Average 100m time by age male

12.0 took gold in the first modern olympics. 12.5 would have been good enough for bronze. Pretty cool to think the average man on the street nowadays would have medalled in 1896.

The first modern olympics didn't necessarily pull the best talent of the time.

The world record then was 10.8. Even then, there certainly wasn't a lot of participation in the sport yet, and anything resembling modern training was obviously still decades in the future. Surfaces were poor.

The people competing at that time probably actually did represent the OPs criteria: people who participated in multiple sports, were fit but not following any sort of decent training program. They are obviously the outliers from this group, showing about the best that is possible off of natural athleticism.

Those runners from 100 years ago obviously would have practiced their starts, so add a few tenths onto their times to account for this, and I stand by my "a few would probably run about 11 flat." Keep in mind these untrained soccer/rugby/whatever guys would still get to take advantage of a good track surface and shoes not available to anybody 100+ years ago.

To try to quantify what I mean by "a few," I would guess that if you were to test 1000 individuals fitting the OPs criteria, one or two might run close to 11 flat.

How many "runners" do you think there were in the world in 1896? I would be only a few thousand.

And they were all like this guy in terms of training and focus:

He was a 10m platform diver, javelin thrower, 100m runner, long jumper, hurdler, and rower. He competed at the olympics in only diving, not in track. And yet he ran 10.8 in 1896, when he was 29 years old. I can't imagine his training was fantastic for running. He probably "trained" a bit more than the OPs group, but not a whole lot more. Keep in mind that the OP eliminated overweight people already, we're not talking about a true average person, in fact our group is already radically shifted from the average population.

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Zojo wrote:

12.0 took gold in the first modern olympics. 12.5 would have been good enough for bronze. Pretty cool to think the average man on the street nowadays would have medalled in 1896.

The first modern olympics didn't necessarily pull the best talent of the time.

The world record then was 10.8. Even then, there certainly wasn't a lot of participation in the sport yet, and anything resembling modern training was obviously still decades in the future. Surfaces were poor.

The people competing at that time probably actually did represent the OPs criteria: people who participated in multiple sports, were fit but not following any sort of decent training program. They are obviously the outliers from this group, showing about the best that is possible off of natural athleticism.

Those runners from 100 years ago obviously would have practiced their starts, so add a few tenths onto their times to account for this, and I stand by my "a few would probably run about 11 flat." Keep in mind these untrained soccer/rugby/whatever guys would still get to take advantage of a good track surface and shoes not available to anybody 100+ years ago.

To try to quantify what I mean by "a few," I would guess that if you were to test 1000 individuals fitting the OPs criteria, one or two might run close to 11 flat.

How many "runners" do you think there were in the world in 1896? I would be only a few thousand.

And they were all like this guy in terms of training and focus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Arbin

He was a 10m platform diver, javelin thrower, 100m runner, long jumper, hurdler, and rower. He competed at the olympics in only diving, not in track. And yet he ran 10.8 in 1896, when he was 29 years old. I can't imagine his training was fantastic for running. He probably "trained" a bit more than the OPs group, but not a whole lot more. Keep in mind that the OP eliminated overweight people already, we're not talking about a true average person, in fact our group is already radically shifted from the average population.

Show Full Quote

There was no FAT timing back then, so the times were faster.

wrongdude wrote:

So what's your background? Also no, it doesn't put you at 15, probably more like 16 or 17. Hand timing yourself on some football field does not equate using your very specific 1.09361 converter...

Plus each second faster you get is exponentially harder. Going from 15 to 14 is 20x easier than 13 to 12 which is far far easier than 11 to 10.

People are faster wrote:

At 47 I can do 100 yards on football field in 13.8 to 14.8 depending on how much I weigh and my condition.

X 1.09361 puts that at 15 for 100m. It would actually be faster at finish

That is without blocks and without spikes.

I find it hard to believe that the average 25 year old athlete would not be @12.5 or under. Non athlete well whatever

1. we time ourselves by videotape, when the hand drops we count through breaking the finish line. It is pretty accurate but whatever. At 45 I could do 13.5 with electronic gates. Nothing special.

2. My background? Not a sprinter and not 25 years old

That said I retread the OP and I agree I am wrong. The OP said people who have never done resistance training etc. that pretty much rules out any athlete who played on a high school let alone college team. With that premise i would say the average 25 year old of that type could not break 15 seconds. Because they would not run all out Because they wouldn't know how and they simply would not try hard enough. The mean would probably be closer to 19 seconds.

