I understand why we use metric on the track. I don't understand why we run the 1500 and 3000 instead of the 1600 and 3200.

theJeff wrote:

Why don't we use the entire length of the track for every lap?

I assume there is some historical reason for the 1500 and 3000 distances, similar to the (apocryphal?) Queen Alexandrai/marathon distance...

I recall wondering this myself some time ago, and apparently, it was because they used to have 500m tracks (or something of the sort) back in the 1800s.

Seyta wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Why don't we use the entire length of the track for every lap?

I assume there is some historical reason for the 1500 and 3000 distances, similar to the (apocryphal?) Queen Alexandrai/marathon distance...

I recall wondering this myself some time ago, and apparently, it was because they used to have 500m tracks (or something of the sort) back in the 1800s.

I haven't heard the 500m track explanation - that would be interesting if true. It would be cool if somebody knows more about this - for example, are there records out there for the 500m? Obviously this theory explains why there are 1000m records going back pretty far, but there's an alternative explanation for that as well, given that 1k is a standard unit in the mind of a metric user.

My understanding was that the 1500 (and not 1600) is used because you can accommodate more runners by starting the race on a straight. For the 800, race directors have to limit the field due to starting on the curve. Obviously a group (more than 8-9 runners) start on a curve isn't ideal. Under this theory, the 3000 and 5000 are somewhat explained given they also start on a straight (as a 6000 would start on a curve), if you add a caveat to want 'simple-ish' numbers (like avoiding race distances such as 5900).

Both the 3000m and 5000m actually start on a curve, so I guess your "theory" has some holes.

[/quote]

My understanding was that the 1500 (and not 1600) is used because you can accommodate more runners by starting the race on a straight. For the 800, race directors have to limit the field due to starting on the curve. Obviously a group (more than 8-9 runners) start on a curve isn't ideal. Under this theory, the 3000 and 5000 are somewhat explained given they also start on a straight (as a 6000 would start on a curve), if you add a caveat to want 'simple-ish' numbers (like avoiding race distances such as 5900).[/quote]

What the last guy said. Only the 1500 starts on a straight, both the 3k and 5k start at the opposite turn from the finish line.

Your explanation for the 1500 does make some sense. I don't think that alone is enough reason to run the 1500, 3k, 5k, rather than 1600, 3200, 4800. Large fields starting on a turn happen all the time. You do your best to limit field size in each heat but when you've done your best you then just stagger the start like they do or let the field work it out.

I for one wish we ran at least the 1600 and 3200. The 5k is so widely accepted in road races and high school cross country that I don't see that one changing.

It's true that the 1900 and 1924 Olympics, both in Paris, were held on a 500-meter track. That track (and perhaps others like it) may have played a role in the adoption of the 1,500 in continental Europe in the late 1800s. That said, it's worth noting that they ran 400 and 800, not 500 and 1,000, even at the 1896 Olympics.

I suspect a more likely explanation is that 1,500 just seemed like a nice, round(ish) metric equivalent of the mile. If you've got a race that's 1,609.4 meters long, you could argue for rounding it to the nearest meter, 10 meters, 100 meters... or 500 meters. Perhaps it was just arbitrary like that. It would certainly be interesting if there are some archives of Pierre de Coubertin or someone like that shedding some insight on how the decision was made!

NoNoNoNoNo wrote:

Both the 3000m and 5000m actually start on a curve, so I guess your "theory" has some holes.

Haha yes - sorry about that. I guess I need my second cup of coffee!

Seyta wrote:

apparently, it was because they used to have 500m tracks

This could be easily remedied by changing the standard distance to 2000 meters.

A supposed 500 meter track wouldn't explain why the 400 and 800. I don't see any evidence that 500 meter tracks were ever common. The first Olympics were on that awkward 333 meter track.

Hardloper wrote:

A supposed 500 meter track wouldn't explain why the 400 and 800. I don't see any evidence that 500 meter tracks were ever common. The first Olympics were on that awkward 333 meter track.

500 meter tracks were common in France and the French played a large role in the organization of the first Olympics.

I have to say, I am relieved to see the debate on this.

I assumed that there would be an obvious answer that I would be chastised for not already knowing.

In the 1800s there were two tribes of runners - sprinters and distance runners.

The sprinters would go as far as 800m.

The distance runners would never race anything less than 1000m.

So the sprinters held their meets on 400m tracks while the distance runners held their races on 500m tracks.

Hence the shorter races were equal divisions or multiples of 400m

1/4 lap = 100m

1/2 lap = 200m

1 lap = 400m

2 laps = 800m

And the longer races were all multiples of 500m

2 laps = 1000m

3 laps = 1500m

6 laps = 3000m

10 laps = 5000m

20 laps = 10000m

This became standard and neither tribe would budge when they chose to merge.

They did compromise on track size - 400m - because it was easier to fit into stadiums.

And the distance events still fit nicely into quarter lap intervals.

Running a 200 or 400 on a 500m track would be more odd than the 1500 start on a 400m track.

We could also just based everything on the mile. With the mile being one and everything else being a fraction of that. 1.609344 = 1

Easy solution `, wrote:

Seyta wrote:

apparently, it was because they used to have 500m tracks

This could be easily remedied by changing the standard distance to 2000 meters.

500 meter tracks it is. This is what French wikipedia says translated:

Inspired directly from the Mile, a very popular test run from the middle of the nineteenth century in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the 1500 m is created around 1890 as part of the metric system. The majority of athletic tracks measuring 500 meters at the time, the event consists of three rounds of track.

The athletics stadium must meet certain standards to formalize the competitions and performances that take place there. All facilities are regulated by the IAAF (size, gradient and layout). Outdoor athletics competitions are held in stadiums consisting of an oval track 400 meters long. This distance has evolved over the years. At the 1896 Games, the track measured 333.33 m, passing 500 m at the 1900 Games in Paris, and 536.45 m (one third of a mile) at St. Louis in 1904. In 1912, the distance was raised to 383m and again to 500m at the 1924 Summer Olympics.

500m tracks were olympic nonsense and part of the destruction of track. It was a professional sport before then.

The imperial measurements were stupid, and top runners went around setting "world records" at ridiculous off distances all the time. But the amateurists had no idea what they were doing when they tried to impose a metric alternative that departed from the sensible binary progression of distances: 100m, 200m, 400m etc. Nobody wanted to see the 500m or 1000m become standard, and there is no pressing need to make the 5000m 10 laps instead of 12.5, and nobody in their right mind wants to see 10000m on a track at all.

The usual 500m track had an extra 50 meters in each straight.

I'd favor a 1km race, it seems a waste of the metric system to have the 800m instead.

Bad Wigins wrote:

nobody in their right mind wants to see 10000m on a track at all.

Actually, I do now. The demise of the mile and 10,000m over the last decade has gutted the financial viability of the sport.

Honestly, I’d like to see sprinters compete in separate meets from distance runners. Have all the relays, 100, 200, 400, 800 at one meet and the 1500, 3k, 5k, 10k at another. That would solve a lot of problems with professional T&F.

theJeff wrote:

Why don't we use the entire length of the track for every lap?

I assume there is some historical reason for the 1500 and 3000 distances, similar to the (apocryphal?) Queen Alexandrai/marathon distance...

looks like someone needs French history lessons. the answer is pretty clear.

We have different definitions of “need”, but good job repeating what someone else already said.