The 1500m vs. Mile debate, as we all know, has been an argument for decades. One is metrically sound, another is a special tradition.
Historically, the 1500M has been around for centuries. It was what the mile was changed to after the track & field world shifted from yards to meters.
But, what if we had never made the change? Every global championship, every Olympics... what if we stuck with the old chap, just for the sake of tradition, and the 1500m was just an afterthought? Would we see more impressive WR's? Maybe even under 3:40?
How would it affect events longer than 1500M? Would the 3k remain the same, or have that converted to a 2 mile as well?
Record would be 3:42 low, and running sub 3:47 would alot less special than it is right now. Top 15 or so all-time would probably all be under 3:44.
Reaching 1500m in 3:26.0 and continuing on at that pace would be right at 3:41 flat. Hopefully that will be the record by 2030.
In terms of the track that we all race on, the 1600 actually makes the most sense.
One lap, two lap, four lap, eight lap, 12 lap, 25 lap....even the half lap and 1/4 lap all make sense. But a 3 and 3/4 lap is silly, as is a 12 and a half lap yet they are "traditional"!
No one outside of collegiate and pro tracksters has any clue about the 1500...even during the Olympics the announcers have to explain it. No one who was in HS only or with kids in HS knows it either.
Still my favorite event but 1500m on a 400 meter track is not exactly logical.
Idk about there being a lot more falls. Pretty much every race over 110m is started on a curve and they figure it out. Besides, I've seen a lot of 1600m and 1 mile races, and I don't remember seeing many falls at the start.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
A lot more falls. Starting on a curve in a competitive field will result in a lot more falls compared to starting on a straight like the 1500.
Interesting proposition... And it makes sense.
However, we still have mile races and this doesn't seem to be an issue. Nobody seems to be falling on the first turn in the races we already have. Perhaps there aren't enough mile races for this to show up statistically.
There was 3 in one race at this past London Diamond League during the Emsley Carr Mile.
So "identity crisis" never ran a mile race? Too bad! It's a cool distance.
I ran the mile in high school and college, '72-'78. I fell in love with the distance. Then in January '78, the Dartmouth Relays were one of the first meets in New England to go metric. I ran my first 1500, and won my heat (OK so it was the slow heat.)
I was pretty excited to win, but was confused by my splits (which were in yards) of 62, 2:06, 3:13, and the finish in 4:04.9. Seemed like a REALLY SLOW final 300!
It was a week later that Coach noted, "The officials stated the 1500 at the wrong mark, all 3 heats ran extra distance."
Thus, it was not my first 1500 at all! More like my first (and one and only) 1525, more or less...
In terms of the track that we all race on, the 1600 actually makes the most sense.
One lap, two lap, four lap, eight lap, 12 lap, 25 lap....even the half lap and 1/4 lap all make sense. But a 3 and 3/4 lap is silly, as is a 12 and a half lap yet they are "traditional"!
No one outside of collegiate and pro tracksters has any clue about the 1500...even during the Olympics the announcers have to explain it. No one who was in HS only or with kids in HS knows it either.
Still my favorite event but 1500m on a 400 meter track is not exactly logical.
I'd argue that the 3k/5k still make sense. 7.5 and 12.5 laps is fairly reasonable. Plus, these distances are obviously longer than a mile so it can be excused.
It's just the 1500M where it gets weird... 3.75 laps? What? At that point you might as well just round up to a full mile, which is still 4 laps and some change.
Then again, at that point, the 3k (which is 1.86 miles) could be rounded up to a full 2 mile, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I also am curious if the mile even matters to anyone who is a non-American. Lol
And as far for records, I'd say that the mile record would be right at 3:42, like some others have said.
The 1500m and mile coexisting has always felt a bit superfluous. Wish we could just choose one, and there's reasons on both ends why they're fitting
I like the 1500m for how it aligns up nicely with other distance races (like 1500m, then 3000m, then 5000m, etc) but it's just silly how you have a 3.75 race that no one outside of collegians/professionals know how to comprehend.
Having a 1600m is even sillier. Are you just going to keep doubling, so now you have 3200m, 4800m, 6400m?? It's a stupid strategy that only American highschools came up with (for some reason)
The rest of the world (or at least America, idk) is more familiar with the mile and what a good mile time is. It'd be cool to see Olympians winning mile races in 3:44. Cole Hocker's 3:27.65 would be around a 3:44 low for instance.
And as we all know, the mile is just special. It's tradition. It's impressive. 1500m just overshadows that which is lame.
How is 1500m "metrically sound?" Do they race 5500m, 10,500m?
The "metric mile" is the 1000m. That's what a mile is, 1000 paces. The Romans invented it and then the backward primitives of medieval Europe screwed it all up.
You want a distance close to the English mile on a metric track, go 1600m. 4 laps. No special start lines needed.
1. No, but 1500m is 30% of the length of 5,000m, and 15% of the length of 10,000m. That's the beauty of the metric system, it's just percentages.
2. As many people have stated over and over when this discussion comes up, starting on a bend would be carnage. Unless you want to reduce the field size to 8, and start in lanes, then starting on a straight is far more practical.
