If we are talking the best lineup of races for track, we should choose the distances before building the tracks. The tracks I ran most on in high school were actually 440-yard tracks, so the mile made more sense than the 1600m in that time in the US. Then you had races of 100yd, 220yd, 440yd, 880yd, mile, 2-mile, 3-mile, 6 mile.
Starting from a clean slate, and not considering cost, would we choose 400m tracks? Why not 500-meter tracks? Then we could have distances of 100m, 250m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, and 10000m.
300m tracks: We could have 100m, 300m, 600m, 900m, 1500m, 3000m,
333-1/3m tracks: We could have 100m, 333-1/3m, 1000m, 2000m, 5000m, 10000m.
+1 for 500m tracks and the distances listed. That’s the best idea.
This was proposed in an article in TandFN years ago
If we are talking the best lineup of races for track, we should choose the distances before building the tracks. The tracks I ran most on in high school were actually 440-yard tracks, so the mile made more sense than the 1600m in that time in the US. Then you had races of 100yd, 220yd, 440yd, 880yd, mile, 2-mile, 3-mile, 6 mile.
Starting from a clean slate, and not considering cost, would we choose 400m tracks? Why not 500-meter tracks? Then we could have distances of 100m, 250m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, and 10000m.
300m tracks: We could have 100m, 300m, 600m, 900m, 1500m, 3000m,
333-1/3m tracks: We could have 100m, 333-1/3m, 1000m, 2000m, 5000m, 10000m.
+1 for 500m tracks and the distances listed. That’s the best idea.
These distances are still kinda dumb. Why would you break the doubling rule just to fit in the 1500 in both cases?
There’s no doubling rule. The 1km should be the baseline, and the track size and events should be based off of that. I’m fine with the elimination of the 1500m.
The sub-5:00 2K is more Impressive and more in line with true elite performance than the sub-4 mile anyway.
Never impressed me. Technique that someone can learn in a couple of years so that the hurdles don't even slow them down. So then you just have a B-heat of the 100 and 400 with slower guys who are chasing victory in a niche event (just like field events)
I'd go with the hurdles too just because of the time it takes to set them up and take them down.
Easily, the 3,000. 1500/mile and 5,000 are prime races and that won’t change anytime soon. Having a race of 1.8 miles often waters down the shorter and longer fields. And, I could imagine, results in fewer 5000s, because we get to have the boring skinny guys on the track for less time.
this is all you need to satisfy different type of running fans.
Agree. But do need to add 400. Fundamentally different than 100. 200, 800, and 5000 could go. I’m ok with keeping short hurdles. 400 hurdles, no. Steeplechase, no.
The 1500m is a classic distance and has produced fun and interesting results at the world level. It's spectator friendly, despite not exactly lining up with the track length.
The 10000m on the other hand isn't exactly where I'd start trying to sell running to the general public. I mean I guess it made a star Mo Farah out kicking a bunch of tactically confused Ethiopian all stars. So what do I know. Maybe people can find that event entertaining too.
I guess after watching Olympics where there are seemingly endless ways to free ski and ride a snowboard and whatever--all of which seems very repetitive to me--I don't think there are too many running events.