Which is more impressive, a sub 12 FAT 100m or a sub 5 mile?

Sub 12 far harder - your hs is weird

Almost every high school football player can run sub 12 with ease. The same is nowhere near true for HS soccer players running a sub 5.

If a guy runs an 11.99, it's "congrats, you're not dead last anymore and won't be cut from the team." But if a guy runs a 4:59 1600, he's treated like a running god.

unknown6 wrote:

The IAAF tables say that getting a sub 12 is harder, but this doesn't match what I see in most highschools

1) The IAAF tables do not say "harder"

2) The IAAF tables are not designed for highschool

3) Have you really seen most highschools running results? There are thousands of highschools and many years. That must have taken you a long time

Basically the dumbest post I've ever seen on these boards. You kidding? Every single soccer player at my former high school could knock off a sub 5 whereas few athletes could break 12...Wtf are you talking about???

not in jamaica wrote:

Almost every high school football player can run sub 12 with ease. The same is nowhere near true for HS soccer players running a sub 5.

If a guy runs an 11.99, it's "congrats, you're not dead last anymore and won't be cut from the team." But if a guy runs a 4:59 1600, he's treated like a running god.

reasoning wrote:

Have you really seen most highschools running results? There are thousands of highschools and many years. That must have taken you a long time

Sub12silly wrote:

Every single soccer player at my former high school could knock off a sub 5 whereas few athletes could break 12...

Your high school is 99% white.

The OP's high school is 99% black.

Every high school is different, but from my experience in high school, there would be 5-6 guys sub-12, and maybe 1-3 guys sub-5. It's kind of a trade-off though, because sub-12 requires natural-born sprint speed, and not as much hard work, whereas most kids have the necessary speed to run sub-5, but it requires much more aerobic work to get down to sub-5.

Can't speak for HS but in the real world a sub 12 is far more impressive - check out mercier tables!

Lock him up!! wrote:

.. because sub-12 requires natural-born sprint speed, and not as much hard work

Sprinting takes just as much hard work as distance running. There is no natural born speed. They have been doing strength/speed/power sports for years before highschool. The same reason why cyclists and soccer players can run a decent mile time without being on a track team.

oddball wrote:

http://www.quikstatsiowa.com/Public/Track/IndividualStandings.aspx?IDSport=EB178641-26F1-464D-97F1-A1D101AE35D6

Is that just for Iowa? Is Iowa most highschools?

oddball wrote:

http://www.quikstatsiowa.com/Public/Track/IndividualStandings.aspx?IDSport=EB178641-26F1-464D-97F1-A1D101AE35D6

Guys running a sub 12: 657 out of 2760 (23.8%)

Guys running a sub 5: 472 out of 1733 (27.2%)

Girls running a sub 12: 3 in the whole state

Girls running a sub 5 mile equivalent (4:37 for the 1500): 3 in the whole state

Results may be tilted heavily in favor of the sub 12 100 in states with a higher percentage of blacks.

That's because it's mostly black people (West African) who can get under 12 and the US has a sizeable population (about 13%). If the US was 13% East Africans then sub 5 in the mile would be much more common.

race genetics duude wrote:

That's because it's mostly black people (West African) who can get under 12 and the US has a sizeable population (about 13%). If the US was 13% East Africans then sub 5 in the mile would be much more common.

False. It is about interest and upbringing.

is this right? wrote:

Guys running a sub 12: 657 out of 2760 (23.8%)

Guys running a sub 5: 472 out of 1733 (27.2%)

Girls running a sub 12: 3 in the whole state

Girls running a sub 5 mile equivalent (4:37 for the 1500): 3 in the whole state

Last season's times for the stat geeks:

Guys running a sub 12: 645 out of 2645 (24.4%)

Guys running a sub 5: 456 out of 1746 (26.1%)

Median 100 time: 12.55

Girls running faster than the guys median time: 22 out of 2279 (0.97%)

Median 1600 time: 5:17.9

Girls running faster than the guys median time (4:56 1500): 29 out of 1339 (2.2%)

From 10 years ago (2006-2007):

Guys running a sub 12: 533 out of 1480 (36.0%). About 90% of them are hand times.

Guys running a sub 11.8: 359 out of 1480 (24.3%). Adjusts for hand times.

Guys running a sub 5: 372 out of 1162 (32.0%)

more data wrote:

is this right? wrote:

Guys running a sub 12: 657 out of 2760 (23.8%)

Guys running a sub 5: 472 out of 1733 (27.2%)

Girls running a sub 12: 3 in the whole state

Girls running a sub 5 mile equivalent (4:37 for the 1500): 3 in the whole state

Last season's times for the stat geeks:

Guys running a sub 12: 645 out of 2645 (24.4%)

Guys running a sub 5: 456 out of 1746 (26.1%)

Median 100 time: 12.55

Girls running faster than the guys median time: 22 out of 2279 (0.97%)

Median 1600 time: 5:17.9

Girls running faster than the guys median time (4:56 1500): 29 out of 1339 (2.2%)

From 10 years ago (2006-2007):

Guys running a sub 12: 533 out of 1480 (36.0%). About 90% of them are hand times.

Guys running a sub 11.8: 359 out of 1480 (24.3%). Adjusts for hand times.

Guys running a sub 5: 372 out of 1162 (32.0%)

It appears that they are pretty much equivalent. However it doesnt take a genius to note that 12 second 100 meter runners are a dime a dozen in High schools that have Caribbean and West African kids.

Run sub-11, also run long distances for fun now, cannot break 5 even with high-ish mileage

race genetics duude wrote:

That's because it's mostly black people (West African) who can get under 12 and the US has a sizeable population (about 13%). If the US was 13% East Africans then sub 5 in the mile would be much more common.

Even if this were true, I'm pretty sure the number of white guys who've run sub 12 is much higher than the number of white guys who've run sub 5.

Due to culture and/or genetics, the 100 times for most blacks may be low-mid 11s, while the 100 times for most whites may be in the high 11s.

Sub 5 is a whole different beast and is extremely difficult to achieve no matter what your race is. Unless you have world-class talent, you'll need almost all of the following:

1.) Ability to withstand high mileage for months without getting injured or losing your speed.

2.) Good pacing and weather

3.) Multiple attempts at the distance and a competitive environment (tons of people cheering you on, for example) to push you

4.) Lack of external stresses or distractions (relationship drama, tough classes, high stress jobs, sleep deprivation, etc.)

5.) Altitude training and/or EPO

Letsrun posters are a self-selected bubble of mostly D1 distance guys. >99% of the world's population would struggle to run a sub 5 1500 after years of training, and a sub 5 1600 or mile is far out of their league.

Coach wrote:

It appears that they are pretty much equivalent.

A lot of the sub 12 guys don't run in track meets. That's all of the football team, most of the basketball and baseball team, and a few talented but lazy stoners.

The odds are heavily stacked against finding anyone who can run a sub 5.

50th percentile for 17 year old guys: 6:57

80th percentile: 6:19

90th percentile: 6:02

95th percentile: 5:50, but may be slower since quite a few people lie and exaggerate their times.

You'll be well into the 99th percentile before you start hitting 5:30, let alone 4:59.

Reference:

I ran 11.9 at HS with no proper training, grass track, no blocks and wearing pumps, and am sure I could've been low-mid 11 correcting for those things. But no way could I run a 5 min mile. However, I'm white, tall and skinny and look so obviously like a distance runner, not a sprinter.