Suppose every non-disabled male was randomly assigned to either the 100m or the mile and was forced to focus on it throughout high school. What would the times be? My guess:
100m (all FAT times):
50th percentile: 12.5
90th percentile: 11.9
99th percentile: 11.2
Mile:
50th percentile: 5:20
90th percentile: 4:50
99th percentile: 4:25
Discuss!
Who knows about percentiles.
What is certain is that times and the number of people running fast times would increase dramatically. E.g. +100 boys under 4:00 after 15-20 years of this.
Talent identification in this sport SUCKS.
Identifying talent is easy, getting people out for this sport is difficult.
Depends on the location. If it's mostly white/hispanic/asian, the distance times will be better. If it's mostly black, the sprint times will be better.
speculator wrote:
Suppose every non-disabled male was randomly assigned to either the 100m or the mile and was forced to focus on it throughout high school. What would the times be? My guess:
100m (all FAT times):
50th percentile: 12.5
90th percentile: 11.9
99th percentile: 11.2
Mile:
50th percentile: 5:20
90th percentile: 4:50
99th percentile: 4:25
Discuss!
I think your 90th and 99th percentiles are about right. 50th percentile seems a little fast for both the 100 and mile. Running performances, even with regimented training, have a pointy stick rather than normalized curve distribution
speculator wrote:
Suppose every non-disabled male was randomly assigned to either the 100m or the mile and was FORCED to focus on it throughout high school. What would the times be? My guess:
100m (all FAT times):
50th percentile: 22
90th percentile: 19
99th percentile: 17
Mile:
50th percentile: 10:45
90th percentile: 7:00
99th percentile: 6:20
Discuss!
Fixed.
End Notes:
See the Algebra For All program for proof.
And females?
Mile
Males
1% 7:00
10% 6:20
25% 5:50
50% 5:30
75% 4:55
90% 4:40
99% 4:20
Females
1% 8:30
10% 7:25
25% 6:55
50% 6:15
75% 5:45
90% 5:30
99% 5:00
And those times are assuming these people are nutritionally supporting their running to an extent.
Just guessing wrote:
Mile
Males
50% 5:30
Females
90% 5:30
10% of the females would be able to beat half of the males if they were all equally trained? No way. 3-5% seems more like it, and even that's being a bit generous.
I genuinely don't think it's that ridiculous than one out of ten women could match the average dude.
As children when we all ran off natural ability, there would always be one girl who would be able to keep up with the boys and the boys would be slightly suprised like "whoa, you're pretty fast for a girl"
Every year group in school and every neighbourhood group of friends has one of these girls.. There would be a LOT more of them about if it weren't for the gender roles of men getting tough and playing sport and women dedicating their lives to nurturing and creating.
This is implying that we are breaking them roles and forcing EVERYONE into athletics.
The sample of men vs women we currently have is not an accurate representation of EVERYONE because a lot more men take up sport than women. Guys try more. It's built in guys on a genetic level to WANT to be competitive.
If we could train ALL women psysically AND psychologically, I don't think it would be too far off 10%. Just my opinion..
I hope more people come forward with lists, I find these kind of threads super interesting..
100m
12.7
12.0
11.3
Mile
5:45
5:00
4:35
100m:
14.0
13.1
12.5
Mile:
5:40
5:05
4:45
SloppyMeatHole wrote:
Who knows about percentiles.
What is certain is that times and the number of people running fast times would increase dramatically. E.g. +100 boys under 4:00 after 15-20 years of this.
Talent identification in this sport SUCKS.
This is not true. Top talent are genetic outliers. The top times would not change.
Additionally making someone do something they don’t want to never results in top performance. Similar to the median decline in marathon performances you’d see the same on the track.