4 ms·
> Very few mere mortals could run that fast for even 100m. That works out to roughly a 16.7-second 100m. While certainly not crawling, that would be a fairly a
by jmb99 5mo ago
> Very few mere mortals could run that fast for even 100m.
That works out to roughly a 16.7-second 100m. While certainly not crawling, that would be a fairly average pace for a fairly fit middle- to early-high-schooler with a bit of practice.
Yes that’s insane to maintain for a marathon, but it’s not even remotely out of reach for 100m for most relatively-fit people at some point in their lives.
- croemer 5mo agoI think it's even slow for high schoolers. I didn't practice that much and ran 100m in 12.5s from rest at my peak. 4s slower is snail pace. I think most in my class could run that fast (or slow).
- jmb99 5mo agoI agree. I ran mid 16s in 8th grade, and was in the 14s in high school, with the only training being whatever we did in gym class. But I do also look at the sheer number of overweight kids these days and figured, well maybe mid-16s is actually a reasonable average point.
- brewdad 5mo agoOh it is. At a typical large high school making the team puts you in the top 1% or better of athletic ability compared to the population at large. At my peak, I finished the NYC Marathon in the top 2%. I still finished 45 minutes behind the winner. It feels like elite athletes aren’t even competing in the same sport.
- sayamqazi 5mo agoI think height matters for speed as a fit 6ft+ would easily run way faster than a 4" 8' fit person.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo agoIt's the "at some point in their lives" that matters here. For most folks, the period where a 16.7 100m is feasible is pretty short.
- rimliu 5mo ago[citation needed]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ecshafer 5mo agoI ran a 16s 100m in highschool.... as a thrower, and was very slow. The 100m dash with the fast people was like 12s.