So I was wrong. But the good news is I am faster than those average 25 year olds

;) wrote:

rojo wrote:

CORRECT. MOST OF THE POSTS ON HERE ARE ABSURD.

Bingo. These people are delusional. I know nobody understand sprinting, but seriously, have a clue. Untrained means no knowledge of blocks, form, etc. I know people think sprinters just drop from the womb fast, but come on.

No way the **average** untrained person can run under 14.

Well, I AM a sprinter, but can't really answer the question because, almost by definition, we don't see the average guy come out to the track to work out, unless everyone comes to the track and work out. But keep in mind that "the world's fittest man" Rich Froning has a 400 PR of 61 I think, and I think that will tell you a good Idea of what the answer is.

What I find absolutely hilarious is the number of people on here that think that the average joe can just amble on out to the track and outsprint the defending gold medalist in the 5000 and 10000. You know, the 12.98 guy? Also, if learning to use blocks is soooooo easy that anyone can do it in almost no time, why do you think the best in the world practice this skill EVERY WEEK?

coach d wrote:

But keep in mind that "the world's fittest man" Rich Froning has a 400 PR of 61 I think, and I think that will tell you a good Idea of what the answer is.

What I find absolutely hilarious is the number of people on here that think that the average joe can just amble on out to the track and outsprint the defending gold medalist in the 5000 and 10000. You know, the 12.98 guy? Also, if learning to use blocks is soooooo easy that anyone can do it in almost no time, why do you think the best in the world practice this skill EVERY WEEK?

This thread from a few weeks ago popped into my mind:

Quick summary - 110 lb guy with no coach and horrendous form trains to break 5 in the mile, but has always failed so far. Dude somehow flails his way to a 55" 400. Clicking on the youtube channel he posted brings up this vid, which shows him (in lane 6) running in a 12.0-12.1 second 100 from blocks:

If that guy can run decent sprint times off of minimal sprint training, lots of other people can. Maybe not the average joe, but something like 30-40% of nonobese males in their 20s.

Keeling wrote:

coach d wrote:

But keep in mind that "the world's fittest man" Rich Froning has a 400 PR of 61 I think, and I think that will tell you a good Idea of what the answer is.

What I find absolutely hilarious is the number of people on here that think that the average joe can just amble on out to the track and outsprint the defending gold medalist in the 5000 and 10000. You know, the 12.98 guy? Also, if learning to use blocks is soooooo easy that anyone can do it in almost no time, why do you think the best in the world practice this skill EVERY WEEK?

This thread from a few weeks ago popped into my mind:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7050897&page=1

Quick summary - 110 lb guy with no coach and horrendous form trains to break 5 in the mile, but has always failed so far. Dude somehow flails his way to a 55" 400. Clicking on the youtube channel he posted brings up this vid, which shows him (in lane 6) running in a 12.0-12.1 second 100 from blocks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMdJQ2GXBlA

If that guy can run decent sprint times off of minimal sprint training, lots of other people can. Maybe not the average joe, but something like 30-40% of nonobese males in their 20s.

Show Full Quote

You are an idiot. Do you really think 30-40% could run 12 seconds? You live in a psychotic reality.

rojo wrote:

52.43 wrote:

No way, the average 25 year old runs 13.xx! The average I would say would be 15 low or maybe 14 high. -.-

CORRECT. MOST OF THE POSTS ON HERE ARE ABSURD.

The average 25 year old isn't playing soccer or doing anything to the OP's post makes no sense. That being said, you took the average 25 year old male and him run a 100m all out, there is no way the average time is under 15.

My god , i think if you took the average track team, it might not be under 15. Think about all of the shot putters, etc. Similarly, there are a lot of football players etc.

My analysis is dealing with non handicapped. So mine is for your average non -handicapped 25 year old as I don't know what "healthy" means. To mean healthy means not sick or handicapped.

Good life advice to any youngsters on here: anything rojo or wejo say just go with the opposite. They may be right some of the time, but you'll be right most of the time. Couple of clowns skating through life on their parents' money. This website is the best they can do with that money and free education.

How fast can the average male run 100m?

What is a good 100 meter time by age?

What is a good 100m for a 16 year old?

How fast can a 15 year old run 100m?