Yes nothing says "sound" like running 1 lap for 400, 2 laps for 800 and 3 and 3/4 for 1500? Thats dumb. Do 4 laps, it's even, its sound, and darn close to a mile. Frankly we already have a metric mile its called the 1609M. 1500 is a big fat nothing.
Do i want to get rid of it? No. That's the distance we have had for decades and that's the distance we shall compare WRs to. Except in American HS where we run 1600 for 4 years. But 1500 before and 1500 after. Got it!
And as far for records, I'd say that the mile record would be right at 3:42, like some others have said.
The 1500m and mile coexisting has always felt a bit superfluous. Wish we could just choose one, and there's reasons on both ends why they're fitting
I like the 1500m for how it aligns up nicely with other distance races (like 1500m, then 3000m, then 5000m, etc) but it's just silly how you have a 3.75 race that no one outside of collegians/professionals know how to comprehend.
Having a 1600m is even sillier. Are you just going to keep doubling, so now you have 3200m, 4800m, 6400m?? It's a stupid strategy that only American highschools came up with (for some reason)
The rest of the world (or at least America, idk) is more familiar with the mile and what a good mile time is. It'd be cool to see Olympians winning mile races in 3:44. Cole Hocker's 3:27.65 would be around a 3:44 low for instance.
And as we all know, the mile is just special. It's tradition. It's impressive. 1500m just overshadows that which is lame.
I like the 1500m for how it aligns up nicely with other distance races (like 1500m, then 3000m, then 5000m, etc)
Logic? Is 1500 some sort of multiple of 5000? Was I absent that day? And the 3k aint really a distance anymore. You could just as easily make the argument that 400 and 800 fit better with 16 than 3000 and 5000. The "multiples" argument never works, for either of us. 1600 is 4 laps. 5 and 10 are multiples of each other. 4 and 8 (and 16) are as well. There is no right answer, we are stuck with 15. I think our HS kids should just switch. Multiples are meaningless obviously.
This discussion doesn't make much sense to me as you're asking if the mile was contested over the 1500m, would the mile record have fallen by now....Yet you're forgetting that the 1500m HAS been contested as the standard for so many years now and that record is still standing. So no El G's 3:43.13 would not have been broken by now. Maybe Lagat, Kiprop or Jakob would have gotten close to breaking it, but they would have been off my about .2 or so. Conversions don't matter, I'm just looking at actual race data where many people have tried to break his 1500 record and all have failed. It would have been the same for the mile; the record is just too good.
I do, however, believe both of these records will be broken in the next 5 years.
I like the 1500m for how it aligns up nicely with other distance races (like 1500m, then 3000m, then 5000m, etc)
Logic? Is 1500 some sort of multiple of 5000? Was I absent that day? And the 3k aint really a distance anymore. You could just as easily make the argument that 400 and 800 fit better with 16 than 3000 and 5000. The "multiples" argument never works, for either of us. 1600 is 4 laps. 5 and 10 are multiples of each other. 4 and 8 (and 16) are as well. There is no right answer, we are stuck with 15. I think our HS kids should just switch. Multiples are meaningless obviously.
Never said that 1500 was a "multiple" of 5000... the point I was making is that the events double after each other. 3000m is a double of 1500m, 10000, is a double of 5000m, so on
I do agree the 1600/3200 are just plain dumb. Either make it 1500/3000 or a full mile/2mile.
But track is a metric sport. All the events are measured in meters. The meters must be even. 1500M, 3000M, etc make sense in this instance.
The argument is that the mile simply holds specialty and is so close to 1500M that you might as well just run that instead (hence my question of "what if")
This discussion doesn't make much sense to me as you're asking if the mile was contested over the 1500m, would the mile record have fallen by now....Yet you're forgetting that the 1500m HAS been contested as the standard for so many years now and that record is still standing. So no El G's 3:43.13 would not have been broken by now. Maybe Lagat, Kiprop or Jakob would have gotten close to breaking it, but they would have been off my about .2 or so. Conversions don't matter, I'm just looking at actual race data where many people have tried to break his 1500 record and all have failed. It would have been the same for the mile; the record is just too good.
I do, however, believe both of these records will be broken in the next 5 years.
The mile has existed longer than the 1500m. The 1500m only exists because when tracks shifted to the metric system, it was created as a byproduct to compensate for the awkward distance of a full mile. (which, in my opinion, was pointless - you can still easily just run four laps and some change to make up a full mile)
Hence why I'm asking that, hypothetically, if they had never created the 1500M and it was always just the mile, our traditional 4 laps and some change - how would the outcome of countless world champs and Olympics have changed?
The short answer? Probably not much tbh. But I do wonder if it would have been a better, more logical, and easily understandable choice.
There's no "debate." The 1500 has been the standard international distance for over a 100 years. The mile was only ever run in the United States and Great Britain. It's never been standard internationally.
The whole system needs to change. We should do either 100, 200, 500, 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k, 20k, 50k, or else 100, 200, 400, 1k, 2k, 4k, 10k, 20k, 40k. That way all the distances are symetric and pleasing to online autists all the way up to the 50,000m long marathon.
Or, idk, we could just keep going with customary distances because that's what's in the record books and trying to change them all would be stupid.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.