imperial man wrote:
Then why stop the doubling at 800m? The distances 'tuna' proposes make much more sense in the metric system.
As I said before, continual doubling gets a bit out of hand (like running the 6400 meter), so re-aligning to 1500 meters is just as sensible as tuna's drop from 250 meters to 100 meters. From a mathematical perspective, 500 meters is no more or less "metric" or "sensible" than 400 meters. Certainly, I will grant you that 400 meters is close to 1/4 mile and that is an historical convenience.
Ultimately though, the way this thread has evolved points out the (IMO) arrogance and head-in-the-sand approach of the average American. Consider the following:
1. The USA is the only country of note left on the planet that is not officially metric.
2. Olympic/International race distances are metric and include the 1500 meter.
3. The only place on the planet where people run the 1600 and 3200 meter is in USA high schools.
So, American runners whine and moan about the lack of American talent on the international stage, yet we aren't even willing to base our high school events on the International Olympic standards. What's wrong with this picture?
If tracks were standardized to 500 meters then a 500 meter race would make sense. If the IAAF standardized to 1600 meters, then we should do that. Neither is the case, however, and the smart thing to do would be to adhere to the established international norms. If we can't make even that minor of an adjustment then we have no right to b*tch.