Obviously far less people have run under the 10 second barrier
(96 sprinters to date versus some 1300 mid D runners), but sprinters are commonly regarded as "lazy" by distance types. So the distinction lies in the work input. Thoughts?
it is obviously 100m.
Obviously the 100m takes more raw talent than a sub 4 mile. Many distance types can break 4 lacking basic speed if their endurance is great while with sprinting you kind of have it or you don't. You're stuck on the fascination of a 4 minute mile because its been a famous barrier over time. Unfortunately for you sub 4 no longer means what it used to. A better comparison may be sub 3:50. In which case I would say the sub 3:50 requires more work.
the 4 minute mile and the 10 second 100 meters are barrier that stretch the limits of athletes in these events. A 4 minute mile takes having an aerobic system that provides more energy than many people have at red line. A 10 second 100 meter takes accelerating to speed so fast, and maintaining a high enough top speed, that its rather like the amount of energy you or I might spent racing the 200, except crammed into less than 10 seconds of output.
I'd say it's about the same. The 100m in 10 is technically more difficult but for some talent might take the place of work.
The mile obviously. Do the math. A miler does more miles per day than a sprinter will do in a week.
The 100m dash by far. Sprinters are commonly regarded as "lazy" by complete idiots, some of whom happen to be distance runners. Dwain Chambers's PR is 9.97 (9.99 clean), are you really telling me 30 college kids per year work harder than he does?
sub 10 takes more doping