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

Pappy wrote:

When I was in HS we had 16 kids able to run under 5:00 from my sophomore to senior year. We might have had 3 go under :12.

Honestly neither are impressive and I'd guess the big difference was the sprinters did not practice year round or their numbers would of been higher.

Or maybe sub 12 is harder????????????

How fast do you think a 4x1 can be with 4 juniors 11.9? And what relay could be fast with 4 boys running sub 5? And how does running sub 5 relate to being a well established team in cross country? Sometimes some milers struggle in xc.

Coach wrote:

If I had 4 juniors running 11.9 I doubt I could develop a very good 4x1 relay. If I had 4 juniors running 4:59 I believe I could develop a very good relay or xc.

Macdaddy wrote:

I had two athletes get full rides this year - one ran 5:20 and one ran 12:00. Both not in the same ballpark as 4:59 so I'd say the options for a 4:59 girl are pretty great.

Sprinter who knows wrote:

5:20 getting a full-ride. That's such bs! That time doesn't even qualify for states in Maryland. What type of d3 gives full-scholarships anyways. A 12 FAT is a millions time better than a 5 minute mile. A 12.0 FAT is honestly a 4:40.

You don't have to believe me, but she did. I'm sure her solid grades helped, but it was the track coach who gave it to her. I firmly believe running is one of the best sports for young women to get involved in - so many scholarship opportunities.

Also, a 12.0 FAT is not a 4:40 - at least not for females. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my state is one of the most competitive for track. It took 11.8x-12.0X to make the 100 final and 4:55-5:00 to make the 1600. Winning times were 11.7x and 4:50 I believe... both girls are absolute phenoms.

12.0 FAT is certainly not 4:40 for girls completely agreed. I'd say more of 11.7 FAT is 4:40 hell maybe even lower. And about the 5:20 milers. I guess it could make sense that her grades helped her. There are indeed more scholarships opportunities for girls in track than guys. It's just a little hard imagining a d1 program investing a full ride to a very good but not d1 level miler. I mean full scholarships are already so rare in a sport that isn't football or basketball.

Also, a 12.0 FAT is not a 4:40 - at least not for females. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my state is one of the most competitive for track. It took 11.8x-12.0X to make the 100 final and 4:55-5:00 to make the 1600. Winning times were 11.7x and 4:50 I believe... both girls are absolute phenoms.[/quote]

Well I think that the discrepancy between girls and boys is bigger as the distance moves up. Therefore a 12 and a 4:55-5 might score the same girls distance runners are just flat out slower than female sprinters and their male counterparts. Look at the NCAA Championship, the winning 100 time for girls was 10.9, a very fast time for a high school boy that will get you to states. This was followed by a number of low 11 performances. Then look at the 800, the winning time was 2:00. How far is that getting you if you're a high school boy?

[quote]Explain please sir wrote:

How fast do you think a 4x1 can be with 4 juniors 11.9? And what relay could be fast with 4 boys running sub 5? And how does running sub 5 relate to being a well established team in cross country? Sometimes some milers struggle in xc. [quote]

Although it appears that 12 is more impressive than 5 Where I'm from you can do more with a handful of 4:59 milers than 11.9 100 meter runners. With perfect stick passing you can get them down to 45.5 or so. A year later will they be running sub 43? Probably not. However the milers can improve a hell of a lot in the summer, fall and winter and may become low 2 half milers, 4:20-4:30 milers and or decent 3200 meter runners, run distance medleys, and possibly xc runners. The 11.9 guy will not become a very good sprinter capable of sprinting in college. Of course he'll probably be able to do better in the 800 than the miler but little chance he'll move up even to the 400.

So sprinters don't improve? These 11.9 sprinters could go down to 11.5 next year and run 44 flat and also run a descent lay fast 4x2 while also competing in field events such as long jump not to mention they can also try hurdles. It isn't a arguement that sprinters are more versatile than distance runners. It is a fact so don't tell me you can do more with distance runners. Every big time track program is dominated by elite sprinters. Look at Texas A&M and Florida for NCAA and 2016 Visita Murrieta as well as Desoro for high school.

NCAAs this year was won by a team that scored ZERO points in the field events and the second place team scored ZERO points on the track.

I am talking bout the men side. And I am aware of Georgia. This rarely happens. And just so you know field athletes are more similar to sprinters than distance runners. So what are you trying to say about distance athletes being more versatile?

11.5, 44 flat in the 4x1 and 1:35 in a 4x2 are not that impressive in an urban area. 20 feet long jumpers and 42 get triple jumpers don't win or get looks from colleges. Where I'm from 8:20 in a 4x8 is more impressive than 44 in a 4x1. I guess it all depends on where you coach.

Mils wrote:

So sprinters don't improve? These 11.9 sprinters could go down to 11.5 next year and run 44 flat and also run a descent lay fast 4x2 while also competing in field events such as long jump not to mention they can also try hurdles. It isn't a arguement that sprinters are more versatile than distance runners. It is a fact so don't tell me you can do more with distance runners. Every big time track program is dominated by elite sprinters. Look at Texas A&M and Florida for NCAA and 2016 Visita Murrieta as well as Desoro for high school.

I guess no one cares to run distance where you are. The 4x1 is so much more competitive than the 4x8. The 4x8 isn't even a real event after high school. Not to say that running 11.5 could get you looks on high d3 schools especially if you have solid grades as well. And many high d3 schools as well as low d1 schools only run a 42-44. How could you say a 44 is only okay. You must live in Texas or Flordia where everyone is a machine.

Sub 12 is likely better but not by much - you'll see more sub 5 female milers than sub 12 100m runners.

Personally, I couldn't run a sub 12 100m but could split sub 5 on a 5k xc course.

Sub 12 is easier , I ran sub 12 with zero training at 17. Sub 5 requires some fitness and it’s going to be painful if 4:50 is your limit. Sub 5 is more impressive

Ironically, my school had an (American-born) Ethiopian former soccer player who ran in the mid-upper 11s and an African-American guy who never ran the mile but could easily have broken 5 (if I recall correctly, low 2:10s 800 and around 10:20 3200).

But I agree with your main point (although exceptions exist) as I've seen it myself - I think our varsity sprinters were almost exclusively black, with one white and one Hispanic guy, both of whom were 200 runners.

Oh yeah, this was over all 4 years.