Which is easier?

I think its WAY harder for a sprinter to move to long distance because they are used to running short, fast workouts and would take a while to handle long-distance! Long distance runs a lot more and has to pace themselves!

I personally, being a long distance runner, would find it extremely difficult to become a sprinter. First, I get agitated with short runs, I feel like I've wimped out of run. Not saying sprinters aren't good enough, I have a great respect for people that can do that. I just feel like I've quit too early.

Secondly, it's a completely different form, and once you're trained a certain way it's difficult to change form.

I believe its equal. If you move a sprinter into distance, at most he would be a mid-distance runner (400-800m) Same for a distance into sprinting. At most he'd be able to run 400-800m.

It's really hard to say, I originally started sprints when I was in high school track, decided to run the half mile, did well and from then on I was a mid-distance - distance runner. I was always able to run the 400m on the 4x4 relay team split times (52-53sec)

I think it is easier for sprinters to move up.

The reason is because most people, espicially people on high school track teams, run too short. Most kids who think they should run the 200 m, are actually better 400 m runners. Most 800 m runners actually make better milers. Noone thinks they should run the 2 mile...

I had a coach that let freshmen pick thier events. Then, as they moved through high school, he forced them to extend the race. Every kid was shocked when they could keep the same effort up for the longer race. And the team was very successful due to this.

I am not fast enough to become a sprint runner and thats why I am an endurance runner. I only have one speed and I think it would be harder to improve that speed than to improve on distance. But thats my biased opinion.